Tippaporn

I laughed in delight as I read that, Sunmaster. For you are letting me know that I've raised your hackles. And so, as you've broached a subject which is near and dear to my heart I'll dedicate an entire post to it. But first I've got to invoke the name of our third amigo, @Red Phoenix, for what I want to say is for his ears as well. You'll recall that I've related a story of my friend, Bull, and how we had an ideal relationship. I now want to put some finer points to it. The reason Bull and I were able to be so free and open with each other is that we both knew that though our ideas on certain topics clashed we understood so well that who we each were was "good." We had no reservations about each other as far as our true character was concerned. Bull knew that I was a good guy and I knew that bull was a good guy. There were no differences of ideas which we had that could change the fact that we were both excellent, quality people with good hearts. And the recognition of that was precisely what allowed us to be free and open and allowed us to be as critical of the other as we wanted to be. We loved each other. Obviously not in a homosexual way as we both preferred women only. I mention that only for any other readers as western culture has well defined norms about sexuality, and therefore as to what is culturally acceptable and not in regards to a man expressing love for another man. Anyway, back to the topic. I find it unfortunate and more than frustrating at times that people tend to conflate ideas with themselves. That is, in my opinion, due to the lack of understanding of who and what we are and the lack of understanding as to what ideas are. If I told someone that I think their ideas suck, and if that someone conflated his ideas with himself, then you could almost be guaranteed that they would react with great indignation. Perhaps even with a punch on the nose. And expletives denouncing my person heaped upon me as well. Most people simply do not understand yet that they and their ideas are separate entities. And thus they identify so strongly with their ideas that they believe that they and their ideas are one and the same. Attacks on ones ideas then is perceived to be an attack on their person. The way we use language itself perpetuates this conflation. We are more likely to tell someone he sucks than to tell them that his ideas suck. We are more likely to tell someone who expresses an idea which is counter to ours that he's stupid rather than telling him his idea is stupid. It's all silly but true. Now I know we've had a discussion a long time back about confrontation, Sunmaster. I had been particularly frank back then with a certain poster, to the point of being harsh. Maybe even brutal. You had made some comments at that time expressing your ideas of being non-confrontational. I had let you know that I would go into the subject of confrontation later but later never came. Well, later came and it is now. Emotions are generated by and follow ideas. Another little recognised fact by many. We all experience and have to deal with a quite valid emotional reality, too. And emotional reality is another reality which is also not well understood. So it's only natural that a lot of misconceptions are destined to form around emotional reality; misconceptions which are again due to a lack of understanding. In most Western cultures emotional reality is repressed. Hence the PC culture. Too often emotions yearn for expression and yet due to cultural teachings, and even religious teachings, emotions are inhibited and denied their natural expression. Anger, for instance, is equated with violence even if it does not result in physical violence. Violence is always considered "bad," due to the misunderstanding of emotional reality. And so expressing anger is to be avoided, even when in situations it's expression would be appropriate. Or such expression would be beneficial in avoiding a more serious unwanted situation from developing. Emotions are literally energy. When emotions are denied expression then one literally dams up that energy. At some point that dam will burst and what follows then is an inappropriate expression as the full energy released is unrestrained and poorly directed. Everyone has experienced this whenever they've seen someone who all of a sudden, and for no apparent reason, goes off the deep end. They had multiple opportunities to express their emotion appropriately and at the appropriate time but inhibited their emotion instead. And so the age old adage of "the straw that broke the camel's back" arose. Now perhaps I've given you guys some new information or perhaps both of you already know what I've shared. In which case you may feel that my telling you what you already know is irritable because I'm treating you as a couple of dummies and therefore you both feel I've insulted your persons and you've all had felt this many other times but refrained from telling me so and now you've just had it with me and will blurt out to me to go f myself and put me on your ignore list. Anyway, I'm glad I raised your hackles, Sunmaster. I encourage you to release that German side of you and let me have it with both barrels, and a grenade to boot just to make sure I feel your pain as well. Confrontation is good and bad. It all depends on the situation and the conditions and the individual. But to say that confrontation is never a good idea, and I'm not saying that is your idea, Sunmaster, will lead one to dam up their energy until it blows up like a frightening New Year's celebration display and rains fire and brimstone down upon all of the poor innocents. I know both of you are good guys. So despite the fact that I think some of your ideas absolutely suck I'll always love the both of you. Feel free to call me an Ar$ehole any time you guys get the urge. I'll just smile and know that you love me, too. Was this post helpful?

