It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Self, the Universe, and Regent Leo

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by Regent Leo

the self and the universe?

The relationship is a matter of perception.

Bear with me while i muse:

Observe your self. There is the self I perceive and then the self that is the perceiver. You cannot have two selves so one must be false. The self you perceive is an imaginary false self identification of the mind ( I am this body/personality/ego). The true "self" is the perceiver. That which observes. The true conscious self (observer) has no shape or form. It is infinite, has no beginning or end, and resides neither in space or in time.

The self, having no shape or form, has no boundaries other than the illusions that the mind imagines. Limitations like, "I am this body." The body is simply a physical vessel, temporary, will die and is built of the same
elements as the universe. The center of our consciousness is contained at birth in this vessel until we learn to free our consciousness from our falsly learned and self imposed boundaries of shape and form. So, if I may, my
musings here are outside the realm of perceptions revealed via meditation.

Now: related to the OP:

Imagine the whole universe is a huge tub of water (but infinite). The water is the essence (energy) of the universe. Your physical vessel (I am this body), as falsely identified by the mind, is a drinking glass. In this glass is our conscious self. Not part of the glass. Not the air in the glass. But pure consciousness perceiving, observing, from inside the glass.

Now place the glass upright in the tub of water.

Now the glass is in the water and the water is in the glass. Now the glass is in the universe and the universe is in the glass.

The perception of the universe can now be observed both inside the glass and outside the glass.

The universe outside the glass (outside our physical vessel) that is perceived by our consciousness which is inside the glass must be perceived through the glass which is a representation of our physical body. The outside universe then must be observed through the lens of the glass or better put; the senses, eyes, ears touch etc and then interpreted by the mind. The universe inside the glass, which is just as infinite as the universe outside the glass, can only be experienced or observed by our conscious self spiritually through meditation. Both polarities can be reconciled together though present moment awareness.

The infinity of the universe outside of us is also the infinity of the universe inside. The infinity of the universe goes on forever in infinity from our point of perception in both directions. Both inside and outside.

As above, so below.

Just some musings off the top of my head from my current place on my path.


Ok - done babbling. Now you can tear me apart LOL.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by imans

Motion is only a word describing one aspect of change. Examples: metamorphosis, sublimation, coloration, destruction, construction, mutation, evaporation, condensation, evolution, regression, etc. The universe is a complicate mathematical construct, but its basis is simple.
Just like fractions, you have to find the simplest of idea, or expression, that binds everything.

The universe is mathematical.
The universe is energy.
The universe is holographic.
The universe is finite. ( Since it is mathematical, it is only fitting to say it is logical. Thus, being mathematical, it also means it has a beginning, therefore, an end. )
The universe has changed since its DEBUT and will do so until its END.
The universe is but a temporary station.

What will happen of our selves, when all is over? It will disappear, dissolve, and

There are no known words to explain what was began in the last sentence, because all we think, know or believe will also dissolve. We will stop being, and , most importantly, we will cease to be individuals, the basis on which personality is imposed. There will be no more mask.

The pooh you loath, the gold you cherish, all traces of narcissism that living produces will return to the primordial state. I call it God. Others call it by another name.
And when that happens, all that is illusory will vanish. Only truth will remain. You can ponder all you like about what represent the end of the truncated sentence up there. But it only serves to flatter the ego. To an end that will not survive anything, so...

They say "When in Rome, do as the Romans do.", but in doing so, you call for immobilization, which is contrary to the nature of the universe, that calls constantly for change. Hence my saying "The only constant is change."

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:06 PM
The universe is an aspect of the self.
As above So below

The below is the self, the above is an aspect of the universe

When we look out into the universe we are looking inside an aspect of ourselves in a huge mirror, that being the universe

Kant and the post modernist philosophers brought us the idea of perspective
One sees reality through a perspective lens therefore that is not objective reality

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Emptiness Dancing
reply to post by Regent Leo

Observe your self. There is the self I perceive and then the self that is the perceiver. You cannot have two selves so one must be false.

Ahh... But that is why we are calling ourselves indivi-duals, before saying we are persons ( that word meaning mask ).

