Tippaporn

Hasn't anyone been misunderstood in life leading to ill feelings and then sought to simply clear it up? Why would I ir anyone care? For the sake of maintaining harmony. Is a desire for harmony amongst people not worth the effort? Especially in what is becoming more and more a hate filled world. You didn't offend me, TBL. No drama and an apology isn't needed.

A pissing contest is two parties trying to outdo each other. This wasn't that. This was nothing more than me trying to clear the air about a misunderstanding and mauGR1 coming out of left field going nuclear. I'm not into abuse so just as in any relationship which becomes abusive it's time for one or the other to pack their bags and go. No feelings hurt for me so no hot temper on my part over any of it. Just a simple, "No thanks."

You've obviously got some personal issues, mauGR1. You'll understand why I won't be replying to you any longer.

In who? Me or yourself?

Frankly, mauGR1, I have no idea what the hell you're on about. Time to tame that monster in you and return it to the cellar. It's pretty ugly.

Sorry about the long post, TBL. Try breaking it up and reading it piecemeal.

I've been hanging replies off quotes for years, and often partly, but not fully relevant to the quote, but that's the first time I've ever been attacked for doing so. The Thais have that wonderful response to those getting too excited- Jai yen, jai yen, meaning cool down, life is too short, enjoy more, stress less. I try to look at a situation from the point of view that if I knew I was going to die tomorrow, would it be important? Well, I tried to end this early on but since you persist I'll try to lay this to rest now. So here is the flow of events as they were experienced by me. Your initial reply to my post about ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do revolved around your ideas of faith. You claimed I was erroneously putting faith in the same category as engineering. Now since I was not discussing faith whatsoever I was confused by what you were claiming. I thought that perhaps you saw something I didn't and so was missing something. So I told you I was unsure as to how you read faith into the content of my post. Without asking you directly to explain I left you an opening to add the missing clarity on my part. You replied next with, "Given the topic is about God, I can't see how mentioning faith is irrelevant to the discussion." Given the phrasing I sensed you were a bit put off as if my reply to you was somehow an admonishment. Which it wasn't. So again I was confused by your response. So I come back atcha with, "It's certainly relevant to the topic. But it wasn't relevant to my post." I confirmed that your initial reply was certainly within the bounds of this thread. No problem there. Now if you recall I was confused as to how you were linking faith to my post subject matter and gave you an opportunity to make that link. Since you didn't then common sense told me that there was no link. Well, if there was no link I then just stated as a matter of fact that your reply was not relevant. No emotion on my end. Just stating a pure fact. Next you blindside me with, "It's just a forum, not the word of God, Jai yen, jai yen. This is an opinion forum, and my opinion ( as long as not off topic ) is valid whatever I quote to hang it off." Again, the fact that you were off put was plain to decipher from the tone of your language. But now you were accusing me of being all bent out of shape. So as I know that on my end I didn't write my last post while my hands were shaking due to uncontrollable rage I'm thinking to myself, where's he getting that from. Now the only emotion I did feel as I wrote my next reply was sadness that this exchange was so unnecessarily taking a very wrong turn. I was shaking my head at the keyboard when I wrote, "Go ahead. Fight to the death that you're right. I don't care. You weren't on topic to my post. Period. End of story. Geezus, why can't folks just admit when they're wrong." I admit frustration made me write that last sentence. So now mauGR1 jumps in. "He is right and you are right, too." Now it's always been important to me to access reality properly. Else I'm fooling myself. Now common sense tells me that two people with opposing viewpoints can't both be right. So I replied to mauGR1 with your initial reply and just changed it up a bit to fit his post. I thought that by replying to him as you did to me mauGR1 would understand my confusion to your initial reply. "Huh?" Next I find the above quoted post from the two of you discussing this whole sordid mess. Now you're accusing me of "attacking" you. A very drawn out "huh?" issued from my lips. That was in reply to mauGR1's ad hominem comment that I look at everyone here as plebs who must bow down to me. Now a very long drawn out "huh?" In other words, people here are soooo much lesser than me. Which, knowing myself, is an attitude I can't possibly be accused of. A long, long time ago I read don Juan giving Carlos Castaneda the definition of true humbleness. "No one is more import than you and you are no more important than anyone else." I pat myself on the back for accepting that definition and practicing it fairly faithfully since I've read it. And thanks to Seth I've learned that people are not their ideas. A truth I've expressed in a much earlier post on this thread. Ideas are what people use to create their reality. But people are not their ideas. Most people erroneously conflate the two. Hence you hear often, "You're an <expletive>!" Now I have no qualms whatsoever viciously and mercilessly attacking ideas which people hold. Depending on how despicable the idea is, of course. Don't ever justify war to me, for instance. Or the medical abuse of other living creatures. As far as my "supreme wisdom," well what can I say other than I'm sorry that's how you interpret my confidence of the knowledge I express, @mauGR1. Sunmaster once advised that the best way to teach was by being a living example. While I can't convey a living example of myself other than in person I can do so through expressing myself in word. Should I be less than myself here so as not to irritate the lack of confidence others may feel about themselves? That would be unfairly asking too much from me. While this episode of misunderstanding due to erroneous interpretations is silly it is, on the other hand, important, too. Nothing we do is unimportant. Hopefully this sheds enough light, along with a bit of insight into me, so that we can bury any ill will and be friends again. While in my heart I know I've done nothing wrong, though I was turned into the bad guy and slandered to boot, I'll even apologise. I'll go it even a couple of steps further . . . I love you TBL. I love you mauGR1. P.S. Just so you know I was smiling the whole time I was typing this post. That's how deadly serious I am about all of this.

mauGR1, if you just went "huh? to my reply then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

In my opinion you are putting faith and right and wrong in the same category and that just doesn't work for me. My faith is no doubt different to that of every other poster ever been on this thread, but it's still faith. When it comes to faith, there is IMO no one size fits all version. You have your version and if it works for you, that's good, for you, but don't expect me or all others to agree with you on everything. Mine works for me, and that is enough for me, but whether anyone else agrees with me or not is completely irrelevant to me. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not, as that's not important. What is important is being open to other's viewpoints and giving them the respect they deserve ( unless they are trolls ). I'm open to such, and have learned much about faith on these many pages, but I only use what works for myself.

