|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 15:10:44 GMT -5
You've put me in a time bound double bind. I've said I will watch the video (again), later, and tell you, later. And now you are telling me that you are not interested in anything he says. And you are asking me, again, "What's this theory he has..."? I can't tell you why I agree with him, without watching the video, again.  Why do you care? C'mon bro', it's all in the family!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 28, 2024 15:22:28 GMT -5
Logically then, am I right to assume that there are no objective levels of evolvement? So your path of evolvement may be the complete reverse of what it would mean for someone else to evolve i.e perhaps becoming more foolish is their next level of evolvement, after already having had wisdom. Or perhaps in another's experience, there is no evolving at all, the idea of 'evolving' just doesn't exist for them.....? If I get your point ...  I tried several times to formulate a clear reply, and I'm giving up. I highlighted some of the terms you used that, together, might point to why. I would say that I use the term "evolvement" for the intrinsic level of ability of a multidimensional identity. That's okay. I'm not able to put the pieces together, but 'multidimensional' is a concept I use too. Do you believe that existence is multidimensional and is an individual as aspect of multidimensionality, regardless of what they experience/perceive/believe? I'm guessing I'm not quite using concepts in a way that would work for you, but hopefully you get the gist of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 15:54:03 GMT -5
I don't know if the first 15 minutes are enough to get his complete picture. Probably not, as he would have stopped at 15 minutes. I didn't find hostility in anything he said. In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my "world view", and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all.  I recalled this as a question (the question)..... |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 28, 2024 17:39:21 GMT -5
Do you think you're being compassionate by filling your head with what you think other people are doing? In the parable of the sower, the different types of soil are different types of people. Elsewhere, Broad is the way that leads to destruction, which most travel, narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Whenever I say most people, I never mean people here on STs, I mean most people. I look at 'how I was', and I see most people. Are most people awake or asleep? I'm not filling my head with what I think other people are doing. It's not possible to wake up another person. I can't do anything about how other people take what I post. It is never my intention to hurt other people. But I have the freedom to say here what I can't say elsewhere.Do you remember silver? She was a nice sweet kind lady. But a lot of people maliciously attacked her, here, the main posters, continually. She took it all and kept posting, years, but eventually just left. Do you remember a few years ago ZD said he could no longer recommend STs forum to friends or new people he met? If I have been anything like that, please let me know. As far as I know I do not attack people, I just post my POV, and let the chips fall where they may. Are different views posted here? Yes. Would you like inavalan to leave? Would you like tenka to leave? Would you like lolly to leave? Would you like Gopal to leave? And the freedom offered to you must be respected. You continually ask to be understood then say that you can't be understood. Only you can sort out this dichotomy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 17:44:40 GMT -5
In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my "world view", and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. I recalled this as a question (the question)..... Ok gumby.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 18:11:18 GMT -5
In the parable of the sower, the different types of soil are different types of people. Elsewhere, Broad is the way that leads to destruction, which most travel, narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Whenever I say most people, I never mean people here on STs, I mean most people. I look at 'how I was', and I see most people. Are most people awake or asleep? I'm not filling my head with what I think other people are doing. It's not possible to wake up another person. I can't do anything about how other people take what I post. It is never my intention to hurt other people. But I have the freedom to say here what I can't say elsewhere.Do you remember silver? She was a nice sweet kind lady. But a lot of people maliciously attacked her, here, the main posters, continually. She took it all and kept posting, years, but eventually just left. Do you remember a few years ago ZD said he could no longer recommend STs forum to friends or new people he met? If I have been anything like that, please let me know. As far as I know I do not attack people, I just post my POV, and let the chips fall where they may. Are different views posted here? Yes. Would you like inavalan to leave? Would you like tenka to leave? Would you like lolly to leave? Would you like Gopal to leave? And the freedom offered to you must be respected. You continually ask to be understood then say that you can't be understood. Only you can sort out this dichotomy. Show me where I have ever asked or expected to be understood. I have never even asked that anyone read my posts. (Sorry, you're probably sleeping). |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 28, 2024 18:21:06 GMT -5
And the freedom offered to you must be respected. You continually ask to be understood then say that you can't be understood. Only you can sort out this dichotomy. Show me where I have ever asked or expected to be understood. I have never even asked that anyone read my posts. (Sorry, you're probably sleeping). Wow. That's solved the dichotomy then. In my understanding, when someone 'bumps' a post, this indicates that they want a post read. Are you denying that that is your intention? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 18:28:44 GMT -5
Show me where I have ever asked or expected to be understood. I have never even asked that anyone read my posts. (Sorry, you're probably sleeping). Wow. That's solved the dichotomy then. In my understanding, when someone 'bumps' a post, this indicates that they want a post read. Are you denying that that is your intention? Yes, sure, it's giving another opportunity. I don't think you will find I have said anywhere, so-n-so, please read this. There is zero coercion in my path. If there is coercion, I'm not following the path. Now, if you ask me a question, sure, I will try to find where I said something. That's different. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 28, 2024 19:03:23 GMT -5
Wow. That's solved the dichotomy then. In my understanding, when someone 'bumps' a post, this indicates that they want a post read. Are you denying that that is your intention? Yes, sure, it's giving another opportunity. I don't think you will find I have said anywhere, so-n-so, please read this. There is zero coercion in my path. If there is coercion, I'm not following the path. Now, if you ask me a question, sure, I will try to find where I said something. That's different. Are you asking for some understanding about what that means? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 19:15:24 GMT -5
