Personal Beliefs

[dog goddess]

i was just wondering about everyones personal beliefs and why they believe as they do.

yes, i believe in a creator but i also live my life according to the tao te ching. i do not give a name to my creator (nameless: the origin of heaven and earth). i think that the tao is the ultimate guide to living because it teaches to step back and not take credit for ones accomplishments. ( it may be called immense. by not making itself great, it can do great things). it teaches to cast off extravagance, to simplify oneself (therefore the sage, acts and expects nothing, accomplishes and does not linger, has no desire to seem worthy). it teaches compassion ( compassion: attack with it and win. defend with it and stand firm. heaven aids and protects through compassion.) it teaches that living is not about self gratification( no self interest, self is fulfilled).


therefore sages cling to the one
and take care of this world;
do not display themselves
and therefore shine;
do not assert themselves
and therefore stand out;
do not praise themselves
and therefore succeed;
are not complacent
and therefore endure;
do not contend
and therefore no one under heaven
can contend with them.


so much wisdom in the tao.

as to why i believe in my creator, i have been witness to my creator many times. my creator led me to the tao and now not only am i able to believe freely, but with everything that i am. my faith has become my lifestyle. everything i do, everywhere i go i am content to merely fade away. ( those who sustain tao, do not wish to be full. because they do not wish to be full, they can fade away, without further effort.)

humans follow earth
earth follows heaven
heaven follows the tao.

tao follows its own nature.



i love being able to follow my own nature.

[rich]

dog goddess,

In the topic titled Super Power, I suggested that you reregister as God, for wishing to have the power t control all. Think that you would use that power very wisely. Arrived at that conclusion, after reading your post, above.

I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor are in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. .

I followed the Christian tradition most of my life, but really, do not think what I was following, I was believing.

Thank you for initiating this topic, dog goddess.

Blessings and Good Will.

[dog goddess]

you flatter me rich, thank you.


you are very welcome for the topic.



i think you're pretty wise yourself.

[rich]

dog goddess,

Thank you. :D

[fu*]

IMO your beliefs are silly! :lol:
Not because of what they are.
But because they ARE.

Maybe instdead of defining your "belief's", you could try to identify the "believer". :unsure:


"as to why i believe in my creator, i have been witness to my creator many times. my creator led me to the tao and now not only am i able to believe freely, but with everything that i am. my faith has become my lifestyle. everything i do, everywhere i go i am content to merely fade away. ( those who sustain tao, do not wish to be full. because they do not wish to be full, they can fade away, without further effort.)" <_<


"I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor are in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. ." <_<


Aren't these your 'thoughts' ,telling you your 'thinking' is right?
Do you see any absurdity in doing that?


:wacko:

[rich]

fu,

The topic was and is, What are your beliefs?dog goddess and rich, defined our beliefs, and are criticized by someone who lacks the understanding of realizing that a greater brain than our brains is what our lives are all about.

Before you criticize others for realizing what we believe as true, what makes you think you are so right? Or are you a disciple of Vicente's. Your criticism sure sounds like it. :ph34r:

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jun 26 2003, 10:26 AM
fu,

The topic was and is, What are your beliefs?dog goddess and rich, defined their beliefs, and are criticized by someone who lacks the understanding of realizing that a greater brain than our brains is what our lives are all about.

Before you criticize others for realizing what they believe as true, what makes you think you are so right? Or are you a disciple of Vicente's. Your criticism sure sounds like it. :ph34r:
Post was edited:

[rich]

Originally posted by fu*+Jun 26 2003, 09:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fu* @ Jun 26 2003, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> IMO your beliefs are silly! :lol:
Not because of what they are.
But because they ARE.

Maybe instdead of defining your "belief's", you could try to identify the "believer". :unsure:


"as to why i believe in my creator, i have been witness to my creator many times. my creator led me to the tao and now not only am i able to believe freely, but with everything that i am. my faith has become my lifestyle. everything i do, everywhere i go i am content to merely fade away. ( those who sustain tao, do not wish to be full. because they do not wish to be full, they can fade away, without further effort.)" <_<


"I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor are in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. ." <_<


Aren't these your 'thoughts' ,telling you your 'thinking' is right?
Do you see any absurdity in doing that?


:wacko: [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin--fu*@Jun 26 2003, 09:44 AM
IMO your beliefs are silly! :lol:
Not because of what they are.
But because they ARE.

Maybe instdead of defining your "belief's", you could try to identify the "believer".:unsure:


"as to why i believe in my creator, i have been witness to my creator many times. my creator led me to the tao and now not only am i able to believe freely, but with everything that i am. my faith has become my lifestyle. everything i do, everywhere i go i am content to merely fade away. ( those who sustain tao, do not wish to be full. because they do not wish to be full, they can fade away, without further effort.)"



"I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor are in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. ."


Aren't these your 'thoughts' ,telling you your 'thinking' is right?
Do you see any absurdity in doing that?
[/quote]


IMO your beliefs are silly! :lol:
Not because of what they are.
But because they ARE.

Explain why silly!
Maybe you are silly?

Maybe instdead of defining your "belief's", you could try to identify the "believer". :unsure:

Define? Ladies 1st!


"as to why i believe in my creator, i have been witness to my creator many times. my creator led me to the tao and now not only am i able to believe freely, but with everything that i am. my faith has become my lifestyle. everything i do, everywhere i go i am content to merely fade away. ( those who sustain tao, do not wish to be full. because they do not wish to be full, they can fade away, without further effort.)"

"I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor are in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. ."
Aren't these your 'thoughts' ,telling you your 'thinking' is right?
Do you see any absurdity in doing that?

Why are my thoughts absurd?
If your thoughts think I am absurd , Continue thinking as you do, that is your privilege. :blink:
maybe I am wacko.

[dog goddess]

fu,
my beliefs are not about right or wrong. are they my thoughts telling me my thinking is right? i just live my life fu.

identify the believer? i am who i am and i do not seek to be anything other.

i'm not afraid to believe fu.

i don't have to laugh at others simply because i don't understand them.
i just let them be.


rich
it's good to be wacko, it shows you're not a mindless follower.

lead on good man.

[rich]

:D Thank you, dog goddess. <_<

Vicente,

You always are doing your best to criticize people who believe or think they have a relationship with their creator. Posted below, are some of the quotes of Albert Einstein, a person I know you admire. From reading his quotes, I would not say that he was a Godless man. Would you? [color=purple]
Quotes of Einstein

On Knowledge:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and
more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage --
to move in the opposite direction."
- "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- "The only real valuable thing is intuition."
- "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler."
- "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen."
- "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
- "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has
its own reason for existing."

His Understanding of the World:

- "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
- "The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
- "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
- "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
- "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is
blind."
- "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by
understanding."
- "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
comprehensible."
- "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and
I'm not sure about the universe."
- "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and
Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
- "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but
World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one
must, above all, be a sheep."
- "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything
that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at
Princeton)

On People and Life:

- "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- "A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
- "I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
- "Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."
- "Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything
new."
- "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from
weak minds."
- "Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
- "No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to
explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological
phenomenon as first love?"
- "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are
able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
- "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way
of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of
mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
- "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from
mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not
thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
courageously uses his intelligence .



</span>

You should not allow your past hurts from the religious make you as
bitter as you are. None of us are perfect, even me. ;)

[fu*]

Rich,

"Why are my thoughts absurd?
If your thoughts think I am absurd , Continue thinking as you do, that is your privilege."

Your thinking that I am calling you, or the content of your thoughts absurd. Becoming/Being/Believing your thoughts is what I find "absurd"

Untill you understand that, you will continue to take a deffensive/attacking position to my posts, as you are protecting Richie/thought. :ph34r:

Seems this could be a very limited thread when it comes to writting "personal belief's", as three or four of the "regulars" here dont seem to have any. Kind of hard to write them out then. ;)

[fu*]

dog goddes

"my beliefs are not about right or wrong. are they my thoughts telling me my thinking is right? i just live my life fu."

How sure are you that your "thoughts" aren't living your life?

"i'm not afraid to believe fu."

No need to be afraid of that, nearly everyone does it.Letting go of belief seems to be the "scary" part. :o
Osama and Bush seem to be great believers. Pat Robertson and Hitler too. Seems to cause all kinds of hell dont it?

"i don't have to laugh at others simply because i don't understand them.
i just let them be."

It's not that I dont understand you. I have held belief's just like you. Noble "I" was. My belief's were the greatest. If I had thought otherwise, I would have changed them to something even nobler.

"rich
it's good to be wacko, it shows you're not a mindless follower"

I might be inclined to believe that, if either of you could list some belief's that weren't told to you by someone else, or read in a book. Otherwise, it seems that you might be a "follower", thinking "leader"

Crazy aint it? :wacko:

[sonrisa]

Ah Richie, after reading all that stuff about spirits I believe I'll have a drink.... :D

[...]

