Lots of true stuff in there. I don't see people at their best of course, I see them mostly when they are struggling. But the media is full of fear. People are always "raising fears about this" and "voicing concerns" about that, and the result is unreasonable fear, rahter than reasonable fear, which is what you persoanlly are refering to.
Where there is reasonable fear, there can also be unreasonable fear.
I agree with your last sentence, people can use religion and alternative stuff to disturb their inertia and move around a bit, but they also use them to justify their inertia as well.
hAvne't finfished, but gotta run and "attend" !!
Nice turn this thread has taken dontcha think ??
Yes! Nice work lucy!
And I agree with you. I think the reason there is so much fear is because we are waging a war on "terror" :rolleyes: Whatever the hell that means???
I'm still trying to work it out! I think that sections of the community have managed to perpertrate evil as a way of trying to gain power and the powerful have simply used the tool of fear to feed the whole idea to keep us all pliant. Let's face it, can't imagine there's much money to be made from a happy, healthy, well adjusted population right? Well much more to be made from the fearful. And much more power to be gained if the plebs are frozen in fear too.
I think people are just stuck on a way of thinking in a lot of cases. Because of media portrayal and the actions of their leaders and those around them.
Like angelica is saying it's about thoughts making reality. Feeding fear is making us all fearful. But I reckon some true clarity, real fear, the kind that no one is to "blame" for, that can't be negotiated with, now if you can get your head around that epiphany, then the other fears are seemingly insignificant really. And I think that's part of the point really. We really are so lucky in this country never really having to endure fight or flight response fear on a daily basis endlessly as some people in other countries have.
So it's easy really to get yourself all worked up and fearful that no one will love you because of your cellulite! Or to get oneself all caught up in blaming different groups in the community for our fears, and turning to "god" for some soothing calm. I can see why people do it. But "god" won't "save" you in the end. And no amount of hating or blaming will take away irrational fear.
I think I show myself to understand and be aware of spirituality, I just don't feel a need to mystify it, or dress it up in fancy concepts or charades of wonder.
My spirituality, to call it that, is very simple. It has always been based around a grounding with nature I suppose. Spending a lot of time at the beach, never living in a big city even when dwelling there. Even in an urban environment I have always sought the havens of parks and streams. There is a natural watercourse under the major freeway in Brisbane with pools and little waterfalls etc, where I would take my dogs walking and go swimming etc when I was living there as a student.
DRessing that up in mystery and calling it New Age wisdom or divine religion or whatever has just always seemed so bizarre.
Riding a wave is a pure lustrous experieince, soul food, but that's all. The rush of pure joy as a dolphin leaps out of the wave in front of you is incrediible, but it does not demonstrate the existence of god or anything else, just the presecen of teh dolphin and the wave.
Surf at sunset and being the last one out, fleeing up the beach with the long shadows chasing you and the smell of a barbeque and the sound of hot summer laughter, that's what I call a spiritual experience.
You just summed up exactly how I feel about all this. For me the waves are usually in the middle of a river though
I think what you're describing is the same way I feel when I'm in the bush, but I don't call it spirituality. It about being on the water, smelling the leaf litter and hearing the birds, seeing the fish, and feeling like I'm part of it, rather than feeling removed and insulated from it like I do sitting in this chair. I think maybe its more about escape for me. Getting away from all the everyday shit that makes life stressful and boring and just feeling like I'm part of the real world. Sitting in a kayak at the top of a rapid all I can think about is the line I'm going to take, when I have to make my paddle strokes, and how I'm going to avoid being munched. Then when I'm in the rapid its just pure focus, I don't have room in my mind for anything else besides the river and the kayak and myself. The exhiliration comes at the bottom.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
have you ever smelt the coolness when walking through a rainforest? nature calms us cause we are from nature. somewhere along the way i think we lost sight of that.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You just summed up exactly how I feel about all this. For me the waves are usually in the middle of a river though
I think what you're describing is the same way I feel when I'm in the bush, but I don't call it spirituality. It about being on the water, smelling the leaf litter and hearing the birds, seeing the fish, and feeling like I'm part of it, rather than feeling removed and insulated from it like I do sitting in this chair. I think maybe its more about escape for me. Getting away from all the everyday shit that makes life stressful and boring and just feeling like I'm part of the real world. Sitting in a kayak at the top of a rapid all I can think about is the line I'm going to take, when I have to make my paddle strokes, and how I'm going to avoid being munched. Then when I'm in the rapid its just pure focus, I don't have room in my mind for anything else besides the river and the kayak and myself. The exhiliration comes at the bottom.
I don't really tihnk of it as spirituality either. I think that was part of my point, that I stay grounded and peaceful by staying connected with the natural earth without any formal structure or organised anything. It's just me and the sensations. I had a friend try to convince me to take "half-speed" days a while ago, you know slow down and really hear the sounds, and smell teh smells etc. He couldn't really get that that is how I have lived my whole life.
