Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I use the word "object" not just for material objects.
Take the sentence "I have a thought." for example. "I" is the subject, "thought" is the object in this sentence. There is a duality here of subject possessing an object. Subject and object are not the same, that's why you say "I have a thought" and not "I am the thought."...or "I have this memory" and not "I am this memory." Just like when you say "I have a car." it means you are not the car.
So anything that can be juxtaposed to the I is not the I. The subject can not be the object. The car is not the I. The body is not the I. The feelings are not the I. The thoughts are not the I.

What is the I then?

What you've just expressed is one of the many examples of the imprecision in the normal use of language. Another example is describing a leaf as green or yellow. We have to simplify our use of language in order to be brief. It would be more perecise to say, 'I'm experiencing a sensation of greenness when I observe that leaf,' but that is not as brief as 'the leaf is green'.
However, such imprecision does cause confusion when one expands upon the topic. I wonder how many people actually believe that the leaf itself has the property of being green, and don't understand that the leaf appears green because it has the property of reflecting a particular wave length of light that the normal human brain interprets as green. The leaf itself is devoid of color.

 

All your thoughts are part of you, just as your arm, and your leg, and your heart, and your brain with billions of neurons, are all a part of you. We don't say 'I am the thought', because we understand that we are more than just the thought, just as we don't say 'I am the hand, or 'I am a big toe'.

 

So to answer the question, 'What is the "I"?, I would suggest that the "I" is a conbination of all the parts that are required for the human body to exist and function. However, not all parts are of equal significance. Probably the most significant part of the human body related to the concept of "I", is the  Cerebral Cortex in the brain, which is possibly the 'seat of consciousness', although it is also reliant upon other factors for consciousness to flourish.

 

Hope I have enlightened you. 
 

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Hope I have enlightened you. 

Yes, I feel much better now. Thank you

[Sunmaster]

Man number one, two, or three cannot, by reason of his being, possess the knowledge of man number four, man number five, and higher. Whatever you may give him, he may interpret it in his own way, he will reduce every idea to the level on which he is himself."

Vince reduces everything on the physical level, Tippa reduces everything on the mind level.
Tippa tries to convince Vince that there is more than the physical, and fails. Sunmaster tries to convince both that there is more than the physical and the mind and fails even more.

Ah, the beauty of the cosmic dance. 😅

Edited February 10 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi Tippa, you might not like my answer but I know you can take it, and so here you go: pure honesty without any sugar-coating...

I did not address anything FROM your post, because imo what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t. 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Do read it again yourself:

it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

Your honest friend RP

 

". . . you might not like my answer . . ."        Little do you know . . .

 

". . . pure honesty without any sugar-coating."

 

Nothing could be more welcome to me!

 

". . . what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t."

 

I love it!  I love your unadulterated, unambiguous honesty, RP.  I cherish it.  The bluntness in expressing that honesty in unmitigated fashion is supreme.  It's what I've always been after in posting . . . people saying what they really think.

 

RP, we go back a ways now.  Everything you have ever shown me of yourself has been first class.  I've let you know this before.  There's zero doubt about it.  And nothing can change that.  It can never be taken from you.  True friendship is, as I've explained previously, the ability for two people to have such deep appreciation for one another that differences could never dampen that appreciation, nor ever invalidate it.  I am not my ideas.  I am he who has thoughts, thinking being nothing more than the process of entertaining ideas.  Ideas are not me and I am not any idea.  Ditto for you and everyone.  And so if I think you have ideas which absolutely suck then I say the ideas you entertain or subscribe to suck.  Not you, though.  You're golden.

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Do read it again yourself:

 

On your recommendation I did.  It's perfectly sensible to me still.

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

 

      None of that addresses a damn thing I said.  If it's bullsh!t but you can't show what's bullsh!t about it then your response is bullsh!t.  For example:

 

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

 

Your contention is that there are levels of enlightenment.  I counter with the above and ask questions.  You respond to none of it.  Except to call legitimate questions and arguments "mental masturbation," "a thought monkey" and claim, without reason or argument or evidence, that I suffer from "the crumbling fundaments of [my] worldview."  Geezus, RP, I feel like I'm in a convo with a hard core liberal on TT because this is the type of response one gets from them.  They don't address the substance of a post but rather only and consistently deflect to, well, bullsh!t responses.  Over and over and over again.

 

You just cannot ever get a straight answer from them for to answer the question would be damning to them.  Neither can I get straight answers from you or Sunmaster on certain questions.  Why?  Because you don't have any.  Or, if you did answer then it would be damning to your idea constructs.  This "you cannot understand, you must experience it" is a pure bullsh!t answer that allows you both to avoid answering questions you have no answers for.  Or another good one is "I've answered you but you fail to understand."    Again, Seth doesn't seem to have the problems you guys claim to have.  So what's really going on here?