We are more of an indivisible duality, light and darkness, good and evil, grand or small, etc. And saying we are also true and false is correct. All dualities apply. But, the word individual is also showing a hidden side that makes our selves, a trinity, in actuality, because where there is a duality, there is that ever so thin frontier in between called equilibrium.

That is why false masters will tell you to be in equilibrium. When you think you know everything, you do not learn anymore, and there is nothing that can be mastered, because refinements are always a possibility.

We have been given 3 choices. Bad, Neutral and good. 3 dimensions, a body, a soul, and a spirit, 3 time periods ( past, present, the tiniest of them all, and future. ), 3 realms; vegetables, minerals ( equilibrium like ) and animals. We get born, we live, we die. We love, don't feel nothing or hate. We think, we meditate ( that word meaning medium, middle ) and we react instinctively. The list is endless. But for the convenience of our egos, we have been made on the basis of three. The universe is mathematical, but three is its first number. 1 being what we are in/from. 2 is the division. 3 is the fall. And that is exactly what science says about our universe. We experience falling ( called gravity ) on planets, but it is also true in space.

• GRAVITY (noun)
The noun GRAVITY has 3 senses:
1. (physics) the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface
2. a manner that is serious and solemn
3. a solemn and dignified feeling

My, could I be right?
( Experiencing self to the fullest at the moment. )


posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by Aresh Troxit

no change is the subjective perspective of a will, so that cant be truth since you cant define the will truth by justifying it on ablilty to realize it

it shows how you are enslaved to think of one and not out as simply positive true, you perceive something objectively you say why it is something that you see so it goes to you as positive true which is the right justification to what you do

but as you paint the whole expression in the post, you can see something just from seeing it you necessarly mean the whole situation of you saying something with certain end and goals

what you say is change i say it is a way to sustain what cannot move because gods dont want to move they want to sustain the perfect position in being eternal, but adapt it at the minimal level in truth by having to respect the motion rule, which make the happiness of god in inventing lives to destroy and make else new

objectively you should know better, how there is no reason for a human to be proud about his money or his life, it doesnt make sense human know being mortal from the first day of birth, so it cannot be the case of the majority like it is painted about the world
so the issue is the narcissism of gods that in making the lives of awareness revealed their impotencies in being high geniunly, since human justify himself from his free realisations and cannot jsutify of powers use

so they made the lives of people loving to be like them, and those are the successful ones as positive stable states their whole lives, and for who are btter then gods they invented a justification just to say that they dont know what they must do, so repeating yea evil you know sorry go find a way

what evil those are living not functions and roles pursuits

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:27 AM
reply to post by Aresh Troxit

i just wont to precise how i love objective right of truth more then me, that is how i can be rude with others that me may enjoy their expressions and have no problem at all with

but it is something i am aware of and that i decided to be from the whole package of awareness roots that is not me but as i manage to carry it for me, my freedom is based on absolute right to be statically free, as me not that i am getting any freedom but as me to breed wherever i am forced to be, since it is not my choice to be here nor to be existing or alive

that is why i cannot bare when others try to abuse my expressions to attack me on personnal level taking for granted that anyone mean to speak for a subject pretense, like being a god or somthing and mean to justify their attacks by saying how only god is the pretense right

and that is why i can be over agressive with those attackers showing them if i want to be personnal the way i am lols
and how i dont care for that publicity they think everyone is seeking to justify as the base of their lives, while i would put it upside down easily speaking chaotically on that level of means that erase all the reference of pretense
but also that cant be done but through being true then and that what hurt and make someone like me true choose to get back for the rights livings and their free sense of being right there

so i always speak objectively as an object living i speak for, bc my subject life is very personnal that i realize out of all myself being way

when we speak of that depth level as living being we must accept that no language must be respected there but only the person living breath ways

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by inforeal

Good post, inforeal. You understood that Kantian philosophy necessarily brings forward a purely subjective Universe. While the Universe may truly exist in some form, the form we perceive is simply the way it is because of our Self. Thus, studying the facets and divisions in the Universe merely serves to understand our own Self better. (I keep saying Self instead of Selves because it's easier)

It truly becomes, quite literally, a mirror. Now, while I don't hold to pure Kantian or Idealist philosophy, they serve to prove an interesting point: observation is not passive. When we observe the Universe our observation is by nature an action, and because it's an action we are putting the information we gain in a form we can understand it.