When you are flowing along a wave, it's just you and the wave.
Tell me, have you ever been snowski-ing ??
From your description of kayaking, I know you would absolutely love it, like with a scary passion.
There are few places cleaner and purer and more peqceful than the top of a ski mountain. The view is always awesome, it is silent, unless the wind is up, then it is white and quiet and eirie. There is just beautiful peace there.
Then there is the run down, either a smooth cruise, a fast blast or a scary drop with a mix of fear and exhileration and exitement and challenge and achievement.
I am thinking particularly of the peak at Whistler. Just the ride up in the chair is awesome as it climbs the last cliff it feels like you are going to smash into it, then suddenly you pop up and the chair spits you off.
Loking down Whistler Bowl, 57 degrees, moguls the size of VW Beetles, your heart is in your mouth and you know you are alive, that's for damn sure.
I don't really tihnk of it as spirituality either. I think that was part of my point, that I stay grounded and peaceful by staying connected with the natural earth without any formal structure or organised anything. It's just me and the sensations. I had a friend try to convince me to take "half-speed" days a while ago, you know slow down and really hear the sounds, and smell teh smells etc. He couldn't really get that that is how I have lived my whole life.
When you are flowing along a wave, it's just you and the wave.
Tell me, have you ever been snowski-ing ??
From your description of kayaking, I know you would absolutely love it, like with a scary passion.
There are few places cleaner and purer and more peqceful than the top of a ski mountain. The view is always awesome, it is silent, unless the wind is up, then it is white and quiet and eirie. There is just beautiful peace there.
Then there is the run down, either a smooth cruise, a fast blast or a scary drop with a mix of fear and exhileration and exitement and challenge and achievement.
I am thinking particularly of the peak at Whistler. Just the ride up in the chair is awesome as it climbs the last cliff it feels like you are going to smash into it, then suddenly you pop up and the chair spits you off.
Loking down Whistler Bowl, 57 degrees, moguls the size of VW Beetles, your heart is in your mouth and you know you are alive, that's for damn sure.
I have done a bit of cross country skiing and loved it. I have bodgy ankles so alpine skiing or snowboarding isn't really an option for me. But, yeah, I know what you mean about the mountains. Cross country kind of has more appeal for me anyway, because its about getting into the more remote country, away from all the ski lifts and resorts and rich wankers with designer sunglasses. Its just you and the bush and the snow crunching under your skis.
Climbing is another way to enjoy the world that I love, but the aforementioned bodgy ankles have stopped me from getting much good at it. That's part of the reason I got into paddling. You can do it sitting on your arse
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I have done a bit of cross country skiing and loved it. I have bodgy ankles so alpine skiing or snowboarding isn't really an option for me. But, yeah, I know what you mean about the mountains. Cross country kind of has more appeal for me anyway, because its about getting into the more remote country, away from all the ski lifts and resorts and rich wankers with designer sunglasses. Its just you and the bush and the snow crunching under your skis.
Climbing is another way to enjoy the world that I love, but the aforementioned bodgy ankles have stopped me from getting much good at it. That's part of the reason I got into paddling. You can do it sitting on your arse
Ah, I love me luxury resort with ski valet and swim-out heated pool, but after I have hammered myself all day on the slopes, I need a LOT of pampering. Maybe I qualify as a rich wanker, except I'm not really. I don't get much holiday, so I like to make the most of it. Lucky for me I have no limiting injuries. I should do some cross country next trip though, I will have the time and the buds I am going with will be up for it. Whistler in Feb next year, wooo hooo !!!
I am defintiely going snowshoing one day even if it is just in teh snowboard bowl over the back. I met some guys once who do all teh Tassie walking trails in winter in snowshoes to get away from teh crowds, they love it.
Maybe I qualify as a rich wanker, except I'm not really. I don't get much holiday, so I like to make the most of it.
He he. Sorry mate, no offence intended. I forgot that you live on the gold coast and own a les paul. . . Anyway, I'm off. Going for a paddle. Only in the pool tonight, but the upper Nymboida river this weekend. Yay!