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

 

Addresing your accusation that I'm "dismissing what seemingly does not fit in [my] carefully crafted mental construct" I will once again repeat what I have said so many times before:  "Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions."  I doubt there will be any takers who will take up any argument which denies the truth of that statement.  What you inteerpret, or percieve as my "mental construct" is in fact not my mental construct in the sense that it is a result of merely my purely intellectual musings.  We are the reality which we experience and so it goes without saying that the true nature of our reality, or ourselves, is open to being perceived accurately by us.  The ideas I express here are an accurate representation of the true nature of reality.  Those ideas are not my personal ideology but in fact accurate assessments of true reality which are perceived and validated on intellectual levels, intuitive levels, emotional levels, and experiential levels.  Up to you to then accuse me of not knowing that which I know.  For if you accuse me of not being able to know then you must place yourself in the same category.  I fully understand that that statement goes both ways.  In case you want to point it at me.

 

Now to address the second statement.  Truth?  What truth are you referring to?  The One Truth?  Should that be in all caps?  Animated text which flashes on and off in brilliant colours?  There are many truths about many things.  Uncountable things.  So again, what truth are you referring to?  To say there are truths which are unspeakable is not lost upon me and never has been.  There are truths which are of a paradoxical nature, too.  And no matter what truths we perceive all of those truths will be interpreted by us without exception according to our personal beliefs.  Including those "see the light" experiences which you and Sunmaster have alluded to.  Those, too, will be interpreted using the filter of your beliefs.

 

Anyway, I'll again lobby for honest debate in which questions do not go unanswered or replaced with deflections of any kind.

 

Your brutally honest friend, Tippers.  

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

who designed the individual components

 

I don't design any car components but I do design the tooling which produces them in mass quantities!  

 

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to give myself a shout out and cheekily pat myself on my back for everyone to see whilst groaning to themselves.  

[Tippaporn]

46 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Vince reduces everything on the physical level, Tippa reduces everything on the mind level.

 

And Sunmaster reduces everything to bullsh!t.  

[Sunmaster]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

And Sunmaster reduces everything to bullsh!t.  

So true! Because endlessly talking about it IS bullsh!t!  
Living it and experiencing it is what matters.

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Well, now that we can freely diss each other's ideas with the understanding that we're not impugning the other's character then I can now give my long held assessment of Sunmaster.  The dude suffers from an identity crisis.  He rejects all of his other identities and believes he has only One . . . the One.  

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

So true! Because endlessly talking about it IS bullsh!t!  
Living it and experiencing it is what matters.

 

What the hell do you think experiencing physical life gives you?  Nothing?  

[Red Phoenix]

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

...

On your recommendation I did [re-read what I wrote] .  It's perfectly sensible to me still.

      None of that addresses a damn thing I said.  If it's bullsh!t but you can't show what's bullsh!t about it then your response is bullsh!t.  For example:

 

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

 

>> Sorry Tippa, I still fail to see how anything you wrote in response to the idea that there are 7 levels of man is relevant. "Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities."  I do not out-of-hand dismiss such notions, but why would that "shred"  the concept of development-levels attainable to man, and show that to be false?  For me that response was a total non-sequitur.  A bit like me stating that one could look at the Earth as consisting of 7 continents, and you then dismissing that idea by bringing up penguins, kangaroos and polar bears. 

 

45 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

...  Neither can I get straight answers from you or Sunmaster on certain questions.  Why?  Because you don't have any.  Or, if you did answer then it would be damning to your idea constructs. 

 

 

>> Yep, you can ask questions and I am sure that @Sunmaster as well as myself will try to answer them.  And that answer will of course always be from our point of view ('reality').  And when we do not answer, that's not a matter of unwillingness but rather that either we do not have an answer (we are far from omni-scient in these matters), or that we opt to ignore the questions, as they are 'unanswerable' and require a fertile ground to be of any use.  "Ask a foolish question". 

Edited February 10 by Red Phoenix

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Well, now that we can freely diss each other's ideas with the understanding that we're not impugning the other's character then I can now give my long held assessment of Sunmaster.  The dude suffers from an identity crisis.  He rejects all of his other identities and believes he has only One . . . the One.  

That's quite accurate. Bravo. 
So you are listening after all. 😁

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

35 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Well, now that we can freely diss each other's ideas with the understanding that we're not impugning the other's character then I can now give my long held assessment of Sunmaster.  The dude suffers from an identity crisis.  He rejects all of his other identities and believes he has only One . . . the One.  

