|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 12:51:11 GMT -5
He seems to be saying that the larger context Donald Trumps the smaller one. Would you say that's what he's trying to say? Aren't you taking advantage of his inability to articulate it precisely? I read it a couple of times, at the time. I didn't quite agree with sdp that he was only saying there is one context, but I can definitely see where sdp got that. What I am hearing gopal say there is that one context can be known for certain, whereas the other context is speculation, which means that only one context is true and worth paying attention to. I see this as problematic for a few reasons, but not least because it doesn't leave room for neither context to be true (this is all ideas we are discussing after all). I don't relate to context as being true/false. We might declare some or all of the content as true or false, but the context itself is just a category of ideas. We can't say there isn't a context because we don't agree with the ideas in it. I don't know if that's what Gopal is saying or not. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:01:48 GMT -5
So if one experiences the evidence of an oasis in the distance, it can't ever actually be a mirage? If one experiences the evidence of a snake in the road, it can never actually be a rope, and therefore imaginary/illusory? The problem here is that in the Consciousness-appearance model, what you see is the snake. How can that perception (or any perception) ever be wrong? In order for the snake to actually be a rope, surely we have to jump back into the physical context and start analyzing properties of the snake/rope. Well, the problem is in the careless way in which Pilgrim defined illusion, but you raise an interesting question. If we say there is just one perceiver, then appearance and actuality are the same, but if there are multiple perceivers (which we assume there are) then there is a kind of 'consensus actuality' which a particular individuation may or may may not see as such. In that case, one may mistake a tree for a giraffe, and this would be an illusion. The world is a subjective creation, but the subject is Consciousness as a whole rather than the individual, which is one of the creations. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:08:36 GMT -5
Yes, this can be the case . It also refers to contractual agreements made prior to incarnation . What I have heard (if genuine) hitler from spirit side of life saying exactly that . He understood his role . He accepted it . It was never going to be any different than it was . Some peeps come into this world experience to give you hell, some peeps that do that on a more personal level can be part of your 'soul group' and such peeps love you dearly .   .. It can be difficult for some to digest that such a love can be part of one's suffering .. I don't know the stats butt I would say the majority don't get to become fully aware of their contracts while living them out on the earth plane otherwise it's possible that changes could/would be made . There really does need on a deep level of knowing the understanding of why one behaves how they do and this is the fascination of self/mind that I am drawn to . There is a reason for everything after all .. yep I agree. And even if these sort of spiritual stories about soul groups and contracts are just a myth....they still enable us to see and experience Hitler types from a place of love and unity. The truth will also enable that (nonvolition) but I understand there's a downside to that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:11:48 GMT -5
The question is misconceived. How can it be misconceived? ...that's what you say is happening. Because. Consciousness. Is. Not. A. Peeeeeer-son.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:13:13 GMT -5
What post? what earlier post? Said when? Connected to what? The post you responded to (which was erased, because only two posts are advanced). Okay, whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:22:02 GMT -5
No, your view of God is too small. Rabbi Akiva (first century I think) said: God knows the future, but man has free will. Most of the religious people want their God to give the free will for them because none of them can accept the idea of predetermination. In the same time they all want their God to be omniscient as well. But they don't know both are mutually exclusive. God doesn't need to be aware of the future to nullify your freewill, God's ability to peek into future is more than enough to deprive your freewill. If God knows what you would be eating tomorrow morning, Can you choose to eat something else? Can you ? If you can't choose what he had already known, is it not predetermined? He can't know your free choice, If he could know, then it's not free choice, it's bound to happen. Well, as long as he understands the problem.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:25:56 GMT -5
Right, but it's not there nevertheless. Maybe that which is saying that 'it's not there nevertheless', is not there. Right. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:29:58 GMT -5
He said "There is not not one aspect that is more or less God than any other aspect." He then concluded that everything is equal.What did you read? Can you get me the full quote please. Aspects of God are equal in the absolute context. Relatively, they are never equal. If I don't will you give me a giraffe? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:33:25 GMT -5
Right, so that at this point you are contradicting yourself all over the shop. I would agree that a rock has properties such that you know it is a rock, just as a human being has qualities such that you know it is a human, and a moon has qualities such that you know it is a moon. So a human being is known to have brains, eyes, liver and heart. A moon is known to be made of rock, and looks bright at night because of sunlight that is reflected off its surface. So, now where we have a moon, we also have a sun. What this means is that when we perceive a moon, it's not just the image of the moon we perceive. Unless you think the moon has no back in the same way that the andrew appearance has no as.s There is a connection between knowledge and perception that the consciousness-appearances model struggles with. The idea that everything is appearance in Consciousness does not lead to struggle. You create your own struggle with it by thinking deeply about it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:35:36 GMT -5
lol. Again, how do you know he doesn't believe it's Consciousness dreaming? If you REALLY believed that Consciousness is dreaming, you wouldn't ask someone else about their personal dreams. Come ON man lol Who do you ask, Mr Consciousness? lol |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:38:37 GMT -5
Half the members here bluntly equate their experience with truth, perhaps not realizing it. Sasquatch, Gopal, Tenka and Pilgrim (just to mention four) have referred to their experience to back up truth statements made in the largest context. I can't argue it one way or the other because I can't picture a statement of the sort you mean. They usually call it "direct experience" to make it sound like it's not being interpreted by mind somehow. Seems to me you've made this same argument a couple of times. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 13:42:02 GMT -5
