Comparative Religion: Godmen

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Your post prior to this one is again in direct conflict with this post. This is the second time you've contradicted yourself.

I take full responsibility for resolving my own inner conflicts. If you are perceiving conflict with what I say or believe, that's your responsibility.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you on drugs?

My whole point is that I don't make assumptions about what I don't know. I don't base my knowledge on intuition because of the potential fallaciousness of doing so. You on the other hand feel a need to have a complete understanding, you erroneously fill-in the parts you don't know intuitively.

I'm talking about the known, base workings of the human ego.

-- it is the part of us that we relate to, that we think is who we are.
-- this tiny part that we relate to is merely the tip of the whole iceberg of who we are.
-- The ego is the interface between all of who we are, and reality.


When people align with the ego only--with what they are conscious of at any give time--and overlook the unconscious that powers all of our actions, we are out of touch with our power, or unempowered. This creates our human problems, and when people turn the finger outside, and blame others for their problems, they show they are in the grips of the ego, rather than integrated within. This is "normal" at this time. It is a small percentage of people who overcome this and become integrated.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Think about this statement, really think about it. Look at all the finger pointing you've done. The self-projection onto me. See the irony.

If you want to tighten up the NLP effects, keep in mind that I respond better to "auditory" and "kinesthetic" words like "Do you HEAR yourself"?? "Can you FEEL what you are saying with that statement?... just a tip....In NLP terms, you are using words that you would respond to in your suggestive attempts, not myself.

As for the "audience", the audience judges individuals on what they say and do, not for what others attribute to them. When someone attributes a negative trait to another, studies show that observers who hear this attribute the negativity to the source who is speaking negatively. It's basic association.

When I'm in a positive flow and being responsible, I would be very happy if your words were in anyway encouraging others to take a deeper look at what I'm saying. It can be influential.

Ahnimus

Clearly you aren't as empowered or self-actualized as your ego lets on Angelica. I'll leave you to think about it for now, I have to head out to a hair appointment. Perhaps we will pick this up at a different time.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Clearly you aren't as empowered or self-actualized as your ego lets on Angelica. I'll leave you to think about it for now, I have to head out to a hair appointment. Perhaps we will pick this up at a different time.

Enjoy!

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about the known, base workings of the human ego.

-- it is the part of us that we relate to, that we think is who we are.
-- this tiny part that we relate to is merely the tip of the whole iceberg of who we are.
-- The ego is the interface between all of who we are, and reality.


When people align with the ego only--with what they are conscious of at any give time--and overlook the unconscious that powers all of our actions, we are out of touch with our power, or unempowered. This creates our human problems, and when people turn the finger outside, and blame others for their problems, they show they are in the grips of the ego, rather than integrated within. This is "normal" at this time. It is a small percentage of people who overcome this and become integrated.

What if they had an Ego, and nobody came?

lucylespian

Ahnimus wrote:

It's like this, in quantum physics there is something called particle-waveform duality. Quantum particles (electrons) appear to behave as wave functions, but when an electron detector is used in the experiments they appear to "collapse" and behave as regular matter, like a ping-pong ball as opposed to a soundwave. The theory put forth by "What the BLEEP do we know?" and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and mathmatical physicist Roger Penrose, amongst others, is that Consciousness as an ethereal self-sufficient force collapses the wave-function and creates reality. As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..

It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.

I'm familiar with teh relevant particle/wave duality thing. I was also thinking that it was utter crap to relate that in some way to consciousness. ]I frequently run across people using valid statments in an invalid context yto appear superior.
It's interesting that an anaesthesiologist purports to understand cnsciousness when it is a well recognised failing that we do ont yet understand how anaesthetic agents really work or to put it another way, how we induce unconsciousness deliberately. That would be a good starting point to understanding consciousness, certainly a lot easier to model than producing consciousness.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's like this, in quantum physics there is something called particle-waveform duality. Quantum particles (electrons) appear to behave as wave functions, but when an electron detector is used in the experiments they appear to "collapse" and behave as regular matter, like a ping-pong ball as opposed to a soundwave. The theory put forth by "What the BLEEP do we know?" and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and mathmatical physicist Roger Penrose, amongst others, is that Consciousness as an ethereal self-sufficient force collapses the wave-function and creates reality. As Dr. Joe Dispenza claims in the movie "I create my day". Similar phrases are repeated throughout the film, such as "We create reality" etc.. etc..

It's all absolute non-sense and only a few lunatics actually believe it.

"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated...Note also that the physical significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and even within an interpretation, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

If this is the case--that this is something that is debated, has numerous interpretations of the facts, and is not at all considered absolute within science, I wonder how you can so strongly pick a side and state is like it's absolute fact, when it's not known to be. Facts are one thing, but in the case of this subject, there are many different interpretations. By picking a side, you entitle yourself to denounce those who interpret it a different way, demonizing them with good/bad, right/wrong thinking made of judgment, which is no longer about fact.

These are the various interpretations according to wikipedia, alone. And we know wikipedia only touches the surface of subjects:

-the Copenhagen interpretation
-the so-called transactional interpretation
-in a "spiritual interpretation" in which consciousness causes collapse.
-interpretations based on consistent histories
-the many-worlds interpretation
-the Bohm interpretation
-the Ensemble Interpretation


"One of the paradoxes of quantum theory is that wave function seems to be more than just information (otherwise interference effects are hard to explain) and often less than real, since the collapse seems to take place faster-than-light and triggered by observers."

gue_barium

Has anyone ever seen a golden wave on the ocean at high noon?