That's quite accurate. Bravo. 
So you are listening after all. 😁

 

I have been all along.

 

Sunmaster looking in the mirror:  That is not me.  I don't really exist. 

 

I've told you before, Seth has correctly said that our idea of identity is very much misunderstood.  You don't seem to believe that.  Seth is trying to get us to understand that our current understanding of identity is so narrow and distorted that we think we have only one identity - the one we see reflected in the mirror.  There is more to us.  You firmly agree with that.  Seth explains that we are gestalt consciousnesses.  In other words, many consciousnesses coming together to form a new and inviolate identity comprised of that multitude of individual consciousnesses.  Our physical identity, which is a gestalt consciousness, is itself a part of a larger identity, or greater gestalt consciousness.

 

Not understanding this, Sunmaster then gets it into his head that the identity which is reflected in his mirror is not his r-e-a-l identity.  His true identity is that greater entity of which he is only part of.  The identity which is reflected in his mirror is not really an independent identity at all.  He then gets the idea in his head that he must forsake that identity in order to accept his "true" identity, as he now understands that this seeming identity in the mirror is part of something larger than himself.  It is not really a separate and inviolate identity at all.  Nor is it eternally independent and valid.

 

Seth then attempts to get us to understand that our narrow and distorted idea of identity keeps hidden from us the fact that we have many identities.  They are all independent and eternally valid.  In his misunderstanding of identity Sunmaster believes that the reflection in his mirror is not independent.  It does not have it's own reality which follows it's own nature and it's own path and it's own growth.

 

You think of one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a.greater identity in which they have their being.

....

It is quite possible, for example, for several selves to occupy a body, and were this the norm it would be easily accepted. That implies another kind of multipersonhood, however, one actually allowing for the fulfillment of many abilities of various natures. usually left unexpressed. It also implies a freedom and organization of consciousness that is unusual in your system of reality, and was not chosen there.

...

The I-structure arises from the inner self, formed about various interests, abilities, and drives. Selections are made as to the areas of concentration. You rarely find a person who is a great intellect, a great athlete, and also a person of deep emotional and spiritual understanding - an ideal prototype of what it seems mankind could produce.

In some systems of physical existence, a multipersonhood is established in which three or four "persons" emerge from the same inner self, each one utilizing to the best of its abilities those characteristics of its own. This presupposes a gestalt of awareness, however, in which each knows of the activities of the others, and participates; and you have a different version of mass consciousness. Do you see
the correlation?

In the systems in which evolution of consciousness has worked in that fashion, all faculties of body and mind in one "lifetime" are beautifully utilized. Nor is there any ambiguity about identity. The individual would say, for example, "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob."

...

Any concepts of gods or other beings that are based upon limited ideas of personhood [identity] will ultimately be futile.

...

You are multipersons (intently). You exist in many times and places at once. You exist as one person, simultaneously. This does not deny the independence of the persons, but your inner reality straddles their reality, while it also serves as a psychic world in which they can grow.

 

These excerpts really don't need me to expound upon the concepts.  They're quite clear.  There are an infinite variety of psychological organisitions of which current man is completely unaware of.  His concept of identity is woefully lacking.  And that lack of understanding, Sunmaster, is what I believe leads you to believe in one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution.  Now if you believe that the goal is to become Brahman, All That Is, God, whatever, and experience the rest of your existence from that perspective is, well, good luck trying to achieve that.

 

How can Sunmaster reject Sunmaster in the belief that he must do so in order to realise his one and only "true" identity?  Now that's what I call true self-sacrifice.  You're a brave man, Sunmaster. 

 

Just to note, the Seth quotes are merely book material, scripture, another manual, describe a different map, but since it was sourced from a book you can skip over those quotes as they cannot impart any real knowledge as that material did not come from direct experience.  <sarc> 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

...

On your recommendation I did [re-read what I wrote] .  It's perfectly sensible to me still.

      None of that addresses a damn thing I said.  If it's bullsh!t but you can't show what's bullsh!t about it then your response is bullsh!t.  For example:

 

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

 

>> Sorry Tippa, I still fail to see how anything you wrote in response to the idea that there are 7 levels of man is relevant. "Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities."  I do not out-of-hand dismiss such notions, but why would that "shred"  the concept of development-levels attainable to man, and show that to be false?  For me that response was a total non-sequitur.  A bit like me stating that one could look at the Earth as consisting of 7 continents, and you then dismissing that idea by bringing up penguins, kangaroos and polar bears.

