Tippaporn

I just had a discussion with a customer and fellow engineer and he agreed wholeheartedly with me. The prime question asked by everyone in engineering is, "Will this idea work?" Throughout their lives most people have indiscriminately picked up a wide assortment of ideas, which they've then adopted as beliefs and erroneously accepted as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality. The question of how this idea works is rarely if ever asked. We went on to discuss the mechanics of how this situation came to be, how it operates, how it works. In a design review someone may toss out a novel idea. On it's surface, or at first glance, the idea seems to have rationality and be promising. It is only after looking under the surface, under the veneer of it's rationale which first appears to supports it, that the rationale fails. What is apparent to both of us, when looking out at so much of the insanity present in our current world, is that so many people accept so many ideas on their surface, at first glance, due to the veneer of rationality which is given to support an idea. Few, and I mean very few, look much further. Ever. And especially once an idea is accepted by an individual as a "fact" of the world.

Again. Who creates your experience if not you? Can you name the agency? Can you validate that agency's existence? In my humble opinion, I think not. Again, who creates your experience? The correct answer to that question will destroy any and all theories, scientific or otherwise, which are based on the wrong answer. It must be. It cannot be otherwise. I can't stress enough that this point must be understood. Having the correct answer is paramount for a true understanding of so much else. It is a prime question. It must be answered correctly in order to arrive at other correct answers for it forms the basis of other correct answers.

You still didn't give a yes or no answer to the simple question of whether or not science is capable of proving everything in existence. And when asked to expound on your yes or no answer you did precisely what I said you would. You rambled. Life is not unique to earth. What does that have to do with the question I asked? The answers to our existence lays in or DNA. What does that have to do with the question I asked? Our history is right there from the beginning. What does that have to do with the question I asked? Do we really want to be capable of knowing everything? What does that have to do with the question I asked? Intelligent life forms. What does that have to do with the question I asked? Time and space for aliens might be different than our experience of it. What does that have to do with the question I asked? I believe science can give answers we are searching. At least you gave a partial answer. And for once you didn't mention "nature." So I ask you, Hummin, how can one have a discussion narrowly focused on a single point towards an understanding of that point when you don't address the point but rather choose to go off on every and any other conceivable topic? The extreme sports stunts you've performed required a singular, pointed focus. Now apply that singular focus here. Stay on point. Simply answer the question and the discussion will get more in depth around that.

First, a minor point. We are spirits donned in flesh and blood. We are spiritual entities. Ever notice that anything goes in this world? From the most noble of man's acts to the unspeakable. If man decided to unleash nuclear armageddon on the planet there isn't a single power in creation that would stop him. It's all allowed. Why? I'll let you play with that thought before I give my answer. I'll give you a single clue, though. Freedom.

What better way to exert manipulative control than by creating a closed club. You grant yourself full authority which you then use to control admittance. And with your self delegated authority you are also free to make up the rules to best suit you. It's a false paradigm and they'll sell you hard on it. I'm not a buyer.

When one is influenced by another that is always a case of accepting the influence. The idea of creating one's own reality implies that no one else can create your reality for you, or insert themselves within your reality unwanted. Influence is not control though some conflate it as such. Managing 'the traffic' is really nothing more than a matter of being critical and discriminating about what ideas are being presented to you as a means of influence. It's said that the greatest commodity in this world which is constantly being traded is ideas. We are all buyers and sellers simultaneously. All day long.

Just another general statement. Folks can discuss all they want about every subject matter from A to Z in an effort to understand who and what we are and the reality we find ourselves in. Now I'll put forth that there are fundamental questions which need to be answered before proper answers to other questions can suitably be found. For if you search for answers about specific subject matter without these fundamental questions being answered then it only stands to reason that the wrong answer to a fundamental question will spoil so many other answers which are based on a wrong answer. In other words, and to use an example of a fundamental question, is the truth that we do create our own reality or is the truth that we don't? If we assume that we don't when the truth is that we do then one can easily see how, using a false assumption, we will end up creating multiples of multiple theories on other more specific subject matter which would all based on a false assumption. The Theory of Evolution, as it is considered currently by science, would vaporise in an instant if it turns out that the truth is that we do create our own reality. That would then be one example of a theory based on an underlying false assumption. Remove the false assumption and the house of cards must collapse.