When the intention to become free of ones own mirages, stemming from a unrelenting discontentment with those mirages, is not there then it's impossible to have a conversation about the believer and the absurdity of beliefs.

The person that believes is a belief...

[rich]

... & fred:

I do not force my beliefs on anybody, for everybody has the choice to believe or disbelieve, as they think. What is absurd is me taking the time to explain my position.

If some of what i believe is what someone else has written, my believing does not come about because it was written, but rather my agreeing with what was written. :huh: :)


Sonrisa,
Boo! :ph34r:

[rich]

My :o big mistake is replying to the topic, What are your beliefs?
Since what i believe upset fu*, "Seems this could be a very limited thread when it comes to writting "personal belief's", as three or four of the "regulars" here dont seem to have any. Kind of hard to write them out then."
So be it, " a very limited thread".
Sorry, :( :unsure:

[fu*]

Rich

"Since what i believe upset fu*, "

Richie always thinking which not. (stolen from Asheera)

Do you ever make an atempt to understand whats posted, or just react from emotion?

I am still waiting for your 'origonal' belief's.

[rich]

Originally posted by fu*@Jun 30 2003, 03:17 AM
Rich

"Since what i believe upset fu*, "

Richie always thinking which not. (stolen from Asheera)

Do you ever make an atempt to understand whats posted, or just react from emotion?

I am still waiting for your 'origonal' belief's.


"I also believe in a Creator of some type, ie; The power behind our being, The One/Intelligence making our being seem/being a reality. I believe that our relations with our neighbor should be in accordance with The Ten Commandments , The Eightfold Noble Path Of Buddhaand Following The Nature of the Tao. ."


Aren't these your 'thoughts' ,telling you your 'thinking' is right?
Do you see any absurdity in doing that?

Correction in red for something previously posted.

Hint for Fred, read the Mia Culpa thread in Hinduism Forum to get some essence of what Rich believes. BTW, What do you believe,
fred? Anything? The Tooth Fairy? Only yourself? :unsure: Please answer. :)

[Ronagon]

Why do people believe as they do?

Oh, this is such a clever, amusing little question... (said with a snarlingly contemptful smile)

You see (batting eyelashes passive-aggressively and hatefully), this world we live in, it's a non-stop hell-hole from the cradle to the grave.

The moment we are puked out into the world, screaming and crying, we are set upon by all sorts of sadistic, moronic degenerates who get their jollies by indoctrinating us with as much poison as possible. If we accept the indoctrination and stop exhausting ourselves from trying to retain some sort of decency and purity of mind, then we can "advance", if you call advancing toward deeper and deeper levels of bile and cruelty "advancing"...

If we continue to try and live by truly humane ethics, we are barred from employment, we are ostracized from the world completely. We have no choice but to be miserable loners.

The truth is, we "believe" what we believe, not because we really believe it, but because society gives us no choice but to force ourselves to try and believe it, or we come to inhabit a living death.

If we don't accept the indoctrination of lousiness and promote that philosophy vigorously, we get hired for nothing, no one will work with us, we are strangulated from any way to make money and/or feed ourselves. We sleep alone at night, every night. The physical and psychological toll that this takes on us is unendingly devastating, and eventually we get cancer or diabetes and die a slow, painful death.

So, here's the choice: either give yourself over to a life of unending corruption and callousness where you cause unending pain to others, or give yourself over to miserable loneliness.

Those are your choices, have a nice day.

Now, will anyone in here actually dare to disagree with this horrible truth?

[...]

..or give yourself over to miserable loneliness. Those are your choices, have a nice day. Now, will anyone in here actually dare to disagree with this horrible truth?

Only in true agonizing loneliness can freedom be realised...

[dog goddess]

such selfish people all of you are. ( not you rich)

everyone talks about freedom from this freedom from that. give me a break.
why don't you try living for something other than yourselves?

i get it now. oh yes i understand completely. all of you are so consumed with this bitterness for who knows what reason. all of you think it's just about you and your dissatisfaction with yourselves. how pathetic.

if those are your only two choices ronagon, lonliness or corruption, to bad for you. NOT ONLY DO I DARE to disagree with you ronagon but i tell you right in your snarling contemtful face that you are a fool. you too little 3 dots. all i see in your posts are people who feel sorry for themselves. so only in true agonizing lonliness can freedom be realized? what the hell ever. grow up, cheer up, stop feeling sorry for yourselves and stop whining. so damn pathetic.

and i thought this website actually involved people who had something to contribute. looks like i was wrong. you are what you make yourself.


ya I BELIEVE in my creator and now i see plain and clear why none of you have been enlightened.

all you want to do is judge everyone else.

what you need to do is take a look in the mirror.

like i said before, so damn pathetic.

[Ronagon]

Dog Goddess,

You wouldn't understand. You're a female. You live in a different world entirely. You have the option of feeling more assured and positively oriented in your viewpoint.

Go insane over that comment if you like, but it will change nothing. It's the truth, and we guys are always in knowing agreement on this point, no matter how much we are robotically bound by the insidious code of chivalry, to placate you by agreeing with whatever you say to the contrary.

Never forget that you are always being pacified. Think of a rubber pacifier, and you will get a better sense of what's really going on, all the time.

Or if you like, pick up a copy of Warren Farrell's book, "The Myth of Male Power", and actually read it carefully. Then I'll value your viewpoint more.

But don't take all this personally... I'm not attacking you, particularly. You're just infected with what is popularly called "culture". But apparently the only way that I can see to tackle the problem, is to immunize people against it, one by one.

Bye.

[sahyo]

snarlingly
contemptful
passive-aggressively
hatefully
hell-hole
puked
sadistic
moronic
degenerates
poison
bile
cruelty
lousiness
strangulated
ostracized
devastating
corruption
callousness
miserable
loneliness
horrible


?

[rich]

fu* posted:Do you ever make an atempt to understand whats posted, or just react from emotion?

I am still waiting for your 'origonal' belief's.


Maybe I do lack understanding of what is posted. Maybe what is posted needs clarification. If I did understand, reaction may be different.

My original beliefs. I am not The Lord, but am another human-being trying to find inner peace in this world.
I am not a control freak, but may appear that way, because many times I want my way. <_< :unsure: :blink:

[...]

Like asheera said dog goddes; ? Whatever you thought you read into Ronagon's post and the reply, none of the symptoms you assigned are accurate. There's loads 'o love instead...

[dog goddess]

wow, well this is an unexpected turn of events.

it never even crossed my mind that some people out there thought all females wanted was to be pacified. i'm not so dull ronagon.

and if that's the way the females are that you know than you have certainly never encounted a real woman.
if i was ever around someone who told me only what they thought i wanted to hear i wouldn't be around them very long. i happen to like independent thinkers.

i take care of myself ronagon, i do not view the world as male and female. i'm not so petty.

at least now i understand why you are alone in your little world.
you need to learn to respect women for more than the sum of their parts.

i didn't go insane at your post. i just don't tolerate pity parties.

what a perfect textbook model you would have been for freud.

i'm so dissappointed that you feel that way ronagon. i don't even think i can respond to anything else you have to say after this. i'm sure you won't be bothered though.

after all, i'm only a female.




to ...,

whatever.

[...]

(...)

[Polaris]

Yowzaa!! You guys!! :o

Ronagon speaks harshly of what he perceives as the truth, perhaps having had a bad day. Dog goddess take offense and strikes back with a personal blow to not just Ronagon and ... but includes, indiscriminately "all" of us (except Rich, you lucky devil, you!! You sure dodged a bullet there! ;)). Called us selfish people, said we were consumed with bitterness and a variety of other things.

Asheera is uncharacteristically confused by the turn of events. :(

Ronagon, having had his ego raked over the cheese-grater snaps back at Dog-goddess by calling her a woman (oooo, burn!!) :lol: but is generous enough to admit that women "live in a different world entirely" (which means that although women may not be able to fully identify with what it is to be a man, it also means men cannot fully identify with what it is to be a woman) :)

You know what? People shouldn't get stomped on for stating what they think is the truth. Neither should somebody's gender be made to seem a handicap. None of us can know why a person believes what they believe and none of us can know what it is to be a member of the opposite sex. The truth is... Nobody knows what it is to be somebody else... what makes that person who and how they are.

Don't make it personal and don't take it personally!

[sahyo]

hehe...."?" wasn't "confused", polaris :)

[Ronagon]

Dog goddess,

Five points, regarding your response:

1) For someone who says she respects independent thinking, you sure seem to hate mine.

2) You may not see the world as male and female, and think yourself "not petty", but you apparently can't recognize that which is screamingly obvious all around you, and always has been. The world IS that way, regardless of whether or not you care to search for that particular truth, or whether you'd just rather pretend that it isn't true. Imagine how ridiculous is a creature that spends its whole life in a forest, yet is outraged that you tell it that it lives, and always has lived, amidst trees... and would probably have a hard time adjusting to life outside a realm of trees.

