How close to an electron are we?

Does an electron circulating across a circuit know whatits purpose is? Maybe. Do we (humans) know what our purpose is? Maybe. Now does that same electron know that it is part of the huge computer that can process anything you ask it to? No. Now can we (humans) know that we are part of the whole Earth and can do anything when understood? No.

My convoluted point is this... As intelligent single-cell organism come to life with an instictive purpose to perform, as do we on a larger scale. Are we naive to think that our mother earth has not a consciousness that is uncomprehendable to us. But nonetheless, has a larger purpose that we yet cannot fathom.

- Think of humans as tiny electrons, performing their tasks on the huge mother board EARTH. Anger does one thing. Love does another. Jealousy yet another, etc... And when you combine these circuits they form diferent tasks, upon tasks, upon tasks. Just as the computer would do.
- Now think of the Earth as a giant computer, working 24/7 to processs infinite information that is as uncomprehendable as the electron to the mother board, as it is to us, although it still happens.
- Now pretend that deminsions are different software that is being used at each moment in the universe. 3rd deminsion is like Powerpoint, and the Earth is putting together a presentation for the universeal infinite.
- Now entertain that the deminsional shift is (polarity shift) which supposedly happens every 26,000 years is a metaphorical software change. And this is what the vibration change and frequency change is encompassing, the transition. And upon these transition we become closer to the main energy source, with a deeper understanding of it, all the way until it eases us into the natural undersatnding of life... Whatever that is...

My intentions are to try to make logical sense of what so many people have convinction on, although they can't see the actual picture, just everything around it. What do you guys think is a good analagy?

So then, allow me to ask the question: Let us presume, for the moment, that your model is essentially correct.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Originally posted by LordBucket
So then, allow me to ask the question: Let us presume, for the moment, that your model is essentially correct.

What conclusions would you draw from it?

Forget conclusions....what happens if the "system" crashes? Or, God forbid, someone disconnects us from the mains?

Asking that question negates the understanding. It is uncomprehensible to us. It is part of something bigger than we can accept. An omeba is not capable of saying I don't want to go through metosis. It doesn't mean anything difinitive. It is just a perspective to understand our incapability to understand certain infinite avenues. If it was true what do you get from it? I don't know really, how about, a feeling that you have a reletive purpose to life. I understand there is more to it, that's why I started this thread.

The purpose comes from the Alpha and the Omega...

That's all I'm sayin.

42



It's a moot point since you're blatantly ignoring all the ways we aren't like an electrons. Like, for example, electrons don't command the movements of humans to power their devices. Or, for another example, the fact that I chose to type this word instead of tHiS word or even thIS word and that the electrons that are allowing you to view this don't notice the difference, and don't have a say in the matter whatsoever.

[edit on 9/29/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

Amorymeltzer,

Or should I call you Captain Literal? The title of thread was to introduce you to the metaphhoric perspective and how to understand using that template? So I think you blatantly ignored the point and very subtley revealed your level of comprehension.

Asking that question negates the understanding.

Hardly.

It is uncomprehensible to us.

This then, is your conclusion. And here I must disagree.

It is just a perspective to understand our incapability
to understand certain infinite avenues.

Yes it is a perspective. And, in many ways it really doesn't matter if it is "true" or not. What is more important is what we can gain from perceiving it.

If it was true what do you get from it?

But this was part of my point. It does not matter quite so much if it is true, as it does what you glean from the perspective itself. And I can think of several possible conclusions.

For example:

We are part of a system. A system that works, and makes sense. Perhaps it is a system that we sometimes have a difficult time perceiving and understanding. Does it make sense for an electron be frustrated that it is vibrating back and forth over the same AC circuit, over and over to no apparant purpose? Would it make any more sense for us, as individuals, to be frustrated over the nature of our own lives?

Might we consider the implication that we are all part of the same system? Doesn't that have some possible implications? Would it make sense for a circuit to get angry that a capacitor was withholding current? Would it make sense to get angry that resister is hindering it? Each of these components functions differently, and yet they all work together, as you have suggested, to produce an effective whole. Perhaps we humans could benefit from thining of ourselves, and one another in a similar way?

how about, a feeling that you have a reletive purpose to life.

There you go, yes. If you can perceive yourself in the way you have described, and from it gain an ability to feel purpose and value in your own life, I would say that it is a healthy perspective.