 

I agree with you, RP.  After rereading my arguments they are indeed irrelevant.  I still don't believe in the 7 levels of man's development but I'll have to find a valid argument.

 

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

...  Neither can I get straight answers from you or Sunmaster on certain questions.  Why?  Because you don't have any.  Or, if you did answer then it would be damning to your idea constructs. 

 

 

>> Yep, you can ask questions and I am sure that @Sunmaster as well as myself will try to answer them.  And that answer will of course always be from our point of view ('reality').  And when we do not answer, that's not a matter of unwillingness but rather that either we do not have an answer (we are far from omni-scient in these matters), or that we opt to ignore the questions, as they are 'unanswerable' and require a fertile ground to be of any use.  "Ask a foolish question". 

Edited 12 minutes ago by Red Phoenix

 

Here I disagree.  I remember going round and round with Hummin over his refusal to answer questions.  Even he admitted that he would cherry pick amongst the questions those which he felt he could argue successfully.  I do not accept the reasons given for not answering questions.  If true that you guys don't respond to questions because you don't have any answers then one would expect some enquiry, or comments, or interest to know more.  Or even direct acknowledgement that you don't know, which would be better than simply ignoring a question.  That never seems to happen.  I can only recall a single instance where Sunmaster admited that he didn't know.  And if 'unanswerable' then is it beyond the realm of possibility that perhaps I might be able to provide some of that "fertile ground."  But there's no interest.

[Tippaporn]

There is one thing which I find curious.  Of all the material I know of, including religious texts, the only material I've ever found which discusses ideas and beliefs is the Seth material.  Does anyone think it odd that we are never for a moment not in the process of thinking thoughts from the moment we open our eyes upon awakening until we fall fast asleep again and yet there's never enquiry into what ideas and beliefs are, or what their effects might be?  I find that incredibly odd.

 

And yet when drilling down on that subject one only gets blinkered looks.  As if ideas and beliefs play no role in reality or produce no effects whatsoever.  Very odd, indeed. 

[Sunmaster]

Dear friends

I'm seriously questioning whether anything can be taught. 
 

They say, the teacher will appear when the student is ready. This has happened to me many times. Once I came to a breaking point where the "old" wouldn't fit anymore and there was no "new" to take its place, inevitably something happened....either in form of a conversation, something I read, a chance encounter, a dream...that would set the stage for the "new". 

The idea here is that there is a time when we are "ripe" for the new to take hold. The same reminders could happen (and are probably happening) all the time, but it's the timing that is not always right. There must be an inner disposition (a need, a vacuum, sometimes a desperation) to take on new information. Especially so when this information is not just more of the same horizontal info, but comes from the next higher branch of the consciousness tree. As long one thinks he has it all figured it out, then there is 1) no need and 2) no space for the new seed to sprout. 
You simply can't force a plant to grow faster. The only thing you can do is to provide a fertile ground and the right conditions.

For @Tippaporn So, I'm pondering about the futility of it all. This is the reason why I'm not answering questions. It's not about the questions themselves, but the predisposition of the questioner(s). If the questions would come from a genuine need to understand, to fill a vacuum, I would be happy to try and answer them. However, if the only goal of the questions is to demonstrate how strong and water-tight your thought-fortress is, then I really see no point and don't want to waste my time. You can take this as a win if you like, I don't mind. 😉 

That being said, I think I will take some time out and let this simmer for a while.
Have a good one. 
 

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

. . . if the only goal of the questions is to demonstrate how strong and water-tight your thought-fortress is . . .

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions.

 

How can an understanding of what reality is and how it functions be considered a 'thought fortress'?  Imagine if I were to explain to an apprentice how a progressive die functions and my apprentice had some backwards ideas which he was convinced were the right ideas about it's functioning, and I were to then explain to him, no, it functions like this, and my apprentice were to respond by accusing me of only wanting to demonstrate to him how strong and water-tight my 'thought fortress' was.  Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite your beliefs about what it is or how it functions.  Right or wrong, you prefer your ideas and are tired of hearing counters to them, is all you're saying here.  And that you're frustrated that I don't accept your ideas and never will.

 

I'd recommend taking some time, oh, like maybe a few decades, and read the Seth material for a different perspective.  But you already have your answers.  For you, you've already convinced yourself of the idea being "true" that nothing new can be found in books any longer.  So, then, work with the ideas that you believe to be true and see where they lead you.  That's the only option you'll allow yourself at this point.

 

Happy Trail's Sunmaster, and thanks for helping me grow. 

 

The incomparable Roy Rogers and Dale Evans.  With your creativity perhaps you can turn the lyrics into a mantra that brings you instantaneous connection. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

That should conclude this thread.