3) The reason that I am alone "in my little world", as you so blithely put it, is that as a male, I have to actually deliver hard and fast results, or be persecuted like some loathsome Tolkien monster, and labeled a "lo-ser". I don't have the luxury of being able to live in a realm of cultivated illusions of worth.

That requirement of authenticity requires that I have to juggle two worlds; in one hand, the relentless and uncompromising world of absolute objectivity and real performance and results; and in the other, the need to appear flip and carefree and to appear like I "go with the flow", and pander to the mad, childish whims of people who resentfully depend on me to deliver results, while at the same time contributing virtually nothing back, beyond just convenient token gestures and other clever distractions.

4) You don't tolerate "pity parties". Well, to quote The Church Lady, how convenient for you. After all, I'm sure that you adamantly require the "disposable gender" to show pity to you constantly. But of course, I'm sure you're not exactly up in arms about that particular clause of inequity.

5) As far as your crack about Freud... Well guess what? Despite untold millions of dollars literally force-fed into the grass-roots feminist propaganda machine, Freud was unbelievably right, about a great, great many things. But of course, since the greatest truths rule our lives and do not compromise, many people choose to simply deny them rabidly.

And as far as your having anything more to say back to me; I agree with you. Don't. This is one time in your life where what's called for, is not for you to be in "output" mode, but simply for you to be in "input" mode. Just read, and perhaps learn something new and vital.

[fu*]

Hey Ronagon,

I enjoyed that sharing. Sounds like a bad place your living. I remember those places. Seeming dark, seeming endless.

I agree with ...

"Only in true agonizing loneliness can freedom be realised"

Except for the word 'only'. Maybe its true, I just dont know about that part.

I know this though..... Change your'self', and the world changes. It is amazing. Nothing changes in the world, but perception changes, and the world is bright and shiney new. Good luck. :)

[fu*]

dog goddes,

First this, as one of your belief's...

"it teaches compassion ( compassion: attack with it and win."

Then this stuff?

"at least now i understand why you are alone in your little world."

"NOT ONLY DO I DARE to disagree with you ronagon but i tell you right in your snarling contemtful face that you are a fool. you too little 3 dots. "

"what the hell ever. grow up, cheer up, stop feeling sorry for yourselves and stop whining. so damn pathetic."


"what you need to do is take a look in the mirror.

like i said before, so damn pathetic."

Speaking of mirrors, did you notice the one that Asheera was holding up for you?

[dog goddess]

ok i will respond again to ronagon.

about the pity comment, there's nothing about me to pity. i got it going on baby, all by myself.




to everything else you said.........


i offer peace, we'll call this duel a stalemate.

[Ronagon]

Ah, Polaris.

I don't know if I'll ever tire of hearing the one-sided myth of the "male" ego.

After all, males are constantly belittled, abused and rejected every single day of their lives, apparently as a culturally-approved form of "sport". And yet, for the purposes of amusing others, we are also told that we must "keep trying" and that we aren't "real men" if we don't "tough out" never-ending, real and extreme abuse.

And we constantly do this, without complaining. Yet we're the ones with "fragile egos".

Now, let's stop for a moment and consider that... Between the two sexes (males and females), which of the two reacts violently to even the slightest inconvenience, and even the mere appearance of belittlement, abuse, and rejection? Here's a hint: Hell hath no fury, like that sex, scorned.

Hmmm. Gosh, I wonder. Are males really the ones with the "fragile egos", that we should all be snickering at? :lol:

But of course, being a male, I have too much class to come right out and be so unrestrainedly bratty, as to make such a comment.

[Ronagon]

A "stalemate".

More and more, my point about who really has ego issues, is being glaringly supported by real-world evidence.

[fu*]

Rich,

"Maybe I do lack understanding of what is posted. Maybe what is posted needs clarification. If I did understand, reaction may be different."


If you understood there would certainly be a different "reaction",because there would be no more need for protecting self/thought/belief/Richie.

And if I did believe in the tooth fairy, it would be no less valid (or more valid) than belief in Jesus,bible,tou,one inteligence,supreme being,light, etc. etc. etc.

When I am completly honest with myself I realize that there is not one g-damn thought in my head that didn't come from somewhere, or someone else, or that means anything where "truth" is concerned. So I am quite sure that thinking, or learning, or believing, will only get me to more thinking, more learning and more believing. Thats why I am not surprised by the absence of response from you or dog goddes, as to your "original beliefs"

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 1 2003, 05:06 PM
hehe...."?" wasn't "confused", polaris :)
Ahh good Asheera. My mistake then :)
Sometimes you're the only one around here that makes sense :)

[Ronagon]

If asheera's the only one who makes sense to you, then I think I should start wearing a big black top-hat, with a card tucked into the band that says "In this style, 10/6".

Hell, we could even put a dormouse in a tea-pot and have a party.

[Polaris]

Ronagon, :)
Ah, Polaris.

I don't know if I'll ever tire of hearing the one-sided myth of the "male" ego.


I think of think we all suffer from ego if not all the time then at least some of the time. Men, women and everything in between. I have an ego. It's one of my biggest and most naggingly persistent attachments. I know you have an ego too. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We're just human, afterall.

And I wasn't trying to be demeaning towards you with my comments. I seriously think you had your ego raked over the cheese-grater. Dog goddess's remarks were fairly scathing. Even I took a jump back when I read her post.

As far as the male/female thing goes, well, I have no idea what it's like to be a man. I would never assume to know. I'm sure you fellers have your ups and downs related to your gender but don't forget that there's a flip side to your tact in that argument and the fact of the matter is that you have no idea what it is to be a woman. And you shouldn't assume it is a cake walk. Certainly there are demands placed specifically upon men and women which the other gender cannot experience. You have no basis in which to compare a woman's life to a man's life because you have only lived one side.

That requirement of authenticity requires that I have to juggle two worlds; in one hand, the relentless and uncompromising world of absolute objectivity and real performance and results; and in the other, the need to appear flip and carefree and to appear like I "go with the flow", and pander to the mad, childish whims of people who resentfully depend on me to deliver results, while at the same time contributing virtually nothing back, beyond just convenient token gestures and other clever distractions.

That isn't what it means to be a man. THAT is what it means to be human. So please don't feel so isolated. You're not the only one who suffers. There a world of humans feeling that exact same way; men, women AND children. There's no easy way around it, Ronagon. We're all sloughing our way through the human condition but the going is a lot easy when you have somebody to lean on when the going gets really sticky, even if it's just somebody to talk to or post a message to on a discussion board. So don't isolate yourself in a self-induced world of misery and loneliness. That's a choice you should avoid. Be yourself but don't be BY yourself. :)

(Disclaimer: Nothing in this post was written with the intent to offend, tick off or infuriate anyone. It was written with the intention of making a simple point... You can't walk a mile in anybody's tennis shoes but your own, but you can walk beside other people and their tennis shoes and the shared company may make your journeys less monotonous. That point may be accepted or rejected by others as they feel necessary.)

[rich]

fu* posted:If you understood there would certainly be a different "reaction",because there would be no more need for protecting self/thought/belief/Richie.

And if I did believe in the tooth fairy, it would be no less valid (or more valid) than belief in Jesus,bible,tou,one inteligence,supreme being,light, etc. etc. etc.

When I am completly honest with myself I realize that there is not one g-damn thought in my head that didn't come from somewhere, or someone else, or that means anything where "truth" is concerned. So I am quite sure that thinking, or learning, or believing, will only get me to more thinking, more learning and more believing. Thats why I am not surprised by the absence of response from you or dog goddes, as to your "original beliefs"

fu*,

But what/who/how mind works/ uniqueness/ creativity, puts or plants new ideas, new thoughts, in your mind?

Or is it a waking-up and a realization, that thoughts/ideas were there, from previously learned material, and your mind is just becoming aware, to this knowledge?

What, who, invented the human brain, and why does it function as it does? and its integration in human body working with nervous system
of the body.?