I think you misunderstand the meaning of those concepts. I think not. As I'll explain. Yes, Tippers continues to grow. Here and after. But Tippers is already a part of All There Is. It is, however, a distinct portion of All That Is. There is no merging of Tippers with All That Is in which Tippers is absorbed by All That Is and ceases to exist as Tippers. I've mentioned this before, this absorption by All That Is, or Brahman, which is taught by at least certain schools of Hinduism and I recall you denying that that happens. Yet here you're suggesting that it does. I reject that notion strongly and can go into detail as to why. But I'll leave that for now as the issue here is growth. I understand your thinking here. It is the same with the concept of simultaneous time whilst everything exists at once. So how can something "new" be created if everything already exists. Growth implies that something new is created. And how can that be possible. It's a paradox. I'd be challenged to explain it in my own words at the moment so I won't make the attempt right now. Later. One thing we can be certain about is that growth is endless. A cessation of growth inevitably leads to stagnation. At that point there can only be an eternity of endless repetition of what is. It would be impossible for anything new to be created. Which is why Seth has described the concept of Christianity's Heaven as a dead state of being. It is a literal end to all challenges. And Seth says that that is true death, and death is an impossibility. Endless repetition becomes the ultimate boredom. Imagine playing a video game. It's challenging when first played. Even the second time can be challenging. After the millionth time it is sheer boredom. But how many millions fit into eternity? Do you see the inherent problem to an end to growth? Again, it's a paradox which needs to be unraveled. Again, I'll leave the paradox of growth for now. I've mentioned another paradox before. Seth said that All That Is does not know if another like it exists and is constantly searching. Now that is information that's interesting but let's face it, it's beyond our ability to grasp and attempt to explain how that is possible. So I won't even try. I hope you don't.

I honestly don't know what would happen to other reincarnational selves, probable selves, counterpart selves, imaginary selves, transcendental selves and whatnot. Does knowing this bring me one inch closer to knowing who I am? Sure, it's interesting, but does it make me meditate deeper? I doubt it. Maybe that's why you can't find that information in Vedanta. Okay, so Hinduism, which Vedanta is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, believes in reincartional existences. But it offers no reckoning as to what happens to the other existences if one of those were to transcend it's earthly reality. Small detail that doesn't rouse any questions and can be ignored since knowing it, though interesting, doesn't matter as the only thing of importance is to know who you are? Seems to me that the precise functioning of reality in that regard is missing. Unimportant? Hmmm. I guess without any explanation of what happens to those existences then we wouldn't know whether it's important to know or not. After all, those other reincartional selves are part of the Sunmaster self. I leave the question be as there seems to be no answer available. What do you mean by "meditate deeper?" Are you implying that there are levels of meditation? If there are then how would each deeper level be recognised? Would each level offer something different, perhaps in terms of insight? I've been meaning to ask and now might seem to be a good time to segue into the question. What do you experience during meditation? Granted I may be asking for you to put into words something which there may be no words for. But I would imagine that coming back from meditation you would be bringing something back which is useful in terms of Sunmaster's reality. Insight, perhaps? And if insights then insights on what in particular? How would those insights then be useful to Sunmaster's life, if indeed there was any practical use to those insights? I guess my questions above fit here. Practical in what sense? For instance, I was never interested in philosophy because it seemed to me to be without practical value. Perhaps intellectually stimulating but beyond that then what? Knowledge to me is useless if it has no practical value, or cannot be put to practical use. Intellectual self-pleasuring? That smacks to me of being condescending to one's intellect. The intellect is an attribute of our type of consciousness. I would protest at any idea which belittles me or any portion of myself, including my ego. This is one of my hardships with Vedanta or any other form of religion or school of thought which would put portions of ourselves in a poor light, or if it speaks of our current reality as being "less than" in terms of worth and value and importance. Seth, on the other hand, never speaks derogatorily of any aspect of ourselves nor does he cheapen experience in any of it's manifestations in any other reality. He continally emphasises the vital importance of each and every manifestation of All That Is. As to value to All That Is there is no less or greater. You are Sunmaster, a gestalt consciousness, and Sunmaster is a portion of a greater gestalt of consciousness. Which is itself a part of a greater gestalt of consciousness. Sunmaster, as an independent Identity, is eternal and will continue it's development. Who am I suggests that you have but a single identity. So I again make mention of Seth repeatedly stating that our understanding of identity is severely limited. I'd have to agree. If you want to say that you are part of Brahman, or All That Is, then I heartily agree. But knowing that does not require relinquishing your identity as Sunmaster. You couldn't even if you wanted to. I guess you'll find that out the day that you kick the bucket. Until then I fear you have an identity crisis.

