It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Power of Motion (Is God motion?)

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by rwfresh
 


I think that is an interesting perspective. One that I used to hold quite dear as well. I understand where you are coming from, in so far as I can (I choose not to minimize the true diversity of perspectives on the same "thing").

I do disagree, and its not because its paradoxical. The core of a paradox could be said to transcend duality, all the while confirming it. Mystery wrapped in an enigma, as they say.
What I am proposing in my perspective is not quite as simple as it appears. I actually found it more difficult to accept "What IS" as real, than the other way around. And I view that our perspectives are part of "What Is," though a limited part innately.

I also do not feel we invented time. We came up with a concept and context, limited by the human experience, which describes the relative movement between "things."

Really, my entire post could be whittled down to a question I asked in it; "Is a fish not part of What Is, simply because they never leave the water?"


If the fish is in an imaginary body of water than it too is imaginary. Investigating the properties of the imaginary body of water and the land mass that may or may not surround it will never make the fish real.

Saying we invented time is not an accurate statement. But no statement can be accurate outside of Reality. Which is where all the problems and confusion come from. Naturally people disagree on what is real because neither party can communicate what they are not an authority on. It's not because "everyone is different". or we have different "perspectives".. it's because we literally cannot communicate Reality or Truth. If you or I could then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We (non)exist outside of the only thing that is True. Why would we expect to be able to communicate what is Real in what is not Real? Maybe you identify with something that is "part" of Reality. That would be a real trick from where i stand. But what would be even more impressive would be communicating that so that is was undeniable. It's not possible. And it's not because ONE of us IS real and the other isn't. Neither of us is in Reality. Don't sweat it.




posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by rwfresh
I GET that saying "it's not real" is unsatisfactory and their is a defense that it's a juvenile and stupid idea. But look around at what those on the very edge of quantum science are now saying.. look at what every gnostic tradition has said all along.


I love that you bring this up!

While it goes slightly off topic, it is quite interesting to see the similarities through time, neh?

Individual systems all looking at the same "thing," but the perspective is influenced by our cultural story. The Truth is accessible to all who seek it in this way. This also applies to us right Now. For me, science works. For you, something else might work. But by coming together and discussing it, we can come to a greater understanding of What Is and the diversity present, regardless of if one feels What Is, is real or not.


For me science can be a dogmatic nomenclature like Christianity. Like Christianity in it's prime.. the understanding and expression of it was not to be questioned. And most buried in it's "reality" had no clue how the dogma was promoted and communicated because they were so convinced Christianity and Reality were the same thing. Sound familiar? That is science today. Everyone is convinced that this nomenclature IS Reality. And so it goes on. Those meditating, the high priests of quantum physics are the one's who hold the most promise of glimpsing or experiencing what is true... while the peons push dogma and regurgitate stale prayers. hahahaha.. But it's not all doom and gloom. Reality is full and complete. Beyond beauty and totally fullfilled... and eternal, outside of time.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
If the fish is in an imaginary body of water than it too is imaginary. Investigating the properties of the imaginary body of water and the land mass that may or may not surround it will never make the fish real.


I understand what you are saying, in so far as I can. It misses my point entirely, but thats ok. C'est la vie.


Saying we invented time is not an accurate statement. But no statement can be accurate outside of Reality. Which is where all the problems and confusion come from. Naturally people disagree on what is real because neither party can communicate what they are not an authority on. It's not because "everyone is different". or we have different "perspectives".. it's because we literally cannot communicate Reality or Truth. If you or I could then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We (non)exist outside of the only thing that is True. Why would we expect to be able to communicate what is Real in what is not Real? Maybe you identify with something that is "part" of Reality. That would be a real trick from where i stand. But what would be even more impressive would be communicating that so that is was undeniable. It's not possible. And it's not because ONE of us IS real and the other isn't. Neither of us is in Reality. Don't sweat it.


I think the main difference is I do not choose to distinguish between "this" or "that" when determining what is real. I find it interesting that you seem to, or feel capable to do so. I also would find much of life easier if I subscribed to this philosophy.

