Tippaporn

Huh? I don't get it. And if I did then my excuse is that I'm too old to change.

Ya know if yer not careful then sooner or later I'm gonna come after your ar$e and sue you to kingdom come. First an assault when you shoved me (hard) and now making me into a parody. Hmm . . . What would be the criminal offense for that. I'll have to consult my attorney and get back to ya. Until then, just don't leave the country.

Wanna be my friend, TBL? Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs.

I was a bit surprised. I mean, you can find almost anything on YouTube. (Except Hendrix as his sister is vigilant about having them removed on copyright grounds. She wants every last penny that her brother earned for herself.)

Plain English: That was frickin' awesome, RP. Tippers speak: I extend my benediction for the boisterous cachinnate you conferred. I retained that meritorious lampoon for posterity.

@VincentRJ I have to compliment you, Vince. We've had a lot of exchanges of the years (that long?) but one thing I've noticed about you is that, unlike many other posters, you are NOT narrow-minded. Quite the opposite. And for that I have utmost respect for you. I had an idea just now that might provide some clarity to you about science and the methodology of science. We had gone round on this before. Now elsewhere on this forum I had posted an analogy which I think quite fittingly explains my views here. But to repurpose it to include science requires a mere tweaking. Hope you enjoy. ********** Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object. They are each asked to interpret what this object is. The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision. Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool. The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match. Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well. Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it. And so he takes a few steps back. Now more of this object is revealed to him. He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him. A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive. B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back. A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same. B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception. Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's. And so a heated argument begins. A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives. B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives. That is not the problem as B once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has. But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently. B communicates what he perceives back to A. A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive. And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be. For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well. And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist. B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive." B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point. A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense. In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is. B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set. But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him. A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it. In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too. And I'm not crazy!! You're crazy!!!" A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!" ********** So here's my tweaking. A, who has his nose damn near pressed against the object he is trying to discern has a limited field of vision. Let's assume that limited vision to be A's 'one' reality, the physical world and universe. That is all that A is aware of . . . as long as his nose is pressed up against it for he is therefore unable to discern that which he cannot perceive. Let's also say that that particular view of A's is individual, independent, and quite valid as itself. Yet it is only a part of this greater humongous object. We'll also say that this individual, independent, and quite valid portion has it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws. Let's call these laws what they are, as A knows them to be - the laws of physics. Let's call the attributes, or the main attribute, objectivity. Now stepping back A could see that his particular view, which represents only a small portion of this object, is only one of many. A mosaic, if you will. But A could, rather than stepping back, slide his nose along the surface of the object until, from A's new perspective, his view is of something else. Another mosaic. Now this new view of an entirely different mosaic would also be individual, independent, and quite valid, and with it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws. Yet the attributes are completely different, as are it's governing laws. The laws of the previous mosaic do not apply to this mosaic. Nor do the laws of this new mosaic apply to the previous one. So in conclusion, A then realises that in his probing of his mosaic, in an effort to understand what it is and how it works, the tools and methodologies he uses to explore his mosaic cannot be used on, or in, another mosaic. For the characteristics and attributes and laws are completely different. A cannot use his tools and methodologies there so, though he understands now that other mosaics indeed exist, he also understands now that there is no way to bring proof of that mosaic's existence to his previous mosaic. And so that is my analogy to explain my endless insistence that our science's methodologies are useless in proving so much else that exists because it's existence is in quite different terms. In other words, subjective reality cannot be proven to exist in objective terms. Such as a thought, an idea, for instance. We can prove their existence only via their effects on objective reality. But we cannot prove the existence of the thing itself objectively. The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists. Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air. Or the ether, whichever you prefer. One other point I'd like to make is that there are indeed a set of universal laws which apply to all realities. Let me know if this makes sense to you. I'm curious.

@Sunmaster Afterthoughts. Goddamned afterthoughts. I wish they'd leave me alone. In my last post I did not mention explicitly that what All That Is is is (a trifecta of is's - can you do that!! ) the totality of all these CUs, and yet it is more than the sum of it's parts. Recall that Seth said that God was, in a truer sense, an idea. Does that statement by Seth then make sense?

True but . . . Yeah, well my thesaurus is a better one than yours. So many more entries.