 

February 10th in the year of our Lord 2024.  May God bless us all.

 

[Red Phoenix]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I agree with you, RP.  After rereading my arguments they are indeed irrelevant.  I still don't believe in the 7 levels of man's development but I'll have to find a valid argument.

 

 

Here I disagree.  I remember going round and round with Hummin over his refusal to answer questions.  Even he admitted that he would cherry pick amongst the questions those which he felt he could argue successfully.  I do not accept the reasons given for not answering questions.  If true that you guys don't respond to questions because you don't have any answers then one would expect some enquiry, or comments, or interest to know more.  Or even direct acknowledgement that you don't know, which would be better than simply ignoring a question.  That never seems to happen.  I can only recall a single instance where Sunmaster admited that he didn't know.  And if 'unanswerable' then is it beyond the realm of possibility that perhaps I might be able to provide some of that "fertile ground."  But there's no interest.

~

There is a saying that you can only ask a genuinely meaningful question when you already - consciously or subconciously - know half of the answer. 

Obviously I am not referring here to 'trick-questions' where the intent is to catch the person responding and slapping them then with your 'Aha Gotcha Truth' (which of course can still be incorrect).  

Personally I do not have any problem at all in admitting that I don't know.  Even the word 'admitting' here is wrong, as I am not interested in any puberal p1ssing contests on Who Knows More and Wins the Argument.  There will always be infinitely more that you don't know than what you really DO know.  And most of what you know is not 'yours' anyway, but you have read, heard or picked it up somewhere and it fitted with your current beliefs.

= = =

So yes I do believe that there are additional levels beyond the one you were born with, in order to realize your full human potential. And that belief is strengthened as I did experience a glimpse of what lies beyond. 

That makes it also so god-damn difficult to explain the huge QUALITATIVE difference between what you believe based on what you read (and thought you understood) and what you KNOW because you experienced it personally. 

A discussion between a man that has seen God (I am not referring to myself in case you wonder) and someone that knows all the scriptures by heart and is an expert in what others did write on the subject, is no match.

As Sunmaster wrote: Personal experience trumps borrowed knowledge every time...

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I don't design any car components but I do design the tooling which produces them in mass quantities!  

 

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to give myself a shout out and cheekily pat myself on my back for everyone to see whilst groaning to themselves.  

How does it feel knowing that you are part of the industry that produces probably the worst aspect of modern society's culture of waste? Billions of cars have been made despite them being made not to last, but to be replaced simply because they are "last year's model". Billions of cars have been junked despite them being capable of lasting decades if maintained properly.

IMO it's a large part of how vile humanity is, that we rend the earth to make stuff to throw away.

I drive a car made in Japan that was rendered unusable there simply because it was over 10 years old. I will probably have to stop using it because I can't get a mechanical insurance for it in 2 years, and computer cars cost too much to fix as I can't do it myself.

Before that I drove a 30 year old car, but rust killed it, not planned obsolescence.

Edited February 11 by thaibeachlovers

[save the frogs]

14 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Happy Trail's Sunmaster, and thanks for helping me grow. 

 

trouble in paradise?

have you really "grown" or are you still fixed in your ways and holding a grudge?

the falling out doesnt surprise me. when you have two people with rigid idealogical belief systems, a clash is inevitable.

i saw it coming a mile away.

 

 

[Neeranam]

God is conspiring for my good. He wants what is best for me, and it's important I remember that I as often question his will.

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

There is a saying that you can only ask a genuinely meaningful question when you already - consciously or subconciously - know half of the answer.

 

Yes, you had shared the fictional short story with me a while back which illustrated the point.  But the moral of the story was that you needed to have at least part of the answer to the question you were asking before you could receive the full answer.  Not whether it was a genuine question or a meaningful question.

 

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Obviously I am not referring here to 'trick-questions' where the intent is to catch the person responding and slapping them then with your 'Aha Gotcha Truth' (which of course can still be incorrect).

 

I'm OK with questions that are geared towards drawing out answers from someone, knowing in advance that by doing so their answers will eventually conflict with each other.  Its a method of showing someone by using their own words that the rational and logic of their thought process is flawed due to the obvious incompatibility of the ideas they hold revealed by their very answers.  That's not a 'gotcha' where you can then assert that your truth, or idea, is correct but a 'gotcha' in that you can assert that their idea is false.

 

Just to note: formulating a series of questions meant to trick a person into revealing the inconsistencies in their beliefs is not what a trick question is.  A trick question is one which forces another to give an incorrect answer.  As an example:  "A bat and ball cost $1.10.  The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.  How much does the ball cost?"  If your answer was 10¢ that would be wrong.  The answer is intuitive, appealing but wrong.

