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.

 

There's only one right perspective...

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Visitor2012
 


The image is not dual. Can you see more than one image presently? The one whole image that is appearing presently has many things in it but the image is one. Can you see it?
edit on 23-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


There can be a billion different screens, images and imbedded images upon images in front of me...makes no difference. Take the ENTIRE 360 degree field of view, the whole visual picture.. Without duality..your 'One' image would have no contrast, no colors, no percievable features or distinguishable characteristics. In other words no image(s).

Yes, the entire visual phenomena is one, but it is only a visual phenomenon because it is dualistic in nature. Otherwise it would not be visual at all.

For example, lets say in front of our entire field of view is a pure white piece of paper with no boundaries. It extends to infinity in each direction. Let's call it Reality. Now there is nothing distinguishable about this paper because its all white with no edges, so it doesn't appear to exist. So even though we are looking at it, we see nothing before us. Now, place a few dark spots on the paper. NOW you see something! You see an image, you see form and contrast. The paper was there all along, but it could only reveal it's itself to you by contrasting itself against itself, to appear as separate. Now you see foreground AND background thus form and image. Without the contrasting, without the dark spots..without duality, you would not know the paper was there and definitely would see no image(s).

So the 'image is one' you keep referring to, only exists because of duality. But just saying that the individual images in front of you, when combined together, is ONE, has nothing to do with what I am saying. You would have NO image at all without a foreground and a background, without this and other. Duality is behind everything you can possible experience, be it visually, spiritually, mentally, physically, and metaphysically, energetically. Your five senses function because of duality. With out duality, there would be no individual us, no planets, no stars..no manifested Universe to play in....nothing. Not even your beloved 'One' image. We should all pay tribute to duality, because without it..you would not be able to play as a separate living being and you CERTAINLY wouldn't be looking at any images before you.


edit on 24-4-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visitor2012

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Visitor2012
 

Yes, the entire visual phenomena is one, but it is only a visual phenomenon because it is dualistic in nature. Otherwise it would not be visual at all.

For example, lets say in front of our entire field of view is a pure white piece of paper with no boundaries. It extends to infinity in each direction. Let's call it Reality. Now there is nothing distinguishable about this paper because its all white with no edges, so it doesn't appear to exist. So even though we are looking at it, we see nothing before us. Now, place a few dark spots on the paper. NOW you see something! You see an image, you see form and contrast. The paper was there all along, but it could only reveal it's itself to you by contrasting itself against itself, to appear as separate. Now you see foreground AND background thus form and image. Without the contrasting, without the dark spots..without duality, you would not know the paper was there and definitely would see no image(s).



The blank piece of white paper is still one image. It is one screen on which all 'things' are contained. Without that one screen no 'things' could appear. The screen has to be present for any 'thing' to appear.
When you shut your eyes - what is seen is a blank screen with no things on it - try it. - and then open your eyes and see that the screen fills full of color and shapes. It is all appearing on and in that one screen - the image can be empty of things or full of apparent things.

edit on 25-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Reality is not something you see,it is something you are. We are reality trying to see itself,but failing. The only thing that is seen is the ego. The ego can become reality eventually through love.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Smithjustinb, you are completely not ignorant! no, that's not enough, you are outstanding! I'd even say, superior!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
And that is a dualistic perspective on things.

Every river has two banks, every coin has two side. All, all, freaky everything is dualistic in nature.


E V E R Y T H I N G, nothing excluded. Tree is good, for it produces oxygen, tree is bad when it falls over upon you and kills you. Every freaky thing is dualistic in nature, so see things that way. Ego doesn't want a dualistic perspective on things for observing ego with that perspective solves it. No more ego then, unity of self. Yet ego can arise again afterwards. I think. I am not sure of. Could be the latter is not the case.

Everything is dualistic in nature so experience, or acknowledge it, or percieve it, I cannot find the right word, SEE things that way.

It is the nature of things. It would be denying the truth not having a dualistic viewpoint.


