Average Thread

a reply to: ancientthunder

My mistake. I've been thinking about spectra for months and I just couldn't get past why we see, or think, dualistically.

To me, the fact that pretty much every religion and every philosophy is grounded in dualism says that there is something about it that we're missing - something probably so subtle that it's like it's not even there (and that is why "we don't name the averages" - because we don't "see them".)

a reply to: Nothin

Where have you seen it said that a new born doesn't perceive dualistically? Every baby I have ever seen shows signs that they perceive themselves a part from other things.

The idea that some things are nature and some things are nurture is kind of paradoxical. You can't say everything is natural except nurture - it doesn't make sense. Where would the first nurtured idea have come from if not from nature? It came from Nothin?

How do we become individuals? Separation into parts? Privacy of mind?

Is it predestined for all humans to develop this point-of-view? Maybe? I think within free will is determination, and we exist within someone else's determination (determined will), if that makes sense. We are free to move about the cabin. I guess.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Nothin

Where have you seen it said that a new born doesn't perceive dualistically? Every baby I have ever seen shows signs that they perceive themselves a part from other things.

A newborn does not perceive itself - it does not know that it is a thing - it has no idea of things.
To a newborn there is just what is occurring.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
To me, the fact that pretty much every religion and every philosophy is grounded in dualism says that there is something about it that we're missing - something probably so subtle that it's like it's not even there (and that is why "we don't name the averages" - because we don't "see them".)

The father and son are ONE - this is not dual.
This moment of being is missed because the mind (words/language) can do nothing with it. The mind speaks of before and after but really 'before and after' do not exist - only 'what is' appears to exist.
The father is what is seeing now and the son is what is appearing now - they are not two. There is nothing 'before or after' - there is just this presentation.

Why is there an assumption that there is more than what there is?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: ancientthunder
I've been thinking about spectra for months and I just couldn't get past why we see, or think, dualistically.

Thoughts, words and language are dualistic but seeing is not dualistic.
How many images are appearing presently?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

The answer is always in the question.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Well, two things... only each individual can dictate was is right... there is no wrong... just the right we feel within. Secondly, its dynamic, which adapts as time goes and shifts through periods of attraction/expelling inertia... which makes both observations true.

Why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways? Defining and titling information absorbed is necessary for logic processing... left brain controls this. How relevant my spirits let's logic mingle with my will and emotions... right brain controls this. Decision making is averaged out from both channels when action and or movement is created. The bulk of the brains decisions in normal functioning humans is calculated without knowing its being calculated... it happens naturally.

Whether we want to acknowledge this aspect is humans, break down its definition to understand easier, love or hate it, apply it in our lives, say its right or wrong, etc... does not mean it does not exist.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

Man you sent me down a freaking rabbit hole with that post.

I'm like 8 hours into it and I'm still trying to figure out where it leads.

I think the answer is going to come down to the fact that we can't see how to reconcile Objective and Subjective.

e.g. Just as we often forget to count ourselves when counting a group of people, we don't think to count the subject (the one measuring) because we do not think of a measurement (an objective truth) as being a derivative of a subjective work (the objective truth and work of will/emotions/desires/spirit).

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You're forgetting the other body:

1 Corinthians 15:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Why is there an assumption that there is more than what there is? Because we can spiritually sense something more, we can see a pattern of more within the change, within will, within the spirit, and because...

something doesn't come from nothing.

edit:

Thoughts, words and language are dualistic but seeing is not dualistic.
How many images are appearing presently?

I think seeing probably is dualistic. Remember the white and gold or blue and black dress? People either saw one or the other.

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
a reply to: Bleeeeep

The answer is always in the question.

How do I get it out? Should I go in after it?

a reply to: ttobban

What do you mean by, "only each individual can dictate was is right"?

Isn't it also defining and titling to say that a thing is necessary?

How does the necessity of defining things speak to averages being overlooked?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Apologies,
I didn't intend to do that.
Yes, certain concepts appear to
be irreconcilable.
The concept of "Quality" as a source
before western division of thought is
discussed thoroughly in the book.

I find "Quality" as he discusses it to be
almost interchangeable to "The Uncarved Block"
discussed by Lao Tzu.
Whatever you do, do not twist your mind into a pretzel
regarding these ideas.
Best to You

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
a reply to: Bleeeeep

The answer is always in the question.

How do I get it out? Should I go in after it?

LUXOR: An answer brings no illumination unless the question has matured to a point where it gives rise to this answer which thus becomes its fruit. Therefore learn how to put a question.

Quest is in the word.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Nothin

Where have you seen it said that a new born doesn't perceive dualistically? Every baby I have ever seen shows signs that they perceive themselves a part from other things.

The idea that some things are nature and some things are nurture is kind of paradoxical. You can't say everything is natural except nurture - it doesn't make sense. Where would the first nurtured idea have come from if not from nature? It came from Nothin?

How do we become individuals? Separation into parts? Privacy of mind?

Is it predestined for all humans to develop this point-of-view? Maybe? I think within free will is determination, and we exist within someone else's determination (determined will), if that makes sense. We are free to move about the cabin. I guess.

Thanks for your reply.

Have no answer to these questions.

May all your questions end peacefully, and unpretzelized.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I mean that exchange of words is not 100% fact... ever. Math is the only factual language. all these words I type... they are both equally right and wrong. Realities are of the eye of the beholder...

At times in life... often in fact... decisions of highest probability have to be made in order to establish a communication structure among other humans. Interaction occurs on a duality plateau just like all life... how its projected and received is averaged out to form an average of how to move through time in space as a human.

Aside from its place in time for interacted humans to establish an action of perceived reality reality is nothing but pure fiction and opinion... what you or I think is nothing more then a dream in the woken state of consciousness.

All this forum reading and words... nothing but pure speculations and averages of words, that each of us holds as a highest probability in a given time in space. Today I say this with a 51% probability defined, but tomorrow it may yield a 49% probability... wrong, but well balanced. A fact today is easily a lie tomorrow.

a reply to: ttobban

Oh wow. Okay.

But then, how far down does it go?

If there is nothing objectively true, if it's probabilities all the way down, what's holding it all together?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Itisnowagain
Why is there an assumption that there is more than what there is?

What there is is what there is - but words make believe there is more. Imagine that there were no words at all - what would there actually be? Just this that is. But words are believed and then it seems like there is more than there really is.

I think seeing probably is dualistic. Remember the white and gold or blue and black dress? People either saw one or the other.

People seeing the dress different has nothing to do with whether seeing is dualistic.
Everything appears within the seeing of it - the one contains what may appear to be many. It is like the tv screen - there is only one screen but what appears in it, on it, as it may appear to be many. Take a look - the image that is appearing (always presently) is one - this is the image of God.
Everything that is appearing is the image of God - nothing can appear outside it. Even the stories about someone living outside presence (in time) appears within the image of God - but that 'someone' only appears in stories - in a dream of separation.