Fat is a type of crazy

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. 

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that you have never seen/heard a spirit is not evidence that some other people cannot see/hear.

If you think that all the people who have seen/heard a spirit are mentally ill, perhaps you have a prejudice. 

Perhaps, removing that prejudice just for a short while could give you another perspective. 

We are not talking about blind faith here, and you would admit that having a strong prejudice is not the right attitude to understand what Seth , or anybody says.

Btw, we are looking at the finger here, and not at the moon, so to speak.

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision; i have no intention, at the moment, to study Seth's message intensively, but what I've read so far makes enough sense to me.

 

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. 

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, but I think the definition of a man/woman becomes legal and political.  People's gender identity is something that is highly personal.  I don't worry about it because I don't think it's a common situation or one that is going to be somehow disruptive.  So a trans person with intact female reproductive organs decides she is a man, then that's up to her.  They shouldn't be mistreated or discriminated against.  Whether you or I decide they will be in our social circle is up to us.   We don't individually have to accept these things that we don't like, but we can't stop people from being and feeling the way they do and wanting to be able to express it.  

 

 

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. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

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. 

2 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't understand why people get so worked up over things that don't affect them.  I remember when everyone was sure that gay marriage was going to cause the collapse of western civilization.  It didn't.  It hasn't.  It hasn't affected anyone, except gay people.  

 

I totally can't get my head around trans people, but it is real, they do exist and they have zero affect on my life.  None.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to undergo surgery unless they felt it was necessary.   I've known one translady, but she had transitioned long before I met and worked with her.  She was a fantastic person.  I also knew one young man who I knew as a man who I later met with her boyfriend.  I didn't recognize her, and it was later in the evening when she said, "You don't remember me, do you?"  I didn't.  I was surprised.  He was a nice looking young man and now she was a nice looking lady.  But again, no effect on me or my life.  I am glad they are both happy.

 

Drag Queens are entertainers.  If you enjoy their entertainment.  Go.  If not, don't.  I've never seen a drag queen walking around the grocery store all glammed up -- that's a lot of time to get ready.   Again, nothing to do with me or my life.   

 

Everybody who lives should be treated with respect and be allowed to live their life as they wish.  If they aren't hurting anyone, let them be.   And none of them are hurting you.   

 

 

 

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. 

11 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

This may explain it for him:

 

Is it possible?

Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own. In fact, it’s probably a lot more common than you might think. In order to explain, we’ll need to break down some common misconceptions about how we understand the term “man.” Not all people who were assigned male at birth (AMAB) identify as men. Those who do are “cisgender” men. Conversely, some people who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) identify as men. These folks may be “transgender” men or transmasculine people.

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant

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. 

I think one good thing is on this site, you can do what you cannot do in real life, and that is pick and choose topics and discussion with people and log off.

We all know that there are certain topics that appear with regularity, with a lot of horrendously boring and predictable replies that get 20 likes each, and so I avoid them, which is easy as I don't live in Thailand, but come from time to time, and though I may retire in the future, I don't feel invested in the minutiae of life here like others. 

I like some of the stuff in the Pub section. There are discussions in the Pub about life on the streets, if you will, but they involve issues of temptation, morality, honesty and fairness that could be discussed here. Same with some of the news stories. Then there are some that are simply lighthearted. I like stories too about potential retirement destinations. 

So it's not too hard to avoid negativity. But negativity can be good as we all feel that way on some topics and best not to pretend our thoughts and ideas are all sweetness and light. 

I want a date who could care less about stuff. I want someone who cares. I am cynical enough for both of us. I think that's why older westerners like thai girls. Big open smile and eyes. They think it's because of the tits and ass which it is a bit of the reason but western men and women too easily see each others flaws and it seems thai ladies are more like a blank canvass. Too blank sometimes. 

Fashions change and I think people are getting over the reliance by politicians on the whole anti woke thing rather than serious policies. So often Republicans are a bit weird. He seems weird and horrid. 

If something makes me lose a bit of faith in human nature it's this. That people put up with their health being put at risk like frogs in boiling water and not holding the govt to account makes you wonder what it takes to get people to stand up. 

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

yeah, for some people he is a great teacher.

and some people think he's evil and the type of manipulative deceitful guru i mentioned in past posts.

 

there are many interesting comments about Osho on this Quora thread.

https://www.quora.com/Was-Osho-a-fraud-How-much-of-what-he-says-is-relevant

 

have fun, kids!

They became famous in Australia in the 80's when attempting to set up an ashram in Western Australia. There was pushback from the community and the spokesperson for them seen below called locals stupid, idiotic, prune faces and fruitcakes. She was interviewed about local concerns and she said 'What can I say. Tough titties'. Caused amusement for a time and proabably drew a line in the sand of feeling that that sort of supposed mysticism was not to be taken seriously. She then went to jail for a different issue. But mention Rajneesh and the orange people and  people in Australia think of 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Let's stick with B instead.  I play pool.  You always want to take the most difficult shot first and leave the ducks for cleanup.