 

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Personally I do not have any problem at all in admitting that I don't know.  Even the word 'admitting' here is wrong, as I am not interested in any puberal p1ssing contests on Who Knows More and Wins the Argument.

 

Admitting that you don't know something is never wrong.  How can it be?  It is what it is and there's no spinning it.  Of course if you tether an admission of not knowing to a concession in a pissing contest then yeah, I understand the hesitancy in expressing such an admission.  I brought up to Sunmaster quite a while ago that our differences can very well lead to interpreting our individual stances as a pissing contest.  I recognised that and purposely raised it and Sunmaster replied to it.

 

I've said many times that I don't see the clash of ideas as a pissing contest, or a contest of who knows more than the other, nor am I interested in winning an argument for the sole intention of winning.  A pissing contest is as you say, RP, pubescent.  Yet it is inherent in any clash of ideas that each person will assert that the ideas they subscribe to are the correct ones.  That's not a revelation that should be lost on anyone.

 

A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit that they don't know something.  This results in questions not being answered for admitting that there's something one doesn't know something may then threaten their assertion that their ideas are correct if they were to come to know that something.  They fear that they're overlooking something important which has an important bearing but including that information may likely destroy their point of view.  So they purposefully ignore that information.  You've experienced this in spades over on TT.  It's no different here.  Just different subject matter.

 

A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit that they don't know something.  This also results in perceiving a clash of ideas to be a contest of 'who knows more'.  For to admit there's something you don't know can give the psychological appearance of the other knowing more than you know.  If the only intention is to have one's ideas be the 'correct' ones then oftentimes one always needs to maintain the notion that they know more than the other.  For it is the lack of knowing which then becomes the reason why the other cannot accept one's ideas as correct.  You've experienced this in spades over on TT.  It's no different here.  Just different subject matter.

 

A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit when their ideas are incorrect.  This results in defending one's ideas at all costs.  Right or wrong no longer matters.  It's irrelevant.  The only thing which is relevant is that what they want to believe to be correct is correct.  This is where dishonesty enters in.  For in defending the indefensible one must rely on dishonesty.  Truth cannot be used for truth would force one to concede that their ideas are incorrect.  And that cannot be allowed as long as one wants to insist on believing as they do.  You've experienced this in spades over on TT.  It's no different here.  Just different subject matter.

 

14 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

There will always be infinitely more that you don't know than what you really DO know.

 

That fact has never been lost on me, RP.  And in a clash of ideas the humble recognition of that fact should always be at the forefront of one's mind.  Having that recognition at the forefront would always allow one to freely acknowledge when there is something that one does not know.  However, this truthful fact should not be misused to imply in all cases that what you do know you don't really know.  I'm a stickler for speaking of only that which I do know whilst being fully aware of the fact that there will always be more that I don't know than what I do know.  I don't always succeed but I've a pretty high batting average.

 

14 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

And most of what you know is not 'yours' anyway, but you have read, heard or picked it up somewhere and it fitted with your current beliefs.

 

That is another fact that has never been lost on me, RP.  Although, any information is changed by he who holds it for indeed it is coloured by their beliefs.  So whilst the information is old, in the sense that it already exists, it becomes new via ones personal interpretation of that information.  The statement is true but only in part.  It is not always the case where information is fitted to ones beliefs.  For the case exists where information completely changes ones beliefs.

 

14 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

So yes I do believe that there are additional levels beyond the one you were born with, in order to realize your full human potential.

 

I understand well your concept of levels, RP, but I do not agree with that concept.  I believe it to be only an appearance.  Realising ones full human potential does not come from climbing any imagined levels but from utilising all of ones abilities.

 

All of this may seem to have little to do with your daily personal experience, and yet it is intimately connected, for personally and en masse you can indeed create "the best" of all possible worlds.

The performance of a great athlete gives evidence of abilities inherent in the human form that are little used. Great artists by their very works demonstrate other attributes latent in the race as a whole. They still represent one-line delineations, however. Within the experience of your race as you know it lie all the patterns that would point to some fully developed human being, in which all inherent tendencies were given full play and came to fruition.

You would have an individual who displayed within himself [or herself] all of those great abilities known to the race, fulfilled according to his own unique temper — the artist, mathematician, athlete, the inventor — all the extraordinary qualities of creaturedom; the emotional realities would be used to their capacity, and any of the racial qualities or characteristics of the species would be given their complete freedom.