Addendum about "free will". From the perspective of the puppets they are indeed under the impression that they are deciding things. But ultimately they wouldn't exist without the will of the child. The child's will is a priori to the puppet's will. That makes their "free will" an illusion just like their existence as separate beings is an illusion. Does that make sense? Well now, time for a fuller reply. And thanks for your additional explanation. "Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with." I would say that your analogy is inappropriate since your greater self is not bored in the least. Your greater self is sourced in endless creativity. Your greater self is engaged in constant and never ending self expression. It is also eternally fulfilling itself. Thus in it's creative expression of itself towards it's fulfillment it forms realities in which it seeds with portions of itself. Bored? I don't think so. "So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence." I believe the idea that our physical selves have no independence to be highly distorted. Consider this: There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated. It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine. Seth's introduction of consciousness units, or CUs, I consider to be one of his most startling revelations. The shocker he is bringing awareness to is that these indivisible units of consciousness form all types of consciousness. Now in Seth's previous books he's made clear the idea that what we are, our physical Sunmaster selves, is a gestalt consciousness. Now I should give my definition of 'gestalt': an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. These CUs, then, organize themselves into gestalts and then these gestalts have their own identity as a gestalt consciousness. Hi, Sunmaster!! Yet the individual CUs always retain their identities and individuality despite merging together to form a greater unit. Hi, Sunmaster!! The mechanics of this are gone into much greater depth by Seth. Think of a company. Any company is composed of individuals. As a company, a gestalt created by and comprised of all the individuals taking willing part in the company, it then, too, has an identity as say, XYZ Corp. Now the company assigns functions to the individuals, all of whom freely and willingly take part. Whilst the company provides a certain amount of direction the workers, then, have free will which is bounded by the company's rules and regulations. Yet if an individual decides to leave the company, which he is free to do, then he still retains his identity and his free will but moves on. This is rather a crude analogy and one which just came to mind. I'd have to think about it more to see that it's truly fitting but I think it gets the general idea across. Now this material certainly blows apart our limited views of identity. And individuality. And explains our separate individuality despite being unified with our greater self, which is merely a much greater gestalt consciousness than the gestalt consciousness that we are as physical selves. Remember my analogy of Russian Matryoshka dolls? To me they represent a gestalt consciousness within, or part of, another gestalt consciousness, which itself is part of an even greater gestalt consciousness. This is how I view All That Is. The ultimate gestalt consciousness which is, as the definition of gestalt defines: an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. All That Is is more than the sum of it's parts. Seth also makes my analogy of the Russian Matryoshka dolls clear in this passage: The units form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in "Adventures [In Consciousness]." You think of one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a.greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth. Consciousness creates camouflage systems which they then immerse themselves in. At least as much of themselves as can be expressed within that camouflage system, for the whole cannot fit. Those portions of itself that enter the camouflage system are themselves gestalt consciousness with their own identity and individuality and free will and independence. Question: do you think babies are made only on earth? The last two lines of that excerpt describe, or allude to, the never ending expansion of our greater selves, which has nothing to do with space. The point of our physical selves is to aide in that expansion. That makes us critically important to our greater selves. And our physical experience then changes our greater self. And so it is with All That Is as well. Never ending expansion via fulfillment and rediscovering itself as something else, all rooted in inherent and unlimited creativity. I had mentioned before that the Unknown Reality is one of my favourite books, though not until sometime later in my life as I needed to become knowledgeable about other concepts first. Here is Seth speaking directly to what I'm alluding to: "The Nature of Personal Reality" is an excellent handbook, one that will enable people to manipulate in the world they know with greater effectiveness. It will not matter whether or not they understand deeper issues upon which the whole nature of physical reality itself depends. The material I am giving now will attempt some explanation of those deeper issues. Ruburt's own development makes this possible, for it was necessary that he progress to the point that he has in "Adventures [In Consciousness]," and reach the level of certain theories so that these could be used as springboards. Give us a moment . . . It turns out that my experience was no different. I needed to understand more concepts upon which the material on consciousness units would make sense to me. I've been toying a lot lately with the idea of presenting Seth's material on consciousness units and walking them through in my own words as I simply can't shake the feeling that this material would would bring a great deal of clarity and explanation that would dispel so many distortions, as I sense them to be. Because a part of me feels to be going round and round as what I'm attempting to explain on other issues appears to me to not be understood. There is a great deal of material that follows what I have excerpted which is in itself exceedingly eye opening as well. Seth gets into the mechanics of it. The mere existence of Basil serves as proof that you like to get down with the nuts and bolts. Anyway, that's my long-winded response. As I see it, your difficulty with the above will be whether or not it fits into your worldview, or what about it may clash with your worldview. No doubt you may find yourself having to rearrange some of your mental furniture. Or you'll simply reject what clashes or doesn't fit and let me know in no uncertain terms.

You've noticed that, too. And that leads to how many misunderstandings, which then lead to arguments as people use the same word but each assigns a different meaning? I make constant use of a thesaurus over a dictionary because I can then choose the synonym which matches best. Although I do then, just to make sure, often but not always, look up the definition of the synonym I pick. One of the benefits I've found is that it vastly expands my vocabulary to the point where the 'perfect' word comes to me easily from memory. And I also benefit by then being able to express myself so much better in verbal conversations as well.

