Tippaporn

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.

It'll never happen without a serious examination of and reconsideration of the validity of the ideas he currently holds. I doubt he goes there. Could be many reasons. The sad desire to be "right" no matter what might be one. Throughout my long experience I've found that most people wouldn't even attempt to look at what they belief with any true objectivity. Their intent is to merely defend it to the death. And when severely challenged resort to the old personal destruction tact like, "To many ramble around stating beliefs as facts, and believe in it, and when finding someone who have as wild beliefs as themselves, petting their back and backing each other up." Utter nonsense but when one is out of valid arguments this is what they're reduced to. Sad.

"Simple careful approach is always the best until you know for sure." That's been my approach my entire life. But you see, I'm just an unknown, insignificant peon incapable of coming to correct conclusions on my own. That is what you believe, correct? It's a pathetic and completely untrue belief in my opinion. But I'm just some guy rambling around stating silly, outlandish beliefs which I foolishly believe in. I'm stupid, right?

Yes, you are certainly correct in that you like to cherry pick. The tough questions, the questions that require hard thinking, those are not the ones you pick. You're like a politician who has a media interview and all they ask are softball questions. Once during o crisis, which one I can't remember, Biden was eating an ice cream cone in front of an ice cream shop whilst surrounded by reporters. "President Biden, what ice cream flavour do you like?" Here's the post again. Now I've been explaining what ideas are and pointing out that they produce the world we live in. Like children's building blocks people pick and choose amongst all the ideas available, all of the possible ideas which exist, and create not only your personal experience but along with the interactions of other entities just like yourself so together mass reality is created. From your individual choices you create your life, your particular experience to every last detail. Your life, and everyone else's, is a reflection of the ideas one chooses to accept as being 'true.' Ideas... ...are mental transformations of energy by an entity into physical reality. Idea constructions... ...are transformations of ideas into physical reality. Action... ...is idea in motion. Just to clarify, every action you take is based on an idea that is in your head on which you choose to act upon. No exceptions. No one acts randomly. In my post above I'm pointing out that for all of it's faults, and there are many, at least religion provides the individual with the ideas of self worth and purpose. Those accepted ideas are then acted on in one way or another depending on the individual's unique propensities. Those ideas generally provide beneficial results for the individual and for the rest of the world. Now here's an incomplete list of the building blocks, ideas, of science which are also used to create a different kind, or a different version of the world. There is no purpose in life other than the reproduction of the species. There is no control in one's life. Their is no value in life. The survival of the fittest determines who lives and who dies. Emotions are only due to the chemical interactions in one's brain. Biology does not determine sex. Personal choice is an illusion. If you were to design a functional, operational world are these the ideas you would choose to build that reality? And yet these ideas are being used. If the physical world is a reflection of the ideas we hold then these ideas can only produce one result. They cannot produce anything different. That is an impossibility. Now take a look at the world around you and identify areas in which these ideas play out, e.g. manifest. Do you like the results? If you don't thenyou best get to work and examine the ideas you personally subscribe to as 'true' and do some hard questioning as to whether or not they are beliefs about reality or beliefs taken as conditions of reality. Big difference. "Sometimes we just have to make certain decissions in life that also benefits us and the society." I'll repeat, you cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it. Sacrificing the life of other living creatures to sustain your own is a horrible idea. It plays out in many, many more ways than you are probably aware of, with equally horrid outcomes. There are other ways but unfortunately science rejects those approaches. Now be brave enough to address the tough questions.

It always amazes me that people find someone who accomplishes a great deal in a given field and all of a sudden everyone hangs on his every belief about the rest of life's issues, of which he may be wholly inadequate to provide any worthwhile opinion. Asking Elon about the 'meaning of life'? What a joke. You may as well ask your next door neighbor and would probably get a better reply. Elon's answer is a bunch of generalised woo.

