|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 7:16:25 GMT -5
No, there is something is there to notice. The ground in which both the appearances are appearing is the same, consciousness is that ground. Dream and reality are appearing in Consciousness.One you are considering that other people are figments, but in other you are considering that other people are real. But you know since both are appearing in consciousness, you can never know!
As you say, it's all consciousness, and all consciousness is alert, alive, conscious. It is all one, moves as one, there is no separation. So how can there something that cannot be known? This is where you are constantly contradicting yourself. Which suggests that you haven't really thought this thru, what oneness really means and what it implies. When you insist that it cannot be known, this is where you always start arguing for separation again. Do you know what omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence mean? And in which context they apply? Also, when you keep comparing dream state to waking state and then draw your conclusions, what you are actually doing is comparing two memories of two experiences. But the memory of an experience is not the actual experience. And so your comparison has no basis in anything actual. It's purely hypothetical. There is no place for personal creator! I say other people existence can't be known. I did not say other people are figments. I said I can't know! So If other people are not real, then I am creating the figments. If other people are real, then I am pulling the real perceivers in my life. And also my intention is not my intention, I am just experiencing the intention which has already been set, so I agree with your spontaneous unfolding. Since my intention is not my intention, the whole creation usually starts even before I set an intent to create, my intention is arising as a part of unfolding.
Yes, I understand. In your model there is the possibility that there are other perceivers, you just can't know for sure from your perspective. You can only assume. Agreed, it starts long before we make a decision, which isn't really a decision anyway. Our thoughts and desires are as much our thoughts and desires as the clouds moving over our house are our clouds. So no more predetermination for you? It doesn't matter whether one believes himself to be a individual creator or not, If he set an intention, it wouldn't fail to manifest. But on the way to the manifestation, he can see something marvelous, that is, creation starts even before he sets the intention, so he is not actually creating, he is receiving the intention as the part of unfolding of the overall movement of the universe. Yes, if - in the final analysis - your intention isn't really 'your' intention anyway, then the personal/individual creator model has no foundation. Yes, that's what extension of Source means. [Yes, that's the good question, but I believe I answered in my aforementioned reply! Yes, I think you have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 8:10:09 GMT -5
No, there is something is there to notice. The ground in which both the appearances are appearing is the same, consciousness is that ground. Dream and reality are appearing in Consciousness.One you are considering that other people are figments, but in other you are considering that other people are real. But you know since both are appearing in consciousness, you can never know!
As you say, it's all consciousness, and all consciousness is alert, alive, conscious. It is all one, moves as one, there is no separation. So how can there something that cannot be known? This is where you are constantly contradicting yourself. Which suggests that you haven't really thought this thru, what oneness really means and what it implies. When you insist that it cannot be known, this is where you always start arguing for separation again. Do you know what omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence mean? And in which context they apply? Also, when you keep comparing dream state to waking state and then draw your conclusions, what you are actually doing is comparing two memories of two experiences. But the memory of an experience is not the actual experience. And so your comparison has no basis in anything actual. It's purely hypothetical. There is no place for personal creator! I say other people existence can't be known. I did not say other people are figments. I said I can't know! So If other people are not real, then I am creating the figments. If other people are real, then I am pulling the real perceivers in my life. And also my intention is not my intention, I am just experiencing the intention which has already been set, so I agree with your spontaneous unfolding. Since my intention is not my intention, the whole creation usually starts even before I set an intent to create, my intention is arising as a part of unfolding.
Yes, I understand. In your model there is the possibility that there are other perceivers, you just can't know for sure from your perspective. You can only assume. Agreed, it starts long before we make a decision, which isn't really a decision anyway. Our thoughts and desires are as much our thoughts and desires as the clouds moving over our house are our clouds. So no more predetermination for you? It doesn't matter whether one believes himself to be a individual creator or not, If he set an intention, it wouldn't fail to manifest. But on the way to the manifestation, he can see something marvelous, that is, creation starts even before he sets the intention, so he is not actually creating, he is receiving the intention as the part of unfolding of the overall movement of the universe. Yes, if - in the final analysis - your intention isn't really 'your' intention anyway, then the personal/individual creator model has no foundation. Yes, that's what extension of Source means. [Yes, that's the good question, but I believe I answered in my aforementioned reply! Yes, I think you have.
If your decision is decided even before you aware of them, doesn't that tell you that your decision and movement are predetermined?
Yes, no foundation for the personal creator! If I decide to create, then creation starts to kick in but the only difference is, I am not the owner of the decision. If one can see the desired reality in his mind's eye clearly, the creating part starts to kick in.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 9:54:33 GMT -5
If your decision is decided even before you aware of them, doesn't that tell you that your decision and movement are predetermined?
Well, let's see what the dictionary says: So it depends on which definition you choose and if we are talking about an open system (#3) or a closed system (#2). In the spiritual or religious context it usually means predestined, ordained, fated, which is incompatible with a spontaneous unfolding. In the LOA context the way I usually use it, it's closer to a trajectory, a general direction, which means the final result is always open ended, because it is an open system. And that's a lot more compatible with a spontaneous unfolding, which means neither random nor preordained, predestined. Now, from the perspective of the person, which always only realizes the unfolding after the fact, as an abstraction, if examined closely from that limited perspective (closed system), the correct conclusion would probably be it's all predestined (closed system). So this makes only sense in a smaller, limited context, not in the absolute context. You see, if we start putting limits on the Infinite (i.e. what cannot be defined or measured), like setting limits for what can or cannot be known as you have been doing, then we are not really talking about the Infinite anymore, but the finite (i.e. what can be defined and measured).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 13:39:10 GMT -5
If your decision is decided even before you aware of them, doesn't that tell you that your decision and movement are predetermined?
