THE SECRET to NIRVANA Revealed!!!!!!! Who am I? What is the meaning to life?

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Traffic "emerges" as a result of these completely disparate systems coming together, and does not resemble any one of them as the unique system that it is.

Ok so your saying that the conceptual ideas, thoughts, theories, descriptions of emergent systems, are not the same as the actual system. Correct?


No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it. Just like traffic (which is not similar to a car, or a driver, or an asphalt street surface, or a Tuesday afternoon) is irreducible, the human being itself is irreducible. The brain's structure and function, the life span of that brain, the society of other brains that shape that brain over the lifespan of that brain, the body that the brain serves, and the emerging mind that "reaches back" and affects how that brain develops and responds to that development are just some of the component "parts" that can't be accurately representative of the human being that will eventually emerge whole and fully viable when the entire "gestation" process has completed.




Each human being is a unique and inimitable emergent system, possessing both informational and dynamic (event centric) properties due to the way that the brain system functions in direct response to all the other systems that combine with it to create the emergent human being. This is an epitome survival response system, and it isn't primordial at all. In fact, it's an ultimate achievement within any physical reality confine that it appears within.

IS there room in your theory for this?

I've seen each individual to be a non-local unit of consciousness (soul), which is operating a Physical vehicle (Body & Mind), and because the majority 99.9% are not aware of their true existence as a pre-existent & eventual post-existent Soul, they instead in ignorance & forgetfulness (Perhaps on purpose), take themselves to only be a body and mind and only this physical realm, ideas, rules, and thoughts, all of which inherently do exist, however that part of reality is just a tiny snap shot of all there is.

Those non-local units of consciousness are for the most part inherently trapped inside of these physical vehicles until the vehicle passes away or until the individual, through wisdom and meditation, can loosen this consciousness freeing itself from the body, gaining the ability to see the other realms.

These individual units can me ascribed as drops of water that have as their source, an infinite Ocean of water (Absolute Beingness/Consciousness)
edit on 2-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)


What you're describing is based on Greek philosophy - the "soul operator" of the human body. They invented this notion hundreds of years before the Romans took that concept and created the most successful religion to ever exist on this planet. The idea of "non-local units of consciousness trapped inside physical vehicles" is nothing other than a modernized phrasing of the very same myth that Plato and his contemporaries invented when they were forced to confront the fact that they were able to observe themselves in the act of observing.

As far as "loosening the consciousness free from the body" this is not evidence of an eternal occupier of the human corporeal body (driving it like a car or any other sort of vehicle). It's evidence of the fact that an emergent system - the result of the brain's interaction with all the other systems I mentioned above - that we can call the human being does, in fact, exist even as the brain itself is alive and functional.

My understanding of the human being's place within physical reality is not as materialistic or reductionistic as you might think. In fact, it's likely that reality is a lot more of a blend between what you believe and what you regard as traditional materialism than you'd ever suspect. Of course, the interpretation of what actually constitutes the extremes is the key to properly understanding what that blend involves.

edit on 1/2/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


Don't rewrite the programming just stand back and observe it as it operates. That which observes the conditioned is not a part of the conditioned, it is above and beyond the conditioned mind. Practice detached watching. Dont fight the conditioned patterns, just look at them. Look at them intensely but dont resist .If you see them without resisting them they lose power and slowly fade away. The goal is not to change "bad' programming to 'good' programming but to see through ALL programming.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Memories are subjective, and are vulnerable to external influence and manipulation.

That may be so, but there are one's that are true. For example, I remember reading your last post and replying to it, is a true memory, and is proof here on the boards as well.

Various theories and philosophies such as emergent systems are also vulnerable to external influence and manipulation, particularly being bound by the limits of logic & reason.


Trillions per year in wealth and the power it gives those promoting the myths based on the concept of prior-living souls is obvious,

Me remembering having pre-existed, has not added a single penny to any single philosophy or church. You might want to re-think the above sentence.


The fact that a person's memory can become profoundly manipulated under conditions when that person is in a subjective state of mind (like hypnosis - which is very similar to a meditative state, and similarly "open") is very well documented

Hypnosis or not, everyone is operating under Subjectivism.


I believe that you truly remember being a discarnate soul prior to this specific incarnation, but the rest of physical reality (of which you belong, as the corporeal human that you are) insists, by its very rigid structure, that this could not have been the case

How does physical reality insist that this is not the case? I don't see reality as physical, but as quantum, nonlocal, and various other ways. Physical reality doesn't insist anything. It's the human mind and it's limited ideas/theories/concepts that are super imposed over a possible Universe that ma be 1 amongst trillions.


Again, this is not a statement that I can't back up with an extremely lengthy presentation that details the precise factors that come together to force this truth to ultimately become self-evident.

I'm all ears. By the way, the same non-local consciousness "Me" that I remember as pre-existing prior to a physical body, is the same "Me" which at times leaves the body in a non-local fashion at times, while say, washing dishes, meditating, watching TV, (though I have yet to gain a complete control & understanding of this aspect of who I am)


However, it is an extremely lengthy presentation, and the market doesn't yet exist for it as an available syllabus.I'll let you know if that ever changes.

Use "Occam's Razor" to explain it in the simplest fashion. I don't need books and pages to explain my theory, which basically goes:

The Absolute can be experienced, however it is ineffable. Anything that can be said about the Absolute, is not the Absolute". (Now enter various blueprints and guidebooks on getting to this experience). See!!! Simple!!!


Human perception is 100% subjective, and that's all it can ever be.

What's wrong with subjectivity? Who says it can only be that? Is there some Absolute Rule book that says this is so and is provable by science, logic and reason? Last time I checked, subjectivity is the realm of consciousness, something which has been, until the last 20 years, deemed a taboo area of study for science, which is in its infancy of understanding consciousness/subjectivity.

Ergo, whatever your current theory on Subjectivity is, it will have no choice but to wait on what the experts say and discover about it, over the next few hundred or thousand years. There is a co-dependency.


This is why reality anchors - available only within the material realm (which is 100% objective)

Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?
continued:



Sentience is perception translation. No two perceptive minds "see" the same thing, and we all know that this is true.

How is that true? I can ask another, "Do you hear?" and they will say "Yes." I can show other's various experiences that I have had, such as spelunking, and they will come away as also having experienced the same.

If "no two perceptive minds see the same thing", then we would not have mathematics, logic, reason, etc. All systems of thought that are agreed upon by the majority subjective sentience.


And if someone writes a book at some point in human history that he possesses the one and only way for a seeker of truth to force his perception to transcend the one and only fundamental tenet of perception itself (its capacity for subjectivity), why is it that anyone should believe him that he's actually transformed the basic nature of human perception? Because he claims that it's true?

Why? Because tenets & principles are testable. Buddhism makes such claims as the one you postulate above. Buddha then says, "Don't take my word for it, see for yourself if this is True." Thousands have come after him and found what he said to be true by various tests, consciousness being the laboratory



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Seriously. Oh, and nothing that is physical is capable of transforming itself from existing as Relative to existing as Absolute.

Who says there is only material and physicality? These are just theories and ideas right now. Not Absolute Fact. We don't yet know everything, so your limiting "everything."