Purely coincidental? Well, it might be, yet, it might not. Flip flop, your call.
-_- or :wacko:
:unsure:

[Moonchild]

everything posted here is posted by people who have different beliefs and understanding, :) people who believed that what they say is the truth but let us not forget that this is because it is they're way of expressing their beliefs. we cannot judge somebody harshly because of what they share on this forum and not just becuse they say that this iswhat they believe in we are going to look at them as it is. There is a lot to discover in people other than getting pissed off by whatever is written here. Surely, we can question the author of the said opinion but that is all we can do, question them and whatever their answers are that we have to accept...we do not have to be sexist just to justify ourselves, this should be a room for expressing what you want and being WHAT and WHO YOU ARE....WE should not forget that individual should RESPECT ONE ANOTHER, WE are not ANIMALS although we are animals in the highest degree

[sahyo]

"ANIMALS"
not act like "WHAT" "WHO" which not,
which you posted moonchild
;)

[sahyo]

p :) olaris

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 3 2003, 02:03 AM
"ANIMALS"
not act like "WHAT" "WHO" which not,
which you posted moonchild
;)
An exerpt from Moonchild's post:
Surely, we can question the author of the said opinion but that is all we can do, question them and whatever their answers are that we have to accept...we do not have to be sexist just to justify ourselves, this should be a room for expressing what you want and being WHAT and WHO YOU ARE....WE should not forget that individual should RESPECT ONE ANOTHER, WE are not ANIMALS although we are animals in the highest degree

--------------------
Moonchild
Moonchild
Note: [ U][ FONT=Times]Moonchild[/ FONT][ /U]Does not work, when in signature mode.

Yes, we should not act like ANIMALS, WHAT and WHO
WE ARE NOT, even though WE ARE, in a manner of degree.
The above statement may cause some controversy. ;) :D

[Polaris]

I'm an animal to the fullest degree. :D

[sahyo]

no separate animals richie,
but moonchild imagining which called "ANIMALS"
to be like most people imagining "WHAT" "WHO"
which not

:)

[dog goddess]

fu*
yes that is what the tao teaches, but i am after all only a mortal being. i wish i could live exaxtly as the tao designates, but it all is interpretation anyways. sometimes you just have to be a bitch. as to what my "original" thoughts were before anything was taught to me, well, i loved the sun. i'd stare at it until i was blinded by the light. i knew that somehow everything we were had to do with that fire. i still catch myself staring at it, i still love it. i'm definitly solar powered.
*************
ronagon

i'd love to have a tea party with asheera. i'm blonde so i could be alice. polaris could be the queen of hearts, rich could be the white rabbit and vicente of course would be our smoking catapiller. as to who asheera would be, without question, she is the grinning chesire cat.

oh and i really do appriciate the things you say. i hope we have more battles.
************
moonchild

just think if we were more animalistic then we could fight by the laws of claw and fang.

***********
rich

you make me smile.

[Polaris]

;)

polaris could be the queen of hearts,

er, yeah.... about that Queen of Hearts thing. Truth is that story always freaked me out cuz Lewis Carrol wrote it while having some kind of acid flashback so if y'all don't mind I think I'll stay on THIS side of the looking glass. ;)

[Moonchild]

asheera, are you really that dense? do we really need to explain to you everything in layman's term???? :o
if you cannot accept the fact that we are evolved animals maybe you are part of the demographic society that choose to be an organism which exhaust resources like a virus......who cannot co-exist with norms. :rolleyes:

i stand my ground, I'm proud to be an animal! ;)

[sahyo]

:D hehe

posted "no separate animals"

are reading, moonchild?

;)

[Moonchild]

you are an animal....asheera.....aren't you? or are you one step above alien then? :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

did read "no separate animals"? :)

[ianthe]

i did, but you were soooooooo non-specific... you were trying to bring a heated argument out of nothing, why can't you just explain your side better other than writing "words" that is insufficient. :blink:

[ianthe]

i'm speaking for asheera's message to moonchild, i cannot see any difference in moonchild's opinion, maybe you just need to accept things the way they really are. ;)

[killervampire]

animalism is bound to turn every view to a reverberating discussion which is endless. asheera's onslaught of view is unthinkable which like any prayer its pointless. while moonchild's animalistic impression of things is both personal and ego central

[killervampire]

Ones trademark views on things is hard to twist or redirect. opinion is never a privelage nor a right. Rather its a expression of fear and rebellion. Which is the first reason why we are all here

[ianthe]

i don't understand the need for heated discussion. it wouldn't contribute much in the understanding of the topic. and besides, as u have said, it is quite pointless. let us move our asses and stop worrying about idealism. wouldn' t help us in any way

[Moonchild]

I agree with ianthe and killervampire, it is quite pointless.....topic is misleading, we should stick on what is being discussed with in the first place...... :rolleyes:

we just have to accept that people have different reactions to the same topic, we are individuals and we are unique. B)

[sahyo]

ianthe, "heated"?

moonchild, "reactions"?

[sahyo]

pointless



:D yes

[sahyo]

was quoting killervampire

[killervampire]

cool

[a random hack]

Damn I get annoyed when I miss a few days / pages of posts, as my opinion (reaction to impression) is never the same when I finish reading as when I start.

On the plus side, at least it gives other people the chance to say the foolish thinks I would've. :D

[Polaris]

we should stick on what is being discussed with in the first place...

But this is a naturally evolving topic just as we are naturally evolving animals. We can no sooner go back to the beginning of this topic as though none of this conversation occured than we can return to our primordial ooze. :D

[Moonchild]

sticking to the discussed topic doesn't necessarily mean we'll go back to point 1. :P :D

[Polaris]

But now the topic is about sticking to the topic. I'd say we're right on target. :)

[Moonchild]

gotcha!!!!! :D :D :D

[Polaris]

:lol:

[Moonchild]

:rolleyes: :D :lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by Moonchild@Jul 3 2003, 08:34 PM
sticking to the discussed topic doesn't necessarily mean we'll go back to point 1. :P :D
as asheera would say, no point 1, no point. pointlessI think :D ;) :o

[killervampire]

Choice as they say is an imagination anyone can do it even dogs can cause it is laid upon by people with power. Given a choice power is a privelage and choice is for people with low acumen.

[sahyo]

imagining'power'choice

[killervampire]

I believe in a supreme being centering around every chaos. Dog Goddess tends to believe in a master nameless but tend to call it Tao. Creator is just it we don't need to isolate it under a name or difference. No need to worship nor to come by. Lets just be thankful that order is around without any preference to color nor religion. Now that is the supreme being.

[Polaris]

Creator. Supreme being


Who created the Supreme being??
:huh: :blink:

[sahyo]

imagining'who'-creator-supreme being which not

[Polaris]

which not indeed!! :)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 9 2003, 06:37 AM
imagining'who'-creator-supreme being which not


:P And Polaris posted this comment:

Polaris
Posted on Jul 9 2003, 08:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which not indeed!!


:wacko:

imagining/not imagining

asheera and polaris seem quite emphatic about that point.

Both agree with vicente.

No name calling here, hurrah for free thought.

Too bad thoughts are not seen, for they are blind. B) :D :lol:

[Polaris]

Too bad thoughts are not seen, for they are blind.

Can you imagine how cluttered the world would be if thoughts were visible? :o

BUT

imagining 'how'-thought-cluttered which not :)

[sahyo]

:) ;)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 9 2003, 06:22 PM
Too bad thoughts are not seen, for they are blind.*

Can you imagine how cluttered the world would be if thoughts were visible? :o

BUT

imagining 'how'-thought-cluttered which not :)
but thoughts ARE things. B)

[rich]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Jul 11 2003, 04:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Jul 11 2003, 04:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Jul 9 2003, 06:22 PM
Too bad thoughts are not seen, for they are blind.**

Can you imagine how cluttered the world would be if thoughts were visible? :o

BUT

imagining 'how'-thought-cluttered which not :)
but thoughts ARE things. B) [/b][/quote]
yes indeeed sonrisa, they are things.

they are unseen things.

unseen things can clutter the mind.

unseen things= imagination :ph34r:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Jul 10 2003, 06:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Jul 10 2003, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Jul 9 2003, 06:22 PM
Too bad thoughts are not seen, for they are blind.

Can you imagine how cluttered the world would be if thoughts were visible? :o

BUT

imagining 'how'-thought-cluttered which not :)
but thoughts ARE things. B) [/b][/quote]
Are they things? Really?

Seems to me thoughts are like the glowing light in a light bulb. When bulb is switched off, or the filament breaks what's left of the light? It's as though that light never existed and there are no remnants of light left behind as proof there was once light. Thoughts come and go the same way. In the end there's nothing there.

[DavidS]

Seems to me thoughts are like the glowing light in a light bulb. When bulb is switched off, or the filament breaks what's left of the light? It's as though that light never existed and there are no remnants of light left behind as proof there was once light. Thoughts come and go the same way. In the end there's nothing there.
For what it may be worth, if nothing else as speculative entertainment, the following is from Seth Speaks (channeled) by Jane Roberts -- but, not being adept at consciously exploring 'other' realities myself, please don't ask me exactly what 'he' means; I refer you to her book(s), where the ideas below are elaborated on, for that:

"What happens to a thought when it leaes your conscious mind? It does not simply disappear. you can learn to follow it, but you are usually ... It seems...that your subjectivity has a mysterious unknown quality about it, and that even your mental life has a sort of insidious dropping off point, a subjective cliff over which thoughts and memories fall, to disappear into nothingness. Therefore to protect yourself, to protect your subjectivity from drifting, you erect various psychological barriers at what you suppose to be danger points. Instead, you see, you can follow these thoughts and emotions simply by realizing that your own reality continues in another direction, beside the one with which you mainly identify. For these thoughts and emotions that have left your conscious mind will lead you into other environments.

