Tippaporn

The 60's were perhaps the single decade that I can identify which offered such an amazing and prolific plethora of duets and bands featuring grand harmonies. The Mamas And The Papas were certainly at the top of those rich harmonies. The Seekers with their '65 hit single. It's actually a quite fitting song for this thread if the "true lover" is translated to mean our world. And the death of the "true lover" is ours. And your kiss was sweet as wine would be that kiss of our very last earthly experience. Say goodbye my own true lover As we sing a lovers song How it breaks my heart to leave you Now the carnival is gone High above the dawn is waiting And my tears are falling rain For the carnival is over We may never meet again Like a drum my heart was beating And your kiss was sweet as wine But the joys of love are fleeting For Pierrot and Columbine Now the harbor light is calling This will be our last goodbye Though the carnival is over I will love you till I die Like a drum my heart was beating And your kiss was sweet as wine But the joys of love are fleeting For Pierrot and Columbine Now the harbour light is calling This will be our last goodbye Though the carnival is over I will love you till I die Though the carnival is over I will love you till I die

Reminds me of another absolutely vivid dream I had long ago. I mean the kind of vividness with which we perceive our waking reality. I was driving down a road near where I was living at the time. The environment of the dream was a perfect match to the actual physical environment. The sky was forbiddingly ominous and the source of the weather was in front of me. I approached a particular intersection and stopped as there were police vehicles on the crossroad alerting the population via their vehicle's bullhorns with dire warnings that this was the last call to board the spaceships and leave earth as the ultimate doom, whatever that was, was neigh. I was more curious than afraid and so continued driving into whatever maelstrom was ahead of me. I had approached a familiar mall which was totally deserted, as was the entire surrounding neighborhood. No people nor vehicles. Flooding was present and so I turned back. Dream end. That dream is decades old and yet I can still recall every scene. So the mere mention of people leaving earth on spaceships brought it immediately to mind. You triggered me, TBL.

Some interesting stuff being discussed. Puts me in mind of "Childhood's End" and wondering how far you need to go to have the starships in orbit. Re the quote, perhaps you can explain that in simple words. Seems to me to make that happen we could really be in the Matrix, dreaming of an imaginary world while powering the lights for our computer overlords. If so, why can't I dream a much more friendly world than the one I live in? Just so folks can follow along with your reference I'll provide a brief summary: Childhood's End is a 1953 science fiction novel by the British author Arthur C. Clarke. The story follows the peaceful alien invasion of Earth by the mysterious Overlords, whose arrival begins decades of apparent utopia under indirect alien rule, at the cost of human identity and culture. Don't worry, TBL. Your identity will never be lost or absorbed by any Overlords, even if that Overlord is called God. You're safe. And now for some fun diversion . . . The 1931 song written by by Fabian Andre and Wilbur Schwandt and covered by Cass Elliot and The Mamas And Papas in '68. I'm sure you'll remember TBL. Dream of the one you love, even if she's fictitious, and have a wonderful dream tonight. Stars shining bright above you Night breezes seem to whisper "I love you" Birds singin' in the sycamore trees Dream a little dream of me Say "Night-ie night" and kiss me Just hold me tight and tell me you'll miss me While I'm alone and blue as can be Dream a little dream of me Stars fading but I linger on, dear Still craving your kiss I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear Just saying this Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you But in your dreams, whatever they be Dream a little dream of me Stars fading but I linger on, dear Still craving your kiss I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear Just saying this Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you But in your dreams, whatever they be Dream a little dream of me Dream a little dream of me

I had a dream just last night in which I had a quite athletic, youthful and attractive body. Which was true in my youth. I was prancing past a group of people and was hoping to attract some female admirers. Then it dawned on me that my face didn't quite match my body. My next thought in the dream was that maybe nobody would notice.

I still have some invested, but in another coin. 67BTC.... I'll take the subject of crypto with you privately.

Both are real, though. Real in the sense that they both have not only eternal validity but their realities are eternal as well. As eternal as their source self. I sense that the rationale you're using is that the only thing which is r-e-a-l is the source self. And those portions of itself which it then projects into other realities is real but not r-e-a-l. Temporary manifestations? Only in terms of a temporal world. Though our experience of the world and of our physical selves is as one successive moment after another everything exists at once and is forever being created in the moment. Our our experience of time in a linear fashion is quite deceptive. It is simply another way of ordering and structuring experience. Just one of an infinite ways. Any object for us is only a three dimensional representation of something which is not three dimensional. Seth is able to perceive our reality and has remarked on a number of occasions that he enjoys doing so. It's also interesting that when he devoted a few chapters to the God concept at the end of his first book he stated something that was quite stunning. All That Is doesn't know if it is the only All That Is which exists and is searching for others like itself. Now that's a bit mind blowing if you try to wrap your head around that.