The full text of Nick Cave's letter: Dear Leon and Charlie, In the story of the creation, God makes the world, and everything in it, in six days. On the seventh day he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests that the creation required a certain effort on God’s part, that some form of artistic struggle had taken place. This struggle is the validating impulse that gives God’s world its intrinsic meaning. The world becomes more than just an object full of other objects, rather it is imbued with the vital spirit, the pneuma, of its creator. ChatGPT rejects any notions of creative struggle, that our endeavours animate and nurture our lives giving them depth and meaning. It rejects that there is a collective, essential and unconscious human spirit underpinning our existence, connecting us all through our mutual striving. ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier, is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put it politely, should f'cking desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter. ChatGPT’s intent is to eliminate the process of creation and its attendant challenges, viewing it as nothing more than a time-wasting inconvenience that stands in the way of the commodity itself. Why strive?, it contends. Why bother with the artistic process and its accompanying trials? Why shouldn’t we make it ‘faster and easier?’ When the God of the Bible looked upon what He had created, He did so with a sense of accomplishment and saw that ‘it was good‘. ‘It was good' because it required something of His own self, and His struggle imbued creation with a moral imperative, in short love. Charlie, even though the creative act requires considerable effort, in the end you will be contributing to the vast network of love that supports human existence. There are all sorts of temptations in this world that will eat away at your creative spirit, but none more fiendish than that boundless machine of artistic demoralisation, ChatGPT. As humans, we so often feel helpless in our own smallness, yet still we find the resilience to do and make beautiful things, and this is where the meaning of life resides. Nature reminds us of this constantly. The world is often cast as a purely malignant place, but still the joy of creation exerts itself, and as the sun rises upon the struggle of the day, the Great Crested Grebe dances upon the water. It is our striving that becomes the very essence of meaning. This impulse – the creative dance – that is now being so cynically undermined, must be defended at all costs, and just as we would fight any existential evil, we should fight it tooth and nail, for we are fighting for the very soul of the world. Love, Nick Well, now that I see Nick's letter in a post then maybe some will still see it as long-winded. There's more than two paragraphs.

That post, Frogs, deserves a tribute to Nick Cave. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds with Cave and fellow band mate Blixa Bargeld in a duet on The Weeping Song, off of their '90 The Good Son album.

A must repost of an astounding letter by Nick Cave. Hat tip to Frogs.

Goddamn, that was good. Not good, great! Awesome. Now I've always liked Nick Cave but I think I'm going to go out now and purchase every one of his albums in support of him. Ah, were I able to take a complex subject such as ChatGP and AI and distill it down to it's essence in a mere short letter I'd hear the resounding shouts of jubilation and see the tears of joy issuing down the checks like rivers of every poster here. Until that time, though, it's continued unbearable human suffering for you boys and girls. BTW, I downloaded that vid. What a masterpiece birthed from the bottomless depths of human creativity and love. Eternal thanks, Frogs. I'll never speak poorly of you again. At least I'll try my utter best, which may not be good enough.

Not possible. No less than 100,000 words. Sorry. Well, just goes to show not everyone is a lunatic. No need to read the book refuting Sapolsky's idiocy as idiocy needs no refutation.