Ah, we're all a bunch of hypocrites. Joking aside, though in truth it is not mere jest, I had the epiphany at age 23 that we're all natural born hypocrites. The realisation didn't come to me as a judgement, nor was it meant as a slight against man, but as a simple fact, or an accurate assessment of reality. There is no one alive who does not hold conflicting beliefs about one thing or another. Conflicting meaning two ideas which contradict, or oppose each other. The old adage "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is a beautiful expression of this fact. The truth is everyone has strong convictions . . . until circumstances dictate otherwise. "Creepy people those Christians." Isn't it obvious to you that it is your beliefs which create for you a stereotyped distortion of what Christians are? And then to generalise by throwing them all into a single basket? If you deny that then there are folks here who are not so fooled. Just letting you know in a friendly way.

Sorry, just a very quick reply. Good post, and I read it, but I'm outta time for today. I admit, though, that when i read your explanation, in serious contemplation, as to why consciousness creates camouflage realities and you ended with that line I literally laughed out loud. Ya gotta admit that after giving someone a detailed and somewhat lengthy explanation and ending with, "something like that," is funny.

@Sunmaster About time you showed up. Ya know, we all start work around here no later than 5 AM. So you sleep late, post a quick reply, and off you go on errands. Sheesh! You remind me of Frankenstein . . . (from one of the best comedies ever made )

As to your third question . . . I believe I had passed this on to you earlier. 123 pages. The definitive handbook on Seth's recommended exercises. Here's an interesting one pertaining to my comments on RP's Brainly offering. Experiencing an idea intuitively When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself "Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve," then what hap-pens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe. I will also go into this more deeply. You should be able to see now why a concept such as I refer to is difficult to achieve on your plane. You cannot focus upon it thoroughly. When the fourth inner sense is exercised, and I will outline exercises and all three of you would certainly benefit by following my suggestions, you will discover what an idea really is. You will discover this by experiencing the idea directly, and you can best achieve some approximation of accomplishment by using psychological time. Your idea of experiencing a concept is doubtlessly to follow it through from beginning to end. Sweet tootsies, there is no beginning or end, and this idea of yours is the result of a complete and utter concentration upon camouflage time. Nor does the evolution of either an idea or a species involve time. It merely involves time in your universe. You insist upon labeling as laws of absolutes what is actually your distorted and limited vision of concepts as they seem to appear to you. Using psychological time, sit in a quiet room; and I hope this is not impossible, when an idea comes to you, and I presume it will, do not play with it intellectually. You can dissect it to your heart's content after the experience. Reach out to the idea intuitively. Do not be afraid of or reject unfamiliar bodily sensations. With practice, and to a very limited degree, you will find that you can become the idea. You will be inside the idea, looking out, not looking in. This is thought. If you think you think you are in for a surprise. Session 37, Page 298 Compilation of Seth Exercises.pdf

@Sunmaster Rather than edit my post to include another question, and something else which seems to be lacking in any of your discussions of the worldview you hold, gleaned from various sources, is this: What of the inherent infinite creativity which consciousness is endowed with? Where does that fit into 'higher' and 'lower' consciousness and inner and outer realities?

Odd. I can't find it on YouTube.

No do post a video of you "shaping" (if you dare). THAT would be fun to watch.

Just poking fun, TBL. Waltzing? Does anyone do that anymore?