Interesting that you should use that example.

A couple of short stories. I loved my bug because it was truly all terrain having rear wheel drive and the weight of the rear mounted engine over the rear axle. Most every other car was rear wheel drive but with a front mounted engine over the front axle. Those vehicles were famous for fish tailing on snowy roads. Driving home once on a very snowy night my route took me to a very long curved on ramp to the overpass road. Multiple vehicles were stopped at the bottom of the of the on ramp. As I approached and it was evident that I was going up one driver got out of his car and tried to wave me off to let me know it was too slippery. I buzzed right around him and went up the ramp without so much as slowing down. Of course slowing down would have been a mistake. Straight lined it the whole way up. Edit: Yes, the simplified bumpers were ugly. Now a crypto story. I was ready to invest USD 10,000 in Bitcoin late '13 at just under USD 150 per coin. That would have worked out to roughly 67 Bitcoins. I didn't do it. Are you still into Bitcoin? I'd be interested to talk to you.

Most excellent, Vince. I found it humourous when I first read Seth comment on the fact that as individuals, each experiencing their own private version of reality, that he finds it amusing that we could even say, truthfully, that we're all living in the same world.

I'll cover that in greater detail later. But for now I'd just say that the ego isn't a mere appearance of being real. It's an aspect of 'you' of which 'you' are an aspect of your larger self. In that sense it's as real as any other portion of 'you'. I do understand that you mean to say that without the objective self the ego wouldn't exist. And perhaps it's that logic which then leads to the conclusion that the ego isn't really real due to it's dependency. Tricky, eh?

Looks like this God thread spin-off thread has just met it's maker.

I certainly agree but I would comment that it can be a bit misleading if you ask me. I think it more accurate to say that the object is no less real and valid than the subject. But the object has a source. It could be said just as well that the Self itself has a source. Yes, I agree that both have their place. The focus on the objective 'you' certainly needs to be there as it has great importance to the larger self. Lots to talk about here. I'm working on what might be an explanation that would bring a great deal of clarity on the subject. A '67 model? I thought they simplified the rear bumper that year? I'm no expert and as I like to say, the proof is in the pudding. Yours is a '67 with the old-style, intricate bumper. Why Basil? First two things that come to mind whenever I hear that word . . . Basil Rathbone and basil on pizza. Love me my Sherlock Holmes and my pizza!! Classic Margherita pizza!! Yummy!!

Offhand I couldn't agree or disagree since Seth does not use the terms 'duality' and 'nonduality' at all. This is why I've commented on my preference for the use of plain English. Specialised terminology needs to be defined and if the definitions have variations then it leads to misinterpretations and difficulties in communicating clearly. Here's the definition of nondualism per Wiki: . What sets nondualism apart from dualism is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge. BTW, I thought that an excellent, clear and concise explanation . . . using plain English. Now if one were to look up the meaning of dualism, nondualism's oposite, at least on Wiki, one would find this: Dualism most commonly refers to: Mind–body dualism, a philosophical view which holds that mental phenomena are, at least in certain respects, not physical phenomena, or that the mind and the body are distinct and separable from one another Property dualism, a view in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics which holds that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties Cosmological dualism, the theological or spiritual view that there are only two fundamental concepts, such as "good" and "evil", and that these two concepts are in every way opposed to one another Dualism may also refer to: Dualism (cybernetics), systems or problems in which an intelligent adversary attempts to exploit the weaknesses of the investigator Dualism (Indian philosophy), the belief held by certain schools of Indian philosophy that reality is fundamentally composed of two parts Dualism (politics), the separation of powers between the cabinet and parliament Dualism in medieval politics, opposition to hierocracy (medieval) Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain Ethical dualism, the attribution of good solely to one group of people and evil to another Monism and dualism in international law, a principle in contending that international and domestic law are distinct systems of law, and that international law only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic law Soul dualism, the belief that a person has two (or more) kinds of souls My head is starting to spin. Interestingly I was listening recently to a conversation about finance and economics recently and one of the participants, well-known with vast experience in the field and author, began a newsletter with the side goal of educating people on finance. He remarked that the finance and economics is not that complex but due to the specialised terminology it makes it difficult for the average person to understand. He was asked what type of education is required of the average Joe to be able to understand his newsletter, e.g. a degree in finance, etc. His response was this: I pride myself, and it's my job, in taking the most complex concepts you can think of and putting them in plain English. Just to be clear, I do not dumb things down. Economists love jargon, like nominal wage rigidity, which just means that people don't like to take a pay cut. So why don't you just say people don't like to take a pay cut. Why do you have to use a phrase like nominal wage rigidity? So how would you put nondualism into plain English? As you think of the term what words come to your mind that define the meaning of it for you? More to come . . . as I'll shoot for shorter posts.