"These subjective openings through which thoughts seem to disappear are in fact psychic warps, connecting the self that you know with other universes of experience -- realities where symbols come to life and thoughts are not denied their potential.

"There is communication between these other realities and your own in your dream states, and a constant interaction between both systems. If there is any point where your own consciousness seems to elude you or escape you, or if there is any point where your consciousness seems to end, then these are the points where you have yourselves set up psychological and psychic barriers, and tese are precisely those areas that you should explore. Otherwise you feel as if your consciousness is enclosed within your skull, immobile and constricted, and every lost thought or forgotten memory at least symbolically seems like a small death. And such is not the case."

[Polaris]

Hmmm well it seems like perhaps 'he' means that we protect our thoughts from vanishing by protecting them on a sub-conscious level (or a place just beyond the edge of the conscious). Once this is done we can still follow to later retrieve a thought as though a thought were something I'd put in an old shoebox and store it at the back of my closet for safe keeping.

But my point is, once our brain is dead, then what is left of our thoughts? ...........nada.

And for that matter, the more I think of something the more likely I am to change a previous thought by entertaining new information. Thus the original thought no longer exists and a new one emerges in it's place.

Even if I could somehow tell you all my thoughts, once expressed to you they are open to your interpretation and therefore become your thoughts.... they cease to be mine. A legacy is quickly exploited and changed.

[rich]

Dear Polaris,

It seems as though you are saying, that thoughts you share with people,
are no longer your thoughts, for once shared, they become the thoughts of the person you are sharing with. You seem to say that understanding
you as a person isimpossible, for your mind is always in a state of flux.

At least, the above paragraph of mine, are the impressions and interpretation I have of your last post. :)

Is that what I just wrote, correct, Polaris? :unsure:

[a random hack]

Thoughts go back from whence they come, and I can't see them there from here.

OR

What was I talking about?

;)

[Polaris]

Dear Polaris,

It seems as though you are saying, that thoughts you share with people,
are no longer your thoughts, for once shared, they become the thoughts of the person you are sharing with.

Dear Rich, :)

Once I have shared a thought with you, you then take that information and do with it what you will. You will likely consider it, compare it to your own thoughts and experiences which will alter the original thought that I had. There's a good chance that I will even fail miserably at expressing my thought clearly to you which would cause you to misunderstand what I was thinking so the thought could already be altered the moment you hear it.

The point is, our thoughts are unique and as individual as we are because our current thoughts are reliant on our past thoughts.

If I tell you to think about a tree, the tree you think about would not be the same tree that I think about. I could tell you about the tree I was thinking about in fine detail but you would still be comparing the image of that tree with your own established preconcieved thoughts of what a tree would/should look like.

My own thoughts of the tree remain my own, but even though I do my best to describe clearly what my tree looks like, what thoughts you have as a result of my description become your own.


You seem to say that understanding
you as a person isimpossible, for your mind is always in a state of flux.

Funny, I had this discussion with my uncle not long ago when I revealed to him that I was a student of Buddhism. I told him that he didn't know me because I was always changing although he insisted that he DID know me and know me very well. I disagreed telling him that it would be impossible for him to know me. We are all undergoing constant change right down to a molecular level and beyond. I'm not the same person I was when I started this post. I've aged physically, had thousands of thoughts pass through my head etc... and all have effectly changed who I was... who I am... who I will be... from one fleeting moment to the next.

So I'm not sure "understanding" somebody and "knowing" somebody are the same thing. I would say that it may be possible to understand somebody without knowing them. But it's a fine line and depends exactly what attributes you assign to the definition of the word "understand"

:)

[rich]

Dear Polaris,

Nice post.

Interesting about your uncle, a brother of your mother or father?

Not that answer is very important re; this post, but I would think that your uncle's on the maternal side of your family, would agree with each other.

I would also think, that the uncle's on the paternal side of your family would also tend to agree with each other.

I do not think that both sets of your uncles, maternal and paternal would have the same observations about you, if you were the object.
Each set would be observing you from a different POV.

Maybe the uncle who claims to know you, does. Maybe he had similar problems in his life when he was your age. Why not persue his claim further, and find out why he thinks as he does. Just a silly idea. :)

[Polaris]

Interesting about your uncle, a brother of your mother or father?

The uncle in question was the brother to my father. All my uncles on my mother's side have passed. My father's side of the family was always very close. My paternal grand parents were extremely keen on family and we all gathered at a cottage in Quebec in the summer. We're a very close family dispite the fact that were live from coast to coast all across Canada. We email each other year round and usually still time our summer vacations so we're all at the cottage at the same time. In fact I will be going there in a few weeks and I will see my uncle there. We may or may not get into a 'discussion'. I sort of hope we do but I'll let him start it since these things are more personal to him than they are to me.

My uncle is very religious. I believe that when he was in his 20s he spent some time in Africa working for a mission and when he returned he was "born again". As the story goes, my grandmother who was only as religious as she found necessary found my uncle's non-stop Bible thumping somewhat of an irritant and she told him to keep it to himself.... which he did. He went off and married, had 5 kids and is still very religious and active in his church. I think I have always been somewhat of a curiousity to him because I have always been quite obviously non-Christian my entire life even with my Anglican upbringing. Because of this I frequently find myself in coversations with him and my aunt (... his sister and my Dad's twin, who is also extremely religious and active in her church) about various topics which may not involve religion specifically but touches on it.

I do not think that both sets of your uncles, maternal and paternal would have the same observations about you, if you were the object.
Each set would be observing you from a different POV.

Definately! My mother's family was never as close. I hardly know many of my cousins on that side of the family.

Maybe the uncle who claims to know you, does. Maybe he had similar problems in his life when he was your age. Why not persue his claim further, and find out why he thinks as he does. Just a silly idea.

No... not so silly. Maybe I'll ask him when I see him later this summer. :)

[Mental Gremlin]

HI EVERYONE!!!!
BIG SLOPPY KISSES AND HUGS ALL AROUND!!!!!!!!


Dog goddess
Dont forget Chuang Tzu...the taoist realist.

Rich,
Whats happening !?

Ron,
Blah Blah Blah...anger management...those kids who picked on you in school didnt do it cause you deserved it, they were just hurting inside and didnt know how to express it...blah blah blah.

Vicente...oops...fu,
blah blah blah...modern philosophical psychbabble that you just make up anyway...blah blah blah...got a nonbiased definition of gnosis for me yet, like a reputable dictionary perhaps?...blah blah blah


(Words inserted cause i know you just like to pick quotes to lambast anyway, and it is more difficult to do that when it is just Blah's and i want you to feel you are doing well. :D )

Ch'an Buddhist, cuz, it makes the most sense to me personally, i have tried many paths but this one makes me feel best about my place in this big crazy cycle of existence.

[DavidS]

Seems to me thoughts are like the glowing light in a light bulb. When bulb is switched off, or the filament breaks what's left of the light? It's as though that light never existed and there are no remnants of light left behind as proof there was once light. Thoughts come and go the same way. In the end there's nothing there.
I thought it might be fun to try to word·art·formulate my perspective on 'thoughts' at the moment - however, it may only speak to those with a taste for and capacity to 'interpret' very abstract art. :huh:

Setting the conceptual word-stage:

Unmanifest Reality 'consists of ' dynamic Psycho·Spiritual Light-Essence which manifests "in the world" as an array of mentational·emotional (let me coin a word-phrase here) Wave·ons.

Every aspect of Existence has dynamically interrelated, energy-oscillating Mentational and Emotional components, sort of the way each and every Photon of Physical Light (i.e. Electro·Magnetic Wave·Form) has both an Electric Field and an Magnetic Field component, each being dynamically interrelated to one another and 'oscillatingly' sharing the same energy quantum between them.

Things like physical 'manifestation' and person·ality are just 'congealed' (or 'stably' interlocking) patterns of Psycho·Spiritual Wave·ons.

Now, the 'thoughts' ('ideas', 'images', etc.) that momentarily register in and 'go through' one's Mind are the momentary Mentational 'shape' of your personal Wave·on conglomeration.

However, no 'thought' exists 'as an island' unto itself. If you 'look', you will see (or I should say, if you 'feel', you will know) that there's always an Emotional 'state' associated with such Mentational 'shape', and that the 'next' (in the NOW) thought and feeling constellational configuration directly derives from, or is the 'out'come of, the dynamic interaction between the 'prior' (in the NOW) thought and feeling configuration -- with thoughts affecting the way one's emotions go and emotions affecting the way ones' thoughts go.