Well, to answer your first two questions I'll reply to RP regarding that wonderful Brainly interpretation of Lao Tze's quote. I'll leave the third question for another post. "The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language." Now this statement certainly mirrors Seth's explanation where everything in our world is a physical representation of something which exists in our inner reality. Spot on. Dead nuts. Also, it reflects perfectly Seth's explanation that the source reality of what is being represented physically is much greater than the reality of the same in it's physical representation. Seth had made a number of points regarding this. For one, he stated that there exists no camouflage system capable of containing, or perhaps a better term, expressing the whole. But he then also quickly and immediately tied that fact together with the purpose of camouflage systems to begin with. So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place? That, my friends, is an important question. And if one misses the point of why greater consciousness creates camouflage systems, or ignores fitting the answer into their overall picture, or map of reality, then that would allow for distortions to then emerge. Now what rubs me the wrong way with both Lao Tze's quote and Brainly's interpretation is the use of the word 'true'. I will insist that it's an inappropriate word as it must imply that anything other that true is false. I would replace 'true' with 'greater' wherever possible to make it more accurate. Whilst it is certainly true that language has it's limitations then once aware of the fact it then becomes even more important to use this limited tool as accurately as possible. Which means using those words which most accurately convey the meaning intended and are less prone to be interpreted other than the intended meaning. Seth has remarked on this often and has explicitly stated at times why he shies away from using certain common descriptive words as they are too loaded in the different potential meanings they carry. Specifically, he mentions that he prefers 'entity' over 'soul' as the latter is chock full of different definitions and meanings whilst the former, not so much. Another entity similar to Seth, Abraham, had remarked on the limitations of language as well. Now they made a very fine substitution for the world 'love'. Love is probably one of the most loaded terms one can think of as it means so many different things to different people. So Abraham replaced it with 'appreciation.' Appreciation is reflective of love but it's definition is very straightforward and not apt to be misinterpreted as meaning something else. Just to note. One of the reasons my replies are so time consuming for me is that I've long ago recognised the limitations of language and the importance of conveying understanding with as much accuracy as possible. Therefore I spend a lot of time choosing my words very carefully. I make use of a Thesaurus often to choose the synonym which best fits what meaning I'm intending to convey. I also use adjectives profusely. And I always reread my posts before hitting the submit reply button and it's not often that I don't edit my original text. I'm also very repetitive. Getting back to the Brainly interpretation. I'll walk through it line by line. The meaning of this phrase is that the true greater nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language. Edit only. It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language. Spot on. It highlights the limitations of human understanding and though language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear. Edit only. This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true greater reality, they cannot fully capture it. Edit only. It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true greater reality. Edit & comment. Green = Kind of ambiguous to me. Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it as I'm not too clear on the precise meaning that this is alluding to. It's the "ideas, concepts" part that I'm having trouble with. Somehow they don't seem to fit. Any suggestions or what it means to you? It suggests that true greater understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts. Edit & comment. Green = I'd strike the "or concepts" as it doesn't fit with the rest of the statement to me. Perhaps their definition of the word is different than mine and thus fits for them. The definition which I agree with is: an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct. I would argue that, given the definition of 'concept' per my accepted definition, we are quite capable of intuiting concepts whilst not finding the words to describe them, as often they don't even exist. Perhaps an example. What you experience, Sunmaster, when you meditate and connect in the way you do then you would say, I believe, that that connection, or direct experience, conveys an understanding that you cannot otherwise understand. And yet since that greater reality which you've experienced directly cannot be expressed in it's fullness in this reality you do come out of that experience retaining the concept, or the construct, of that greater reality. It's not purely intellectual understanding but a combination of intellectual understanding and intuitive understanding. At least that's my idea. And so I would conclude that as physical creatures we are quite capable of understanding via conceptualisation which, again, would be combining the intellect and the intuitions. Hopefully what I'm trying to express isn't coming out as too convoluted. And I hope, too, that you don't think I'm being too anal in my analysis. In any case, to close out this post, I'll again pose my question which answer, in my opinion, seems to get lost or overlooked. So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place? And perhaps another, too. Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place? For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ).

That would be Dreamin' and not In Dreams, right? Geez, TBL, dancing while driving is kinda dangerous, dontcha think? While I don't know what "rock" you are referring to, I probably don't like it then. That's the kinda rock that I was thinking about that you can't dance to. AC/DC. You'll certainly move to the music but it ain't dance moves.

Very heavy, RP. I need to reread that after I smoke this joint. All kidding aside I believe you wrote a perfect post. Even more perfect was the timing. At least from my perspective. You see, in my private mind I had seen two potential probabilities. One in which the differences between Sunmaster and I would tear us apart and the other, which I strongly preferred, was a probability in which our differences were the very thing which would actually bring us closer together in understanding each other. I was, therefore, taking great care in my responses. And now I don't have to anymore. And lo and behold, you, who have not been around these parts much, came out of nowhere, as if you descended from the heavens from behind the clouds, where you had been hiding and spying on watching us, to make me step back a bit further from that immense object and gain some new perspective and understanding. Well, excuse me for engaging in some flowery, hyperbolic imagery. And truth be told, you didn't make me step back a bit further. You shoved me. And shoved me hard. I should file assault charges against you but it all worked out in the end so you're off the hook. Thanks, friend! I owe you a debt of gratitude. Beers are on me. You pay for dinner, though.

BTW, RP let me know elsewhere that he's a bit busy now so not around much.

Aha! Feigning seriousness to fool me. Well, it worked. Good on you!

Quite a post by RP, though! As if he were refereeing. He did throw me a red card, the bastard.

Okay, I jumped the gun as I posted before seeing your last post. You posted before I was able to edit. Reread for the edit. But excellent. Now we can have the benefit of discussing what's near and dear to both of us and rather than walking on egg shells over disagreements we can have some real fun while we're at it, too.