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
There are no presuppositions. See the problem is you are looking at stuff that only vaguely matters in a weird poetic way. It's not that relevant to say that red is different for me than it is for you, it's still red and unless you are colorblind you understand what I mean when I say red. All this talk about words not meaning anything is crap. People say that words aren't real, well they are. They exist as patterns in our brains, soundwaves, arrangements of photons on your monitor or ink or lead on paper. They exist just as much as we do. We are only an arrange of matter, a pattern. Everything is nature. A word is a pattern in my mind, and as long as it matches the pattern of the word in your mind, then it does it's job. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Again, you are talking about the collective delusions. I'm saying even if we both know what "red" is, we've both been conditioned with the same equipment, by same basic patterns, to believe the words and the teachings are what is real. And really, they are real in the sense that they represent something. They are removed from that which they represent. As long as we are demanding that the symbols or the map is real, we are out of touch with what is real. You can look at a map of how to travel to a neighbouring city. No matter how much you wish that map to be real, it is so very far removed from the actual journey of travelling to the city. As long as you imagine the symbols that represent what is real, to be what is real, you are attached to the ego, and letting the ego dictate your life to you. Actual empowerment is when we dis-identify with that ego, and start to live and identify with what is real. By all means, we can use maps as a wonderful tool! The problem is when our life becomes totally focused on the map of the world, and not the world, as you well know from neurolinguistic programming.
Just because 98% of the population agrees with these delusions does not make it real. It shows us where we are at this point in our evolution.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
He he. Sorry mate, no offence intended. I forgot that you live on the gold coast and own a les paul. . . Anyway, I'm off. Going for a paddle. Only in the pool tonight, but the upper Nymboida river this weekend. Yay!
Hey hey, no offence taken, I was just joshing. TBH, living at the Gold Coast makes me poor not rich. I was actually reasonably wealthy before I moved here, now the cost of living is so high, it's quite a shock. I amused to living in country towns. I only put up with it cos it is so pretty here, but give it a couple of years and I will move back to the coutry so I can think about having enough to retire eventually. I'll have to check the map to see where you are paddling, is it near Dubbo ???
Again, you are talking about the collective delusions. I'm saying even if we both know what "red" is, we've both been conditioned with the same equipment, by same basic patterns, to believe the words and the teachings are what is real. And really, they are real in the sense that they represent something. They are removed from that which they represent. As long as we are demanding that the symbols or the map is real, we are out of touch with what is real. You can look at a map of how to travel to a neighbouring city. No matter how much you wish that map to be real, it is so very far removed from the actual journey of travelling to the city. As long as you imagine the symbols that represent what is real, to be what is real, you are attached to the ego, and letting the ego dictate your life to you. Actual empowerment is when we dis-identify with that ego, and start to live and identify with what is real. By all means, we can use maps as a wonderful tool! The problem is when our life becomes totally focused on the map of the world, and not the world, as you well know from neurolinguistic programming.
Just because 98% of the population agrees with these delusions does not make it real. It shows us where we are at this point in our evolution.
Is this similar to the "right brain/left brain " concept that can be used to train art, ie the difference between our preconceied sybol of eg tree, vs the shapes and lines when drawn produce what a tree really looks like ???
ie, the symbol of tree vs shapes and lines of tree ?? I have slaughtered this I know, but I suspect you may know what I am refering to
Is this similar to the "right brain/left brain " concept that can be used to train art, ie the difference between our preconceied sybol of eg tree, vs the shapes and lines when drawn produce what a tree really looks like ???
ie, the symbol of tree vs shapes and lines of tree ?? I have slaughtered this I know, but I suspect you may know what I am refering to
If I'm understanding what you are saying, yes.
You seem to intuitively "get" these ideas and seem to be able to understand the practical connection, keeping theory/empiricism balanced.
I'm not sure what you mean by the concept used to train art. But, yeah, each word we use, for example, gives us a preconception about the idea it represents. First we have what exists, like a tree. It just IS. Then we talk about it, and we're a step removed from the reality of the tree. We're now talking about our conception of the tree rather than the tree, itself.
For you or I to visually conceive of a tree, we have that symbolic representation, which as you point out, would probably be quite different than were we to draw the tree--by drawing it, if we were being connected in the moment, and really looking at the tree, we would see how it's not as it appears.
Just talking about a tree, we define it with traits that we understand about trees. However, we also assume that what we know about a tree is the truth of the tree, and really, it's merely what we know. The tree itself can't really be defined. It always is what it is, independent of our ideas or opinions of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The thing with philosophy, is that it's using logic and talking in terms of cause and effect.
The idea of the beingness of a tree is about the eternal now. In the eternal now, we are perpetually in the now. Each moment is about holistic situations, where all that exists exists simultaneously. Once we go into ideas of what comes before or what comes after, we enter into the realm of illusion. The past does not exist, and the future does not exist. So if we explain the "beginnings" of the tree, we've taken the tree out of context of reality, and put it in a vaccum, in a time that did not exist, when we know that the tree does not exist in a vaccum. So we distort our awareness again, by calling it a fact. The only fact is the beingness of the tree, which cannot be defined.