Seth has discussed science quite a bit. He advocates for a loving science. I'm all in favour of that. As it stands now, however, science is not a loving one in many respects. I'll have to dig up one of my more recent posts. Science is valueless. In other words science has zero moral principles guiding it. It leaves philosophical questions to the philosophers. I can certainly understand why since science would have an impossible time trying to prove any wisdom as being true or false. At least physicians have the Hippocratic Oath. Well, until Covid came along. So please try and answer what the effects are of science's views, which are taught the world over, which I listed in my quote above? Those views don't produce chaos? Seriously, I will be waiting for an in depth answer. Perhaps the vilest perspective that science holds is that life has no value. "WHAT?!?!?!" you might protest in a screeching tone. "That's not true!!! It's the opposite!!!" They had to cut the beagles' vocal chords so they didn't have to listen to their cries of pain. You cannot discover the secrets of life by desecrating it. The cruelty done to animals in the name of science is beyond words. "But it's to save human life!!" So the argument would be that to defile other life is okay as long as it's for the benefit of humans? A pathetic argument indeed. Is there no other way? Yes, there is. Freethinkers? You make that sound as though freethinkers are a dangerous pox unto humanity. How about getting the ideas of reality right? You think that might be a solution? The science types are extremely sensitive to being called out on their long list of unworthy and despicable contributions to society and the world. From the creation of weapons of mass destruction, to pesticides, to GMO's, to the creation of chemicals such as Agent Orange and all the way to Covid. How many have died in the name of science? Or would you rather talk about the uniting effects of Covid? The united protests across the world to put an end to the unscientific Covid restrictions put into place in most every western country? No chaos created there, that's for sure. Science isn't universally bad, as I've stated over and over again. I'm not anti science. I appreciate science's loving accomplishments. Are you asking that I ignore their darker side and consider only their geniune triumphs? You picked the wrong poster, Hummin, to try to sell the pathetic idea that only science can unite the world and prevent the chaos that would arise from a bunch of radical freethinkers. I, least of all, have a need for science to "back up my ideas," hint: validate. Change my mind? About all I've learned in my long life? What do you expect? An, "Aw, gee, I was wrong about everything my entire life. Thank god (with a small "g") for the God of Science to save me from my backward and wrong-headed thinking." And for what? Science hasn't a clue as to what makes this world go round. If you've read my most recent posts, and I don't know that you have, then you just don't get it. Here we go again with the doll with the pull ring coming out of it's back. To be frank, Hummin, that was one of the most audacious posts I've read on this thread. Talk about consummate hubris.

Jane Roberts, the author of the Seth material, was raised Catholic. There were some who wanted her to comment on the similarities or differences of the Seth material and Christian theology. She had no interest to do so. I share her sentiment. I have no interest in making comparisons between the Seth material and the concepts taught by other religions. I see no point in it.

For my next hat trick I'd like to dispel the notion that the die hard science folks here hold, and claim over and over ad nauseam, that science is capable of proving everything and anything using the scientific method, and thus is the only discipline capable of determining the truth of all things? For this exercise we'll make the assumption that the theory that one creates his or her own reality using thoughts is true. In order for science to prove this then it would need to know what someone's true thoughts are in order to match the thought to the reality created. Since thoughts are private no one can know what another's thoughts are. And how can one produce evidence of a particular thought since it's not physical? Any science die hard here (I think VincentRJ was the last but I haven't seen him of late) who would be willing to take that one on? Could science even prove that the reverse, which is the only other option, is true . . . that we don't create our reality via thoughts, or otherwise? Or would they object using the argument that it's not their obligation to prove a negative? How often have I tried to convince them that the scientific method has it's limitations due to the fact that not everything is something physical that one can probe, categorise, and measure?

That's very true. That only goes to show that there isn't anything that's a waste of time. It's all good.

Okay. Now that you've used the terms in an example I can understand the concept. They're not terms I would use if I had to explain the process of swapping beliefs. When replacing a false idea, thought to be true, with another idea that is true, yet doubted to be true, there's a lot of back and forth . . . or push and pull . . . where you accept the new idea but then fall back on the old one. However many times one goes round and round before a new idea becomes the predominating one varies depending on a number of factors. I think the ideas which are the most emotionally charged are the most difficult to displace. Then again there's no guarantor of the permanence of any newly accepted idea. One can always go back to the original idea.