Wisdom and foolishness would be seen as aspects, one of the other. Religion and science would each be unhampered by dogma in such an individual. In the same way, following your own "trace" experiences and characteristics, you can discover those "probable" abilities that are yours, and uncover to some degree the nature of probable actions open to you for physical materialization.

 

Using all of your abilities would lead to the fulfillment of your physical being and your inner being.  It would lead to the growth of your physical being and your inner being.  It would lead to the recognition of who you are both as a physical being and as a portion of your inner being.  Doing so would raise your level of awareness.  It's not really a level of awareness, for using that term it could be said that there are an infinite number of levels, even on the human level, but an expansion of awareness.  An expansion of consciousness.  And that expansion is never ending.  And your expansion expands All That Is as well since you are a part of that.

 

15 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

And that belief is strengthened as I did experience a glimpse of what lies beyond.

 

I cannot comment on your experience.  You have not described it in any detail other than to say it enlightened you to whatever extent.  The same with Sunmaster.  I do not, and never have, diminished the importance of these types of experiences.  I encourage them for I understand they are important.  And so whilst I cannot comment on your specific experience and what it specifically involved I do know that any and all such experiences must ultimately be interpreted by the physical self using its beliefs as a filter in order to make sense of that experience for the physical self.  In that sense it is no different than interpreting a nightly dream.  Therefore I am wary of anyone's specific claims regarding their experiences for one can claim such an experience as representing almost anything; for example, to be a direct communication with God himself when in fact it was only ones personal symbolism which interpreted the experience as such.  There are countless examples of people who have had valid experiences and have clothed them in the garb of their personal symbolism, thus distorting them.  Whilst I am wary of ones interpretations for that reason I in no way deny the validity of what they have experienced.  They will interpret it to suit their overall intentions.

 

15 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

That makes it also so god-damn difficult to explain the huge QUALITATIVE difference between what you believe based on what you read (and thought you understood) and what you KNOW because you experienced it personally.

 

I would not argue there is a qualitative difference between those experiences of consciousness had with other realities and neither would I argue the clarity which accompanies such experiences.  I've had my own so I do not speak from ignorance.  It is true that some of those experiences do not involve the use of language but I would not go so far as to say they go beyond the intellect.  For again the intellect is an attribute of consciousness, as are intuitions and emotions.  My experience, for instance, was the most intense emotional experience I have ever had in the extreme, in which absolute understanding was emotionally understood.  However, whilst it was largely emotional I cannot deny that there was intellectual and intuitive understanding, too.

 

The idea that I strongly oppose, however, is the conclusion drawn, or the implication made that this type of understanding invalidates any other type of understanding.  When someone tells me that I don't really know what I know until I've experienced that knowing in the fashion of 'direct experience' then one is completely missing the fact that understanding can come in unlimited forms and via unlimited avenues.  It's as if 'direct experience' and the 'knowing' which it imparts - and cannot be put into words - invalidates all physical experience and the 'knowing' which normal experience imparts.  Perhaps that is due to the fact that 'direct experience' often has an intensity and brilliance which is markedly different than that of our normal waking state.  And so it is then interpreted not only as superior but supreme.  And furthermore that knowing derived from 'direct experience' makes any other kind of learning, such as from books, useless, barren and futile.  Hence Sunmaster now fobbed off any learning from books and no longer needs them.  The idea is extremely limiting and I will forever vociferously argue against any and all ideas which purport to limit consciousness.  "There are no limits to the self." --Seth

 

This idea that book learning is likened to a fortress is fallacious and highly distorted in my opinion.  It's not that I reject the idea out of hand but that I have awareness of other ideas which explain the fallacy, yet which are so numerous that it is difficult to express all of these ideas as that expression must be done in single line, time consuming fashion; one idea following the other.  Whereas despite the quantity of ideas, in my mind they can all race through in a flash.  Which explains why my posts are extreme in length.  For the quantity of ideas and concepts needed for someone to understand what I know is so vast that it requires so many words and therefore can be, and often is, frustrating in that I am limited to expressing all of these ideas in, again, single line, time consuming fashion.  I would love to be a Vulcan, like Spock, and be able to mind meld with another.  Then you would see what I see.

 

16 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

A discussion between a man that has seen God (I am not referring to myself in case you wonder) and someone that knows all the scriptures by heart and is an expert in what others did write on the subject, is no match.

 

A discussion between a man who has learned to a fair extent the mechanics of reality (I am referring to myself, in case you wonder) and someone who has not but nonetheless has his ideas about what the mechanics of reality are, picked up largely indiscriminately for a wide array of sources, is no match.

 

For the claim that I actually know something I understand full well that I will get a ton of flack.  Largely from those who have been indoctrinated with the belief that no one can really know anything with surety.