There are many reasons to theorize using cause and effect, in order to create practical applications in the now. This is what science does. However, when people take science to be explanation of what is real, that's where distortion enters into the picture. Saying science explains reality is like saying the map I have to the neighbouring city explains reality. It may explain reality in terms of getting to my next city, but it's only useful for the direct context it describes. It's a tool. When we construe that to saying the map of how to get to my next city explains all of reality, and that other maps are not real or accurate, then we're deluding ourselves.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The thing with philosophy, is that it's using logic and talking in terms of cause and effect.
The idea of the beingness of a tree is about the eternal now. In the eternal now, we are perpetually in the now. Each moment is about holistic situations, where all that exists exists simultaneously. Once we go into ideas of what comes before or what comes after, we enter into the realm of illusion. The past does not exist, and the future does not exist. So if we explain the "beginnings" of the tree, we've taken the tree out of context of reality, and put it in a vaccum, in a time that did not exist, when we know that the tree does not exist in a vaccum. So we distort our awareness again, by calling it a fact. The only fact is the beingness of the tree, which cannot be defined.
I don't deny all this. I just thought that saying the true reality of a tree is it's beingness reminded me of Plato's cave (well it's the same kind of concept except plato thought our representation of a tree was the true form of a tree whereas here it's the other way around).
There are many reasons to theorize using cause and effect, in order to create practical applications in the now. This is what science does. However, when people take science to be explanation of what is real, that's where distortion enters into the picture. Saying science explains reality is like saying the map I have to the neighbouring city explains reality. It may explain reality in terms of getting to my next city, but it's only useful for the direct context it describes. It's a tool. When we construe that to saying the map of how to get to my next city explains all of reality, and that other maps are not real or accurate, then we're deluding ourselves.
woohoo, thank you. I'm not that good with english but you managed to formulate exactly the point I wanted to make (without achieving it correctly it seams) in numerous Ahnimus threads! thanks.
I don't deny all this. I just thought that saying the true reality of a tree is it's beingness reminded me of Plato's cave (well it's the same kind of concept except plato thought our representation of a tree was the true form of a tree whereas here it's the other way around).
I agree with Plato, particularly the allegory of the cave. When we are in the now, and "being", we can perceive all kinds of truths, including going beyond life in the cave watching the shadows on the wall thinking they are real. We can step outside the cave and experience the real reality, and the bright light of realistic awareness.
I agree with Plato, that life emanates from forms from another dimension. The reason I agree with this is because sometimes I perceive these forms, and see things that other people don't. That is direct knowing, though, where I am "shown" these concepts holistically as entire existent otherworldly concepts. I am not perceiving them through the illusions of logic and cause and effect. And when I perceive these "Truths" as soon as I use thoughts to consider them, or words to explain them, I break them down from the wholeness they appeared to me as, and I've distorted the Truths. The level of "direct" knowing comes from before words, and language. It is a level of awareness that precedes thought and emotion.
The symbols we all hold about a tree, or the symbols of words that represent all concepts are inaccurate because they stem from thought and come after thought. They therefore are distorted because we're taking them out of the whole of what is. They are accurate if we realize they are symbols, and that they merely represent the whole truths that are beyond mere words. Unfortunately, the average person does not understand this.
woohoo, thank you. I'm not that good with english but you managed to formulate exactly the point I wanted to make (without achieving it correctly it seams) in numerous Ahnimus threads! thanks.
You're welcome! I have agreed with your points in these threads.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You seem to intuitively "get" these ideas and seem to be able to understand the practical connection, keeping theory/empiricism balanced.
I'm not sure what you mean by the concept used to train art. But, yeah, each word we use, for example, gives us a preconception about the idea it represents. First we have what exists, like a tree. It just IS. Then we talk about it, and we're a step removed from the reality of the tree. We're now talking about our conception of the tree rather than the tree, itself.
For you or I to visually conceive of a tree, we have that symbolic representation, which as you point out, would probably be quite different than were we to draw the tree--by drawing it, if we were being connected in the moment, and really looking at the tree, we would see how it's not as it appears.
Just talking about a tree, we define it with traits that we understand about trees. However, we also assume that what we know about a tree is the truth of the tree, and really, it's merely what we know. The tree itself can't really be defined. It always is what it is, independent of our ideas or opinions of it.
When I say "used to train art", I was referring to a book I have called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" . It basically teaches pewople who can't draw how to, by overcoming the programmed barriers. The biggest barrier is our tendency to draw teh learned symbol of the thing we see rather than teh shapes and lines and variations in light that we see.
More circular logic, that whole statement depends on its self being a belief and therefor is negated by its self. Just like all your other theories and the entire "What the BLEEP" move. That's what I've learned in the past year or so. The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit.
If this is what you think, you have either misunderstood, or misrepresented (or both) the ideas put forth in "What the Bleep Do We Know".