And if it cannot become Absolute - which it can't - it can't experience an Absolute state of being in any sense whatsoever.

You use ears to hear, a body to touch, a mind to think, a tongue to taste, eyes to see, logic and reason to make sense. To experience the Absolute, requires an entirely different Organ of experience, yet One that is present within all. Some say intuition, some say the heart, others say transcendence, while others still say awareness.

Note, that the tools which you yourself use to formulate your theories, to make your points, and to vehemently defend them, are themselves tools which cannot be used to experience the Absolute.

Also, are you going to limit the Absolute by saying it can't be experienced by something itself that is not Absolute? Are we adding limits to something that might be Unlimited?


Do some non-spiritual reading about what being states are and how they establish primordial identity, and you'll understand why this is impossible.

I have. Philosophical, theoretical, ontological, and mathematical (see my signature on infinite math). I still do not find this to be impossible, other than some person's theory that it is impossible. Theories are not reality.



No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.

Who says it can't be reduced? Some say it can be. Your just stating an idea and more theories/concepts. Where is THE BOOK that says this is so?


Just like traffic (which is not similar to a car, or a driver, or an asphalt street surface, or a Tuesday afternoon) is irreducible, the human being itself is irreducible.

Humans are not traffic


The brain's structure and function, the life span of that brain, the society of other brains that shape that brain over the lifespan of that brain, the body that the brain serves, and the emerging mind that "reaches back" and affects how that brain develops and responds to that development are just some of the component "parts" that can't be accurately representative of the human being that will eventually emerge whole and fully viable when the entire "gestation" process has completed.

Who says that there is only a brain? Is this a rule or is this stated in THE BOOK that we are bodies and brains? This is all just your theories see? Entirely dependent upon what the scientific community discovers about consciousness, and some are already discussing non-locality, which will require a complete redo of your theories if that becomes fact, so you are in limbo.


What you're describing is based on Greek philosophy - the "soul operator" of the human body. They invented this notion hundreds of years before the Romans took that concept and created the most successful religion to ever exist on this planet.

I don't care about what religions, where, what date and what for what reason. I care that I can see for myself if it is so. I found my own non-localized pre-existent soul and have experienced the souls of others' after their bodies have passed away. I could care less about greek anything.



The idea of "non-local units of consciousness trapped inside physical vehicles" is nothing other than a modernized phrasing of the very same myth that Plato and his contemporaries invented when they were forced to confront the fact that they were able to observe themselves in the act of observing.

It's your concept that this is a myth. To me it's experiential and testable. Can't both be right!


My understanding of the human being's place within physical reality is not as materialistic or reductionistic as you might think. In fact, it's likely that reality is a lot more of a blend between what you believe and what you regard as traditional materialism than you'd ever suspect.

I don't view reality as materialistic in the light of quantum physics.
If I recall correctly, emergent systems philosophy relies on physicality/materialism. In the light of quantum findings, there seems to be a schism.

Your left with your own theory being itself an emergent System co dependent on what science discovers, and waiting on more discoveries (some which may not come for another 100 years).

On the other hand, you can use your life time to see if what Buddha, and various others said, is true.
Good luck!



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by OOOOOO
reply to post by Thiaoouba Prophecy
 
I would just like to say I understand what you are saying but I think there is a little more to this than what has been said.
If we are God what the Hell have we done to the Earth and it Creatures.

You know the Singularity, is coming to a Planet near you soon.

We are Satan! If there is one.



There is no such thing as Satan. Even the Angelic Race, the same race you read about in the bible, at the center of our Milky Way, the Thiaooubans reassure us that Satan was a concept used by the priests to control the Populace and the Pharaohs and other kings through ancient history. But in my knowledge there are dark evil based entities but there is no King of all Demonic entities. But since the concept is programmed into your consciousness then I will say this, the ego is the Satan and that you must vanquish. No one else can do it for you, you have to do it yourself and I reiterate the process by which you do it is by using your freedom of choice to surrender the inner belief that you are the source of your own power. When this belief is given up in meditation, the inner sound gets stronger. Focus your personal awareness on the source of this inner sound and you will find the source of it.

The source of the inner sound is the inner light. Upon finding this inner light in meditation some see it at a spider web or star off in the distance in the absolute darkness. Upon finding it do not focus on it or it will disappear. Just observe it and continue to stay in the no thought state. Absolute silence. Do not even think any words in your mind or it will disappear. Once you continue to observe it, it will get brighter as it gets as bright as the sun, enter it. Beyond is a state no human words can describe. Love, Ecstasy, Bliss, Joy would not be adequate. Upon entering this natural state you will know who and what the source of consciousness is but you can't put it into words.
edit on 3-1-2013 by Thiaoouba Prophecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Seriously. Oh, and nothing that is physical is capable of transforming itself from existing as Relative to existing as Absolute.

Who says there is only material and physicality? These are just theories and ideas right now. Not Absolute Fact. We don't yet know everything, so your limiting "everything."


It's not a theory that two things that possess different being states can't interact with or affect one another. This isn't theoretical. This is how reality works. I'm not limiting anything. I'm working within the natural limitations that exist, and have been proven to exist. You - regardless of what you insist - haven't the power to release everything from the limitations that actually allow everything to exist and persist.



And if it cannot become Absolute - which it can't - it can't experience an Absolute state of being in any sense whatsoever.

You use ears to hear, a body to touch, a mind to think, a tongue to taste, eyes to see, logic and reason to make sense. To experience the Absolute, requires an entirely different Organ of experience, yet One that is present within all. Some say intuition, some say the heart, others say transcendence, while others still say awareness.

Note, that the tools which you yourself use to formulate your theories, to make your points, and to vehemently defend them, are themselves tools which cannot be used to experience the Absolute.

Also, are you going to limit the Absolute by saying it can't be experienced by something itself that is not Absolute? Are we adding limits to something that might be Unlimited?


You aren't Absolute, and neither am I. We exist in a relative state of being. You won't win any debate if you insist that the Relative Being State will "release" you to become Absolute in being state. You will always exist "relative" to that which is NOT you, and this is what it means to exist within a Relative Being State. What is also true - and you can find plenty of deep and responsible examination online concerning this- is that if you can be identified (which you can) then you can never be Absolute in being state, since the loss of contextual identity (which can't actually ever happen for you, since you're a human being) would result in non-existence, and not Absolute Being State "promotion" for you. Nothing that is physical can survive the complete loss of contextual identity.

The bottom line is that there is nothing that physically exists that is unlimited. Here's a link to a really helpful explanation concerning the possibility of anything physical possessing unlimited qualities or quantities.

www.youtube.com...





Do some non-spiritual reading about what being states are and how they establish primordial identity, and you'll understand why this is impossible.

I have. Philosophical, theoretical, ontological, and mathematical (see my signature on infinite math). I still do not find this to be impossible, other than some person's theory that it is impossible. Theories are not reality.


I know that some people toss the use of "infinity" as a term within mathematics, ontology, and theoretical physics as proof that it does exist, but this excerpt from Wiki helps clarify how the use of the term "Infinity" is actually used in these cases.


For convenience's sake, calculations, equations, theories and approximations often use infinite series, unbounded functions, etc., and may involve infinite quantities. Physicists however require that the end result be physically meaningful. In quantum field theory infinities arise which need to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to a physically meaningful result, a process called renormalization.