The question remains, however. If it is the case that Math and Logic are merely aspects of ourselves, why are they consistent in our perceived universe? If you permit the existence of other minds (which you would be a fool to deny) then you must account for why all people to some degree se the same Universe in the same way. Why is it that Mathematical and Logical laws are consistent if they don't exist in some metaphysical way?

The idea of Math and Logic being merly reflections of our own existence is intruiging. Consider noncontradiction; it is simply so because it is so for our existence. The same with singularity, plurality, multiplicity, division, subtraction, and all other mathematical procedures. These are truly consistent with our own existence.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by Aresh Troxit

Fascinating post, Aresh. I like your emphasis on 3, 2, and the origin 1. For me, the emphasis has always been on 1, which I hold is the first number and origin of mathematics as a whole. As I replied above, all mathematical laws spring from the number 1, because they all spring from an individual's existence; Much like Russell's observance of all mathematical laws springing from logical ones.

[EDIT: spelling errors. lol]

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Regent Leo]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by Emptiness Dancing

I don't want you to get the impression that I'm demolishing people's arguments; quite on the contrary. I believe that there is some nugget of truth, however small or large, in everything people say. The question is, do they know that they know?

In honesty, your description was very good. I like the idea of a glass in a tub of water. I makes your ideas come to life in a poetic way I was unable to say.

But do you believe you can ever know that other minds exist? Can you believe they exist, without ever truly knowing? Remember that knowledge is generally accepted as a justified, true belief (Gettier problems aside; they're only a distortion of justification anyways -if you know what a Gettier problem is, you win the internet) and since they're a belief, it is possible to believe something you do not know is true or not.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Regent Leo

I think in the end all you can be really sure of is that you think you exist. But that be can be debated reasonably but never incontravertably IMHO. I look at the nature of reality in the here and now, what comes before is really based on which view point you take. The nature I speak of is pretty much like that picture of one hand drawing the other that is in turn being drawn by it. To me that could be viewed as reality shaping the individual and the individual shaping reality...... The rest is assumed "knowledge" of assumed "facts" and deeply dependent upon a person's viewpoint. Do you get what I mean?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Yeah, I get what you mean.

Interesting perspective. Cartesian philosophy inevitably takes us into a solipsism; that is, the idea of "I think, therefore I am" leaves open the possibility that it's the only thing you can truly know.

But it does seem to be a give and take situation with the Self and the Universe. The question remains, (and I ask forgiveness for asking it repeatedly) if at least one Mind exists (my own, or your own) then can't others also exist? If it's possible, then is it also likely that they exist as we perceive of their bodies?

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by Regent Leo

Regardless you are taking a leap. Now matter how justified that leap may seem.
And you do realise that first part is slippery slope fallacy right?

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:56 PM
Indeed the Kant idea is brought along presently by the Integral Spirituality of Ken Wilber and his Integral theorists to a great degree.

The problem with this theory is hard to explain here . . . one has to get a proper grasp of Buddhist philosophy and other mystical paradigms like Sufism to put Kant and Wilberian philosophy in perspective and see its flaws.

The flaw in this philosophy [Kant\Wilber-perspectivism] is that the human search for its self or balance doesn’t only involve intellectual perception. It involves other dimensional perspectives that I call the “feeling self”, that is other than intelligence and deals with pure energy or how energy is configured.

This then transcends the intellectual self’s search for stable intelligence.

Bottom line is, its not only what do you know, but how do you feel.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Regent Leo

Originally posted by godddd
I think i am gonna make things more complicated or not

To me the universe is nature and we are part of nature.
Lets say nature is life, and everything in nature lives, dead is non existent as everything in nature vibrates like a symphony.
Pure energy that vibrates and condenses into matter with its own vibration.
One could even say dead is something we invented, because as i see it there is only transformation into something else.
Our bodys when we are buried become dust or if we are burned it wil be transformed to heat-energy.
My answer is we are not separated from the universe, but we have clearly separated ourselfs from it.