I didn't say the 'message' of Michaels explains you, his content, his paradigm, I said he does. Basically, you're not on board with him, he explains why that is the case. I already said I was not going to go back and pick that out, pinpoint it. I crossed your name off the list days ago. I will go back and watch the video and take notes and times, later today. You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? I poked around the video again, napping a little as I didn't get my full hours of sleep last night. At minute 24:30, specifically 24:40, and then again 29:40 and 30:10, Michaels says the simulator will validate your own view of the world, will give you an experience (or data) that verifies your world view. IOW, the world will validate your own POV. IOW, what you see, experience, will validate your POV. This is very like my view that the world is a hall of mirrors, it will mirror back to you validation for your own view. (I've explained the why of this thoroughly in the past). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just FYI, I will be away 9-11 watching a program on PBS about Odysseus. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 19:20:27 GMT -5
Yes, sure, it's giving another opportunity. I don't think you will find I have said anywhere, so-n-so, please read this. There is zero coercion in my path. If there is coercion, I'm not following the path. Now, if you ask me a question, sure, I will try to find where I said something. That's different. Are you asking for some understanding about what that means? You said that sdp asks to be understood. I said, no, I don't. Then I gave the why of why I don't ask to be understood. I don't try to coerce people to understand my POV. When people ask me stuff, I reply. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 28, 2024 23:38:45 GMT -5
If I get your point ... I tried several times to formulate a clear reply, and I'm giving up. I highlighted some of the terms you used that, together, might point to why. I would say that I use the term "evolvement" for the intrinsic level of ability of a multidimensional identity. That's okay. I'm not able to put the pieces together, but 'multidimensional' is a concept I use too. Do you believe that existence is multidimensional and is an individual as aspect of multidimensionality, regardless of what they experience/perceive/believe? I'm guessing I'm not quite using concepts in a way that would work for you, but hopefully you get the gist of the question. I think I use "multidimensional", mostly, when referring to multiple frameworks of reality, each having its own root assumptions. I believe that identities dynamically associate with frameworks they resonate with, and dissociate from those they don't resonate with. The identities that incarnate as humans, in this historical time of this probable reality, are mostly unaware of these associations, and misinterpret their perceptions, state, purpose, ... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 29, 2024 7:57:39 GMT -5
That's okay. I'm not able to put the pieces together, but 'multidimensional' is a concept I use too. Do you believe that existence is multidimensional and is an individual as aspect of multidimensionality, regardless of what they experience/perceive/believe? I'm guessing I'm not quite using concepts in a way that would work for you, but hopefully you get the gist of the question. I think I use "multidimensional", mostly, when referring to multiple frameworks of reality, each having its own root assumptions. I believe that identities dynamically associate with frameworks they resonate with, and dissociate from those they don't resonate with. The identities that incarnate as humans, in this historical time of this probable reality, are mostly unaware of these associations, and misinterpret their perceptions, state, purpose, ... On second reading, I may have understood that. If so, I believe something similar. Having a 'human' experience necessitates certain assumptions/beliefs that are engendered in the broader reality structure. For example, humans experience 'time' in a particular way. In a sense, to use an analogy you sometimes use, every 'classroom' has its own structure and set of (arbitrary) rules. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2024 9:24:26 GMT -5
O.k., so, to be clear, your position is that Michaels explains why I am not on board with him? You are aware that I've explained why I'm not interested in what he has to say, right? What's this theory that you think he has, without him ever having read a word I've written, and why do you credit that rather that what I've explained? I poked around the video again, napping a little as I didn't get my full hours of sleep last night. At minute 24:30, specifically 24:40, and then again 29:40 and 30:10, Michaels says the simulator will validate your own view of the world, will give you an experience (or data) that verifies your world view. IOW, the world will validate your own POV. IOW, what you see, experience, will validate your POV. This is very like my view that the world is a hall of mirrors, it will mirror back to you validation for your own view. (I've explained the why of this thoroughly in the past). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just FYI, I will be away 9-11 watching a program on PBS about Odysseus. This theory is generally true most of the time, but not always. Do I really need to write about specifics? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 6, 2024 7:42:01 GMT -5
I think some folks would consider Jesus mentally ill if he showed up today. I just wonder how Mr. Michaels knows it's a pick your ride carnival(simulator). Sounds like hokum. I'm not saying there isn't reincarnation. It just seems to me that only no-thing incarnates. Because that is all there is. Now there might be a process to it. Defined differently by various traditions. To me, it's irrelevant to the bottom line. As to nondual statements, they are hard to come by. Language is inherently dualistic. RM uses the Self is real and the little self is not to point the latter to the Source. If you read enough of his dialogs you learn that it's just a useful hook, not true in the big picture. But all pointers are two edged swords. If folks take them as gospel and don't do the work necessary to get past the intellect they begin to engage in nonsense a la early Jeff Foster. A whole lot of that going on. I'm just curious about the acrimonious reaction. That's what would interest me the most. Why I miss Reefs. He was a great help to me in that regard. The only "me" needing defending is maya's version. Put that in your fruit cup, worse than a fly. What I find annoying about the simulation theory is that the people who propound it are brighter intellects than mine but still can't see past the obvious flaws in it. And, I also found it annoying when 'dusty wrote how my "world view" fit into Mr. Video Schmuck's collective diagnosis. Oh well, guess I'm not enlightened after all. It was also a tar baby. Could I have responded without reflecting back the hostility embedded in what the guy said? Sure, but that wouldn't have been half as fun, not the least reason being that the guy (and 'dusty) seem to me to have been unconscious of having expressed it.  "Satori has no beginning. Practice has no end." Kodo Sakawa |
|