However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density. This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist; it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly.


Philosophy isn't an objective examination of reality. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Nothing objective about it.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.


Who says it can't be reduced? Some say it can be. Your just stating an idea and more theories/concepts. Where is THE BOOK that says this is so?


So, now you're defending reductionism?


And what BOOK are you referring to? You need to keep me informed when you decide to introduce new aspects into our little exchange.




Just like traffic (which is not similar to a car, or a driver, or an asphalt street surface, or a Tuesday afternoon) is irreducible, the human being itself is irreducible.


Humans are not traffic


Actually, the emergent info-event hybrid system that is the human being has a similar relationship with the Homo Sapiens brain as traffic (in general) has with the cars that are stuck in that traffic. Research holon theory and emergent systems for more details.



The brain's structure and function, the life span of that brain, the society of other brains that shape that brain over the lifespan of that brain, the body that the brain serves, and the emerging mind that "reaches back" and affects how that brain develops and responds to that development are just some of the component "parts" that can't be accurately representative of the human being that will eventually emerge whole and fully viable when the entire "gestation" process has completed.


Who says that there is only a brain? Is this a rule or is this stated in THE BOOK that we are bodies and brains? This is all just your theories see? Entirely dependent upon what the scientific community discovers about consciousness, and some are already discussing non-locality, which will require a complete redo of your theories if that becomes fact, so you are in limbo.


Non-locality is evidence that my own theories are even more accurate than the reductionistic theories of traditional science, relative to the true physical nature of the human being and its place within the whole of physical reality.




What you're describing is based on Greek philosophy - the "soul operator" of the human body. They invented this notion hundreds of years before the Romans took that concept and created the most successful religion to ever exist on this planet.


I don't care about what religions, where, what date and what for what reason. I care that I can see for myself if it is so. I found my own non-localized pre-existent soul and have experienced the souls of others' after their bodies have passed away. I could care less about greek anything.


If not for the Greeks, you'd have no concept of the human soul to defend. This is fact, and well established.



The idea of "non-local units of consciousness trapped inside physical vehicles" is nothing other than a modernized phrasing of the very same myth that Plato and his contemporaries invented when they were forced to confront the fact that they were able to observe themselves in the act of observing.


It's your concept that this is a myth. To me it's experiential and testable. Can't both be right!


Testable? Can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves that souls are externally introduced entities trapped in "physical human vehicles"? I'd love to read that study.



My understanding of the human being's place within physical reality is not as materialistic or reductionistic as you might think. In fact, it's likely that reality is a lot more of a blend between what you believe and what you regard as traditional materialism than you'd ever suspect.


I don't view reality as materialistic in the light of quantum physics.
If I recall correctly, emergent systems philosophy relies on physicality/materialism. In the light of quantum findings, there seems to be a schism.

Your left with your own theory being itself an emergent System co dependent on what science discovers, and waiting on more discoveries (some which may not come for another 100 years).

On the other hand, you can use your life time to see if what Buddha, and various others said, is true.
Good luck!


No more studies are needed. The fact that emergent systems exist, and the evidence that the human being is an emergent system is overwhelmingly compelling. In fact, this answers literally all questions concerning the many anomalies that have cropped up since our technologies have recently become so advanced as to expose the many weaknesses in our traditional views of reality. It's a new day, and the truth will eventually emerge whole and provable as a result of very new ways of understanding simple things like the very ones we're discussing.
edit on 1/3/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



It's not a theory that two things that possess different being states can't interact with or affect one another.

Please do link the fact book where this is scientifically, philosophically, mathematically, and logically proven to be a beyond a doubt fact.

I've sat with Phd philosophers who themselves say that if there is an Infinite or Absolute Beingness, its very nature alone, will interact with all finite Being.


This isn't theoretical. This is how reality works.

Then by all means provide the published peer reviewed factual studies that prove so.


I'm not limiting anything. I'm working within the natural limitations that exist, and have been proven to exist.

Based on what we know thus far, all of which only science says. Philosophical and theological thought goes alot further than natural/material limitations. Your still in Limbo based on the modern knowledge frameworks of what science knows. A discovery can come out in June 3013, that can entirely undermine your whole theoretical foundation.


You - regardless of what you insist - haven't the power to release everything from the limitations that actually allow everything to exist and persist.

Says who? Is this another proven fact somewhere? What happened to free will? Miraculous recoveries in hospitals which my doctor friends say are theoretically and logically impossible to come back from. Perhaps these limitations exist because you believe in them or agree with the collective minds that they are there. You said yourself all "Sentience is perception translation," hence your choosing to translate limitations, while I am choosing to be free of all translations, hence complete openness and freedom.


You aren't Absolute, and neither am I. We exist in a relative state of being.

The above statement is a relative perception based on your own statement ("Sentience is perception translation,") It's just a possibility amongst many, but doesn't mean it's true. "Relative" is codependent on a perceiver. Existence itself was once devoid of any perceivers, so at that point, there was no "relative."


You won't win any debate if you insist that the Relative Being State will "release" you to become Absolute in being state.

I'm not here to win a debate, because debates are limited to logic/reason, and I'm discussing transcendent ineffable Beingness which can be experienced, and it itself stands on its own accord trumping anything that can be debated, thought, or said about it. That state itself wins.

Beyond that, who says that reality is relative and who says it has the intelligence to not release someone into an Absolute state? Where's the fact book?


You will always exist "relative" to that which is NOT you, and this is what it means to exist within a Relative Being State.

("Sentience is perception translation,")


What is also true - and you can find plenty of deep and responsible examination online concerning this- is that if you can be identified (which you can) then you can never be Absolute in being state

Wrong!!!! Didn't momma ever teach you not to judge a book by it's cover.
("Sentience is perception translation,") so one see's me and says male, another says has a beard, another says is philosophically minded, another says likes sushi, .....none of those identifications are the "real true me".


since the loss of contextual identity (which can't actually ever happen for you, since you're a human being) would result in non-existence, and not Absolute Being State "promotion" for you. Nothing that is physical can survive the complete loss of contextual identity.

More "can'ts and won'ts" all in the realm of perception translation. Who says the Absolute Being State is a promotion anyway? Who says that we are only physical beings?


The bottom line is that there is nothing that physically exists that is unlimited. Here's a link to a really helpful explanation concerning the possibility of anything physical possessing unlimited qualities or quantities.

Who says that there is only the physical realm? This may have been the status quo 100 years ago in science, but now you have non-local quantum states to account for. Tisk tisk



I know that some people toss the use of "infinity" as a term within mathematics, ontology, and theoretical physics as proof that it does exist, but this excerpt from Wiki helps clarify how the use of the term "Infinity" is actually used in these cases.

I've read that before, years ago. The inherent problem is, if Infinity does exist in the midst of reality, then it is ineffable and transcendent of logic & reason. They are discussing the unlimited using limits to try and contain it. Conceptual is not reality. You've theories amongst trillions.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Memories are subjective, and are vulnerable to external influence and manipulation.

That may be so, but there are one's that are true. For example, I remember reading your last post and replying to it, is a true memory, and is proof here on the boards as well.