It looks like rather than critique the actual assertions of the movie, that you are critiquing your own distorted ideas of what the movie is about, and therefore your basic premise for criticism is inaccurate. Which means the criticism, itself, is innacurate.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If this is what you think, you have either misunderstood, or misrepresented (or both) the ideas put forth in "What the Bleep Do We Know".
It looks like rather than critique the actual assertions of the movie, that you are critiquing your own distorted ideas of what the movie is about, and therefore your basic premise for criticism is inaccurate. Which means the criticism, itself, is innacurate.
Nope, the movie suggests that consciousness collapses the wave-function. It's wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nope, the movie suggests that consciousness collapses the wave-function. It's wrong.
I'm referring to the other assumptions you interpreted to be the premise of the movie and that are inaccurate.
The largest error in your judgment that leaps out at me is the idea the movie supposedly says that our view of reality only exists in our brains and is therefore a product of our brains. You realize that this movie is associated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The idea that our view of reality comes through our brains, but stems from a larger consciousness or mind of the universe is the underlying premise. Based on this context, your critique collapses.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm referring to the other assumptions you interpreted to be the premise of the movie and that are inaccurate.
The largest error in your judgment that leaps out at me is the idea the movie supposedly says that our view of reality only exists in our brains and is therefore a product of our brains. You realize that this movie is associated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The idea that our view of reality comes through our brains, but stems from a larger consciousness or mind of the universe is the underlying premise. Based on this context, your critique collapses.
But it still says that consciousness is the collapse of the wave-function and thus all matter is produced by our consciousness including our brains which generate/produce/create/emerge/etc.. consciousness. With no brain there is no consciousness, the brain is a physical arrangement of matter and energy. Thus it cannot be that consciousness collapses the wave-function, because concsiousness depends on already collapsed wave-functions.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But it still says that consciousness is the collapse of the wave-function and thus all matter is produced by our consciousness including our brains which generate/produce/create/emerge/etc.. consciousness. With no brain there is no consciousness, the brain is a physical arrangement of matter and energy. Thus it cannot be that consciousness collapses the wave-function, because concsiousness depends on already collapsed wave-functions.
Here is my point: "What the Bleep" does not assert this. You are asserting that "What the Bleep" asserts this, and then you are saying it's faulty. "What the Bleep" is not responsible for your faulty perception, and therefore for what you are criticizing.
You are the one who says without the brain there is no consciousness, not "What the Bleep"--they say otherwise.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Here is my point: "What the Bleep" does not assert this. You are asserting that "What the Bleep" asserts this, and then you are saying it's faulty. "What the Bleep" is not responsible for your faulty perception, and therefore for what you are criticizing.
You are the one who says without the brain there is no consciousness, not "What the Bleep"--they say otherwise.
It's fact Angelica. Haven't you ever been anaesthethized? Haven't you ever slept? Where was consciousness before your brain grew inside your skull?
ALL Evidence suggests that the brain is the cause of consciousness and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. The movie is absolutely philosophically and scientifically perverse! It's a mashing together of neurosis, a work of religious fiction. Anyone who believes that non-sense is functionally insane!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's fact Angelica. Haven't you ever been anaesthethized? Haven't you ever slept? Where was consciousness before your brain grew inside your skull?
ALL Evidence suggests that the brain is the cause of consciousness and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. The movie is absolutely philosophically and scientifically perverse! It's a mashing together of neurosis, a work of religious fiction. Anyone who believes that non-sense is functionally insane!
I'm not disputing your assertion, Ahnimus.
I'm disputing when you are saying it's the assertion of "What the Bleep" and then using that false idea that it's their assertion to "prove" that their logic is "circular" and therefore false.
If you want to argue the idea that consciousness requires a brain, that is a different issue.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm disputing when you are saying it's the assertion of "What the Bleep" and then using that false idea that it's their assertion to "prove" that their logic is "circular" and therefore false.
If you want to argue the idea that consciousness requires a brain, that is a different issue.
There is nothing to dispute over wether or not consciousness requires a brain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
There is nothing to dispute over wether or not consciousness requires a brain.
I am disputing your false assumptions about what the movie "What the Bleep" is asserting.
A: you said: "The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit."
B: The part that you attributed to "What the Bleep" that is bolded, is NOT something that they say. Therefore your "proof" that it is faulty logic, is, itself, faulty.
C: I understand that you believe that we must have a brain in order to have perception. And therefore to you the what the bleep idea is wrong.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am disputing your false assumptions about what the movie "What the Bleep" is asserting.
A: you said: "The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit."
B: The part that you attributed to "What the Bleep" that is bolded, is NOT something that they say. Therefore your "proof" that it is faulty logic, is, itself, faulty.
C: I understand that you believe that we must have a brain in order to have perception. And therefore to you the what the bleep idea is wrong.
A: That is what I said.
B: That part is in the movie, I've seen the movie 4 times and I remember quite clearly everything in the movie.