[Please note: I have oversimplified the matter considerably, making the whole 'pattern-flow' thang a strictly linear process in order to make the 'picture' clearer. In Reality, it is not just each thought-n-feeling moment and the next, but the entire 'field' of past-present-and-future Mentational-n-Emotional Actuality and Possibility, which is a dynamically 'vibrating' Super Wave·on!]

To think of either thoughts or emotions as nothing more than momentary here·at·one·point·gone·the·next events, thought that is true enough, is to miss the more important 'point', I think.

Your Mentational and Emotional pattern (most people live in totally 'locked in', self-reinforcing loops) determines the 'climate' and 'parameters' of your Life-Experience 'island'.

The emotions one chooses to (mentationally) rationalize and the thoughts one chooses to emotionally embrace (and therefore act on, in inner fantasy or 'out there') have very direct consequences -- and so 'live on' in those consequences -- though they may appear to no longer have any bearing on what is going on.

Every thought and emotion you 'entertain', and thus momentarily 'have', is part of your Wave·on's Life Pattern.

Mentational Shape-Shifting and Emotional State-Surfing, if and as such process is discerningly 'mastered' (like a musician 'masters' sound-flow), can both take you to other places (for this, you have to first decide where, if anywhere else, you'd like to go) and be great fun (for this, you have to first want to feel happy and fulfulled, believe that you are deserving of that and that that's possible, and choose to 'trust' that the adventure will be a 'good' one.)

Or not!

It's a free·for·all folks.

I know the effort necessary to relate to the above kind of stuff - if you got this far, I hope you found some aspect of the 'view' worth it.

Greetings, Gremlin Sprite!

David :blink:

[rich]

David, that was a good post, not that I really understood or experienced what y ou said, but do have similar thoughts. Like this morning, after experiencing an overflowing stuffed toilet bowl, and with poop all over floor, my good wife doing most of the clean up, and I squinting in the mirror asking, "Why me?"
My wife replying, "I told you many times before, to flush as you go along."
Squinting in the mirror, and looking at me, there seemed to be an aura
around my head."
What a vivid imagination I have. The aura should have been around my poor wife. She is more deserving than I. :) I think I better look for aura over her, before me, she puts up with my shit. :lol: ;)

[sahyo]

david ;)

momenting
choiceless mindlessing
no where thisthislessing
glowing still singing
shadowless hush
dancing
not of this

[sahyo]

david paint abstract?
...paint abstract so asking

:)

[Polaris]

David, :)

I have oversimplified the matter considerably,
:o That was oversimplied?? :o

I'm not sure exactly what it was you said there but I'll pick out this phrase because in my mind it stood out.

However, no 'thought' exists 'as an island' unto itself.

Okay. I am in absolute agreement with this statement and hopefully the crux of your post centers on that statement... I hope. :unsure:

Just a clarification... when I said: ....

"Seems to me thoughts are like the glowing light in a light bulb. When bulb is switched off, or the filament breaks what's left of the light? It's as though that light never existed and there are no remnants of light left behind as proof there was once light. Thoughts come and go the same way. In the end there's nothing there."

....what I meant was that when we die our thoughts cease. Fini, C'est tout. That's it. OUR thoughts are gone. And any "legacy" we left behind by sharing our thoughts with others do not belong to us. Our spoken thought is up to the interpretation of the listener and since, as you say, "no 'thought' exists 'as an island' unto itself" the listener will impose his own Emotional 'state' as he interprets it.

For example, as I lie on my death bed I think fondly of my old sled I played with in the snowy winters of my youth. I draw Richie closer to my bedside and with my last breath I utter into his ear "Rosebud". Richie, who didn't know me as a child ponders to himself "Rosebud?? What the heck is that suppose to mean??" and he immediately thinks of little chocolate candy swirls that come in a box at the cornerstore thereby changing my thought to his thought. My thought ceases completely and now Richie is thinking about candy.
:)

[rich]

i.e.; Sledding? Richie wants to go for a sleigh ride.

Christmas In July ? a movie with Dick Powell, remember saying, "it's bread in the bean. If you don't sleep at night its the bunk". The winning slogans of a contest that Dick P, won, making him rich, and happening in July. :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 16 2003, 11:46 AM
david paint abstract?
...paint abstract so asking
Hi asheera,

Just word-concept 'abstractions', me 'paints' - am non-adept at creatively flowing in other modalities, tho very much appreciate and enjoy being psychospiritually ride-carried along by inspired per·form·ances of them.

Nice to meetcha. -_-

[DavidS]

Hi Polaris -

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 16 2003, 01:06 PM
My thought ceases completely and now Richie is thinking about candy.
Ahh, but the emotional state that is associated with your 'symbolic' thought also has an com·uni·cational impact, and the life-continuance of such impact may be detected/decipered in the emotional component associated with Richie's 'candy' (symbol) thought-stream, I think.

Maybe, at least. No?

The thought-shape may be totally (unrecognizably?) changed - but there is a detectable ongoingness resulting from 'state' infusion/insemination. Richie's post-communicational emotional state, I would suggest, is reflective of the 'orgasmic' 'intercourse' between you. Thus, there still remains a 'flow'-connection between your rosebud-thought and his candy-thought. The change you mention only pertains to the shape of the thought-form.

This wouldn't be so if he chose to 'cross his legs tightly' in response to your utterance of course and thus 'rejected' your 'advance', but this is not the case in the example you posed. ;)

[rich]

David,
In response to your post, why not start new thread, with the label,

Way Out There In The Never Never. ? :D ;)

[sahyo]

hiing david

yes "word-concept" :)

ah...."per·form·ances" only seemingly,
like dreamingly, formformless not ;)

just....writing painting musicing

nice s<span style='color:lavender'>hhharing :D</span>

[rich]

time for me to leave this discussion. :ph34r:

[Polaris]

Richie's post-communicational emotional state, I would suggest, is reflective of the 'orgasmic' 'intercourse' between you

Hey, Richie! Was it good for you? ;)

David :)

Ahh, but the emotional state that is associated with your 'symbolic' thought also has an com·uni·cational impact, and the life-continuance of such impact may be detected/decipered in the emotional component associated with Richie's 'candy' (symbol) thought-stream, I think.

Yes, perhaps. What was a thought full of sentimental value to me has become a chocolate craving for Richie so there is an emotional impact, however just like my thought of "Rosebud" differs from Richie's so is the emotional impact different. We all impact life around us like ripples on a pond.

The thought-shape may be totally (unrecognizably?) changed - but there is a detectable ongoingness resulting from 'state' infusion/insemination. Richie's post-communicational emotional state, I would suggest, is reflective of the 'orgasmic' 'intercourse' between you. Thus, there still remains a 'flow'-connection between your rosebud-thought and his candy-thought. The change you mention only pertains to the shape of the thought-form.


But a change in the thought-form is a change in the thought. Not the same. Not MY thought. Unless we were capable to doing a Vulcan Mind Meld thoughts cannot be transfered from person to another without at least some measure of adulteration. Even with a Vulcan Mind Meld the person recieving the new information still has to interpret it base on information, knowledge and life experiences that person already has....... all of which are unique and different from the other person. Richie's reaction to my action is unique to Richie.

There may be a flow of consciousness but it is individual. The only connection between my thought and Richie's thought is the word "Rosebud" but that word means something entirely different to Richie than it does me. I'm dead so my thoughts are gone. Richie might run to the store for a box of Rosebuds and then take them home to his wife. She may see the word on the box and it might remind her that she needs to go tend to her rose-garden out back. Her roses will flourish because of her attention to them, all because when I was a child 40 years ago I had a sled called "Rosebud".

It's the law of karma :)

[rich]

Originally posted by rich@Jul 17 2003, 03:47 AM
i.e.; Sledding? Richie wants to go for a sleigh ride.

Christmas In July ? a movie with Dick Powell, remember saying, "it's bread in the bean. If you don't sleep at night,its not the coffee, its the bunk". The winning slogans of a contest that Dick P, won, making him rich, and happening in July. :D
not supposed to be here. have to correct error on earlier post.

edited in red, see above.

Polaris,

rr; your pst, before this post,

My reaction to Rosebud, was thinking of sled per Citizen Kane's last words, indicated sled, hence, wanting sleigh ride, but since at the present, we are in July. Then thought about movie,[/U] Christmas In July[/U], and you know the rest of the blah, blah, blah, etc. Mind rethinks lots of insignificant trivia.

[Polaris]

My reaction to Rosebud, was thinking of sled per Citizen Kane's last words, indicated sled, hence, wanting sleigh ride, but since at the present, we are in July. Then thought about movie,[/U] Christmas In July[/U], and you know the rest of the blah, blah, blah, etc. Mind rethinks lots of insignificant trivia.