Various theories and philosophies such as emergent systems are also vulnerable to external influence and manipulation, particularly being bound by the limits of logic & reason.


Your reply to my post is something that did - in fact - happen, and we know this because of the direct ramification of your responding post's existence within this thread. Yes, there are "reality anchors" that exist, and these are what we use to determine what is real.

Emergent systems are vulnerable to all the influencing systems that combine to bring them into existence. Its a hyper-dynamic process, and the best example of just how dynamic this process can be is a thunderstorm (what's known as a dissipating emergent system - since it completely morphs from instant to instant even after it has emerged). The human being is very vulnerable to all contributing systems, and this is why what you learn and experience as a "gestating" person is so important to keep an eye on. You'll become what you've made of yourself, and that includes what you've allowed to be made of you by casual default. This is what "life" is all about for you. The ultimate creation of YOU. My life is about the ultimate creation of ME. It's pretty simple, but the importance of understanding it can't be overstated.




Trillions per year in wealth and the power it gives those promoting the myths based on the concept of prior-living souls is obvious,

Me remembering having pre-existed, has not added a single penny to any single philosophy or church. You might want to re-think the above sentence.


C'mon, you know better that to think I was referring to only your belief in your myths. Really. You know that I was referring to a much larger issue with that statement.




The fact that a person's memory can become profoundly manipulated under conditions when that person is in a subjective state of mind (like hypnosis - which is very similar to a meditative state, and similarly "open") is very well documented

Hypnosis or not, everyone is operating under Subjectivism.



Yep, that's true. This is why it's so important to understand the role of "reality anchors" (like the provable thread post you replied to my own post with, that you mentioned above) and what they provide to "gestating" human beings within this material realm.



I believe that you truly remember being a discarnate soul prior to this specific incarnation, but the rest of physical reality (of which you belong, as the corporeal human that you are) insists, by its very rigid structure, that this could not have been the case


How does physical reality insist that this is not the case? I don't see reality as physical, but as quantum, nonlocal, and various other ways. Physical reality doesn't insist anything. It's the human mind and it's limited ideas/theories/concepts that are super imposed over a possible Universe that may be 1 amongst trillions.


Quantum is physical. You need to do some reading on quantum physics and lay off the YouTube videos. Seriously. Quantum physics actually established the limitations of physical reality. It didn't expose reality as being limitless. Look it up.



Again, this is not a statement that I can't back up with an extremely lengthy presentation that details the precise factors that come together to force this truth to ultimately become self-evident.


I'm all ears. By the way, the same non-local consciousness "Me" that I remember as pre-existing prior to a physical body, is the same "Me" which at times leaves the body in a non-local fashion at times, while say, washing dishes, meditating, watching TV, (though I have yet to gain a complete control & understanding of this aspect of who I am)


I daydream sometimes too.

Damn, again, I'm running out of room.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Philosophy isn't an objective examination of reality.

Philosophy does not place limits on what can or can't be examined. There are no specific rules. There are no philosophy police than arrest those who ask of there is an objective reality and if that can be examined or experienced.
Objectivity (Philosophy)



Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Nothing objective about it.

It includes the study of "Objective". If there is an Objective reality, or ever present Objective consciousness, then we need philosophy to discuss it.

All possibilities included

reply to post by NorEaster
 



Yes, there are "reality anchors" that exist, and these are what we use to determine what is real.

merely fragments of the whole. The problem here, is that some say that there is an Absolute Beingness that exists, and can be experienced, and is the Ultimate "reality Anchor" that underlines all of reality.


The human being is very vulnerable to all contributing systems, and this is why what you learn and experience as a "gestating" person is so important to keep an eye on. You'll become what you've made of yourself, and that includes what you've allowed to be made of you by casual default.

I can go the other way too. I can begin to strip away what I've made of myself, stripping away all thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, bias, perspectives, and ultimately at the end of that, I will get to the core truth of who I initially was prior to all the "gestating".


This is what "life" is all about for you. The ultimate creation of YOU. My life is about the ultimate creation of ME. It's pretty simple, but the importance of understanding it can't be overstated.
Another theory, concept, idea. Who says this is what Life is all about?


C'mon, you know better that to think I was referring to only your belief in your myths. Really. You know that I was referring to a much larger issue with that statement.

Yeah I knew, but it had to be said because you stereotyped the whole. And my existence and not buying into those structures proves the stereotype wrong
edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 


However, it is an extremely lengthy presentation, and the market doesn't yet exist for it as an available syllabus.I'll let you know if that ever changes.


Use "Occam's Razor" to explain it in the simplest fashion. I don't need books and pages to explain my theory, which basically goes:

The Absolute can be experienced, however it is ineffable. Anything that can be said about the Absolute, is not the Absolute". See!!! Simple!!!


My Occam/s Razor explanation would be that physical reality (the only kind of reality that exists) consists of only two realms (Material and Information) Our traditions call the Informational Realm the Spiritual Realm. The Material Realm is an amazingly dense matrix of contributing matrices that are based on linear and orbital event trajectories that have been guided and progressed by a mind-boggling ocean of residual information continuums that have established - via ramification and contextual precedence - what we call Natural Law.

The results of this rigid and dependable structure is an ongoing progressive development that serves only the continued survival of each and every trajectory that exists (and existed) within each matrix that serves as a contributing holon to its next-higher hierarchical matrix holon. The human being - the most sophisticated of information-event trajectory hybrid systems that exists within any reality confine regardless of size or maturity - is dynamic, permanent, and sentient, and uses a two-stage physical gestation process to reach full viability.

The real work has been proving this all to be true and self-evident, and that's been the real work I've been doing over the last many years. I've succeeded, and I've already published most of the work. Recently, my research concerning quantum physics has opened my own eyes to even more clear and compelling evidence that supports my conclusions in this matter.



Human perception is 100% subjective, and that's all it can ever be.


What's wrong with subjectivity? Who says it can only be that? Is there some Absolute Rule book that says this is so and is provable by science, logic and reason? Last time I checked, subjectivity is the realm of consciousness, something which has been, until the last 20 years, deemed a taboo area of study for science, which is in its infancy of understanding consciousness/subjectivity.


Subjectivity is wonderful. It's just not accurate. Objectivity is accurate. It has no choice in the matter.



Ergo, whatever your current theory on Subjectivity is, it will have no choice but to wait on what the experts say and discover about it, over the next few hundred or thousand years. There is a co-dependency.


I don't have a theory on Subjectivity. I don't need one. Subjectivity is what it is. Look up the definition if you need to.



This is why reality anchors - available only within the material realm (which is 100% objective)


Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?


If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.



Sentience is perception translation. No two perceptive minds "see" the same thing, and we all know that this is true.


How is that true? I can ask another, "Do you hear?" and they will say "Yes." I can show other's various experiences that I have had, such as spelunking, and they will come away as also having experienced the same.

If "no two perceptive minds see the same thing", then we would not have mathematics, logic, reason, etc. All systems of thought that are agreed upon by the majority subjective sentience.


We have mathematics because people want to understand Set Logic, and math is how you examine Set Logic. We study math and logic. We didn't invent it.