C: It's not a belief, it's the only workable theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
B: That part is in the movie, I've seen the movie 4 times and I remember quite clearly everything in the movie.
C: It's not a belief, it's the only workable theory.
This is what the film's website says:
"The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. ...The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion..."
From wikipedia: "The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality,"
This movie clearly puts forth an intent to weave science and religion/myticism/metaphysics, etc which are far beyond the parameters of the physical material brain. For you to pretend they state that our views of reality exist ONLY in our brains and as a product of our brains, shows that you have chosen to tune out the philosophical/religious aspects. These people flagrantly assert that it goes far beyond that to God/consciousness. It's certainly your choice to misconstrue the concepts so. And again, when you misconstrue what the movie is about, then it's obvious how you've done so and that the logic error lies with your argument.
Within the context of metaphysics, spirituality and magical thinking, the logic that the film-makers have used works nicely. It's only when you have removed the spirituality, that you've created the false premise that makes the logic no longer work.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. ...The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion..."
From wikipedia: "The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality,"
This movie clearly puts forth an intent to weave science and religion/myticism/metaphysics, etc which are far beyond the parameters of the physical material brain. For you to pretend they state that our views of reality exist ONLY in our brains and as a product of our brains, shows that you have chosen to tune out the philosophical/religious aspects. These people flagrantly assert that it goes far beyond that to God/consciousness. It's certainly your choice to misconstrue the concepts so. And again, when you misconstrue what the movie is about, then it's obvious how you've done so and that the logic error lies with your argument.
Within the context of metaphysics, spirituality and magical thinking, the logic that the film-makers have used works nicely. It's only when you have removed the spirituality, that you've created the false premise that makes the logic no longer work.
Why didn't you bold the words like "presented as". Way to embellish the parts you think are important, but actually aren't.
A huge conference was held at Caltech by REAL scientists and philosophers debunking this entire movie. They misrepresent the science and use perverse philosophy to try to tie it all up into a neat magical bundle, using that "magical thinking" they admit to in what you posted. It's all bullshit. Dr. Emoto is not a scientist, nor do his results follow scientific method, none of the "presented as" people are neuroscientists or quantum physicists, they pretend to know something about it, but they all share in common the fact that they are newage followers of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It's junk science and it's propaganda.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Yes! Nice work lucy!
And I agree with you. I think the reason there is so much fear is because we are waging a war on "terror" :rolleyes: Whatever the hell that means???
I'm still trying to work it out!
I think people are just stuck on a way of thinking in a lot of cases. Because of media portrayal and the actions of their leaders and those around them.
Like angelica is saying it's about thoughts making reality. Feeding fear is making us all fearful. But I reckon some true clarity, real fear, the kind that no one is to "blame" for, that can't be negotiated with, now if you can get your head around that epiphany, then the other fears are seemingly insignificant really.
So it's easy really to get yourself all worked up and fearful that no one will love you because of your cellulite! Or to get oneself all caught up in blaming different groups in the community for our fears, and turning to "god" for some soothing calm. I can see why people do it. But "god" won't "save" you in the end. And no amount of hating or blaming will take away irrational fear.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Ah!! Excellent choice madame!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
You just summed up exactly how I feel about all this. For me the waves are usually in the middle of a river though
I think what you're describing is the same way I feel when I'm in the bush, but I don't call it spirituality. It about being on the water, smelling the leaf litter and hearing the birds, seeing the fish, and feeling like I'm part of it, rather than feeling removed and insulated from it like I do sitting in this chair. I think maybe its more about escape for me. Getting away from all the everyday shit that makes life stressful and boring and just feeling like I'm part of the real world. Sitting in a kayak at the top of a rapid all I can think about is the line I'm going to take, when I have to make my paddle strokes, and how I'm going to avoid being munched. Then when I'm in the rapid its just pure focus, I don't have room in my mind for anything else besides the river and the kayak and myself. The exhiliration comes at the bottom.
-C Addison
some would disagree
have you ever smelt the coolness when walking through a rainforest? nature calms us cause we are from nature. somewhere along the way i think we lost sight of that.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't really tihnk of it as spirituality either. I think that was part of my point, that I stay grounded and peaceful by staying connected with the natural earth without any formal structure or organised anything. It's just me and the sensations. I had a friend try to convince me to take "half-speed" days a while ago, you know slow down and really hear the sounds, and smell teh smells etc. He couldn't really get that that is how I have lived my whole life.
When you are flowing along a wave, it's just you and the wave.
Tell me, have you ever been snowski-ing ??
From your description of kayaking, I know you would absolutely love it, like with a scary passion.
There are few places cleaner and purer and more peqceful than the top of a ski mountain. The view is always awesome, it is silent, unless the wind is up, then it is white and quiet and eirie. There is just beautiful peace there.