@save the frogs I know you enjoy a tune now and again. Verbosity --> Sossosity. The mind not always works in time-line linear fashion. It's associative functioning works wonderfully well, too. Sossity; You're A Woman from Jethro Tull's superb '70 Benefit LP.

When I paint, I use a number of different brushes and techniques. I could paint with one brush alone and in a single style, but the result would not be the same. It would be quite boring and would not give me the desired result. Well, I don't know if that's quite an apt analogy. That seems to me to be an analogy for "variety is the spice of life." My analogy would be this: if I wanted to know how a car engine works I'd find a manual which teaches me every aspect of a car engine including the principles upon which a car engine is able to function. You may find hundreds of manuals on a bookshelf in a bookstore and come across one which explains the workings of a car engine and it's functioning principles and find all of the information to be accurate. Other manuals may give partial explanations which are accurate and other explanations which are not. But once you have a manual which explains all aspects of a car engine and how it works accurately then what's the point of looking at other manuals? You'd have to sift through them all to separate the chaff from the grain, the accuracies from the inaccuracies. That is if you are even able to make those separations. Yes, I think so. At least what answers I do have thus far are correct and accurate. Ah, now to enlighten me would be your task. If you want to assume the task. No doubt I am not thoroughly knowledgeable about Vedanta. I do, however, perceive where Vedanta and Seth's material do not agree. And I willingly admit that the differences that I perceive may be due to my lack of understanding. Hopefully you, too, not being thoroughly knowledgeable about the Seth material, can admit that there may . . . may be irreconcilable differences between Seth's material and Vedanta. Oh dear. Is it Russia or China?

What? That we try to avoid pain and seek fulfillment? Isn't that obvious in everything we do? All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Lasting peace, happiness, security. The way to do that is to realize who you are. That's the big claim. It's a perspective for sure. But it's not a complete explanation of what we're doing here in this world and our reason for coming by any means. No doubt we all try to avoid suffering. That is true. And yes, we all try to fulfill ourselves. That is true as well. But as I've asked before, to which you've yet to answer, who creates the suffering? Further questions would be: What is the purpose of suffering? Why does suffering exist? How is suffering created? How is suffering alleviated? Etc. The same goes for 'seeking fulfillment'. What is meant by fulfillment? What avenues exist for fulfillment? Are there various ways of fulfillment? Is there only one 'ultimate' fulfillment? Etc. Sorry to ask all of these questions but they are the questions which naturally beg from Swami Sarvapriyananda's statements. One can disregard the questions and simply accept Swami Sarvapriyananda's claims but that is not my style. I question and I question everything. Now I wasn't born yesterday, Sunmaster. The concept of overcoming suffering and attaining fulfillment is a tenet of many Hindu schools of thought which I've been aware of for decades. Seth discusses this as well. I didn't come across it for the first time by skimming a few videos. Rather than chide me for my poor understanding you would do well to explain it in detail and in full. Answering some of my questions above would be a good start. But you must admit that the single statement, "All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment," is not ambiguous. It's quite clear in it's meaning. The conclusion drawn that "that's it" is only a logical conclusion that must follow the logic of the statement. No other explanation for 'why' is given, after all. Nor is there any mention of anything more to life. Two world views colliding is like two worlds colliding. Lots of explosions. Perhaps rather than two worlds colliding violently we may come to see two worlds merging.