I like that outlook, but it still brings more questions. How, then, does one's mind perceive of reality? What is this relationship like?

The question is concerning perception. Where does our view of reality come from?
Is it give and take, is it only take, or is it only give?
Is it based in both the Universe and the Self, is it based only in the Universe, or is it based only in the Self?

Perception comes into existence through seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, taste.
An earthling has these senses to observe and to be aware of the reality around him, the world he lives.
So we are observers developping consciousness, but to be able we need to know how to interpret the observed.
I wonder if this comes close to the question you have, so before i go on this is my question to you

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Regent Leo

Regardless you are taking a leap. Now matter how justified that leap may seem.
And you do realise that first part is slippery slope fallacy right?

Please build on this. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.


I didn't mean to post a single line. I know you're not supposed to, but in this case, I'm not sure what else to say. I really do, however, want to know what you mean by it being a slippery slope fallacy. Typically the slippery slope is an assumption that by giving room for a single idea, you let room for many other ideas. But how would that work in this way?

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Regent Leo]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by godddd

Partly, yes, it does. Consider the true question as: are we merely passive observers, or active in our observation? That is, are we altering reality in some way in our minds, to make sense of it. Obviously the senses do their job in allowing us to see some reality, but you can only know that by more sense information, so one wonders if that's adequate. What's more, you can't know if your interpretation of the sense data is as true as it can be.

Interestingly, I was talking about this to a friend the other day. Philosophy is in many ways like making a statue of marble: you must have some vague or clear idea frm the beginning, and regardless of which it is, you chip away at all that does not fit your conception until you are left with what it the most logical and rational that you can find.

[EDIT: I can't spell when I type too quickly.]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Regent Leo]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by Regent Leo

as you seem to guess is true, maths are the justification of what is absolutely,
it is like truth is really that void that for each point reality become a source of absolute concept to justify itself as it is a void
that is why small is the source of big, and less is the superior to more

from absolute positive existing perspective of course

absolute is the reference of identity paramater and that is wholly mathematical ways, when the base is void then anything to exist absolutely must be itself wholly positive certainty, that can be then detached of base void reality, and since more as existing base the nature of void could change, to mean being from justifying that superior to itself being more instead of justifying itself being absolute void

now this i guess the whole issue of contreverses source is from, what is objectively existing cant be denied and surely not attacked violently and win over, when logically waht is objectively a fact is supported by all sources

but there is that fact of unknown who is the source of two references different ones, so the base of justifications supporting the ground wholliness is different source

what a cruel irony of path that who mean objectively absolutely well is what is hated the most for total destruction by itself sources that he meant to give to something and respect

this is the stupid maths and the proof of living superiority in truth

i guess you follow what i am talking about mister void, who seem to follow god more with his intersets to impose darkness of maths oness death spirit as the only fact for ever and now suiting his business of freedom as a lving inventing as forcing on all everything he dream about and please him to fake or realize for a time

but im sure not all void is with him we have our army too, in void there is truth very active and efficient in proofs of life, and a part of void became already detached from void identifying itself as nothing but positive concept free, so that nothing void is active against god, yes i dare, it is about nothing so who can say more is who spoke

and i saw in depth that truth is really about positive from void source, it is a fact moving from itself so god sees it surely and became a liar to insist on inferior left voids

so this is the points you have the intelligence that say what is itself present in absolute terms of whole presence positive identification objectivity, and you have the extra positive point present that you cannot say because it is more as from else that you cant know if that else is more or same or less or what, so the else become a concept of unknown that mathematically is identified as pi means which is more , it must be positive more somewhere, and this parametre change whole equations applications of present

so this is the source of subject truth, in meaning pi in absolute identifications that more element always in anything and all, the realisator become present positive always from that fact absolute reality, that must free itself from the equation that is about truth objective reality and not itself as realisator truth present life