And if someone writes a book at some point in human history that he possesses the one and only way for a seeker of truth to force his perception to transcend the one and only fundamental tenet of perception itself (its capacity for subjectivity), why is it that anyone should believe him that he's actually transformed the basic nature of human perception? Because he claims that it's true?


Why? Because tenets & principles are testable. Buddhism makes such claims as the one you postulate above. Buddha then says, "Don't take my word for it, see for yourself if this is True." Thousands have come after him and found what he said to be true by various tests, consciousness being the laboratory


Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something. Cold is a relative experience, and it takes a thermometer to test the coldness of something. Countless other examples exist, but I'm out of roo



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



My Occam/s Razor explanation would be that physical reality (the only kind of reality that exists) consists of only two realms (Material and Information)

Then that makes you, in a sense, a strict materialist creating a frame worked subjective bias box from which you view everything with these self imposed colored glasses. I was once a strict materialist, and in retrospect of what I have seen and experienced now, it was a dead horse.


Our traditions call the Informational Realm the Spiritual Realm.

What does your "informational realm" consist of? Just thought?



Subjectivity is wonderful. It's just not accurate.

The Above is a subjective opinion. I subjectively adore ambient music of certain zen like amorphous drones of sound. Is this subjective liking not accurate? It feels and seems so accurate to me.



Objectivity is accurate. It has no choice in the matter.

What is objectivity? Careful here with your answer, for anything you label it as, will automatically be imprisoned within the confines of subjective opinion, bringing us right back to square one.



Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?

If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.
.
Quantum physics is showing that there is no material realm, instead a non-local quantum soup may be the case. Who says that there is only the material realm?


Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.

When you test something, you are experiencing the test, and the results of the test. Everything we're discussing (since we are sentient BEings) is ultimately dependent on Experience. You've failed to to take into account that some tests rely on what the experience will be, such as testing consciousness.

Also what are your theories giving us? Are they solving the wars, rapes, ignorance, greed, corruption of the world? You can publish ideas all day, but so what! You are breaking down the material realm and that's it. My theories not only cover existence, but also bring to light how to solve the world's problems, psychology, philosophy, quantum physics, I got it all covered
edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Philosophy isn't an objective examination of reality.

Philosophy does not place limits on what can or can't be examined. There are no specific rules. There are no philosophy police than arrest those who ask of there is an objective reality and if that can be examined or experienced.


I didn't say there were limits on what could be examined. Not rules. Philosophy is free-wheeling. It's not an objective examination of reality. That's what I said.



Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. Nothing objective about it.

It includes the study of "Objective". If there is an Objective reality, or ever present Objective consciousness, then we need philosophy to discuss it.


It is not an objective study of anything. Not even Objective reality itself. Hell, if it was an objective examination of anything, then the "ever present" Objective consciousness could not ever be on its list of things to examine.


reply to post by NorEaster
 



Yes, there are "reality anchors" that exist, and these are what we use to determine what is real.

merely fragments of the whole. The problem here, is that some say that there is an Absolute Beingness that exists, and can be experienced, and is the Ultimate "reality Anchor" that underlines all of reality.


Some people say a lot of things. You can't experience Absolute Beingness. You don't exist in an Absolute Being State, and you never will. I can't make that true for you by agreeing with you.




The human being is very vulnerable to all contributing systems, and this is why what you learn and experience as a "gestating" person is so important to keep an eye on. You'll become what you've made of yourself, and that includes what you've allowed to be made of you by casual default.

I can go the other way too. I can begin to strip away what I've made of myself, stripping away all thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, bias, perspectives, and ultimately at the end of that, I will get to the core truth of who I initially was prior to all the "gestating".


Good luck with that.
Obviously I have nothing that I can say that will help you to understand the reality that sets the base for what I've been sharing with you in this thread. Perception is a wondrous achievement, and that's all I have for you.



This is what "life" is all about for you. The ultimate creation of YOU. My life is about the ultimate creation of ME. It's pretty simple, but the importance of understanding it can't be overstated.

Another theory, concept, idea. Who says this is what Life is all about?


um...I was letting you in on what your life is about. So, it's me that says that this is what life is about. Y'know, it's not easy being the originator of a full spectrum theory. You don't have anyone to link to for support when you're in a debate. My proof requires a lot of heavy lifting, and that's just your reading of it.




C'mon, you know better that to think I was referring to only your belief in your myths. Really. You know that I was referring to a much larger issue with that statement.

Yeah I knew, but it had to be said because you stereotyped the whole. And my existence and not buying into those structures proves the stereotype wrong


You're not required to buy into anything for it to be true. You're free and always will be free to accept or reject whatever you wish. You're a human being, and as a human being, your perceptions will always be the most compelling evidence that you'll ever encounter. Those structures exist, and if they didn't there'd be no YOU to refuse to buy into them. And it's just that simple.

edit on 1/3/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



My Occam/s Razor explanation would be that physical reality (the only kind of reality that exists) consists of only two realms (Material and Information)

Then that makes you, in a sense, a strict materialist creating a frame worked subjective bias box from which you view everything with these self imposed colored glasses. I was once a strict materialist, and in retrospect of what I have seen and experienced now, it was a dead horse.


And, that isn't true at all. It would've done you some good to read on. Of the two realms, only one is the Material Realm, and it's not even material in physical nature. You don't take much time examining posts before you jump eight in with your reply, do you.




Our traditions call the Informational Realm the Spiritual Realm.

What does your "informational realm" consist of? Just thought?


It's not MY Informational Realm. (WTF?) Information exists - as I did take the time to explain to you - as primarily Residual Information that is a default response to occurrence. Brains create "dynamic informational wholes" that also exist within the Informational Realm. You folks call the ones that Homo Sapiens brains produce "souls" or "spirits" or "angels" or "demons" or "ghosts" or even "god". Then again, not all human beings are the products of Homo Sapiens brains. Some are the result of very different corporeal beings.




Subjectivity is wonderful. It's just not accurate.

The Above is a subjective opinion. I subjectively adore ambient music of certain zen like amorphous drones of sound. Is this subjective liking not accurate? It feels and seems so accurate to me.


Not the same thing, and you do know this.




Objectivity is accurate. It has no choice in the matter.

What is objectivity? Careful here with your answer, for anything you label it as, will automatically be imprisoned within the confines of subjective opinion, bringing us right back to square one.


A+B=C therefore C-B=A That's an objective statement. Since each letter doesn't represent anything that actually physically exists, instead representing its own specific contribution to the logical consistency that - as a whole - this statement declares, the statement itself is objective and accurate.





Who says that only the material realm is 100% objective?


If t wasn't, it wouldn't survive the next instant intact. That's easy to prove. Lots of people already have proven this to be true.
.

Quantum physics is showing that there is no material realm, instead a non-local quantum soup may be the case.


Quantum physics isn't showing that at all. Please provide a link to the paper that's proven this and has been peer approved. Thanks.


Who says that there is only the material realm?


Not me.




Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.

When you test something, you are experiencing the test, and the results of the test. Everything we're discussing (since we are sentient BEings) is ultimately dependent on Experience. You've failed to to take into account that some tests rely on what the experience will be, such as testing consciousness.