Well, let's see what the dictionary says: So it depends on which definition you choose and if we are talking about an open system (#3) or a closed system (#2). In the spiritual or religious context it usually means predestined, ordained, fated, which is incompatible with a spontaneous unfolding. In the LOA context the way I usually use it, it's closer to a trajectory, a general direction, which means the final result is always open ended, because it is an open system. And that's a lot more compatible with a spontaneous unfolding, which means neither random nor preordained, predestined. Now, from the perspective of the person, which always only realizes the unfolding after the fact, as an abstraction, if examined closely from that limited perspective (closed system), the correct conclusion would probably be it's all predestined (closed system). So this makes only sense in a smaller, limited context, not in the absolute context. You see, if we start putting limits on the Infinite (i.e. what cannot be defined or measured), like setting limits for what can or cannot be known as you have been doing, then we are not really talking about the Infinite anymore, but the finite (i.e. what can be defined and measured). I don't know these systems. I am seeing universe is moving in a fixed line from past to the future. In my experience, these kind of reality creation is the chance for us to notice the infinite creator who is hidden in us. But the new creation starts in us only when we leave the control or when we stop creating or when he stops resistance towards the movement. When Infinite creates through us, that would be new which other people would happily receive and also it would be used by others. I would say we are not here to create, we are here to allow the creation happens through us. That's where new creation happens, that's where our creation will be accepted with high appreciation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 23, 2020 10:55:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 23, 2020 20:10:59 GMT -5
In 1949 Godel wrote a paper, for his friend Einstein, showing time travel is possible in a (Godel) Rotating Universe. There was a conference in 2019, the 70th anniversary of Godel's paper. One person that spoke had written a book about Godel's paper which I read some years ago, a guy named Palle Yourgrau (mentioned down in the article). sciencex.com/wire-news/324616692/kurt-gdels-legacy-time-travel-is-mathematically-imaginable-un.htmlI've thought a lot about time travel. Is the past fixed? It would certainly seem so. So how could one travel into the past without changing anything, even slightly, causing a butterfly effect? One's consciousness could go into the past. Being nonmaterial, it could observe, but not change anything. Is the future fixed, such that one could see events of the future? Not IMO. There are merely probable futures, some more likely than others. Picture an ant crawling up a tree. The movement of the ant is the movement of time. A tree could have thousands of end-branch-tips. Crawling up the trunk the ant could end up at any of those E-B-Ts. When the ant comes to a forking branch, each fork is a possible future. So if one were to travel into the future, there is not *one* fixed future, but many possible futures, many E-B-Ts. The SiFi writer Philip K D!ck went through some kind of experience I think it was about 1972. He traveled into the past about the first century, and experienced the life of a Gnostic Christian. It was as real to him as his life as the person Philip K D!ck. He then spent more time writing about it and trying to figure out what had happened to him, than on SiFi writing. He called it The Exegesis, and hundreds of pages of it has been published. But also some of his later novels came out of this experience. My discovery of him was VALIS, one of these later novels. And then I read more. Many of his novels and short stories center around two themes, self-identity and time travel of some sort. And about 10 movies have been made based on his writings. The first was Blade Runner, based on his book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. He was born in 1928, died in 1982, the year Blade Runner came out. He saw many of the filmed scenes, but he died before the movie was finished. He loved what he saw. Other films from his work: Next (With Nicholas Cage. It is excellent as showing probable futures, and how observing a possible future, changes the present. Cage can go two minutes into the future, until he meets a certain woman). The Adjustment Bureau (If you read the short story, it's quite amazing. PKD essentially fore-saw, I think it was written in the 50's, computer tablets, then. The Adjustment Bureau tries to keep Matt Damon on the track of a certain political future. But he meets his perfect woman, who The Adjustment Bureau tries to keep out of his life). Imposter (Gary Sinise is a doctor, married to another doctor. They have been camping in a wilderness where a plane crashes, during war, causing a fire. Authorities are soon after his wife, who they come to believe is a perfect bomb, she having been perfectly copied with an undetectable bomb inside her. The bomb is so perfectly copied that they don't even know they are not who they think they are, thus the title, Imposter. Sinise cannot believe she is not herself and tries to save her). Radio Free Albemuth (The least successful film. I've seen it twice, and don't remember anything about it). Paycheck (Ben Affleck plays a sort of engineer who goes on missions for a company to steal ideas by reverse engineering products. After his mission his memory is wiped so he remembers nothing, and so he is essentially innocent of the crime he has committed. This is a pretty blanking complicated film. You have to watch very carefully or you will not know WTF is going on. Essentially, because of course Ben Affleck doesn't know WTF is going on, because his memory has been wiped. But he has fixed this little problem, he just has to figure out how he has fixed the problem. This film has a love story too. On the project Ben has fallen in love with another scientist-engineer, Uma Thurman (whose father, incidentally IRL is Tibetan Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman, that's for free). Of course she remembers their relationship, but he doesn't. I will not give more (no spoilers) in case you haven't seen the film. But I'll just say it combines PKD's themes of time travel and identity). Total Recall Minority Report A Scanner Darkly Screamers All these have to do with either time travel or identity. I've seen them all at least once. I can highly recommend them all, except Screamers, remove the highly, but if you have two hours to waste, it's OK. And of course, the already not-recommended RFA. And I just found eight more films by googling, I didn't even know about, based on the works of PKD.
|
|