Then there is the run down, either a smooth cruise, a fast blast or a scary drop with a mix of fear and exhileration and exitement and challenge and achievement.
I am thinking particularly of the peak at Whistler. Just the ride up in the chair is awesome as it climbs the last cliff it feels like you are going to smash into it, then suddenly you pop up and the chair spits you off.
Loking down Whistler Bowl, 57 degrees, moguls the size of VW Beetles, your heart is in your mouth and you know you are alive, that's for damn sure.
I have done a bit of cross country skiing and loved it. I have bodgy ankles so alpine skiing or snowboarding isn't really an option for me. But, yeah, I know what you mean about the mountains. Cross country kind of has more appeal for me anyway, because its about getting into the more remote country, away from all the ski lifts and resorts and rich wankers with designer sunglasses. Its just you and the bush and the snow crunching under your skis.
Climbing is another way to enjoy the world that I love, but the aforementioned bodgy ankles have stopped me from getting much good at it. That's part of the reason I got into paddling. You can do it sitting on your arse
-C Addison
Ah, I love me luxury resort with ski valet and swim-out heated pool, but after I have hammered myself all day on the slopes, I need a LOT of pampering. Maybe I qualify as a rich wanker, except I'm not really. I don't get much holiday, so I like to make the most of it. Lucky for me I have no limiting injuries. I should do some cross country next trip though, I will have the time and the buds I am going with will be up for it. Whistler in Feb next year, wooo hooo !!!
I am defintiely going snowshoing one day even if it is just in teh snowboard bowl over the back. I met some guys once who do all teh Tassie walking trails in winter in snowshoes to get away from teh crowds, they love it.
He he. Sorry mate, no offence intended. I forgot that you live on the gold coast and own a les paul. . . Anyway, I'm off. Going for a paddle. Only in the pool tonight, but the upper Nymboida river this weekend. Yay!
-C Addison
Just because 98% of the population agrees with these delusions does not make it real. It shows us where we are at this point in our evolution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hey hey, no offence taken, I was just joshing. TBH, living at the Gold Coast makes me poor not rich. I was actually reasonably wealthy before I moved here, now the cost of living is so high, it's quite a shock. I amused to living in country towns. I only put up with it cos it is so pretty here, but give it a couple of years and I will move back to the coutry so I can think about having enough to retire eventually. I'll have to check the map to see where you are paddling, is it near Dubbo ???
Is this similar to the "right brain/left brain " concept that can be used to train art, ie the difference between our preconceied sybol of eg tree, vs the shapes and lines when drawn produce what a tree really looks like ???
ie, the symbol of tree vs shapes and lines of tree ?? I have slaughtered this I know, but I suspect you may know what I am refering to
You seem to intuitively "get" these ideas and seem to be able to understand the practical connection, keeping theory/empiricism balanced.
I'm not sure what you mean by the concept used to train art. But, yeah, each word we use, for example, gives us a preconception about the idea it represents. First we have what exists, like a tree. It just IS. Then we talk about it, and we're a step removed from the reality of the tree. We're now talking about our conception of the tree rather than the tree, itself.
For you or I to visually conceive of a tree, we have that symbolic representation, which as you point out, would probably be quite different than were we to draw the tree--by drawing it, if we were being connected in the moment, and really looking at the tree, we would see how it's not as it appears.
Just talking about a tree, we define it with traits that we understand about trees. However, we also assume that what we know about a tree is the truth of the tree, and really, it's merely what we know. The tree itself can't really be defined. It always is what it is, independent of our ideas or opinions of it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, it's Angel.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The idea of the beingness of a tree is about the eternal now. In the eternal now, we are perpetually in the now. Each moment is about holistic situations, where all that exists exists simultaneously. Once we go into ideas of what comes before or what comes after, we enter into the realm of illusion. The past does not exist, and the future does not exist. So if we explain the "beginnings" of the tree, we've taken the tree out of context of reality, and put it in a vaccum, in a time that did not exist, when we know that the tree does not exist in a vaccum. So we distort our awareness again, by calling it a fact. The only fact is the beingness of the tree, which cannot be defined.
There are many reasons to theorize using cause and effect, in order to create practical applications in the now. This is what science does. However, when people take science to be explanation of what is real, that's where distortion enters into the picture. Saying science explains reality is like saying the map I have to the neighbouring city explains reality. It may explain reality in terms of getting to my next city, but it's only useful for the direct context it describes. It's a tool. When we construe that to saying the map of how to get to my next city explains all of reality, and that other maps are not real or accurate, then we're deluding ourselves.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
woohoo, thank you. I'm not that good with english but you managed to formulate exactly the point I wanted to make (without achieving it correctly it seams) in numerous Ahnimus threads! thanks.