that what explain what you mean too, the living is the present the most because of that objective truth in pi that he knows as his source subject, so people get excited to say they are whatever they do without meaning what they do or what is at all, and it becomes cynical to an extreme extent when they leave anything and say being of their feelings or wills or states all
it is vulgar sorry to be rude here but i dont understand how very few see the ugliness it makes, and call it love and beauty source

beauty is the pi in maths objective present reality certainties, that free sense anywhere that can move for seeing more while staying same base free and moving like from more moves while in that base happy content back, that remind the nothing positive freedom life nature being like always the source and the end

now apparantly a lot dont want give their privileges from before when it wasnt an absolute truth for that recognition being the existing source, but there is obviously the fact too of void and awareness that cant see any more existing more then them, they dont get that concept and it piss them off to mean that idea as a fact source of anything

so like god appear being the king of that fools, preaching the inferiority as the source of all, like the fact saying hey there is nothing but what me is saying and i can proove you that how i can hurt and you would shut the mouth and say how there is me and nothing else, and it is the ultimate weapan prooven of believing yourself
void seem like wondering can we tell that god no for what we mean as more, can we deny all our bases since it is used from that god wrong way

so void think eh ehe and god saying im daring you you cant move against me if i dont allow it

so this is the weakness of highest truth, it cannot deny its base when it is meaning and being more merdas what a mess now

because any point you recognize inferiority with is killing superior truth by giving life to inferior reference more as living since god is of it all

how god become, i see it of what nature is wrong, nature saying there is more that is giving me, but more is only from your perspective as giving credit to it cannot be more because it gives you
and god became from that intelligence that nature meant to step over it
so i guess nature say but there is more i swear, look at all well there is more you are such vulgar inferior head
and god knowing his tactics well saying hey there is me makingyour hell, so think about it and the only choice you have to fear me and my means

so that is why god is confused with fearing him, it is the idea that what you can fear is the more, merdas what a mess what is more is more

so evil is of nature that dont admit that what is is objectively what is existing and you is nothing but that perception recognition to mathematical ground, nature perceiving more as subject source truth and meaning to be the whole existence fact of it
and evil is also then god that say the perception of maths ground is the only present justification and dont admit at all the perception being aware of positive truth as positive unknown being the roots of math reality definition that say almost all clearly

so why some can see more and some cant why some can act with more and some cannot move there , why some can give to more and some die there, what do we do about that, why some love more and some dont, how can it be something else to love, the more truth that is all the sparkling soruce of different perspectives life

i think having the answer to that question too

that sense of more is really the only truth so what is not of that moving alone of freedom absolute reality is necessary wrong and who is stimulating that to happen is more wrong

like god apparantly was motivated by nature to be, like the intelligence to justify herself ground
and that was wrong because god was moving for intersts or other reason than free move truly

what also surely encouraged nature was wrong instead of facing it to show how she cannot realize her means in perceiving more

so there is responsability on who know always
but also there is responsability on who mean to move for powers, because of the fact that he can move, that is evil full reality life from its end realisation and not source

ones should never move only of course when you dont get anyother choice which is to defend yourself in survival mode but that dont count so you wont mean to act on anything real
so ones moves are only to what is objectively existing as absolutely posi

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:37 AM
positive, and from that consideration to waht could mean absolute positive since objective sense living positive certain, from that consideration discovering how you are positive existing and put that out to become you where you can realize anything you want alone as yourself objective reality of it without being attached to of course and stay free as living sense, i mean that subject reality is very personnal while objective is always one that math life of unknown more elements

it is like truth that motivation also when same mean more, it is the roots of competitions true means
that those extremeties of same can objectively reach to do same, and then say hi we can communicate that way, i think it is the mean of rushing realisation truth
not for the coffee to drink or chat to have while laughing with others, although it has surely its value when unfortunately you are the same there with that, good for you but merdas there is more too
sorry for being out of topic a lot but i have so much to put out and i didnt see better place for

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by inforeal

i see your means inforeal but they are wrong from my perspective i tell you what i mean lols

what you feel being well or positive state living is not of your move but it is meaning your appreciation about another free move that you confuse yourself with and you take it for granted as you from nature confirmations or god or whatever else associations of yourself mind

while philosophy ehem lol, in depth allow a real clarity of mind from what it clearly moves to put all out objectively so there back left is more empty free that can mean a true move self as a living true sense alone
you obviously and sorry to say it like that, dont know what is to say that what is cannot have a sense, it is ridiculous to believe that something is because of his feelings that say it, whaaattt? feelings would say what i am???