"Well, its not real, dont sweat it!"

I am only perspiring because the suns heat is touching my skin.
Whether or not any of it is real is irrelevant to my perspective or actions or appreciation, even if I do subscribe to the opposite boundary that you present. It is all real, or none of it is. Either way, it doesnt change a thing and I find it a moot point.

All the best!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
Sound familiar?


Sure does, even made a thread about it.


I must admit, you appear to be quite dogmatic yourself. "That which we speak most fervently tends to be directed towards ourselves." I wish you the best in your Path.

edit on 18-6-2012 by sinohptik because: link added



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by rwfresh
If the fish is in an imaginary body of water than it too is imaginary. Investigating the properties of the imaginary body of water and the land mass that may or may not surround it will never make the fish real.


I understand what you are saying, in so far as I can. It misses my point entirely, but thats ok. C'est la vie.


Saying we invented time is not an accurate statement. But no statement can be accurate outside of Reality. Which is where all the problems and confusion come from. Naturally people disagree on what is real because neither party can communicate what they are not an authority on. It's not because "everyone is different". or we have different "perspectives".. it's because we literally cannot communicate Reality or Truth. If you or I could then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We (non)exist outside of the only thing that is True. Why would we expect to be able to communicate what is Real in what is not Real? Maybe you identify with something that is "part" of Reality. That would be a real trick from where i stand. But what would be even more impressive would be communicating that so that is was undeniable. It's not possible. And it's not because ONE of us IS real and the other isn't. Neither of us is in Reality. Don't sweat it.


I think the main difference is I do not choose to distinguish between "this" or "that" when determining what is real. I find it interesting that you seem to, or feel capable to do so. I also would find much of life easier if I subscribed to this philosophy.

"Well, its not real, dont sweat it!"

I am only perspiring because the suns heat is touching my skin.
Whether or not any of it is real is irrelevant to my perspective or actions or appreciation, even if I do subscribe to the opposite boundary that you present. It is all real, or none of it is. Either way, it doesnt change a thing and I find it a moot point.

All the best!


Well i am interested how you determine what is real and what is not. You choose not to distinguish between this or that.. So how do you recognize what is real? Is everything real? It's a popular concept. No thing can be separate from reality so it's all Real. Every thought, idea, feeling, perception, dream.. Whatever characteristic we attach to those things.. any interpretation.. logical or not.. all real. because nothing can exist outside of Reality right? I say that no, NO thing can exist outside of Reality. And that's what we "are". A couple of no things.


The difficulty of your life has nothing to do with what you believe. So tricking yourself into believing whatever you think i believe won't make your life any different. it's not possible and the statement is essentially a lie. And seriously... i am not judging you. I am right beside you. I am a human just like you. Full of ideas, feelings, drama. And yes, in the world of non-reality it's all "real". But in the context of REALITY none of my ideas, feelings or drama are real or even part of what is real. Maybe i am wrong. In fact i am. Because again, communicating absolute Truth which is Reality in this "world" is not possible. And that is not giving myself a free pass to a life without drama. I've got plenty. It's about honesty.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Please stop preaching and projecting on me.


You are not saying anything I have not heard or explored before. I also understand that many do not lend credibility to others viewpoints.

If you are interested in my perspective, we can have a discussion and I more than welcome it. If your intent is to convert, I am not interested. Just like I wouldnt be interested in a Christian doing the same, or a Muslim, or an Atheist. The dogma doesnt interest me. Correcting the inaccuracies of assumptions would take far too long.

I do not believe what I think, though the thoughts themselves are seen as part of What Is. They can be the deceptive movement that we get caught up in when discussing our perspective with another. As I have said before, its the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. That being said, it is a prime example to me of how the movement and motion of us can pull us in like a riptide.

You seem to say we are "no things" authoritatively. I see that (notice the words?) we are no-thing, every-thing, both, and neither.

Like I said, whether or not "this" or "that" is real is a moot point to me. Illusory or not, Here we are.