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

What if they had an Ego, and nobody came?

Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: Now Q, we've rehearsed this.
Q: Sorry. I was supposed to ask 'what do you mean?' It's like that's all I ever get to ask.
A: I don't mean anything. Least of all disrespect. Interesting that Angelica didn't reply.
Q: Perhaps she considered it unworthy of reply?
A: She is Obedient, that is for sure.
Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: I don't think so.

justam

(You're talking to yourself in public again.)

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: Now Q, we've rehearsed this.
Q: Sorry. I was supposed to ask 'what do you mean?' It's like that's all I ever get to ask.
A: I don't mean anything. Least of all disrespect. Interesting that Angelica didn't reply.
Q: Perhaps she considered it unworthy of reply?
A: She is Obedient, that is for sure.
Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: I don't think so.

I will gladly answer the question "What do you mean" if you want clarification and are specific about what you refer to, so I can be sure I understand.

gue_barium

justam wrote:

(You're talking to yourself in public again.)

You're slowly but surely becoming part of the dialogue.

Hey! since you're here, any thoughts on:

What if they had an ego, and nobody came?

Obviously this is a take on..."what if they had a War, and nobody came?"

There's some wisdom in this, can you see it?

Take your time.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I will gladly answer the question "What do you mean" if you want clarification and are specific about what you refer to, so I can be sure I understand.

Scroll up, you missed my post, or scroll down and check what I asked justam.

wisdom. I'm not a wise man, but sometimes wisdom visits me.

justam

gue_barium wrote:

You're slowly but surely becoming part of the dialogue.

Hey! since you're here, any thoughts on:

What if they had an ego, and nobody came?

Obviously this is a take on..."what if they had a War, and nobody came?"

There's some wisdom in this, can you see it?

Take your time.

I think war and what drives war is very complicated.

You have the people who are aggressively trying to take something from other people and then you have people who are defending themselves... It seems to me that the only people who might choose to not come would be the defenders, maybe?, but I don't have much faith that the people wanting to steal/take/get something will voluntarily not show up.

If greed and desire for what others have could be eliminated, you might be able to keep everyone from showing up.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

wisdom. I'm not a wise man, but sometimes wisdom visits me.

Q: I think you're wise.
A: Sometimes I want to be the guy at the top of the mountain that people seek for truth. I love the mountains, afterall.
Q: And you hate society. You would rather be a primitive.
A: I like communication. I like these internet gadgets, these computers.
Q: blah. you could do without it.
A: I could.

gue_barium

justam wrote:

I think war and what drives war is very complicated.

You have the people who are aggressively trying to take something from other people and then you have people who are defending themselves... It seems to me that the only people who might choose to not come would be the defenders, maybe?, but I don't have much faith that the people wanting to steal/take/get something will voluntarily not show up.

If greed and desire for what others have could be eliminated, you might be able to keep everyone from showing up.

Interesting.
I replaced 'war' in the equation with 'ego'.

think.

justam

gue_barium wrote:

Interesting.
I replaced 'war' in the equation with 'ego'.

think.

It's unfortunate that at this very moment I'm supposed to be getting the kids ready to go out for the day.

Can I reply when I get home this afternoon?

gue_barium

justam wrote:

It's unfortunate that at this very moment I'm supposed to be getting the kids ready to go out for the day.

Can I reply when I get home this afternoon?

I'm honored that you're even considering to take the time to think about it.

I remember reading an interview with Ed. To me, he articulated something in that interview better than I had verbalized to myself, or anyone else up to that time. In fact, if I remember right, he didn't even use that many words. He used his thumb and forefinger to signify the time that Christianity had been around, then spread his arms apart to show the time that humans had been around. He was making a point about evolution, perhaps. Maybe moreso, he was speaking in terms of human ideas.

So, that's your clue.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated...Note also that the physical significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and even within an interpretation, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

If this is the case--that this is something that is debated, has numerous interpretations of the facts, and is not at all considered absolute within science, I wonder how you can so strongly pick a side and state is like it's absolute fact, when it's not known to be. Facts are one thing, but in the case of this subject, there are many different interpretations. By picking a side, you entitle yourself to denounce those who interpret it a different way, demonizing them with good/bad, right/wrong thinking made of judgment, which is no longer about fact.

These are the various interpretations according to wikipedia, alone. And we know wikipedia only touches the surface of subjects:

-the Copenhagen interpretation
-the so-called transactional interpretation
-in a "spiritual interpretation" in which consciousness causes collapse.
-interpretations based on consistent histories
-the many-worlds interpretation
-the Bohm interpretation
-the Ensemble Interpretation


"One of the paradoxes of quantum theory is that wave function seems to be more than just information (otherwise interference effects are hard to explain) and often less than real, since the collapse seems to take place faster-than-light and triggered by observers."

In order for something to be quantum it must be in the order of plank's constant.

Consciousness is not homuncular, it's dispersed in different regions of the brain.

Brain damage causes loss of consciousness.

No one has ever demonstrated an ability to alter matter with their thoughts.