2 point perspective is flat and limited in dimension...believing that everything is merely dualistic in nature, is tantamount to voluntary devolution...

Ego is a made-up word...comes from a 'discipline' that cannot explain 1/10th of its chosen subject - so makes guff up to legitimise the self appointed effort...ego?!

Comes through the Latin for 'I'...all conscious lifeforms have a concept of me - not me...otherwise, consciousness has no use...

A99



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


I is not you but wants you to be like it. Choose to be good, or choose to be evil. Believe or don't believe. Everything in the inner world is dualistic in nature. If there would be 'gray areas' in there the inner world would have no structure. It would be not solid thus nothing to believe in. The dualistic nature is what it makes itself worth of belief.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by akushla99
 


I is not you but wants you to be like it. Choose to be good, or choose to be evil. Believe or don't believe. Everything in the inner world is dualistic in nature. If there would be 'gray areas' in there the inner world would have no structure. It would be not solid thus nothing to believe in. The dualistic nature is what it makes itself worth of belief.


My 'world' is full of COLOUR...you're free to fumble around in your black and white one...

"I is not you but wants you to be like it" Quote Angle

Let me understand where your paperfolding is going here...
'I'...is who?...exactly, in your philosophical, knot-in-the-middle (according to you, could not be an entanglement of everything in-between dual polarities...obviously) world?

"You", surely do not refer to yourself as 'You'?!

A99



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Or one worships God, or the devil, worshipping nothing does not exist. A free man that way, is a bad man, or a dead man.

The 'I' I mentioned is the one you are submissive to. It is not you but it wants you to be the nature of it. Be it God or the devil.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
When there is doubt about believing in God, one is of the devil.
edit on 25-4-2013 by Angle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
When there is doubt about believing in God, one is of the devil.
edit on 25-4-2013 by Angle because: (no reason given)


Seems you are more consumed with your own horror movies...good luck with it...don't forget your interstellar devil-maiming raygun in those bardos you and your cohorts create...

A99



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


thx for your concern akushla99.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


thx for your concern akushla99.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Take a look at this mirrorview:




You know, when you scrolled down this page, it was as if (my new) avatar was licking the screen now, wasn't it.
edit on 25-4-2013 by Angle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Define dualism. Actually its a very intersting topic. Law of Oners define it as God is ALL and good and bad, and that there is no wrong, overall. Though some may be using discernment in this belief.

Now, in a system of infinite progression and the Many In One, where we're the seeds of trees going into lessons/schools/digital realities in a sense, the Trees and God, is Good and Love. Not into thrones, crowns or being called Lord Lord or Master either by the way. More like a loving family, with one equal yet younger child in preschool and another in college. You know, LOVE not pyramids, they're not the same.

So if in school, shoved into the Biblical Beast, your bodysuit, having to overcome its tempations and reactions and anger, to learn not to harm, and how much injustice, inequality, and apathy really really hurt, to train consciousness to be disciplined and better at co-creating (thought creates) as angels, heaven not hell, then this is the training ground to never want to harm anyone ever again, in the end.

But there are 2 ways of looking at duality that are somewhat positive and super positive:

1. in a test by only Good Family, the trees, say Michael, Jophiel, Zadkiel, (who watch over humanity), and other pure love and light Angel/Ets, we the seeds, are trying to grow our own trees like unto them and be worthy of their help and Love.

So, every day is a test, how do respond/react, choose to treat self or others? Do we take or give? Do we walk away from an argument or persist in being right? Do we react? Do we care about others? Are we trying to develop skills to help others? If wounded inside, are we really seeking healing to be able to help? Do we forgive self and others and strive to step up to the plate and take responsibility but not blame others, only self? Are we grateful and lovign and aware of the Good helping us, do we ask who we are? Do we report for duty to lend a helping hand?

Its not easy, its actually really hard. Family is often a source of our greatest challenges.

