Fat is a type of crazy

My previous post was about the criticism of science. It is fine though as you say to keep an open mind and see what can be from meditation or other thought or non thought processes. But I stick to my point that whatever you are doing is not inconsistent with science. Some of your conclusions may be inconsistent with what science indicates is most likely based on the evidence. I would find some peace in that and say I can either work to develop some sort of evidence or be happy on my personal quest.

I totally accept that thoughts can affect our experience of life and have said so. Psychology. Psychiatry. Feelings. I can't see a link between thoughts and some unknown power that results in a new reality.

It's not rubbish if you can get your mind around what science is. Your subjective experience is a little bit of science. You have felt or sensed certain things and drawn conclusions and , unless you are irrational, that is somewhat scientific. You can't get to the next stage of providing objective proof for whatever reason. So you can say, my subjective experience was so strong and alarming that I believe it is a sign of something such as god, and I accept others won't believe it if they haven't had the same experience. That's enough. Science isn't wrong not to stand on the roof tops and say Tippaporn experienced this so we should all believe it. It is what it is.

I think these days thoughts can be measured or at least identified in a form. Surely too if ideas create reality, and Seth teaches how to effectively do this, Seth followers should be statistical outliers in some form or another. Like I say I am not saying what is or isn't but I do find criticism of science not fair.

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate. Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all.

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. Seth could - say something others couldn't know that is a real thing come up with a theory that could be tested Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing.

Same in Australia. Economy too weak. No wage increase. Economy too strong causing inflation. Limit wage increases to curb inflation. The worker cops it both ways.

I would use this as an opportunity. He's clearly done wrong so politely discuss it with him, let him know you accept it is an accident, but please stay off the land unless you and your wife are there. You need to stand up in a situation like this even if you cause a bit of a ruckus in the short term.

I saw it in the paper but in fact online. Don’t say it much now.

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans.

Science doesn’t know anything for sure. I am saying that unless there is somewhere in the universe where thought and questions are impossible you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is. If you see the sunset you mentioned it makes you believe in god. You could stop there and have faith that it is god. Or you can ask yourself why you think it is a sign of god ie what is the feeling that suggests god, could there be other explanations, what might god be that makes me feel this way. Those questions are the beginnings of science. The alternative of faith might work better for you and that’s fine.

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

No. Elad is correct unless you can show how the rules are different in the 5th dimension and why the rules he discusses don’t apply. Science is everywhere by definition including heaven and the 5th dimension and in everyone’s head and spiritual world. Nowhere to hide.

Bush, Obama and Trump pushed for NATO to pay more. Trump pushed harder and you could say that is fair. But there seemed to be constant bickering from him about NATO and little praise or constructive ideas for reform beyond more payments. That takes a toll over time. In 2019 German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, in turn, suggested that this might be the right time to establish an indigenous European Defence Union among Europeans to complement NATO. “The times when we could rely on others are over,” Merkel added. A leader needs to not only criticise, even if sometimes the criticism is warranted, but maintain steadfast support and come up with better solutions. I don't think he achieved that and I think 4 more years would have lead to a further weakened NATO. Add to that his tepid criticism or actual support for some of NATO's potential or actual adversaries.

Biden is somewhat responsible and ideally would have reversed the banking laws. But the historical context is important and it is one thing to not have foreseen it coming and another to actually take actions to make it much more likely. One man is responsible for the Ukraine war and that is Putin. Biden is responsible for dealing with the implications and, though no war can be deemed a success by definition, he has done well in unifying most of the world against the menace that is Putin. The work of Biden and others has left Putin and Russia severely weakened though there's still a lot to do.

I will say Tippaporn's argument seems extremely weak on this linkage between beliefs and actuality. There are people who believe they are poor, and in their mind their capacity to make money is limited, and it makes them save and invest, and they die with millions. Others believe they are rich or can become rich but don't because they are not smart or too much of a dreamer or whatever. But somehow in this theory there is this point where a belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality and then somehow beliefs therefore create one's reality. All told by a lady with an apparent spirit giving her words.

I think Trump's softness on Russia, and his attempts to weaken NATO, likely emboldened Putin. He saw an elderly US president and disunited Europe and thought he could push the war through but wrong. Trump and the Republicans weakened the regulations for midsize banks meaning things like this week were much more likely to happen. Then there's the trains... 100 other reasons not to like Trump besides his abrasive personality .. I think the world breathed a sigh of relief that Biden made sure he only got one term or who knows what was next..

You are correct, all of the above is correct, he would solve the Ukraine war in 24 hours, first they'll come for Donald, and then they'll come for you. He wants you to protest and is likely to call for donations shortly so I hope you'll do both so he can get retribution against all those who have wronged him and in turn you. Donate now. As much as you can spare. Good patriotic man thanks.