Go ahead. Fight to the death that you're right. I don't care. You weren't on topic to my post. Period. End of story. Geezus, why can't folks just admit when they're wrong.

It's certainly relevant to the topic. But it wasn't relevant to my post.

"For a start, no-one gets to choose whether or not they will be born, so the reality of their own existence is created by someone else." I know this question is becoming repetitive but no matter how many times I ask this question, no matter the poster, everyone so far as avoided answering it. Who creates your experience if not you? Can you name the agency? Can you validate that agency's existence?. There's a main belief folks have that there's some outside force which controls us in various ways. So now you're being ambiguous. Or cryptic. Who is this "someone else." Name it. Identify it. Where does it exist? What's it's source? What powers does it have? You don't believe in a God and yet you're referring to a God-like entity. Religion accepts this "someone else" as being God. Here's another question which, forgive me if I'm wrong, I also believe you'll avoid. What of freedom? How does freedom work when there exists another power which controls us? Creating one's own reality requires full and absolute freedom. If you don't have absolute freedom then you can't create your own reality. Can you understand how the two are inextricably entwined? As to your statement, which is a belief, knowing what I know it's false. We do choose to enter this earthly existence. In fact, the entity to be chooses it's parents and the parents choose this soon to be born entity. Science excels at the hard sciences. In my opinion when it comes to the soft sciences they are rather primitive. Take this article on dreaming, for example, which to my knowledge is pure, worthless rubbish. What Your Dreams Actually Mean, According to Science Not in all of eternity will science ever understand what dreams are by probing the brain. With dreams, as with so much other human experience, you're dealing with pure subjective reality. Physical instruments are useless. They'll tell you nothing. If anyone is serious about understanding what dreams are you would have to explore the subject from the inside, not the outside. Dreams are part of subjective reality and can only be explored using our subjective self. That should be beyond obvious. Anyway, I don't mean to go off on a tangent by commenting on the opening statement of your post. It's the first part of my post which I'd like you give answers, as best you can, to the questions I posed. Those questions about who creates our realty and freedom are more important than you realise. Those two questions, answered properly, crack the nut in many ways.

As I've been explaining over several posts now. Some questions need to be answered before other questions can be asked. If it's true that we create our own reality using thoughts then the rules of the game have changed epically and forever. You can take most every science book on psychology and trash them. The medical field would need to be totally revamped as well. Every branch of science would find itself experiencing an upheaval.

You're right. My question left room for too much ambiguity. So I'll rephrase with unambiguous clarity. Since most of the science folk here have made the claim that it is within science's ability, using the scientific method only, or the methodology of science as that is your preferential terminology, to positively establish the truth of every aspect of the nature of reality, in other words discover and prove it's functioning, then my question to Hummin is whether or not he believes that to be true. Let me know if that rephrasing makes sense to you. I'll give an example of what I was driving at with that question. If I were to make the claim, which I have, that we create our own reality using ideas - the physical universe as idea construction - then science would brush that claim off as mere unfounded belief with no proof as to the truth of that claim. Am I correct so far? I'll have to refer here to one of my earlier posts.

I'm happy to have gotten through to you, Hummin. It is why, in an earlier post, I accused you of cherry picking what you will answer out of a given post. So many other posters do the same. Pointed questions which are difficult to answer are for the most part ignored precisely because they are difficult questions. It's no great mystery why most posters then respond only to the portion of a post which they feel comfortable enough to give a reply. You are not unique in that sense. Many of my posts receive no replies at all. It's usually when I provide novel ideas, information which others hear for the first time and don't know what to do with. Just to clear up some semantics. What I mean by having a singular focus is to focus on a single intention to the exclusion of all else. When flying that is your intention . . . to fly. Everything related to that endeavour becomes part of your singular focus. Now the question I asked is not an impossible question. In fact the answer to it is in front of your face and in front of everyone's faces. It's actually easy to answer. You have only to examine it. To look under the hood. To investigate. To play with it. To observe. And it will come quickly and effortlessly.

My post never used the word faith. Because I was not talking about faith at all. Not sure how you read faith into that post. What I was talking about was ideas and how people accept the ideas that they do.

The goal of life is happiness. Everything anyone does is only because they believe that in the doing it will bring happiness. I pet my cats a lot.

Whatever level of understanding I have was acquired. You flew in the air, free as a bird. Did you not acquire the skill and the understanding required to perform that magnificent accomplishment? Is acquiring an understanding of life any different? Before you took your first flight you set your intention and nothing stopped you from it. Before I knew what I know now I did likewise. I set my intention and let nothing stop me. That part of the process is identical to any endeavour anyone undertakes. All issues are the same because they all work the same. The principles that give success in one area of life are the same principles that work in every other area of life. You have only one responsibility in life. To be all that you can be. To utilise every talent, skill, gift, capacity, and ability which life endowed you with to it's utmost. If you want the meaning of life there it is.

Simple enough. But don't you want to know it's practical applications? You know, those details which are to be used in creating and living the fulfilling life you've always intended? If there's no interest in doing so and one is perfectly satisfied with their life in every facet of it then that's fair enough.

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.