 

16 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

As Sunmaster wrote: Personal experience trumps borrowed knowledge every time..

 

I call bullsh!t on the idea for it is highly misleading, excludes way too much that needs to be accounted for, and so is distorted.  And the idea is, also in my humble opinion, poorly expressed.  Believe that idea to be true if you will, RP.  And as long as you do you will not question it's validity.  A huge blunder, in my humble opinion.

[Tippaporn]

@Red Phoenix

 

Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own.

 

Do you believe that, RP?  I do.  Physical experience, and that includes all of it - including reading books, allows for the valid experience of All That Is.  I resent any ideas which waters down physical experience or any expression within it.  Or purports that knowledge on the physical level is less than knowledge gained via 'direct experience'.  No doubt they are different but each is equally valid.

[notrub]

Here is an interesting debate from 8 years ago with notables such as Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe(🤮).

 

I know it is about the Catholic Church but it does address the God issue too.  Very entertaining.  Especially the end vote🙂🙏🏼

 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

trouble in paradise?

 

Why would you think there's trouble?  Because we don't agree?  Trouble only if any disagreement spoils the friendship.  Which is not the case on my end.

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

have you really "grown" . . .

 

That's for me to determine.  Not you.  You would have no way of knowing.

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

or are you still fixed in your ways

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does.  If "fixed in [my] ways" means that my recognition, to whatever extent, of what reality is and how it functions will not change then yes.  To change "my ways" would then mean that I would have to adopt ideas which are not representative of what reality is and how it functions.  That would make little sense, eh?  If you know the principles which made an automotive engine work would you ever change to adopt principles which would lead to an automotive engine not working?  You seem to be under the impression that the true workings of reality can never be ascertained by anyone.  Especially by some no name poster on AN. 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

. . . and holding a grudge?

 

What gives you that faulty impression?

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

the falling out . . .

 

What falling out?  You mean the disagreement?  Are you conflating that with a "falling out?"

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

. . . when you have two people with rigid idealogical belief systems, a clash is inevitable.

 

Duh!

 

Is your ideological belief system flexible, fluid, and open to change?  We've never clashed before, have we? 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

i saw it coming a mile away.

 

In case you're thinking yourself to be uniquely perceptive on that point then I'm afraid to have to tell you about the rest of the crowd watching with you and seeing it, too. 

 

Edited February 11 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, notrub said:

Here is an interesting debate from 8 years ago with notables such as Stephen Fry and Ann Widdecombe(🤮).

 

I know it is about the Catholic Church but it does address the God issue too.  Very entertaining.  Especially the end vote🙂🙏🏼

 

 

The 34 undecided after the final vote are the only honest ones.  They saw the good of the Catholic church and they also saw the bad.  They were the only honest ones because it is impossible for the Catholic church to be 100% good or 100% bad.  If there's a single instance in which the Catholic church has done good then that good can never be erased.  Same goes for the bad.  And so it's a mix.  Granted the mixture does vary over time.  But it will always be a mix.

 

It would have been more fair and honest to ask the question, "is the Catholic church it it's present state more a force for good or bad?"  And even then it's impossible to weigh and measure for to be accurate about it one would have to tally every act committed by the Catholic church and determine how many people benefited from each act and how many people were harmed by each act.  And then one would also have to tally the benefits and harms not by the Catholic church's actions but via the beliefs of each individual who believes in and follows the Catholic church.

 

Ultimately, therefore, this panel is an entirely futile exercise as the true answer can never be known.  This can be nothing more than public opinion, and only the smallest segment of public opinion as it's limited to those who were able to vote.  It means nothing because it proves nothing.  But that won't prevent some people for using this public opinion faux exercise as proof to confirm their own personal opinion and thus deceptively sell it to others as such.

 

I'm not arguing for or against the Catholic church but only arguing for honesty.

[save the frogs]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

What gives you that faulty impression?

 

Happy Trails sounds like good riddance.

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Happy Trails sounds like good riddance.

 

Nah.

[save the frogs]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Nah.

 

Have you found a new victim yet whose throat you will try to ram your idealogy down?

 

[scorecard]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:47 PM, White Christmas13 said:

who the hell is god anybody met him I guess not

 

There is no evidence, whatever, bible or stone writings etc., or whatever:

 

- That god or jesus ever actually existed.

- That jesus was from virgin birth and/or from non-consentual sex.

- That jesus was reborn 3 days after he died.

- That the disciples parted rivers and/or provided food from nothing for thousands of people.

 

Further: the bible does NOT mention anywhere anything about homosexuality or TV activity. 

 

_