If, however, all you can see is: "It's beyond us, we're incapable, we'll never understand" then perhaps it wasn't such a healthy perspective after all.

Truth is often very difficult to discern. When it is not available, or uncertain...work with what you have.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
42



It's a moot point since you're blatantly ignoring all the ways we aren't like an electrons. Like, for example, electrons don't command the movements of humans to power their devices. Or, for another example, the fact that I chose to type this word instead of tHiS word or even thIS word and that the electrons that are allowing you to view this don't notice the difference, and don't have a say in the matter whatsoever.

[edit on 9/29/2005 by Amorymeltzer]

You've been watching Hitchhikers guide haven't you?

"Oooh..whats that.....I think I will call it ground....Hello Ground!"


*****THUMP************

>Or should I call you Captain Literal?

Forgive him. Some people don't work well with metaphors. They prefer to call a fish a fish. It's may be less elegant than calling it a flying bird of the thicker skies, but it's a bit more clear.

>the metaphhoric perspective and how to
>understand using that template?

So long as you understand that it is a template, and nothing more. As I have often enjoyed pointing out to people, it is very easy to accurately explain all behavior of computers using shamanistic ideas. It really comes down to nothing more than a matter of aesthetics whether you prefer to say "The system crashed because windows is stupid, and sometimes just doesn't work right" or "The demon in the box was angry today."

Life is like that, too.

Truth is not always accessible. Come up with a perspective that accurately describes the reality you observe, but remember that whatever it may be, your world view is merely a description, not the underlying truth. Try never to become so emotionally attached to a worldview that you ignore new information when it becomes available.

Remember, even Newtonian physics has been demonstarted to only describe this world accurately to a certain point.


[edit on 29-9-2005 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by LordBucket
It really comes down to nothing more than a matter of aesthetics whether you prefer to say "The system crashed because windows is stupid, and sometimes just doesn't work right" or "The demon in the box was angry today."

The difference, of course, being that one is true and one is utter nonsense.

Truth is not always accessible.

That doesn't mean we should dumb things down and blur what we do know so that it looks like nonsense. (see above) Take for truth what you know for truth, take what you think for what you think, know what you don't know, and take it all with a grain of salt.

>That doesn't mean we should dumb things down and blur
>what we do know so that it looks like nonsense.

You're right. It doesn't. Fortunately that's not what's going on.

AnAbsoluteCreation is not blurring, or dumbing anything down. He doesn't know how the universe works, and neither do we. He is simply trying to apply a model he is familiar with to something he doesn't understand (the universe) to see if doing so reveals any new information.

It's a very good method.

Oh, sure...it may generate a lot of "nonsense" but so long as you're willing to discard the foolishness when it comes, you can actually generate some good material this way.

For instance...

>They prefer to call a fish a fish. It's may be less elegant than
>calling it a flying bird of the thicker skies, but it's a bit more clear.

Ok. Call a fish a fish. How do you think about fish? Personally, I think of fish being, well...like fish. Now call a fish a bird. How do you think of it now? I'm guessing you're probably just frowning, shaking your head and thinking that calling a fish a bird is "nonsense."

But that's not what I think.

I see that a fish really is a bird. They are doing the same thing. They are both flying. They are both swimming. Flying and swimming are the same thing. The difference is that one is done through a denser material.

Now, of course a fish is not a bird. But, do you see how by perceiving them as the same thing, it may promote greater understanding?

That's all that's going on here. The original poster is saying "People are electrons...what understanding might we gain from thinking this way?"

Lord bucket,

you and I are on the same page.

I hope it's a pleasant story we're in.

You forgot the most important part...

That there is no reason for one electron to point any of this out to the others... It changes nothing.

Buhdism or whatever else this is doesn't have a reason to state what is going on. So, now i'm curious, if this is your belief, why are you stating it?

Enlightenment is not taught, its found.

Quest,

I can't understand why you can't read between the lines. You state things that deserve no answer from our perspective. Maybe you shoud reread. This is not a belief. This is nothing but a metaphoric template that has intricate avenues of associations, as the understanding of the universe is most definitely has intricate intangibles. So to understand on a wider level, your template must have more space for referance and comparative association.

By the way, I wouldn't be questioning my enlightenment.