Other people and things with various qualities appear in my experience and I interact with them. I'm having trouble seeing how you turn that into a problem to be solved on some basis of real or unreal. Well here I have to assume you are in the physical context, because you are talking about other people and things, and the fact that you interact with them There's a lot of jumping between physical context and Consciousness-appearance context, somewhat inevitably, so I am not criticizing you for that. When talking about how we personally respond to creation at an impersonal level, we're necessarily relating two contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 13:48:10 GMT -5
I spent 5 minutes on Wikipedia. Technically, he is wrong (if he said what you said he said). Hitler wanted to be head of the Nazi party. The party liked his speeches very much. So he said, make me the head of the party or I will leave, so they made him the head of the party. March 5, 1933 there was a national election. (First error your dude made). The Nazi party did not get a needed majority, only 43.9%. So they joined forces with the German national Party, a coalition (I suspect this is your back room deal), nevertheless this put the Nazi's in power. Hitler was already Chancellor. Being in power, the Nazi's passed a resolution allowing Hitler to declare himself Dictator. If you think that's incorrect I suggest you go to Wikipedia and change it. You see, I have never seen such clear historian in my entire life. He is such a clear reader. I hope he is having something in his mind while he was stating it. For an example, You can see his writings about 'evidence for historical Jesus' www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434His Name is Tim'O Neil. Also note here, I read this article. The only problem is that this frequently-repeated “fact” is simply not true. In the final two free elections before Hitler’s rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively — a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin. Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote. It is true that after Hitler was already ensconced as chancellor, the Nazis subsequently won the March 1933 elections. But this was in the wake of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed an emergency law that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). Thus it is difficult to claim that these were “free and fair” elections. This is true, the Reichstag fire (would be like a Capital Building fire in the US) took place about 5 days before the March 5, 1933 election (I didn't wish to argue with L who said the fire was after the election, I was not 100% sure, earlier this morning, but that was my recollection). It was never proven who started the fire, but most are of the opinion that Hitler instigated it to blame it on Jews in order to gain more votes. So the last sentence is probably correct. But the point is Hitler used any means to come to power, very nasty dude. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 13:55:10 GMT -5
You see, I have never seen such clear historian in my entire life. He is such a clear reader. I hope he is having something in his mind while he was stating it. For an example, You can see his writings about 'evidence for historical Jesus' www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434His Name is Tim'O Neil. Also note here, I read this article. The only problem is that this frequently-repeated “fact” is simply not true. In the final two free elections before Hitler’s rise to power, in July and November 1932, the Nazis received 38% and 33% of the vote, respectively — a plurality but not enough to bring them into government. In the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to Hindenburg by a wide margin. Hitler came to power not through elections, but because Hindenburg and the circle around Hindenburg ultimately decided to appoint him chancellor in January 1933. This was the result of backroom dealing and power politics, not any kind of popular vote. It is true that after Hitler was already ensconced as chancellor, the Nazis subsequently won the March 1933 elections. But this was in the wake of the Reichstag fire, when the government had passed an emergency law that sharply restricted the activities of left-of-center parties (including the arrest of many Communist leaders). Thus it is difficult to claim that these were “free and fair” elections. This is true, the Reichstag fire (would be like a Capital Building fire in the US) took place about 5 days before the March 5, 1933 election (I didn't wish to argue with L who said the fire was after the election, I was not 100% sure, earlier this morning, but that was my recollection). It was never proven who started the fire, but most are of the opinion that Hitler instigated it to blame it on Jews in order to gain more votes. So the last sentence is probably correct. But the point is Hitler used any means to come to power, very nasty dude. There is a not even a single percent of doubt that he is a nasty guy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 14:00:51 GMT -5
That's just nonsense. Sure, Hitler thought he was doing right, but what does that have to do with anything? All this is why non-volition is nonsense. A human being is a point of decision, a maker of decisions, that's what a human being is. We are here to learn to make good decisions, and for that accountability is necessary, for that karma is necessary. Life is a school. The idea of non-volition removes accountability. The earth is in pretty bad shape right now, ecologically and psychologically. But it's not because it's inevitable because of the natural flow of All That Is. It's because people fork up. Charlie and Hitler get healed by changing, by ceasing to be what they are. But yes, we all have to clean up our own stuff. But this is not easy. It is very easy to go with the flow. It's not so easy to go against the flow of the nasty stuff in ourselves and the nasty stuff in the world. To say it's all just a flow is to escape our responsibility, but yes, "We are the World", but that doesn't remove our accountability. You would reject any teaching/philosophy/model that doesn't allow for accountability and responsibility on the basis that these are needed to fix the world. In this, there's little or no interest in what's actually true. Okay, fair enough, but what if in the end the truth is the only thing that works, whether you can see how that could happen at this point or not? Would that change your mind, do you think? No, I would put truth above all else. It's not a matter of fixing the world. The world is for us, not the other way around. The universe is a school. The only thing needed fixing, is ourselves. Children need discipline, which in a very real sense means boundaries. When a kid learns to operate successfully within certain boundaries, you expand the boundary. When they turn 18 they should be able to successfully live in the world, that is, succeed. Life itself is similar. The purpose of life is to successfully learn to live and survive, and then one's boundary is expanded, one seeks a bigger world. Accountability and responsibility are there to be transcended (grow-out-of-the-boundary). Some children are not taught how to live and make decisions. They continue to live in an illusory world. Then when they are out on their own, they don't know how to deal with ~real life~. I'm not responsible for the wrong conclusions you draw from what I say. |
|
..