Let's start by asking you a personal question.  What's your financial situation?  Okay.  I don't want you to answer that as it's strictly your business.  But we'll use it nonetheless to prove a point.

What are your beliefs about money?

- Do you believe money is hard to come by?

- Do you believe that money is easy to create in sufficient quantity?

- Do you believe others are out to get your money?

- Do you believe money is good?

- Do you believe money is bad?

- Do you believe money is the source of happiness?

- Do you believe money is the solution to problems?

- Do you believe money is the source of all good things?

- Do you believe money is the root of all evil?

- Do you believe you have enough money?

- Do you believe you have too little money?

- Do you believe you have the skills to command a great deal of money for your talents?

- Do you believe you do not have any skills or talents to create a great deal of wealth?

- Do you believe money makes the world go round?

- Do you believe you are underpaid?

- Do you believe you are fairly paid?

- Do you believe you are overpaid?

- Do you believe you struggle with money?

- Do you believe money lost is gone forever?

- Do you believe there's a limited supply of money?

- Do you believe there's a never ending abundance of money?

 

These are just some of the questions regarding money that I ask you to answer.  Not to me or anyone else.  But only yourself.  But you must be brutally honest in your answers.  Otherwise, what's the point of fooling yourself?

Now I'll ask you to match your answers and see how your experience mirrors those answers.  Your answers matched to your experience will serve as your personal proof that ideas create experience.

You can do this using any subject matter.  Why?  Because the process which is used is the same for all issues.  You create every issue in your life using the same process.

And so, the evidence for you and everyone else is your lived experience.  As I like to say, the proof is always in the pudding.  And the pudding is your life.

 

I accept that attitude, confidence, heart, discipline, and the flow on effects such as education, risk taking or carefulness, etc effect your financial outcomes. There are some people who seem attracted to bad investments and others who seem to have an ability to invest well and succeed. My opinion though is the link between thoughts and actuality is based on known factors and not some spiritual, or other worldly, or kharmic factors.

Someone said how can you explain kharma to an 8 year old. My opinion on kharma is that at different points we make decisions - hard path or easy path, sensible or indulgent, long term or short term thinking. Good is not written on a tablet somewhere but stem from things that make our bodies strong - things that give us clarity, allow us to hold our head high, and have a strong heart. If we choose bad we become weak, tired, confused etc. Not morality as such but the reality of the effect of actions on ourselves.

People sense it. Being bad opens up vulnerabilities in our bodies and allows people to take advantage of us. 

Kharma is based on our own decisions and the effect on the body and doesn't require a god or other wordly interaction. We make our own selves to an extent, but based on reality, based on real things. If an earthquake happens it comes under the category of stuff happens. 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Subjective reality can't be proven.  Not by science or anyone else.  Only to one's self.  You don't understand that very important point.  Yet.

But in your own words you say you ' take ideas, subjective reality, and literally materialise that into it's physical counterpart.' That is the point of my posts. There should be proof of that. If not then let's stick with Exhibit A and say you have subjective experiences that seem significant. 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, I thought you already had your fill of this place and exited quite some time ago.  Don't come back now just to troll with your disbelief and demands to satisfy you on your terms only.  And with an upfront refusal to debate anything.  We're serious people here.

OK I accept your right to have an opinion in that way. Exhibit A: Someone says meditation brings me a clarity and insights I never had before. I believe it has a significance beyond this and could indicate there is a god. Exhibit B: Someone says I know that ideas and thoughts can be turned into reality. Those who do not believe this are constricted in their thinking and have closed their mind. 

I am happy to leave A to their devices and can be interested in what they have to say but B is a different kettle of fish. It is reaching for the stars when it may be time to get their feet back on the ground.

But I appreciate your input and concur that it is best I disappear back into the ether.

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

At the risk of repeating myself I will say again:

Reality is what it is.  Reality functions as it does.  It cares not one whit what anyone believes it is or believes about it's functioning.  It does not change.

Call that truth if you will.  Although as is evidenced here "truth" is not the same for everyone.  Truth is indeed truly relative.  So instead call reality and it's functioning bedrock reality.  It exists as surely as you exist.

How does our reality function?  How is it that we create?  Those answers can be found in just the title of an essay produced by Jane Roberts back in 1963.  "The Physical Universe As Idea Construction."  That is not metaphorical.  That is literal.  Anyone who understands that concept thoroughly is then capable of perceiving the illusion we call objective reality.

We literally create every last stitch of our experience, from the most insignificant detail down to the most profound experience, via our use of idea construction.  Every belief anyone holds or subscribes to is an idea construction.

What we are doing on this plane of existence is the work of literal creation using ideas, little different than a painter using paints.  And yet we are largely unaware of the task of creation that we are engaged in or the the means by which we perform this task.  And there is good reason why we come here unaware.