What kind of fulfillment are you looking for? Physical fulfillment? Sex, food, alcohol....? How long does that fulfillment last? There's the expectation of fulfillment and then there is the experience of getting what you crave. Then the pleasure vanishes and the search starts anew. Are you looking for intellectual fulfillment? How do you get that? From reading books, having deep conversations with a friend? How long is that going to last? As long as you have a book and a friend. What if you don't have them? No fulfillment. Are you looking for a fulfillment that is not dependent on anything external? Well then, there is only one source that will never let you down. It's always there, at any time, wherever you are, it's there. If you (I mean in general) are content with the first 2 options, well, go for it...until you'll get tired of being a slave to those needs. Once you realise that the only lasting fulfillment comes from within, you are no longer chained to other needs. You can still make awesome love, eat a delicious steak, drink a great wine, have an awesome conversations. But the pleasure you get from all of those pales compared to the deep fulfillment of knowing who you are. I noticed that your reply focused entirely on the issue of 'fulfillment'; your definition of it, and in askance of what I'm looking for in that regard. What your reply has failed to address are the two points I made and none of the questions were given answers. Though you did give an answer to the second from last question in that true and meaningful fulfillment comes only from connecting with your "higher" self, or the One, which you call Brahman. Physical fulfillment is only fleeting and not meaningful as it's only to satisfy your base ego. Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created. I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are. Who is creating personal suffering? Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment? Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable? Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One? Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones? To answer your questions: What kind of fulfillment are you looking for? Physical fulfillment? Sex, food, alcohol....? Yes, physical fulfillment. Am I not a physical creature? I'm looking for the fulfillment which comes from becoming more than I am by utilising all of my abilities in this life. And since I am a portion of my greater self then my fulfillment here in this physical reality adds to the fulfillment of my greater self as that greater self is not able to fulfill itself in the way that I, a portion of it, can. That is a point which is not accounted for in Vedanta as far as I can tell. There seems to be an overtone that physical fulfillment is somehow base in nature. Of course that would fit well with the idea that our physical self - ego - is merely a lower aspect of our "greater," much "higher" self. Again, Seth has stated that there are no levels of existence. Levels of beingness are the concoctions of humans as they attempt to classify and categorise everything in terms of levels. God representing the pinnacle, of course. How long does that fulfillment last? I must first ask "in what terms?" In terms of our experience of time, as our awareness is focused on one moment following another, each replaced by another as our awareness moves it's focus from one to the next, then in those terms the fulfillment is fleeting. In terms of greater reality that fulfillment is eternal. We all have endless desires. I'm sure you've noticed. Why? Where does that desire come from? Is it not the impulse generated by the never ending process of consciousness seeking to fulfill itself by becoming more than it is? There's the expectation of fulfillment and then there is the experience of getting what you crave. Then the pleasure vanishes and the search starts anew. True. Agreed. It is said that the journey is what's important. The destination is fleeting in our terms. And no sooner is the destination of fulfilling a desire arrived at than another desire pops up. Wash, rinse and repeat. Are you looking for intellectual fulfillment? How do you get that? From reading books, having deep conversations with a friend? How long is that going to last? As long as you have a book and a friend. What if you don't have them? No fulfillment. Yes, I love to make use of my intellect My intuitions and my emotions as well. How do I get it? The means for intellectual fulfillment are endless. The examples you give are two of an endless means. What if I don't have them? Well, that would never be the case. If that type of means of fulfillment were not available then I would create other types of means. You create your own reality, remember. And life provides everything for which to find personal fulfillment. The state of absence of fulfillment does not, and cannot exist. It would defy a basic attribute of existence. Are you looking for a fulfillment that is not dependent on anything external? Well then, there is only one source that will never let you down. It's always there, at any time, wherever you are, it's there. Fulfillment is not singular. There's an infinite number of ways in which to fulfill oneself. There is nothing which is external. There's certainly the appearance of it. But don't let the appearance fool you. If you (I mean in general) are content with the first 2 options, well, go for it...until you'll get tired of being a slave to those needs. The logic of the idea that physical fulfillment is a 'need' therefore has the logic follow that you are then only a 'slave' to those 'needs'. It's a poor idea which results from a lack of understanding both what we are as physical creatures and what fulfillment is. Once you realise that the only lasting fulfillment comes from within, you are no longer chained to other needs. You can still make awesome love, eat a delicious steak, drink a great wine, have an awesome conversations. But the pleasure you get from all of those pales compared to the deep fulfillment of knowing who you are. Please describe that sense of fulfillment which comes from within. To say that 'going within gives supreme and lasting fulfillment' without expressing what exactly that fulfillment is or explain what it fulfills in your being specifically is to speak in such general terms that no one would be able to answer the question, if asked by another, "What do you mean specifically?" The concept of fulfillment then becomes an enigma. This idea that one is 'chained to needs' is a valid one in a sense. To unchain oneself from 'needs' is when one doesn't care what specific form their desire comes in, or doesn't care if it ever comes. They feel fulfilled in the journey.