Once again, you refuse to answer a simple, direct question. What are you hiding from? Is your belief that we are equally a part of the natural world as much as everything else which exists in the world your truth? Are you contradicting yourself when you state that personal belief as truth yet give an admonishing caution to not present personal beliefs as truth? Let me try another simple question which requires only a simple yes or no answer and let's see if you choose to answer or avoid answering and just ramble about. Do you believe everything in existence can be proved by science using the scientific method? And if you're feeling frisky, or daredevilish in your case, can you expound on your yes or no answer without using the word "nature?"

Who creates your experience if not you? Can you name the agency? Can you validate that agency's existence? In my humble opinion, I think not. Again, who creates your experience? That's an uncomplicated question, Hummin. You won't find a scientific answer. What's your belief?

Free flowing from the heart. Thanks.

Who creates your experience if not you? Can you name the agency? Can you validate that agency's existence? In my humble opinion, I think not. Again, who creates your experience?

Life is at the least a creative learning endeavour. Few kick a goal their first time out on the pitch. "Mistakes" are merely part of the process of learning. Physical reality is a practical mirror in which we can see and experience the results of our thoughts or ideas. Anyone who understands this then becomes very discriminating in the choosing of their thoughts. And is quick to discard the ones found to produce ill effects. You'll have to define "doers" and "non- doers" as those terms don't suggest specific meaning for me.

Playful seriousness.

You create your own reality. In every last detail. That's an idea that works. It follows all of the laws of creation. But no one will ever know whether it's valid or not unless it is examined and played with. You do not create your own reality. Perhaps in some ways. That's an idea that doesn't work. It does not follow all of the laws of creation. But no one will ever know whether it's valid or not unless it is examined and played with.

I like engineering. I'm a tooling engineer by trade. The definition of that is someone who is tasked with creating, at least in my specialised field, a metal part made from a flat sheet of steel and produced in a stamping press. Look at any metal component in any consumer product. If it is a stamped part then it was produced using a metal stamping tool run in a stamping press. There are only two operations which can be performed on a piece of metal; cutting and forming. The process is first considered. Of those two sole actions which can be performed on a piece of steel some operations must come before and some after. This is a general overview and I needn't bore anyone with further details. Now I determine the process and design the hard tooling which ultimately creates the desired finished part per the dimensions specified on a customer's 2-dimensional print. I have to take into consideration all of the physical laws which must be adhered to. Once finished with my design it then goes through a design review process. Those involved in the review are, at minimum, the builder of the tool and the metal stamper. So here is the point of the above. The entire exercise of a design review is for one purpose; to ensure that the design is indeed functional, practical, and delivers the desired result. In other words, the design must work. Period. In a nutshell. People in the review can throw out any idea they want. Many ideas - on their surface, at first glance - can appear to be good ideas. What happens next in this meeting of minds is the idea is then thoroughly delved into and examined in great detail to see whether it would work or not. And trust me when I say that there are a great number of ideas offered which, upon deeper examination, are found to not work. And once an idea is found not to work there are none in the meeting who are foolish enough to argue for a bad idea without any legs to stand on. I say I like engineering because it is rich with ideas of a practical nature, bound only by one' own creativity and knowledge, and the only question on everyone's mind is: does it work. New ideas, ideas of how to accomplish a desired end, are not laughed at but rather sought and appreciated. I've had more than my share. Now I contrast the design review process and the introduction of ideas, which at it's base is a search for ideas that work, with the process of what goes on in this thread. Just as in a design review folks here throw out ideas as well. But here the aim not to delve into the details of any given idea, nor is it to show the workings or the functionality of an idea. With a design review there's a great deal at stake; monetarily and otherwise. Which is why the focus is on ensuring that a given idea is indeed workable. For the most part and in my opinion, here there is little such consideration given to offered ideas. When asked to show how a given idea actually works in all of it's practical detail, following not only physical laws but other laws as well, too often the only thing forthcoming is silence. Too often there is even an immense resistance to delve into an idea; to imaginatively follow it and see what it really produces. A resistance to admit that upon further examination an idea doesn't work at all. Here we find many who attempt to defend ideas which flat out don't work. The physical universe as idea construction. Ideas are like children's building blocks. They are playthings and children are very good at playing with them. They constructively build them up and just as easily tear them down if not satisfied with their results. Adults . . . not so much. Adults, unfortunately, have taken the game much too seriously. They, as with children, use ideas as building blocks to construct what they will. But once built up are loathe to tear their constructs down, even when found to be detrimental in the results their constructs produce. Rather than adopting a playful attitude in this endeavour, which it is meant to be, by the way, adults tend towards an unhealthy approach of deathly seriousness and if one dares to attempt to tumble their constructions they will defend them to the death. Just my observations.