I was thinking Citizen Kane as well so I knew where your sleigh ride was coming from :)

I also rethink trivia but hey, look at it this way... trivia is only insignificant if you never find a use for it!!
I manage to squeeze trivia from movies and TV shows a lot of the time to (try to) make a point. "Rosebud" was an example.
And if your overwhelming portfolio of trivia makes you look like a genius while watching "Jeopardy"... well then... all the better :)

I'll take "Potpourri" for a $1000, Alex. ;) :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 17 2003, 06:02 AM
But a change in the thought-form is a change in the thought. Not the same. Not MY thought.
Hi Polaris -

'Yes' to all of what's in your post. Makes total sense to me. Methinks the differences in our perspective are due to differences in our ways of using the concept: 'my'.

I think, maybe, you are focusing only on what is uniquely 'yours' (and thus can't possibly 'be' except as you shape-state it at any given point in space and time), and I am focusing on the 'part' of 'your' (my or anyones') psychospiritual dynamic' that is ongoing (though trans·form·ed).

Relating to the above quote: Let's say you have a thought-n-feeling constellation about something -- anything ... let's say, some aspect of sex, money, politics, whatever. And let's say that your thought-n-feeling contellation about the same thing that is different at some point later in space-n-time. IOW, that your thought-n-feeling constellation CHANGES.

Then, the thought-n-feeling constellation that was 'your's at first may, quite logically, simply be regarded as no longer being 'yours' later.

In 'my' (present) 'view', however, the first thought-n-feeling constellation would still be considered 'yours' and may, quite logically, complexly be regarded as having 'continued' or 'grown' or 'evolved'.

Maybe, it's a seed and a tree kind o' conundrum. They can be seen as different, such that the seed 'died' and was re-time-placed by the tree OR seen as the same 'being' with the seed living on (psychospiritually, though not in 'appearance') 'in' the tree.

It may all just boil down to our respective emotional preferences, in terms of what we feel 'drawn' to focus on, becuase of what we think/rationalize is most significant/important.

Each 'view' reflects (only) an 'aspect' of the Truth. Either way of thinking has potential value and potential limitations, in terms how much 'mileage' on can get and 'where' one can go with it, IMO.

David :)

[Polaris]

I think, maybe, you are focusing only on what is uniquely 'yours'


Relatively speaking....

Yes, when I use the term "my" I am focusing on what is uniquely mine. When it comes to thought, each is unique to the thinker because each thinker is unique. These are MY thoughts. As I express MY thoughts to you, you process them based on your own unique set of past experiences (thoughts). You use the manner in which I express my thoughts to form your opinion (thoughts). You process the information you are receiving by watching my body language, my inflections and tone of voice, by the order I place the words, and by the language I use etc... You also take the actual information and try to validate it by comparing it with your own thoughts. It becomes uniquely YOURS.

Let's say you have a thought-n-feeling constellation about something -- anything ... let's say, some aspect of sex, money, politics, whatever. And let's say that your thought-n-feeling contellation about the same thing that is different at some point later in space-n-time. IOW, that your thought-n-feeling constellation CHANGES.

Yes, always changing but still MY thought.

In 'my' (present) 'view', however, the first thought-n-feeling constellation would still be considered 'yours' and may, quite logically, complexly be regarded as having 'continued' or 'grown' or 'evolved'.

'Continued', 'grown', 'evolved'... all words that mean CHANGE, (like your seed/tree analogy.. one cannot exist without the other... ).. but as you say it is still considered MINE.


:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 18 2003, 05:29 AM
'Continued', 'grown', 'evolved'... all words that mean CHANGE, (like your seed/tree analogy.. one cannot exist without the other... ).. but as you say it is still considered MINE.
You mean, like you might consider the water-figuration in a stream that flowed through some land that you personally presently (i.e., at any particular point in time) 'identified' as your 'own' was YOURS?

David :wacko:

[a random hack]

Don't let me interupt this fascinating con-ser-vation about ownership, but like to talk about
Maybe, it's a seed and a tree kind o' conundrum. They can be seen as different, such that the seed 'died' and was re-time-placed by the tree OR seen as the same 'being' with the seed living on (psychospiritually, though not in 'appearance') 'in' the tree.
....

N' then the tree 'hopes' to make more seeds, and thus more trees. But the beauty part is that these trees are not the same as the mummy tree (pre-existing belief based feelings, (40 YO sled, or Richie's chocolate craving)) nor the same as the daddy tree (the introduced thought-word based feeling, indicated by 'Rosebud' in the above), but indeed, a 'unique' product of their combination. :)
Different forms, but may be categorised the same, if that's your cup of tea :)

[Polaris]

(Polaris @ Jul 18 2003, 05:29 AM)
'Continued', 'grown', 'evolved'... all words that mean CHANGE, (like your seed/tree analogy.. one cannot exist without the other... ).. but as you say it is still considered MINE.

You mean, like you might consider the water-figuration in a stream that flowed through some land that you personally presently (i.e., at any particular point in time) 'identified' as your 'own' was YOURS?

David

If I had a stream running through my property I don't think I would claim ownership to the water simply because it flowed by. That would be like claiming ownership to the moon, sun and stars. I'm not Yertle the Turtle.

But interesting to note that the"water-figuration" as you call it, would be constantly different, constantly changing from one moment to the next.
:)

[rich]

Polaris posted : If I had a stream running through my property I don't think I would claim ownership to the water simply because it flowed by. That would be like claiming ownership to the moon, sun and stars. I'm not Yertle the Turtle.

But interesting to note that the"water-figuration" as you call it, would be constantly different, constantly changing from one moment to the next.


Polaris, if you had a stream of running water flowing through property you own, you would be able to get a higher price, than without it. Would Tertle do the same thing?

[DavidS]

Hack:
Different forms, but may be categorised the same, if that's your cup of tea.
Polaris:
But interesting to note that the"water-figuration" as you call it, would be constantly different, constantly changing from one moment to the next.

I fully recognize the exquisite 'uniqueness' of every space-time configuration (thought forms included) in the universe. This goes along with the saying that it is impossible to stick your toe into the same river twice. In fact, I think, this applies to any 'thought-n-feeling' one might have. Even 'recalling' or 'reinitiating' it will result in something that is in some way 'different', as a result of the prior (added) 'input' of the 'original' thought-n-feeling having 'done it's thing' in the stream of life-happening.

The obervation that someone else doesn't 'get' the identical thought-n-feeling quantum one 'transmitted' -- and whatever thought-n-feeling of living in island-isolation, albeit consolation-prize-'uniquely' so, one may have in response to that -- I think, may be put into more 'balanced' perspective if one also keeps sight of the fact that one never can 'have', or 'be', the identical thought-n-feeling pattern again oneself. That one is really a 'multipliqueness' :rolleyes:, more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected ...

One is, at every being-point, in dynamic-intimate touch with every other being-point in time-space-around.

Some may derive a 'feeling-tone' of the Oneness of All Creation and experience a kind of Vital-Part-Belonging-to-That LOVE-JOY-BLISS from such thought-perspective. This is a kind of 'First Prize', IMO.

Or so this I, that thinks of himself as deep-down 'the same' David he ever was, presently thinks :D

[Polaris]

Polaris posted : If I had a stream running through my property I don't think I would claim ownership to the water simply because it flowed by. That would be like claiming ownership to the moon, sun and stars. I'm not Yertle the Turtle.

But interesting to note that the"water-figuration" as you call it, would be constantly different, constantly changing from one moment to the next.


Polaris, if you had a stream of running water flowing through property you own, you would be able to get a higher price, than without it. Would Tertle do the same thing?

Rich, unfortunately for Yertle the Turtle, his ownership of all he could see turned out to be an illusion. :( ;)

Dr. Suess was an incredibly insightful guy :)


Yertle the Turtle-----------------by Dr. Seuss

On the far-away island of Sala-ma-Sond,
Yertle the Turtle was king of the pond.
A nice little pond. It was clean. It was neat.
The water was warm. There was plenty to eat.
The turtles had everything turtles might need.
And they were all happy. Quite happy indeed.

They were... untill Yertle, the king of them all,
Decided the kingdom he ruled was too small.
"I'm ruler", said Yertle, "of all that I see.
But I don't see enough. That's the trouble with me.
With this stone for a throne, I look down on my pond
But I cannot look down on the places beyond.
This throne that I sit on is too, too low down.
It ought to be higher!" he said with a frown.
"If I could sit high, how much greater I'd be!
What a king! I'd be ruler of all that I see!"

So Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand
And Yertle, the Turtle King, gave a command.
He ordered nine turtles to swim to his stone
And, using these turtles, he built a new throne.
He made each turtle stand on another one's back
And he piled them all up in a nine-turtle stack.
And then Yertle climbed up. He sat down on the pile.
What a wonderful view! He could see 'most a mile!
"All mine!" Yertle cried. "Oh, the things I now rule!
I'm the king of a cow! And I'm the king of a mule!
I'm the king of a house! And, what's more, beyond that
I'm the king of a blueberry bush and a cat!
I'm Yertle the Turtle! Oh, marvelous me!
For I am the ruler of all that I see!"