2 alternatives I suppose. You could think the words have some wisdom but consider the source being the spirit unlikely. Or you could take the whole package and say they are either both worthwhile or not worthwhile as the truth crumbles if part of it is false. On the theory that it is simply her it could be that in separating from herself she opens up something else within herself like an unconscious voice that might show a different point of view to the norm.

I look for interesting aspects of human nature here. I think that's all we have is human nature and feelings. It is my opinion that if a person feels they are speaking on behalf of a different person the most likely explanation is that parts of themselves have become separate and they are communicating with themselves. Maybe they find it hard to talk of metaphysical things and create an 'other' to do it for them while they tend to daily life. The possibility of an actual spirit seems very 19th century and needs incredibly strong evidence to be deemed likely or correct. So someone who doesn't take it on or give it detailed analysis has a reasonable and rational basis to do so.

I thought Jimmy Kimmel's opening was OK. It's getting that balance of being respectful to the achievements of film makers and their craft, which is what the night is for, but having some fun and taking a dig where appropriate. Couldn't watch beyond that as too long and drawn out which I guess makes your point as to the show as a whole. Only movie I've seen of the main nominees was Banshees of Inisheran, which was entertaining and I have a lot of time for the acting, though the point of the actions by the main character didn't totally make sense or resonate with me and seemed a bit art house for art house sake. Watching All Quiet on the Western front now and it is grim.

I agree it is up to them if they call themselves a man, that they shouldn't be discriminated against, and I'd have no problem having them as a friend. I have a close gay couple as friends who I think take it further and identify as this and that and I let them define away. The difference though is where, say, political parties or governments or other people in positions of authority say that, as a matter of course, we all should, and it is right to, abide by the new definitions established by the minority. I work in a govt department - no letters can have Mr or Ms or she or he - fair enough - but some of the emails that come from up high on inclusiveness and acceptance and behaviour I think go beyond their authority. Let people be but don't <deleted> with my brain. My comments above too were not talking about posters here but some things I see in Australia and the states.

You and I have had more farewells on this thread than Dame Nellie Melba. That's an Australian reference. I get where you are coming from, in that Tippaporn is clearly genuine in his belief about Seth, but his posts over time can seem to become a bit too assured in their perceived correctness, and in turn his opinions of others become problematic, based on the Seth theory. The Seth thing does not resonate with me - I always wonder why a disembodied spirit cannot provide more proof and concrete practical stuff to prove their knowledge and other worldliness - but I accept that many others feel differently and I haven't looked at it enough to build a complete basis for an opinion.

Your experience is the same as mine. I think most of the concerns are silly. I think though, that certain definitions or norms, including the definition of man and woman, are deep in our psyches. To play with them, to suit one or other minority, is a reasonable concern for people to have. Saying a trans person is a higher risk to the public is in my opinion cobblers - but saying a man can get pregnant because of a new dictionary definition is going too far. I feel people have the right to call that out as woke - I think definitions do matter - but at the same time let people do their thing based on their preferences and feelings. I am not suggesting being trans is not a real thing, but that if, say, you have a biological female who likes living how men tend to live, that it makes it appropriate and necessary to call them a man. And this is important as, though change is good sometimes, not all social norms are bad and redefining words based on feelings and personal preferences is problematic. Some democrats, in attempting to be fair, can be seen to stray into self righteousness superiority, as though the opposing opinion does not get the points made, and smugness. Sometimes such a reaction can seem to be justified, with the extreme right, but politically it doesn't help the cause. This post involves politics so I feel people have to be smart about what they know and what they don't know and to be careful about changes to definitions on what can seem like a whim or to allow people to feel good about themselves. As an aside I think many Republicans are overplaying the woke hand, and are using it to describe situations that clearly don't apply to, and that some on the right might start to tire of the nonsense use of the word.

Saying 'it’s possible for men to become pregnant', and coming up with a new definition of man, is in my mind deliberately provocative and shows why people regale against what they consider wokeness. Let's not muck around - it is not clear that genetic women, who consider themselves 'cisgender men' are any different to other woman except they have a preference to live their life a certain way and identify as men. Science may show different in the future. So can we please use terminology that doesn't alienate people. Democrats have enough problem as it is. How about we say that people can live how they like, and should be allowed to dress how they like and should not be harrassed or have to experience prejudice. Other people do not have to feel like they are wrong if they do not necessarily accept that a biological woman is a man and that therefore by definition men can be pregnant and have babies. People on both sides of the debate should be sensible and respectful when it comes to particular situations like the use of toilets. If you consider I have simplified things too much that's on you for quoting the article as you did.