Thanks, mauGR1. But I'm not so sure I'm back up on the fence.

Does that quote not describe an impossible approach? For how would one know with absolute certainty which answers are wrong and which are not? Are there no answers which appear to be true and are then accepted only to be found wrong at a later date? It's a nice sounding quote but in my opinion the author did not think it through.

Though you didn't invoke my user name, Sunmaster, I believe your post is directed specifically at me. So I'm moved to come back to comment. First of all I'll rehash my views on convincing others of anything. I've stated again and again that that is not my aim for I know better. Is this thread intended to be a dialogue to discuss ideas and beliefs between those interested who then freely engage. And if so, to what end? Is this thread for every participant to merely declare their beliefs and then take up defensive positions with no intention of changing any of them whatsoever and so for the purpose of endless arguments which are doomed to go nowhere, albeit in perpetual circular fashion? Is it to demean others whose views are opposing or different? Is it for entertainment? To alleviate boredom? Or is the purpose of this thread to exchange ideas in order to expand one's thinking in beneficial ways? To expand one's consciousness? For growth? To uncover and then dispel faulty beliefs, many of which work to one's detriment? To become familiar with the contents of one's mind and reexamine ideas held . . . again in an effort to discover which beliefs are beneficial and which are not? To identify which beliefs and ideas are a true reflection of actual reality and which are not? To discover new ideas? New ideas which hold greater promise to individual fulfillment however that fulfillment becomes individually expressed? The latter is the reason I made the decision to engage here. I cannot speak to the reasons of others. You state, Sunmaster, that change cannot come from the outside. Is this true? Is this absolute? Has no one ever taken the good advice of another via dialogue? Have you? Why have Seth, Abraham and the like inserted themselves into our world to dialogue with us? Is our reality not an interactive one? In which we first create it and then also respond to and within it? I agree with you, Sunmaster, that teaching is done best by becoming an example to the world of your lived beliefs so that others can see the wonderful fruits of your manifestations. And if they like what they see then they, too, can aspire to same. This works fine but it is the most direct fashion of teaching which requires personal contact. Yet this is an impractical method when personal contact is not feasible. What then? When others cannot witness firsthand your experience then how else might you convey the ideas which bring about your enormous fulfillment? Does providing explanations equate to lecturing simply because many explanations necessarily are lengthy? Or would profuse explanations equating to lecturing merely be an interpretation, a perception based on one's own beliefs? Isn't all understanding based on logic? Heaven forbid, should any system of thought be illogical? Isn't the intellect one of our aspects which can be used for understanding? What about emotional understanding? Does the information resonate? How else does one come to understanding? It's obvious as well that exposing the truth in blunt fashion is not always an approach which works. But again, just like with most everything, there are no absolutes. Bluntness can be and has at times been effective. You've heard it said by Seth that a teacher must importantly take into consideration the level of understanding of a student. Teaching, or conveying new knowledge, is truly an art form. I hope you don't take this post as lecturing, Sunmaster.

The Reverend Pearly Brown with Help Me To Understand off of his '75 It's A Mean Old World To Try To Live In album.

I couldn't very well bow out of what has for me become little more than an endless merry go round to nowhere without offering up an apropos tune as music connects me to my source as nothing else does. I hope you y'all understand. Cheers and have continued fun.

Coloured Balls performing Johnny B. Goode live at the 27~29 Janurary '73 Sunbury Rock Festival northeast of Melbourne. Not the best audio quality though not at all terrible but rather chosen for the atmosphere of the rock concert.