Well, I see that you are using all of your abilities in this life well. Although I'd think the furniture rearranging would be left to the wifey. Now that's a beautiful work of art. Hard to guess the year but given the rear bumper I'd say anywhere between '58 and '66. Steering on the right, too. I owned a '74 Superbeetle. The dome-shaped interior lent itself well for sound. With an added quality cassette deck and some quality box stereo speakers in back of the rear seats (of course the rear seat taken down) the sound was awesome. I've always loved Volkswagen's 60's clever, humourous, often self-deprecating advertising.

Another red letter day today. Please take down the post, though. Revealing what another poster looks like is against forum rules. Germans are known for their punctuality. I've been in Thailand long enough to consider myself part Thai. So that part of my identity tells me everything is tomorrow.

Welcome back, save the frogs! You didn't get very far, did ya?

Just takin' a troll down the thread, are ya? Okay.

You obviously missed my post. Should I add your name to the protagonist list?

Uhm, BTW, the analogies I've offered have many more applications than just the God thread.

Perhaps my analogy needs a bit of a modification to make it even more clear as to the true, underlying dynamics at play which Sunmaster's thread highlights. Have you ever gone out to eat and you're undecided as to the fare of food you want to eat? Let's say you're on foot in Bangkok and there are a plethora of restaurants offering all manner of different cuisines. Lots of them have menus posted outside. You may stop to take a look at a particular restaurant's menu and decide it's not the food you like. Off you go until you find a restaurant which does offer the food you like. In you go and satisfy your gastronomical inclinations. Imagine now that you're walking by a restaurant and from it's name you know it offers a cuisine you don't like. But rather than simply walking past you decide to enter. You walk in despite the fact that you have no intention of ordering anything. in fact, the only reason you enter is because it bothers you to no end that others would want to eat this type of cuisine. And so you don't take a seat but go round from table to table to let each patron know how disgusting you think their food is. Furthermore, you tell them they're stupid for eating the type of food they're eating. You harass them further by telling them what type of food you eat and then shame them by saying that your food is good and their food is bad. When the patrons protest your treatment and attempt to explain to you what makes their food delicious, so that you might understand and perhaps even reconsider your judgement of it, you tell them their reasons are a bunch of BS and a load of sh!te and their reasons are proof that they're all ignorant. So then one of the patrons asks you why you came into the restaurant if you don't like the fare? You retort that it's because of the fact that the restaurant has a shingle hanging above their establishment, proclaiming to any who are interested in their fare, which invites and justifies you to come in and abuse the patrons. It is, after all, their fault for having the shingle and that they should expect you and people like you to abuse them. BTW, the name of that restaurant is "Do you believe in God and why." Our hypothetical belligerent protagonist we'll call @ozimoron. There are others.

I thought you left?

True, I did arrive later and I don't doubt your word that you behaved civilly and congenially when you first came on board. However, by the time I arrived you had become quite vicious. To be fair you did not win. Since the existence of a God can not be proven nor disproven in physical terms then the debate was fated to be a draw. But as with so many other beliefs the real truth isn't important; only the truth of your belief. That's all that matters, right? I do, though, miss your special terms of endearment for me.

The onus can't be placed on the person making the claim if the claim involves something which cannot be proven with physical evidence that can be placed in one's hand, metaphorically speaking. As I explained with a few examples here:

Put that tinfoil hat on for your protection NOW! Keep it on until the crisis is over. The gory details and what to expect . . . The earth experiencing a change in its resonance from 7.38hz to 11 hz which will cause a transformation in our mind, body and psyche, it means the earth can communicate with us with a higher bit of pulse therefore it is the time to meditate because it will expedite the metamorphosis. Thanks for the heads up, save the frogs.

Well, it appears Skeptic7 was here and then left. Without commenting on my post. Which is exactly what happened to him on the God thread. Just as no one there could prove the existence of God in physical terms neither could he prove the tenets upon which his atheism is founded upon in real terms. So he stomped and stomped hurling insults all the while and finally took his ball and bat and retreated to wherever he resides now. I mean, if the truth of what really happened be told . . .