Testing brakes isn't the same as testing someone's patience either, so be responsible in your reflexive dependence on semantics when you're feeling cornered. Only simpletons find semantics to be a worthwhile engagement.


Also what are your theories giving us? Are they solving the wars, rapes, ignorance, greed, corruption of the world? You can publish ideas all day, but so what! You are breaking down the material realm and that's it. My theories not only cover existence, but also bring to light how to solve the world's problems, psychology, philosophy, quantum physics, I got it all covered
edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)


My theory is for those who can't embrace your theory or any other god-based theory due to its violation of what they can prove to themselves is true and actual. Those people deserve to know that the human being is eternal, too. My theory also frees those who otherwise might be enslaved by the malevolence of people they know - and maybe even love - who simply don't have their best interests at heart (for any of a myriad of well documented reasons) and use cultural staples as if they were weapons on them. My theory reveals the human being - every human being - as being fully free to enjoy their afterlife as they see fit. To work for and with others, if that's what they want, or to be as fickle as they wish concerning each instant of forever that awaits them.

I want this freedom of everyone, and my theory will free every one of those people who take the time to understand it. This material realm is short, brutal and unfair. The informational realm doesn't have to be brutal and unfair, and I don't want it to be, Not for anyone.
edit on 1/3/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/3/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




It is not an objective study of anything. Not even Objective reality itself. Hell, if it was an objective examination of anything, then the "ever present" Objective consciousness could not ever be on its list of things to examine.

I think we got lost in translation on that one. Carry on...


Some people say a lot of things. You can't experience Absolute Beingness.

Says who, and why not? What if for a moment, the subjective biased experiencer, gets his/her subjecitivty/bias removed, and in that removal, the Absolute is revealed?

Why the rigidness that does not allow for certain things? Clearly your theories need to have flexibility for opposing views or new findings in science.


You don't exist in an Absolute Being State, and you never will. I can't make that true for you by agreeing with you.

You have no way to prove this. "Relative" and "subjective" can very well be illusions of the mind that we ourselves perpetuate and superimpose over a reality that is Already inherently Absolute. You don't have to agree with me, but you can at least admit that you are making absolute statements, one's you can't prove.


Good luck with that. Obviously I have nothing that I can say that will help you to understand the reality that sets the base for what I've been sharing with you in this thread. Perception is a wondrous achievement, and that's all I have for you.

I know what you are implying and that's materialist emergence. It has too many holes and doesn't account for so many aspects of reality, soul, pre-existence, the source of the soul, God, NDE's, Non-Locality in quantum states. Sure you can apply emergence after the fact, but then your philosophy operates on retrospect.

I can comprehend you, but in the grand scheme of things your not really saying anything other than subjective perspective based on conceptual theories non of which are reality itself. Just like the vid you posted that you say you proved Infinity to be false, and then about 5 dozen replies came in to the picture and proved that you did not prove anything other than offer ideas and theories.


um...I was letting you in on what your life is about.

Like you would know that. Do you know yourself? Have you located where Awareness is and what it's nature is? Have you gone within and located the source of thought and consciousness? Do you comprehend why there is a schism in the world between lower nature and higher intellect. Why we're here. Our purpose and design.

Unless you know the things above, then your merely providing a new theory based on patchwork of others. And what are the fruits of your theory? What problems in this world are we solving?



You're not required to buy into anything for it to be true. You're free and always will be free to accept or reject whatever you wish. You're a human being, and as a human being, your perceptions will always be the most compelling evidence that you'll ever encounter.

My perceptions are illusions when they are subjective. The only part of myself I find to be true and genuine, is what is left over when I strip away all gestating. The original primal awareness that was there on the first day of physical birth, is just a single key to unlock the rest of it all.


Those structures exist, and if they didn't there'd be no YOU to refuse to buy into them. And it's just that simple.

I can say that's all illusion at the end. Double slit experiment, an observer's presence effects the experiment. It may be that the simple act of observing, creates reality, and by no longer Observing, or locating the inner observer (observing the observer) gets rid of the false illusion of what everyone else thinks is reality.

In my system of thought, there are sign posts along the way, a change of character, a seeing for yourself if what I say is true in the experiential realms, a genuineness, there is an end goal of enlightenment and getting rid of all imposed programmed illusion. This has an effect on the whole.

I am still looking for what fruits your philosophy offers other than a strict materialist view, which is on it's way out as the times progress, and all emergence philosophy operates in retrospect to what others find to be true anyway. Yours is a waiting and seeing game. Mine is a go see for yourself right now if its true game.

The first time the Atom was proposed, was in 600 B.C. by a Mystic named Kanada in India. That's about 2,400-2,500 years for science and the rest of the status quo to catch up and prove that what he proposed is right. Mystics have said a lot of other things, that sadly we may have to wait another 1,000 years or more to catch up to.

"Just like the thought of a rock, is not an actual rock. So who you think you are, is not who you are."

edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Some people say a lot of things. You can't experience Absolute Beingness.

Says who, and why not? What if for a moment, the subjective biased experiencer, gets his/her subjecitivty/bias removed, and in that removal, the Absolute is revealed?

Why the rigidness that does not allow for certain things? Clearly your theories need to have flexibility for opposing views or new findings in science.


No theory is required to bend to opposing points of view. Reality isn't a democracy. It simply is what it is. An accurate theory requires no flexibility any more than reality requires flexibility.




You don't exist in an Absolute Being State, and you never will. I can't make that true for you by agreeing with you.

You have no way to prove this. "Relative" and "subjective" can very well be illusions of the mind that we ourselves perpetuate and superimpose over a reality that is Already inherently Absolute. You don't have to agree with me, but you can at least admit that you are making absolute statements, one's you can't prove.


I don't have to prove it. Its already a proven fact of reality. You really do need to do some reading about all of this stuff. I can teach you about the primordial genesis and progressive development of physical reality, but the existential fundamentals that have already been established are yours to learn for yourself.



I know what you are implying and that's materialist emergence.


...and yet the human being is an informational-event hybrid emergent system. Not material at all. Imagine that.



It has too many holes and doesn't account for so many aspects of reality, soul, pre-existence, the source of the soul, God, NDE's, Non-Locality in quantum states. Sure you can apply emergence after the fact, but then your philosophy operates on retrospect.

I can comprehend you, but in the grand scheme of things your not really saying anything other than subjective perspective based on conceptual theories non of which are reality itself. Just like the vid you posted that you say you proved Infinity to be false, and then about 5 dozen replies came in to the picture and proved that you did not prove anything other than offer ideas and theories.


Reality isn't something we vote on. Good grief. You're collapsing right in front of me here. Those replies never proved anything. Quantum physics proved physical infinity to be false - as both physics and math agree. You don't know much of anything about my theory, and yet you declare it full of holes. Maybe your perception of what I'm trying to teach you is full of holes? Maybe there's a lot more to what I know than this thread can possibly contain?




um...I was letting you in on what your life is about.

Like you would know that. Do you know yourself? Have you located where Awareness is and what it's nature is? Have you gone within and located the source of thought and consciousness? Do you comprehend why there is a schism in the world between lower nature and higher intellect. Why we're here. Our purpose and design.

Unless you know the things above, then your merely providing a new theory based on patchwork of others. And what are the fruits of your theory? What problems in this world are we solving?