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by godddd

something you say made me realize a perspective of truth

truth could be simply that pi, the unknown concept as more positive, so that is why we have those senses to be more accurate in identifying that absolute value as existence source, as if that pi is the existence and it is the source of life, so you deal with it correctly and you become alive truly

so here where people like me that love pi element in everything they see while staying them as free nothing back, mean to consider always another living from its positive objective realisation move perspective of you, while respecting a lot the living else from not looking at, since it is suppose there to represent what is living more as unknown source infinitly one

when people could deal with each others from being each of that unknown infinite positive more concept truth then it would be perfect existing reality life

what you look like or what you do is not you, you are you that nothing can be more you then you or anything saying you then you
but what you look like or what you present as yourself is a share reality with objective reality the way you see it living from a true consideration of you to real positive fact existing
so it is just about considerations you give but not you
you is that living entity aware of all while free of meaning something alone negative or positive but as stable facts means

this dimension of livings is not the truth, that is why it is important to deal with truth life, and keep the subjective livings to themselves means alone, while in truth life everyone would mean the positive true fact being more source, and from the principle that set how what is absolutely more positive cannot be a source of negative, so everyone can use that truth way to cure himself life subjectively as he wants

what is nice about truth is how it is always something else, because you know it is truth so you cannot say it, so when it is the source base of all from what you say is always from relatively
but we have the concept of that truth, and we can deal with it positively and it would be perfect as truth would be the source that we can see, all we have to do is admit in truth how we are less but from considering truth where it is more, so we would be from truth life motion true relative livings while also subjective moves meaning being more positive limited reality fact themselves, what we all need from waht really we didnt choose to exist and struggle for our survival in very hard conditions that are hurting as in depth denying our rights to be always positively set anywhere as normal condition to awareness on conditions or existence facts

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Regent Leo
reply to post by godddd

Partly, yes, it does. Consider the true question as: are we merely passive observers, or active in our observation? That is, are we altering reality in some way in our minds, to make sense of it. Obviously the senses do their job in allowing us to see some reality, but you can only know that by more sense information, so one wonders if that's adequate. What's more, you can't know if your interpretation of the sense data is as true as it can be.

Interestingly, I was talking about this to a friend the other day. Philosophy is in many ways like making a statue of marble: you must have some vague or clear idea frm the beginning, and regardless of which it is, you chip away at all that does not fit your conception until you are left with what it the most logical and rational that you can find.

[EDIT: I can't spell when I type too quickly.]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by Regent Leo]

Well we are not passive observers, when we see danger we act, when we feel pain we act, when we smell fire we act, but this is natural.
Altering reality is something we do, see the religions and gods we have created, the fear in us.
Fear is something we create ourselfs so we actively alter reality.
Also the fact that we have separated us from nature, living in a society which we have created with all the politics and economics.
We have created this world we live in and so we are the world and the world is us.
Our inner world creates the outer world, there is no separation, they are totaly related.
I wonder if we are still natural, because the knowledge we have accumulated throughout centurys is now forming us through education and reading books or following some kind of religion and seeing our society as being reality.
We build a society and out of that flows a culture and tradition which we pass on to our children trhough education.
We degenerate rapidly, and only look with our eyes into the outer world to alter its structure accoring to our conclusions.
But we forget or do not see the fact that it is us, the human mind that created it.
So if we want to change the world, we should transform ourselfs inside which will naturaly bring a change in the outer world
To me, this life we live is an altered reality wich we ourselfs have created.

If there are some writing errors in my postings the sorry for that, i use google translator but the grammer is pretty messed up

[edit on 9-5-2010 by godddd]

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in