It is possible, however (though it's a rare one who is willing to believe in the possibility), and perhaps it's ultimately inevitable for all of us, to understand what bedrock reality is, how it functions, and what our role has been all along.  That, my friends, is like awakening in a dream to the realisation that one is dreaming.  It is an awakening instead to the realisation of who we are and what we are doing here.  And furthermore, a thorough understanding of how we do what we do.  It 's an understanding that life doesn't happen to us but rather life is created by us.  We literally are, each of us, Gods in that sense.  We are creators.

 

The most confounding and confusing aspect is this notion of truth.  Whatever one believes is literally their "truth."  And so there are more "truths" out there than one can shake a stick at and each "truth" is "true."  But, you see, that is the entire point of idea construction.  You take ideas, subjective reality, and literally materialise that into it's physical counterpart.  You then are able to experience an idea in all of it's fullness rather than simply experiencing it mentally.  Whatever ideas are materialised then become the r-e-a-l objective reality which is then experienced.  It's all real and it's all "true."

Beliefs are nothing more than ideas.  So whatever one believes will be that which he or she will then experience.  If you lack money that is a belief.  Not a condition of reality but a belief about reality.  You create using ideas so the belief in the lack of money produces the experience of a lack of money.  Change the belief to an abundance of money and so that belief produces the experience of abundance.  A poor man will show you the evidence of his "truth."  A wealthy man will show you the evidence of his "truth."  Both poverty and abundance exist and each is both real and true.  Once it is understood that there are multiple "truths" then the only question becomes which one do you prefer?  Which "truth" would you like to experience?

The idea that there is only one true reality causes great consternation and confusion.  There exist literally endless realities.  Sooner or later one becomes aware of the real rules of this game and can begin to play by those real rules.  No longer does he or she create by default, which is via the idea that life happens to you, and begins to deliberately create private experience by picking and choosing those ideas, and only those ideas, which produce the manufactured reality which is desired.  One finally comes to the realisation that he or she is a literal God creating his or her own experience.  And that there is no outside force which thrusts upon or inserts experience into any other's experience.  It is all chosen by the inherent free will which is an indelible part of what we are.  Complete and total free will.

Once that realisation comes upon one, the fact that we are all involved in creating our reality in all of it's gruesome and/or majestic detail, then does one's private world truly change.  The veil of illusion has been pierced and when that point is reached I believe our reincarnational cycle is over and we move on to other challenges.

Anyway, I want to re-emphasise the point that there is such a thing as bedrock reality which is the source of all believed realities.  There is the possibility of becoming aware of that reality.  And for me, as a design engineer, as someone who has deep appreciation for how things work using the laws which govern this reality, the mechanics of what's really going on is truly a marvel to behold.

 

I don't want to get into debate so sorry if I don't reply further but if you believe we are creating our own reality, not just think it could be but believe it, then you must have extraordinary examples in your own life to show how you have put it into action. Post a picture of your $10,000,000 bank balance, show us your harem of hot chicks, etc. OK, maybe you are not materialistic but there should be extraordinary evidence of things happening that make you think it is correct. 

I get the feeling you are a normal person living a normal life. Like the rest of us. That life has not been particularly kind or bad to you. So why would someone believe that we can turn ideas into the physical when it's proponents have nothing to show that it works. I want extraordinary. Not coincidences. Not feelings that seemed special. Not a lucky car parking spot. It's a BIG CALL to go with your theory. The irony in many of your posts about people not being willing to change their mind when presented with new evidence is palpable. 

No more words. Evidence. If no evidence then fine - you believe Seth and that's fine but it is no more than a normal belief by the normal definition. 

Good post Owl. Sorry to hear about the lack of rain. Doesn't seem long ago you had plenty. Everything is a bit topsy turvy - we had the wettest spring and early summer I can remember - had torrents of water flooding past the house damaging the road on a few occasions.

Cats are a problem here. They have to be kept inside for killing the local wildlife. Rarely now you see a  cat at all and if you do it is hiding in the bushes like a criminal or something. 

I look at a girl. She hits the spot. Causes emotion. No thought required first. Thank you. 

I recommend Kacha if high season rates. Probably no 2 to KC Grande at White Sand Beach. A little less fancy but nice rooms, nice pools, and lovely breakfast and restaurant on the beach. More central than KC Grande too with a small night market right outside. White Sand Beach is nice too because of the trees for shade and no rocks to the right of the hotel.

K C Grande is nice but it is worth paying more to be on the beach side as the feel of the rooms on the other side not nearly as nice. On the other hand the hillside rooms at Kacha are cheaper and quite good as long as you ask for a higher floor and facing the pool not the street. They have always given me what I asked for.

Other good options are the Emerald Cove though a bit of a walk to the main part of town and Seaview which is extremely beautiful amongst the forest and has it's own bit of beach. Breakfast is fantastic looking over the bay. 10 minutes walk to town on the beach if low tide or cheap taxi to Kae Bai if not. That was the hotel that had the problem when someone complained. 

I would book before hand as it will likely be cheaper and some of the hotels on white sand beach for example look ok but are pretty crappy inside.