I do know those things above. The beautiful truth is that anyone can succeed without knowing any of what I know. No one needs to study and strive for enlightenment. There is no enlightenment to strive for. There is only protecting oneself from the prisons that so many others have built for as many as they can confine within those prisons.


I am still looking for what fruits your philosophy offers other than a strict materialist view, which is on it's way out as the times progress, and all emergence philosophy operates in retrospect to what others find to be true anyway. Yours is a waiting and seeing game. Mine is a go see for yourself right now if its true game.


I guess you'll have to wait and see, then, won't you.
If you wanted to, you could "go see for yourself right now" if my theory is true. I don't expect that you will, but the evidence is - right now - sitting right next to you, behind you, in front of you, above you, beneath you, outside you and inside you. It's part of you, even as you're part of it. It's not something you have to wait to discover. It defines you, and allows you to exist - even as you dismiss its existence.


Just like the thought of a rock, is not an actual rock. So who you think you are, is not who you are.


This has been fun, but I'm battling a flu virus right now (my grandbabies spent the New Year with us - love them but it sucks that they are germ factories) so I'm going to check out of this thread. Happy New Year.
edit on 1/3/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Information exists - as I did take the time to explain to you - as primarily Residual Information that is a default response to occurrence.

WHat is it though. Is it book knowledge, theories, ideas, concepts, the brains reaction and labels in retrospect to what just happened a moment ago prior to the brain making sense of it? All, some, none of these?


A+B=C therefore C-B=A That's an objective statement. Since each letter doesn't represent anything that actually physically exists, instead representing its own specific contribution to the logical consistency that - as a whole - this statement declares, the statement itself is objective and accurate.

Then we can say breathing happens in all alive human beings and is also objective, correct?


Quantum physics isn't showing that at all. Please provide a link to the paper that's proven this and has been peer approved. Thanks.

Google Bose/Einstein Condensate. It was a theory by the two originally proposed in the 1920's, and recently proven in the lab to be true. Wave function collapse is another. Keep breaking down matter to the smallest and eventually your going to hit head first into the Absolute. Matter of time .....it's already being discussed.

You'd need to know Hegels theories on Absolute Being. You can also google "Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming."

Lemme know if you want more, I'll just have to take some more time to get em all


Testing brakes isn't the same as testing someone's patience either, so be responsible in your reflexive dependence on semantics when you're feeling cornered. Only simpletons find semantics to be a worthwhile engagement.

It's not semantics, it's understanding. You clearly said:


Experiencing something isn't the same as testing something.

They might not be the same, but they are inherently linked, and testing anything depends on experience. To figure out reality and unlock everything we were discussing, I propose we need to scientifically unlock experience/consciousness.



My theory reveals the human being - every human being - as being fully free to enjoy their afterlife as they see fit. To work for and with others, if that's what they want, or to be as fickle as they wish concerning each instant of forever that awaits them.

How are you doing this? By proving emergent systems?

I got a better one. I can give you about 5 dozen guide-books/blueprints on reaching Enlightenment. You can pick whatever one you want and test the principles therein to see if they are true and work. I will also mention that I have tested several and found the source of thought/consciousness within me, I've found the Observer/Awareness within (which is non-local), I've had sneak peeks of the afterlife, I've seen subjectivity to be an ego-illusion, I've experienced an ever lasting transcendent Love and Freedom that still remains with me 8 years later and does not depend on a woman, money, house, cars.

I've also seen that life here has implications on the afterlife. Particularly ignorance and attachment to transitory worldly things, amongst many other factors. Did you know about these things and does your philosophy cover them.

That's what it comes down Ultimately, is the fruits of your ideals. So what if you claim you can prove emergence. How is this impacting and changing the world. In order to know others, you need to intimately know yourself, your heart, intuition, the illusions and tricks of the ego.

People need detachment, retreats, knowledge, grace, direct experiences, expanded consciousness, Love in the Heart, impeccable insights, wisdom within, all of which impact the whole and can be done in a very short time. But to do this, you need to understand meditation, psychology, philosophy, have wisdom and knowledge through inner experience, to have seen your own ego, to have experienced grace, and the immaterial realms.

Other wise we're just debating a bunch of straw in the wind that does nothing. Let's ask if our debates and theories have changed anyone's life. I think, and would bet everything I own, that I can point the quickest and most fruitful way to Enlightenment, than whatever you intend to point to.

Please expand how your system intends to better the world



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Reality isn't a democracy. It simply is what it is. An accurate theory requires no flexibility any more than reality requires flexibility.

And yet we'd both agree that the definition of something is not that something. It is what it is, but transcends description.


I don't have to prove it. Its already a proven fact of reality. You really do need to do some reading about all of this stuff. I can teach you about the primordial genesis and progressive development of physical reality, but the existential fundamentals that have already been established are yours to learn for yourself.

Abiogenesis? More theories. Is that what will solve everything? Is reading more theories to make sense of yours? I know that right now I am, exist, and experience. I need to start there and figure these out first by going directly into them in direct observation, not reading what other's think about things.


Reality isn't something we vote on. Good grief. You're collapsing right in front of me here.

Not collapsing (an assumption by the way), just seeing reality in such a different way then what you see, that you've made everything over-complicated, when really it's not.


Quantum physics proved physical infinity to be false - as both physics and math agree.

WHat? HAHAHAHAHAHA


Are you serious? Quantum physics has not proven so and is still incomplete? Are you mad? Please provide a peer reviewed conclusive study that QP has proven Infinity to be False.

Math. All you need is to study the guy in my signature. The Genius that was Georg Cantor single handedly made Infinite Math what it is today. I'll use his logic & theory for a sec. The space between 0 and 1 is Infinite. 0.1 can be split into 0.01, which itself can be split into 0.001, ad infinitum. He proved Infinity in Math and through Math. I say this applies to physical reality as well, and will be eventually proven.


You don't know much of anything about my theory, and yet you declare it full of holes. Maybe your perception of what I'm trying to teach you is full of holes? Maybe there's a lot more to what I know than this thread can possibly contain?

We debated about 2-3 years ago and you linked me all your material. Granted it was an intellectual puke fest that took infinite patience to logically simplify and make sense of. I remember I came to the conclusion that we may be talking about the same thing as far as reality goes, but in different terms and that I concluded that you lacked key experiences available to you through the use of intuition/meditation and therefore your all head based, lacking transcendence, or in a nutshell, using limits to define the unlimited.

I still feel this way. If you were to glimpse the Nondual Absolute state, you'd change your whole theory, or retroactively make it refit what you just experienced.


I do know those things above. The beautiful truth is that anyone can succeed without knowing any of what I know.

Yes I agree, you tend to over intellectualize what can be said simply, and as a result, your above the heads of, and miss, most people.


No one needs to study and strive for enlightenment. There is no enlightenment to strive for.

In that case, let's just continue on the track were on; rapes, pillage, wars, greed, murder, corruption, death, disease, gmo's, cancers, poisons, mass weapons, selfishness, hatred, etc ad infinitum.