Would you like to discuss the topic now?
edit on 19-6-2012 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Please stop preaching and projecting on me.


You are not saying anything I have not heard or explored before. I also understand that many do not lend credibility to others viewpoints.

If you are interested in my perspective, we can have a discussion and I more than welcome it. If your intent is to convert, I am not interested. Just like I wouldnt be interested in a Christian doing the same, or a Muslim, or an Atheist. The dogma doesnt interest me. Correcting the inaccuracies of assumptions would take far too long.

I do not believe what I think, though the thoughts themselves are seen as part of What Is. They can be the deceptive movement that we get caught up in when discussing our perspective with another. As I have said before, its the very definition of missing the forest for the trees. That being said, it is a prime example to me of how the movement and motion of us can pull us in like a riptide.

You seem to say we are "no things" authoritatively. I see that (notice the words?) we are no-thing, every-thing, both, and neither.

Like I said, whether or not "this" or "that" is real is a moot point to me. Illusory or not, Here we are.


Would you like to discuss the topic now?
edit on 19-6-2012 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



If sharing my ideas with you is "preaching" then no. I won't stop. And i would never ask you to stop either. That's why we are yapping. Especially here. I am interested in what you think and believe. Sorry if the tone or perceived tone of my posts put you off.

As i said i am interested in your perspective. The message you replied to stated the very same. I asked you how you determine what is Real and what is not Real. If you find that disagreeable no worries. I'm not here forcing you into a discussion. Again sorry if you've felt preached to. Just sharing my beliefs.

So I'm going to reply to some statements you made now. I'm not responding to them to make you feel bad or to force you to no longer believe them. Just sharing. I won't feel bad if you disagree.

It may seem authoritative, if that is off-putting than just consider it specific. Again, you obviously have no commitment to agree. I am expressing something specific. It's a simple as saying (correct me if i am wrong):

A mirage is nothing Real and you saying - yes a Mirage is something Real, it's a Real Mirage. Got it.

But for me Reality is something completely different than identifying, measuring and labeling what is illusion. And i will say it again, in the context of Reality(which for me is Truth), what we identify as illusion is so completely absorbing that we are literally illusion ourselves. And because we are illusion from intent, it is better described as delusion. And for me, that delusion cannot and does not exist in Reality. The illusion itself is an illusion. There is no substance to the illusion. Reality is substance. Truth is substance.

With regards to the original OP. I think we agree. The phenomenon of motion exists only within the context of the phenomenon of Time. Without time there is no way to measure or acknowledge motion. I don't mean to project, but i think we agree on this right?

en.wikipedia.org...

For me, and many others, Time and motion are both illusory. This belief does not magically remove me from the Time based illusion. The reason being - "I" am also an illusion. The "projection" and experience of "me" is wholly dependent on time. I am delusion. I cannot see beyond the illusion just as a mirage cannot become an actual oasis. But actual oasis' exist actually.

Peace!







edit on 20-6-2012 by rwfresh because: drama



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


You might find it interesting that the Gospel of Thomas seems to support your own beliefs:

"If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

51. His disciples said to him, "When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?"

He said to them, "What you are looking forward to has come, but you don't know it."

Peace!



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Very interesting,, I read The Gospel of Thomas many times but I didn't realize that one of the verses actually connects with what I am talking about here.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Biggest conspiracy known to man is that when you are told what you are inhaling and exhaling is oxygen... This ["Oxygen"] is god.

Consciousness, our ability to be aware. We tend to think it comes from us... but the argument is that if we are separated from this for 4 minutes... what's the first think you lose? Consciousness. Therefore consciousness does not come from you, it is a gift from god.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PeaceLoveProject
 


I disagree. Oxygen is not consciousness. It may be a part of it, but it is not "it". Consciousness is at the smallest level, it is like energy which makes up all things even oxygen.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PeaceLoveProject
 


I disagree. Oxygen is not consciousness. It may be a part of it, but it is not "it". Consciousness is at the smallest level, it is like energy which makes up all things even oxygen.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join