Yes. This is a typical pre-trans fallacy. In Spiral Dynamics religion (Blue) predates science, while spirituality (Yellow and beyond) transcends (and includes) science. From one at Orange (science), the 2 are indistinguishable. It will happen sooner or later, of that I'm certain. In my opinion Spiral Dynamics is a system of thought which attempts to explain why life works the way it does. There are an endless number of systems of thought which attempt to do this, all to the end of providing explanations as to what makes reality function as it does. I have my answer which explains it all in excruciating detail. The simple answer is you create your reality in every aspect and down to every nuance using subjective ideas which are translated into an objective medium which you then experience and interact with. How that works in all instances is the excruciating detail. I could investigate and analyze every system of thought out there in an attempt to see where each system of thought might be correct and where it is amiss. To what end, though? And if there is no worthy end then I'd only be wasting my time. Of course there would be an end to doing so if I didn't already have answers.

You missed commenting on this excerpt. I highlighted what Swami Sarvapriyananda claims as the purpose of life in bold text. Is that it? And yes, it is as he says . . . "That's the big claim." And it is nothing more than a claim, indeed. For the rationale behind the claim is, the ideas which support the claim are, entirely missing. Far be it from me to take that claim as "true" on simple pure faith that it is "true." I like to examine ideas as to their validity before I decide to accept them.

The truth of which is strictly for you to decide for yourself given your idea constructions. Within them perhaps it's true.

The physical universe as idea construction. Sapolsky provides a wonderful illustration of that concept. Of all of the ideas which are in existence you pick and choose amongst them and, like a child playing with building blocks, you create an idea construction made up of those ideas which you've picked. This is exactly what Sapolsky has done. It is exactly what everyone does. Without the slightest awareness or understanding of what they are doing. But it goes further. Any idea construction which people create for themselves they are able to make sense of. And again, without the slightest awareness or understanding that what they've constructed makes sense only given those ideas which comprise their idea construction. For as soon as other ideas are included into their idea construction then what once made sense become nonsensical. And so Sapolsky illustrates perfectly that the absurd can and does indeed make sense. Even if only within itself. And that there is no limit to the numbers of people who can then also see and create Sapolsky's idea construction for themselves and so they all attract each other like magnets via their shared idea constructions. If I were to attempt to get people to understand the mechanics behind it all, that the physical universe is an idea construction, that nothing in our world exists without first existing as an idea - an idea being subjective and thus the objective reality is sourced in the subjective reality - then I would appear as an idiot. For given the idea constructions most have created for themselves my explanation makes no sense at all. Sapolsky's ideas that there exists no free will and no purpose to anything matches more closely those idea constructions which most people have already constructed for themselves. Therefore, I'm the loon in my rational and logical sanity whereas Sapolsky is sheer brilliance in his irrational and illogical lunacy.

My posts are longwinded? I think you're confusing me with someone else. 😄 Give credit to where it belongs, Frogs. Verbosity is my middle name.

When does the bakery open?

Now that's what I call finding fulfillment in ones life! So where did your ice cream bars come in?

I'm only up one because I went first. Which means that at best you can only catch up.

I would say the brown things are minced potatoes covered in the used oil from Basil's last oil change. Looks to me to be 5W as it's thin and runny.

And I'd bet you call a bak sida (บักสีดา) a guava, too. Next time I go to an Italian restaurant here (and I do often) I'm going to ask for a salamino piccante pizza. If I end up getting a crab and shrimp pizza with mayonnaise I'm gonna send it to your house along with the bill.

There's a video you had posted somewhere and the guy in it said "we need to understand the meanings of the words." The common definition of the word 'real' is: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. I'd use a different word than 'real'. For saying that a dream or our physical life is not really real it implies that it's "imagined or supposed" and therefore not valid. Physical existence has as much validity as inner existence but in different terms. And those terms are the way reality manifests itself. I need to make a poster sized copy of that Fishburne meme and hang it in my office. I do understand what you're saying, though, Sunmaster. Your point is real valid. Tippaporn: 2 Sunmaster: 1