The flip side. Enlightenment is real and the next evolutionary leap for mankind, allowing the ability to transcend the above bullcrap. We may even get there through technological advance when the digital realms interact w/ Consciousness and we can download an Enlightened Monk's perspective, as the highest ideal, into ourselves.

It's coming no matter what. Matter of time bud!!



I guess you'll have to wait and see, then, won't you. If you wanted to, you could "go see for yourself right now" if my theory is true. I don't expect that you will, but the evidence is - right now - sitting right next to you, behind you, in front of you, above you, beneath you, outside you and inside you. It's part of you, even as you're part of it. It's not something you have to wait to discover. It defines you, and allows you to exist - even as you dismiss its existence.

Like I said, in the end were talking about the same thing, Reality/Existence, and we both agree it Is what it Is. I just agree with the Enlightened One's that it is Absolute and when you are stripped of all subjectivity ad programming, the Absolute reveals itself and merges with you ...like a drop of water falling into the ocean.

This Enlightenment is the Pinnacle of existence, Highest Ideal & a very Achievable state. It's on its way one way or another.

Hope you get better w your flu. Try Liposomal Vit C + Zinc
edit on 3-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



You don't know much of anything about my theory, and yet you declare it full of holes. Maybe your perception of what I'm trying to teach you is full of holes? Maybe there's a lot more to what I know than this thread can possibly contain?

We debated about 2-3 years ago and you linked me all your material.


There aren't any links to all of my material. And you didn't buy the book. I know this because it wasn't marketed beyond the very small cadre of professionals that I gave it to and who I conferred with concerning their view on it. You weren't one of those people. If you think that clicking on "View the inside of this book" is akin to reading the full theory contained within that book, then you must be used to the books that feature 20 pages of information crammed into the 200 pages of slog that they feature. There was another guy on this board who tried to claim that he'd studied my "material", and he went down in flames when he couldn't answer the most basic question concerning a staple aspect of the theory. I suspect that you'd suffer the same fate if likewise challenged.


Granted it was an intellectual puke fest that took infinite patience to logically simplify and make sense of. I remember I came to the conclusion that we may be talking about the same thing as far as reality goes, but in different terms and that I concluded that you lacked key experiences available to you through the use of intuition/meditation and therefore your all head based, lacking transcendence, or in a nutshell, using limits to define the unlimited.

I still feel this way. If you were to glimpse the Nondual Absolute state, you'd change your whole theory, or retroactively make it refit what you just experienced.


You have no clue whatsoever concerning the nature of reality as I've laid it out if you suspect that we see reality in the same way and are just divided by semantics. Trust me, I know what I've uncovered, and it's not something that can be revealed empirically. It takes extremely serious and rigid logic, with uncompromising discipline in the handling of each indication that makes its way to the surface as you patiently remove layer after layer of the kinds of perception distortions that are nothing more than the default byproducts of sentience itself.

You can't "simplify" the effort to correct 6,000 to 10,000 years worth of belligerent ignorance that's been ground into the very DNA of each and every human being on this planet. That you think it's possible to simplify this is proof that you have no idea what I've discovered. Hell, you don't seem to even understand the true impact on research and technology that the Quantum itself had, so why should I be surprised at your haphazard treatment of my own theory.

I don't expect you to sign on to what I'm doing. I'm not stupid. I do appreciate your engaging me on it though, and I salute your tenacity in promoting your own views. I enjoyed the chance to engage, and I thank you for the exercise.
edit on 1/4/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Ok I missed one of your earlier threads, so I'll go from there. Stay tuned though, cause I think I've come to a resolution between our discussions.


No, what I'm saying is that when dealing with an emergent system, you can't rely on reductionism as you examine it. It won't resemble its component parts. The human being is an emergent system, and it can't be reduced to the component systems that combine to create it.

Nevertheless, reductionism (while it may be limited) is AWESOME!!!! Without it, we would never know about atoms, quantum physics, and so forth.

In the inner realms, Reductionism through "Negation" (Not this, Not This) is one of the methods to experience/merge with the Absolute (which you believe to be impossible). Reductionism has it's purpose and itself can be said to be a holon & emergent system. I personally used reductionism on the question, "Who Am I" which lead to experiencing and finding myself as non-local soul ...and here you are saying it can't be reduced.

That's why it's incomplete. Just conceptual theories labels of parts and wholes, themselves being beyond these descriptions and not knowing distinctions


And what BOOK are you referring to? You need to keep me informed when you decide to introduce new aspects into our little exchange.

Well you keep stating all these Absolutes as if they are facts, and I'm asking in what Book, are these statements said to be factual aspects of reality?


Actually, the emergent info-event hybrid system that is the human being has a similar relationship with the Homo Sapiens brain as traffic (in general) has with the cars that are stuck in that traffic. Research holon theory and emergent systems for more details.

They're only similar if you define them by theories and concepts to fit formulas and logic. At the end of the day, a human is not traffic.


If not for the Greeks, you'd have no concept of the human soul to defend. This is fact, and well established.

You think greeks originated human culture and the idea of a Soul? That's just One small part of the world. Do some homework on the origin of the idea and its reaches around the globe. Interestingly, if you seek out the source of Logic & Reason, you'll find soon enough the Soul also starts to be discussed.

Connecting to my earlier notion, Logic & Reason births reductionism, which can be used to find the Soul within. Awesome!!!! Food for my book!!!


Testable? Can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves that souls are externally introduced entities trapped in "physical human vehicles"? I'd love to read that study.

Science isn't there yet. It's testable by the individual, in that you can find your own non-local soul by certain methods. Considering there is still a fragment of the "Old Guard" in the Scientific community that still thinks consciousness is psuedo-science, and so it's study is roughly 30+ years old. It's a shame what the status quo agrees on based on funding, politics, and popularity.


For many decades, consciousness as a research topic was avoided by the majority of mainstream scientists, because of a general feeling that a phenomenon defined in subjective terms could not properly be studied using objective experimental methods.

Starting in the 1980s,an expanding community of neuroscientists and psychologists have associated themselves with a field called Consciousness Studies, giving rise to a stream of experimental work published in books....

As oppose to physics being how old? And knowing how much???? They'll catch up eventually to what mystics have been saying for over 2,000 years, just like Kanada proposed the Atom in 600 B.C. Playing catch up on this one....

Regardless, it can be found by the individual.....


No more studies are needed. The fact that emergent systems exist, and the evidence that the human being is an emergent system is overwhelmingly compelling. In fact, this answers literally all questions concerning the many anomalies that have cropped up since our technologies have recently become so advanced as to expose the many weaknesses in our traditional views of reality. It's a new day, and the truth will eventually emerge whole and provable as a result of very new ways of understanding simple things like the very ones we're discussing.

Truth is Absolute!!! Not relative. The above is all concepts and theories, distinctions and definitions, fragments and wholes. Who says that any of that is as it is? Does reality itself subjectively separate itself into "systems." Who is defining these distinctions of the whole into systems?

Based on grasping so firmly to holons & emergence, you concluded there is no Infinity and my a whole post about it where you got slammed. Holons & emergence rely on scientific findings and do not allow conclusions such as "There is no soul, there is no Infinity."

This just in:
Thus Far, Scientific evidence is pointing to an actual infinity existing
crawl before walking
edit on 5-1-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
29
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join