A new intelligence is in town

LittleByLittle

All Seeing Eye
reply to post by TheDualityExperience

 

I personally am kind of attached to this planet and wouldn't want to see irreparable harm come to it. But I strongly suspect that ticking clock has already been started. And, it will take all of mankind working together, to turn it off.

With the right time frame and the right people caring we can fix this little baby up.

. You might not be able to fix the suffering that have been but you can repair the damage caused. Unfortunately it is a race to the bottom first so that the assholes learn their lesson and stop destroying what we are trying to repair.

edit on 30-1-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

Ahh yes, the suffering.

Forgive the late responses as the notification system is less than, umm, sufficient. Notifications of responses are removed, it seems, automatically, before I have had time to consider the materials. Only being a "Human Being" and requiring additional time for my gray matter to get up to speed is a hindrance, that appears, is not considered.

I suppose the race to the bottom in one respect, that being all of mankind, is required so that it (humanity) might finally get a chance to see the building blocks it was built upon, similar to what a skilled counselor might do on a individual basis to assist a person with his own troubles.

I would think that, that, "Intelligence" is here assisting mankind because it is now quite obvious that the divine gift of choice is in grave danger of being controlled and or removed. And if that were to happen, mankind would revert back to a purely animalistic state. One that would follow a total path of destruction.

Your vivid, colorful, descriptive of the major stumbling blocks to our recovery, I suppose, is on target It is sad and regrettable that they must sacrifice their selves for who they serve, but after all, it must have been "Their" choice. Excluding of course those who walk this earth that are soulless. And in their case, removing them, is just routine maintenance

Itisnowagain
It seems that you are determined to make the 'this, that, both and neither' fit in. What else did this person who never wrote a book tell you about non duality?

I thought you would catch on to that one, it was tailor made just for you.

"That" person is, in reality, "this" person. Me. But, in your perspective, how did you see it? Were they one in the same or divided?

Either way, it wasnt fitting things into that perspective, it was the other way around. Non-duality is not the exclusion of that for this, it is the inclusion of both and neither. Rejection of "that" is a dualistic tendency.

You are saying "It is This! It is not That!" Which is the same dualistic basis that spawns the division we create in the world. After fully delving into this duality, however, you may be very aware of that.

What happened that made you reject "every-thing" else other than what you perceive as "this?"

Have you ever heard the phrase 'the father and son are one'? The father is the source of the son and the son cannot 'be' unless there is the father. Through the son the father can be found. The son is the present appearance and the father sees the present appearance - is there anything other?

Yes, but they are different. One is father, one is son. The son is part of the father, but the son is not the source of the father. The overall summation is "1," however, the process that leads to that answer is not simply 1! If it was, in this case, then the son would be the source of the father the same as the father is the source of the son. As you say, this is not the case.

Lets look at the number 1. How did I get there? Was it 0.5+0.5? Was it 0.3+0.7? Was it 1x1? Was it 27/27? 10-9? Was it the sqrt/1?

Well, THIS one: 0.5+0.5 certainly does equal 1, so its not wrong.
THAT one: 0.3+0.7 also equals 1, so thats not wrong either.
They are BOTH part of the same system, and BOTH are correct.
However, NEITHER one provides the full process of the summation as we can see more that are correct as well. There are, in fact, literally infinite ways to get the sum of "1." An unconditional amount of ways to get there..

So, if what arises, arises unconditionally.. then why have you applied the condition of "only this?"

reply to post by Serdgiam


Reality is 0 but appears as 1.

Itisnowagain
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Reality is 0 but appears as 1.

How do you think that happens?

Serdgiam
If one can not describe something in terms of "this, that, both, and neither," then they just might be trapped in their own mind.

What is 'mind' in your opinion?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


It could be seen as what was delayed by six seconds in that video you posted. More specifically, it is that which arises from the brain. Which codependently arises with many other systems that make up who we are.

To most, it is the entire perspective and basis for "what is," or "this." Most perceive "this" as "all there is," but that is still done in a myriad of ways (unconditional and all that).

"This," to our limited perspectives, might be the totality of what is going on for us individually. It could also be said that "This," when looked at omnisciently, is "All There Is." However, our perception of such will always be limited, as demonstrated by yourself with the "this" and "that" person who never wrote a book.

Each of us has our "this," which is made up partly of the mind, but there are billions of "This's" in just the human species. All of them together define the human context. We could even map that out mathematically and scientifically, but Im not sure the amount of effort required to gather the data would be worth whatever would be found from it.

I would normally ask you to share your perception of it, but I think I can guess how you might answer. ;P

Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

It could be seen as what was delayed by six seconds in that video you posted.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Serdgiam
However, our perception of such will always be limited, as demonstrated by yourself with the "this" and "that" person who never wrote a book.

Also not understood.
You earlier stated that the source of 'this, that. both and neither' was a tenet told to you by a person who never wrote books - later you said it was from you??
Could you clarify?
You said 'take it as you will' - this just makes for confusion.

Itisnowagain
I don't understand what you are saying.

You posted a video that talked about how a person was told to get into a medical imaging device, and then press buttons.

When he did that, there was a delay. His brain had already worked it out, essentially, before it entered into his conscious perspective. This "conscious perspective" could be equated to the "mind." It arises from the brain, but it does not represent the totality of the process. If it did, then there would be no delay.

Serdgiam
More specifically, it is that which arises from the brain.

Are you saying 'mind' arises from the brain?

Itisnowagain
Also not understood.
You earlier stated that the source of 'this, that. both and neither' was a tenet told to you by a person who never wrote books - later you said it was from you??
Could you clarify?
You said 'take it as you will' - this just makes for confusion.

I said right off the bat the source is me, but then I said it was told to me by someone who never wrote books. Think of it like a "ghostwriter," or, the first "event" in the video. We have the first "event," which is followed by perception of that event (with the "mind") in roughly six seconds.

The only pertinent thing about it at this point as that what you perceive as "this" did not include the totality of what was happening. Think of it as an unintentional demonstration of how all of these "This's" codependently arise.

Itisnowagain
Are you saying 'mind' arises from the brain?

I am saying that is my "this." Yours may differ.

By communicating the differences, we can learn more about the "how" of "what is happening."

Serdgiam
By communicating the differences, we can learn more about the "how" of "what is happening."

What is happening?

Serdgiam
Think of it as an unintentional demonstration of how all of these "This's" codependently arise.

Can 'this' be plural?
Is there more than what is happening?

Itisnowagain
What is happening?

Thats what I am asking you. I have been talking about it for a while now.

Itisnowagain
Can 'this' be plural?

Well, we have what you perceive to be "this," and what I perceive to be "this." Not to mention the billions of others!

So, yes.

Is there more than what is happening?

No

Itisnowagain

Serdgiam
By communicating the differences, we can learn more about the "how" of "what is happening."

What is happening?

Life, and all its lessons.

Serdgiam

Itisnowagain
What is happening?

Thats what I am asking you. I have been talking about it for a while now.

This is what is happening.

What is this?

Itisnowagain
This is what is happening.

What is this?

You do not perceive "what is happening" in its totality.

So, what "This" is to you will differ from one entity to the next.

I am attempting to have a discussion with you where you can give your own answers to the questions you ask others. Since, usually, those questions are asked of you first!

I have been answering that question all along, at least what "This" is to me. To you, it will be different. So, what is this to you? And how do you think it all works? None of us have all of the answers, but we do tend to have our own.

Serdgiam
I have been answering that question all along, at least what "This" is to me.

I am having trouble following you.
Could you please answer the question now so I don't have to troll through the whole thread please?