All subjective phenomenon produce objective results. The problem is in connecting the dots. I've said before that what an idea is is just as little understood as what consciousness is. An idea is not physical. It's purely subjective. And yet thoughts - thought technically being the process of mentally entertaining an idea - produce physical effects. That is something which is not well understood at all. Ask anyone if their thoughts have physical effects and most would say "no." On the other hand, people do at times recognise the connection between their thoughts and the physical results which they then experience. But because the idea, or the thought of the idea, is purely subjective and the physical result is objective then it's often impossible to say that the two are linked or to show how they are linked via physical evidence alone. For instance, you've probably experienced thinking of someone in particular and that someone appears in your experience soon after, either through a physical meeting or a communication of some type or another. The association between your thinking of that person and them appearing in your experience may immediately come to mind. As you become aware of that connection then you attempt to explain it, to rationalise it. And what most people do via rationalisation is to dismiss it, or pass it off to chance or coincidence, and then fail to see the true reality of the idea producing a physical result. And good luck trying to convince another that the thought produced the result. For though the physical evidence of the person appearing in your experience is concrete, valid and acceptable evidence there is no evidence which links to the thought. Good luck to me trying to convince you that that is what happens all the time with everything. If you want to know what the crux of the problem of understanding truly is it is this: people do not possess consciousness but rather they are a consciousness. A particular type of consciousness we call human. Since so little is understood of what consciousness is and what it's properties are then it would be true to say that we don't really know who or what we are. And I'm not referring strictly to the reflection in the mirror. Since we don't understand what consciousness is then we can't begin to even consider what it's capabilities are or what effects it produces in our world. It is said, and said truly, that without any true and comprehensive knowledge of what consciousness is then it is literally impossible to understand and make sense of the world we find ourselves in. The quest for this type of knowledge begins with understanding what consciousness is. Now I've said many times that I'm not religious but I was raised a Catholic. I do recognise that there is wisdom to whatever extent in all religions. As long as it's truth I care not what it's source. So here is one truth which comes from the Bible: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." -- Matthew 7:7-8 Anyone who wants to understand what consciousness is simply needs to ask and then frickin' knock on the mental door. Everything necessary to bring about what you seek to find will then occur. But you have to allow it and then work for it. Don't want to do it? No problem. You stay where you are. Now that's a perceptive observation. Since I was a kid I understood that life is both mysterious and baffling. Mysterious in the sense of wonderment and baffling in the sense that events "happen to you," which confounds you as to why they've happened. Everyone has at one time or another repeated the well worn phrase "sh!t happens" when something has gone south on them. I used to think the old phrase to myself, "if it weren't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all." When I was 13 I determined to understand why sh!t seemed to happen to me. Religion didn't have any answers. Science didn't have any answers. So I looked elsewhere. But I was adamant that I would not go through my entire life believing in a bunch of answers given by my parents, my teachers, religion, science nor anyone else that weren't true answers because none of what they claimed to be answers worked. I had enough intensity of desire to know that a "super deep dive" was not at all a deterrent for me. That rolled right off my sleeve. And I worked and worked and worked at it. Just like anyone who, for example, wants to make money and decides to open a business, then to be successful one is required to take every single step that is needed to make that successful business a reality. Don't want to take the necessary steps? No problem. But you won't have a successful business. It's the same with my line of endeavour. If it takes reading, testing out ideas in the real world, or whatever, then I'm willing to do whatever is necessary and so I reap the rewards. My life then doesn't just "happen to" me. I create my life consciously and deliberately. Of the vast quantity and quality of ideas which exist I'm picky about the ones I choose. For most folks they are not so discriminate in choosing what they believe and so from the morass of oftentimes conflicting beliefs which they've picked up through their journey in life, uncritically and unexamined for the most part, life then appears to "happen to" them. And they are stumped as to why. You and I have completely different beliefs around Covid and the mRNA shots. Your set of beliefs create the only conclusions which can be drawn from that set of beliefs. The conclusions are almost predetermined. My set of beliefs draw different conclusions based on my set of beliefs. No matter what facts, evidence, or interpretations are yours they will be in conflict with mine. And vice versa. On this subject we will, therefore, have to leave it as is and simply agree to disagree.

I would not recommend anyone make self-depreciating comments. Especially on a public forum. Not everything you post is garbage information, Frogs.