So multiple choice question is number 1. But our HS and Family do grade the papers and there are right answers and wrong answers.

2. If one is striving to go past blame and beliefs in karma, and only sees all lessons on earth as possible of helping all souls in the end, not because all answers are right, but because those harming others are victims too, often from childhood and are in pain. Many have very low self esteem common of all bullies. And its one way of learning, but sort of the long way home. So that in the end, would it be nice to understand that if we free our minds and strive to help turn things around, the lessons are learnt and can be put in one big file and downloaded by all in the end, so I believe hell is a personal belief system, but not meant to trap souls. See past this and strive for Family for there is always a better way to overcome faults and shadows in us than turn ourselves over to bullies and darkside. Don't believe in that, don't give consciousness to punishment.

This is not an open door to do wrong, doing wrong is very painful in this life and it takes recovery and healing and perfect knowledge in the next.

But I don't believe in negative things being given by Family above, they're more of our failings here.

3. A good friend shared this: Tao: ying/yang, not the meaning masons give it, but instead: Spirit and Body, and striving to raise body to Spirit's vibration and become One Light Being.
edit on 25-4-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 

Why thank you. What insight did you have? (If you wanna share)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 



every coin has two side.


Nope... lol.



Coin have 3 sides.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


No matter how many sides a coin has - it is still one coin!
No matter how many banks a river has - it is just one river!
edit on 26-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


If everything is dualistic, why do you exclude ego from being dualistic? Why do you use the term 'ego' in the negative sense only? We are born as individuals with some individual goals (we also have other types of goals). Human being is not a mass noun. Without individuality and determination which arises from you having an 'ego' you won't be interesting to other people. Everybody has a role and is given an opportunity, everybody has a chance to shine at some point of their life. I don't think that personal achievements or winning in a competition which requires 'ego' should be looked down on. Usually, when somebody speaks about 'ego' in a derogatory sense, they actually speak about such qualities as greed, or lack of empathy, but these things do not define ego. I see the 'ego' as one's will to assert oneself and fulfil their specific mission. I can't see how this can be achieved without some relatively strong focus on your own perception and experience. Of course, there is more to humans than just ego. We are social beings and we need other people, we need shared experiences and support. You can view this as one more side in the dualism of life.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by Angle
 


If everything is dualistic, why do you exclude ego from being dualistic? Why do you use the term 'ego' in the negative sense only? We are born as individuals with some individual goals (we also have other types of goals). Human being is not a mass noun. Without individuality and determination which arises from you having an 'ego' you won't be interesting to other people. Everybody has a role and is given an opportunity, everybody has a chance to shine at some point of their life. I don't think that personal achievements or winning in a competition which requires 'ego' should be looked down on. Usually, when somebody speaks about 'ego' in a derogatory sense, they actually speak about such qualities as greed, or lack of empathy, but these things do not define ego. I see the 'ego' as one's will to assert oneself and fulfil their specific mission. I can't see how this can be achieved without some relatively strong focus on your own perception and experience. Of course, there is more to humans than just ego. We are social beings and we need other people, we need shared experiences and support. You can view this as one more side in the dualism of life.


The ego is needy and greedy because it is fear based. It feels like it is not enough - it believes in goals and achievements. It worries that people will not like it so it tries so hard to fit in.
If you are waiting for a point in your life to shine - the light must be off presently.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Obviously, there are individuals who are quite content with the role of an observer, who had not asked for a life of struggle and hardships before they were born. But there are also people who came into this life to test themselves and to develop their abilities under severe pressure, and this is not the reason to call them 'egoists'. The fact that they are competitive and motivated does not mean they won't save somebody's #$$ in a difficult situation. Maybe they would be the ones to act instead of just 'observing'. Anyway, here is the definition of 'ego' from an online dictionary:

the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.

This definition is free from any ambiguity and extra connotations. If by 'ego' you mean something more specific, then you may be right in your own way. But proclaiming duality and refusing the ego such duality seems inconsistent.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join