I agree with Plato, that life emanates from forms from another dimension. The reason I agree with this is because sometimes I perceive these forms, and see things that other people don't. That is direct knowing, though, where I am "shown" these concepts holistically as entire existent otherworldly concepts. I am not perceiving them through the illusions of logic and cause and effect. And when I perceive these "Truths" as soon as I use thoughts to consider them, or words to explain them, I break them down from the wholeness they appeared to me as, and I've distorted the Truths. The level of "direct" knowing comes from before words, and language. It is a level of awareness that precedes thought and emotion.
The symbols we all hold about a tree, or the symbols of words that represent all concepts are inaccurate because they stem from thought and come after thought. They therefore are distorted because we're taking them out of the whole of what is. They are accurate if we realize they are symbols, and that they merely represent the whole truths that are beyond mere words. Unfortunately, the average person does not understand this.
You're welcome! I have agreed with your points in these threads.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When I say "used to train art", I was referring to a book I have called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" . It basically teaches pewople who can't draw how to, by overcoming the programmed barriers. The biggest barrier is our tendency to draw teh learned symbol of the thing we see rather than teh shapes and lines and variations in light that we see.
It looks like rather than critique the actual assertions of the movie, that you are critiquing your own distorted ideas of what the movie is about, and therefore your basic premise for criticism is inaccurate. Which means the criticism, itself, is innacurate.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nope, the movie suggests that consciousness collapses the wave-function. It's wrong.
The largest error in your judgment that leaps out at me is the idea the movie supposedly says that our view of reality only exists in our brains and is therefore a product of our brains. You realize that this movie is associated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The idea that our view of reality comes through our brains, but stems from a larger consciousness or mind of the universe is the underlying premise. Based on this context, your critique collapses.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But it still says that consciousness is the collapse of the wave-function and thus all matter is produced by our consciousness including our brains which generate/produce/create/emerge/etc.. consciousness. With no brain there is no consciousness, the brain is a physical arrangement of matter and energy. Thus it cannot be that consciousness collapses the wave-function, because concsiousness depends on already collapsed wave-functions.
Here is my point: "What the Bleep" does not assert this. You are asserting that "What the Bleep" asserts this, and then you are saying it's faulty. "What the Bleep" is not responsible for your faulty perception, and therefore for what you are criticizing.
You are the one who says without the brain there is no consciousness, not "What the Bleep"--they say otherwise.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's fact Angelica. Haven't you ever been anaesthethized? Haven't you ever slept? Where was consciousness before your brain grew inside your skull?
ALL Evidence suggests that the brain is the cause of consciousness and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. The movie is absolutely philosophically and scientifically perverse! It's a mashing together of neurosis, a work of religious fiction. Anyone who believes that non-sense is functionally insane!
I'm disputing when you are saying it's the assertion of "What the Bleep" and then using that false idea that it's their assertion to "prove" that their logic is "circular" and therefore false.
If you want to argue the idea that consciousness requires a brain, that is a different issue.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There is nothing to dispute over wether or not consciousness requires a brain.
A: you said: "The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit."
B: The part that you attributed to "What the Bleep" that is bolded, is NOT something that they say. Therefore your "proof" that it is faulty logic, is, itself, faulty.
C: I understand that you believe that we must have a brain in order to have perception. And therefore to you the what the bleep idea is wrong.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A: That is what I said.
B: That part is in the movie, I've seen the movie 4 times and I remember quite clearly everything in the movie.
C: It's not a belief, it's the only workable theory.
This is what the film's website says:
"The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. ...The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion..."
From wikipedia: "The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality,"
This movie clearly puts forth an intent to weave science and religion/myticism/metaphysics, etc which are far beyond the parameters of the physical material brain. For you to pretend they state that our views of reality exist ONLY in our brains and as a product of our brains, shows that you have chosen to tune out the philosophical/religious aspects. These people flagrantly assert that it goes far beyond that to God/consciousness. It's certainly your choice to misconstrue the concepts so. And again, when you misconstrue what the movie is about, then it's obvious how you've done so and that the logic error lies with your argument.
Within the context of metaphysics, spirituality and magical thinking, the logic that the film-makers have used works nicely. It's only when you have removed the spirituality, that you've created the false premise that makes the logic no longer work.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Why didn't you bold the words like "presented as". Way to embellish the parts you think are important, but actually aren't.
A huge conference was held at Caltech by REAL scientists and philosophers debunking this entire movie. They misrepresent the science and use perverse philosophy to try to tie it all up into a neat magical bundle, using that "magical thinking" they admit to in what you posted. It's all bullshit. Dr. Emoto is not a scientist, nor do his results follow scientific method, none of the "presented as" people are neuroscientists or quantum physicists, they pretend to know something about it, but they all share in common the fact that they are newage followers of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It's junk science and it's propaganda.