Well folks, I've just fallen off the fence. I was raised a Catholic and it didn't take me long to perceive the many fallacies of religion. For instance, God is everywhere and within everything. Which means God is in hell as well. Or the fact that one could be a heinous murderer, repent, accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and get his golden pass at the pearly gates. Yet some poor indigenous African who has no knowledge of Christ and the Christian God would go to hell for the mere transgression of not knowing of their existence. Or eternal damnation to hell and any hope for redemption gone for eternity as well. Does anyone have any idea how long eternity is? Or Heaven as a final resting place. For all eternity, too. Imagine a place of pure perfection. No further growth is possible. You've reached the top rung of the ladder and there's no place else to go. There's nothing to learn any longer since all is known. No more challenges in one's existence as you win at any game all of the time. (Not sure how that works if you're playing against an opponent - do both win?) Any state of perfection is the true definition of death. And there is no such thing. Science, I've learned, holds as many or more . . . I think more . . . fallacious ideas than even religion. While I credit religion with at least providing the world with some decent values and worthy personal traits to aspire to science on the other hand offers a dead universe. Morals don't exist as those come out of the untrustworthy subjective mind so anything goes. The only goal of science is to harness and control the entirety of existence. Which is a scary thought to put that kind of power in the hands of people when those same people are making an absolute mess of the world. Don't get me wrong. Both religion and science have tremendous value. But as far as providing comprehensive explanations, not so much. So where else to find answers to who and what we are and what this reality truly is and how it works? How about the people themselves? Advice from family, friends, teachers, coworkers, professors, scientists, physicians? Bar girls? I've heard every theory of life imaginable from people. Most make no sense and their logic holds no water. Theories from the downright bizarre to fairly rationale ideas but faulty when the surface is scratched. As I listened to what people believe throughout life I find that most of it is jumbled, there's little to no cohesion, much of it is outright contradictory (you know, when you believe one thing under one circumstance and it's polar opposite in another circumstance), for certain it lacks comprehensiveness (meaning it doesn't try to fit everything together to cover every imaginable aspect of existence . . . just a bunch of bits and pieces which don't fit together as a whole), a great portion of beliefs aren't even beneficial to the individual . . . in fact many are exceedingly detrimental - but who cares, so many beliefs which are irreconcilable, and I could go on. Now the funniest part, to me, as I've gone through life talking with all sorts of people from diverse backgrounds is that during an exchange of ideas where I attempt to introduce new thought or ideas most look at me cross eyed as if I've just been released from Bedlam. Yet when I look at some of the beliefs being expressed, and defended to the death when challenged despite their detriment, I'm the one then looking cross eyed when I consider that most of the beliefs are as I described above. How is it possible that ideas which hold logic, are sensible, fit together, are comprehensive get laughed at and worse while the most bizarre ideas are readily accepted as the norm by most? Beats me. My brother once quipped, "I'd rather be sane and thought of as insane than to be insane only so that I would be thought of as sane." I found that to be good advice. My search for answers has not been in vain, though. To the contrary, it's been extremely successful. Not that I could ever convince anyone of the fact even if I wanted to. I've come to the conclusion that most of the discussion here is with folks who, while extremely intelligent, have zero desire to know anything more than what they currently know. Not all, I'll add. And so there's no point in attempting to move an immovable object. Belief is easy enough to change. Conviction of a belief, on the other hand, is the immovable object. Besides, most are quite satisfied with the extent of their knowing. And in the end that's all that matters, right? So with that, au revoir.

Some after thoughts on my approach, Sunmaster . . . I'll say that my approach is to be firm. Some might call it hard love. I've chucked the idea of being Mr. Nice guy. That hasn't worked well for me. Now I, more than most, understand that demeaning anyone is to demean ones self. But, I have no qualms about demeaning a poster's ideas. It is never the poster I attack, when I do attack. It is the ideas a poster promotes.

I agree with you assessment of Hummin, Sunmaster. I have no expectation of changing anyone's beliefs, though. And I agree that everyone progresses at their own pace. My intention is to challenge people's beliefs with the aim of bringing them face to face with them so that they might actually examine them. Whether they do so or not is always up to the individual poster. But I'm keeping a keen eye out for a positive response in that regard. But it's not enough to simply challenge them so they may recognise that their ideas my very well be erroneous, of little value, and even detrimental. Another framework must be offered as a replacement. Again, if freely chosen. On the other hand I welcome any poster to challenge the framework I provide. That's part of the process of changing one's beliefs. It might be fair to say that my approach is heavy handed . . . what you might be implying when you say it's not our duty to attempt to force change upon anyone. But this is a learning process for me as well. I am only too well aware of the calm, gentle, respectful and often time humourous approach used by Seth and others like him. That is the approach I prefer to use. But Seth and others do not speak to audiences which can be quite belligerent and mean spirited. Again, this is a learning process for me. Believe me, there's a great deal of tug and pull in my mind as to why I commit so many hours debating ideas which I know beforehand will get promptly rejected. There's something within me, though, that sees value in my efforts. I'm still on the fence and I trust that in time I'll know which way to go. One day I may be gone for good. And you'll be the first to know what decision I've made for myself. By the way, I very much appreciate your post and keeping me in check.

You're 100% free, The Hammer2021. Free to think whatever you like. Whether it's true or not. You are also free to be as blind as you want. You are free to reject any and all truths despite evidence if that is your desire. Just remember, though, others are not like you.