And all through the morning, he sat up there high
Saying over and over, "A great king am I!"
Until 'long about noon. Then he heard a faint sigh.
"What's that?" snapped the king
And he looked down the stack.
And he saw, at the bottom, a turtle named Mack.
Just a part of his throne. And this plain little turtle
Looked up and he said, "Beg your pardon, King Yertle.
I've pains in my back and my shoulders and knees.
How long must we stand here, Your Majesty, please?"
"SILENCE!" the King of the Turtles barked back.
"I'm king, and you're only a turtle named Mack."
"You stay in your place while I sit here and rule.
I'm the king of a cow! And I'm the king of a mule!
I'm the king of a house! And a bush! And a cat!
But that isn't all. I'll do better than that!

My throne shall be higher!" his royal voice thundered,
"So pile up more turtles! I want 'bout two hundred!"
"Turtles! More turtles!" he bellowed and brayed.
And the turtles 'way down in the pond were afraid.
They trembled. They shook. But they came. They obeyed.
From all over the pond, they came swimming by dozens.
Whole families of turtles, with uncles and cousins.
And all of them stepped on the head of poor Mack.
One after another, they climbed up the stack.
Then Yertle the Turtle was perched up so high,
He could see fourty miles from his throne in the sky!
"Hooray!" shouted Yertle. "I'm the king of the trees!
I'm king of the birds! And I'm king of the bees!
I'm king of the butterflies! King of the air!
Ah, me! What a throne! What a wonderful chair!
I'm Yertle the Turtle! Oh, marvelous me!
For I am the ruler of all that I see!"

Then again, from below, in the great heavy stack,
Came a groan from that plain little turtle named Mack.
"Your Majesty, please... I don't like to complain,
But down here below, we are feeling great pain.
I know, up on top you are seeing great sights,
But down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights.
We turtles can't stand it. Our shells will all crack!
Besides, we need food. We are starving!" groaned Mack.

"You hush up your mouth!" howled the mighty King Yertle.
"You've no right to talk to the world's highest turtle.
I rule from the clouds! Over land! Over sea!
There's nothing, no, NOTHING, that's higher than me!"

But, while he was shouting, he saw with suprise
That the moon of the evening was starting to rise
Up over his head in the darkening skies.
"What's THAT?" snorted Yertle. "Say, what IS that thing
That dares to be higher than Yertle the King?
I shall not allow it! I'll go higher still!
I'll build my throne higher! I can and I will!
I'll call some more turtles. I'll stack 'em to heaven!
I need 'bout five thousand, six hundred and seven!"

But, as Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand
And started to order and give the command,
That plain little turtle below in the stack,
That plain little turtle whose name was just Mack,
Decided he'd taken enough. And he had.
And that plain little lad got a bit mad.
And that plain little Mack did a plain little thing.
He burped!
And his burp shook the throne of the king!

And Yertle the Turtle, the king of the trees,
The king of the air and the birds and the bees,
The king of a house and a cow and a mule...
Well, that was the end of the Turtle King's rule!
For Yertle, the King of all Sala-ma-Sond,
Fell off his high throne and fell Plunk! in the pond!

And today the great Yertle, that Marvelous he,
Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see.
And the turtles, of course... all the turtles are free
As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be.

[Polaris]

I fully recognize the exquisite 'uniqueness' of every space-time configuration (thought forms included) in the universe.

I have my doubts. <_<

I think, may be put into more 'balanced' perspective if one also keeps sight of the fact that one never can 'have', or 'be', the identical thought-n-feeling pattern again oneself

I would agree with that .. however...... I disagree with the following...
|
|
V
That one is really a 'multipliqueness' , more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected

I think it is not a 'multipliqueness'. There is not "two" (or three or four etc...). There is only one and that ONE is unique and constantly changing.


And when one of us ceases to "be"... then what happens to the flow?

[sahyo]

* feeling pattern again oneself. That one is really a 'multipliqueness' , more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected ...


"'i-d'-enity" not

"one-self" not

"between", not

thinking'separate' which not,
thinks"interconnected"
which not

:)

[a random hack]

thinking'separate' which not,
thinks"interconnected"
which not


Not 'interconnected', so of course not 'seperate' to begin/ end with.
Really, can't seperate or connect, but can gain/ maintain that impression...?


All same but diferent.This goes along with the saying that it is impossible to stick your toe into the same river twice.
Can stick 'same' (say the biggest on right foot) toe in the 'same' stream' (say the Brisbane river), but at the same instant, not the 'same' toe as it was ten minutes ago, nor does the 'same' stream contain the same water.
Same, but not same. :D

Of course, beyond same and different, your toe is still wet.

'I' also remember Yertle the turtle... :lol:
But prefer 'Bears in the night'.
Great fun reading this aloud to kids, and voice getting slower and slower as the bears sneak thru the forest...,
and up the hill...,
WHHOOOOOOOOOO!!!! :blink:
:lol:
and then again, but really fast :D

[Thomas Knierim]

Polaris,

Thanks for posting the Yertle the Tertle poem. Lovely.

David: That one is really a 'multipliqueness' , more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected...

The greatest image has no shape.

The Tao is hidden and nameless;
yet, it is the Tao alone that supports all things;
and brings them to completion.

The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to two.
Two gives birth to three.
And three gives birth to the ten thousand things.

-Lao Tzu-

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

thomas

perhaps not worded and-or pointing 'thing-s',
like thinkingseparate'thing-s'
....was translated word-s

[rich]

Polaris, Thank you very much for posting, :D
Yertle the Turtle-----------------by Dr. Seuss. :)

A good lesson for world leaders. :huh:

Random, I hope that, that,WHHOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
doesn't keep me awake all night. Sounded kind of sssS C A R Y :blink:

[sahyo]

Not 'interconnected', so of course not 'seperate' to begin/ end with.
Really, can't seperate or connect, but can gain/ maintain that impression...?

thoughtthinkingfeeling pattern again oneself. That one is really a 'multipliqueness' , more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected ...

[sahyo]

"'i-d'-enity" not



mistyped "'i-d'-entify"

[rich]

from asheera's post:

thoughtthinkingfeeling pattern again oneself. That one is really a 'multipliqueness' , more than a 'uniqueness', and that, though one's 'identify' can never ever be fully [re]captured and thereby consciously 'retained' (by anyone, including oneself), there is an ever-connective, unifying 'flow' between all 'being', which is dynamically, forever-and-ever, intimately, interconnected ...

supernatural, telepathy recalling previous lives ??
or am I way out there? just silly posting. <_<

[Polaris]

The Tao is hidden and nameless;
yet, it is the Tao alone that supports all things;
and brings them to completion.

The Tao gives birth to the One.
The One gives birth to two.
Two gives birth to three.
And three gives birth to the ten thousand things.

-Lao Tzu-

David,

Just curious as you know more than I do.

Is there more than "one" at a time?

:huh: :unsure:

[DavidS]

Hi Polaris -

I fully recognize the exquisite 'uniqueness' of every space-time configuration (thought forms included) in the universe.
I have my doubts. <_<
"Fully recognize the exquisite uniqueness of every ..." was not meant to imply that I fully or exactly "comprehended" every aspect of something/everything's uniqueness, only that I personally realized the 'fact' of its uniqueness and, in that light, appreciated it as exquisite. :)

There is only one and that ONE is unique and constantly changing.
And interdancing via and with EACH and ALL unique and constantly changing ones 'within' ITSELF, aye!!! :D

And when one of us ceases to "be"... then what happens to the flow?
Can't really say - since my view is that one can only cease to be in "this" or "that" form or "here" or "there" in terms of ''vicinity', but it ain't possible to cease to be as an entity. Based on the view-sense derived from all of my 'investigations', I share the 'perspective' (from The Bhagavad Gita Ch.2.) : "That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. . . . The Spirit, which pervades all that we see, is imperishable. Nothing can destroy the Spirit."

Based on your model of Reality, the answer is straightforward: Upon your "ceasing to be", the ripple effects of your Life would be the only thangs that continued as part of the flow of Being; 'you' as an entity clearly wouldn't. :ph34r:

[...]

Is there more than "one" at a time?

Within space/time there are meriads...

[Polaris]

Originally posted by DavidS@Jul 22 2003, 06:11 PM

And when one of us ceases to "be"... then what happens to the flow?
Can't really say - since my view is that one can only cease to be in "this" or "that" form or "here" or "there" in terms of ''vicinity', but it ain't possible to cease to be as an entity. Based on the view-sense derived from all of my 'investigations', I share the 'perspective' (from The Bhagavad Gita Ch.2.) : "That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. . . . The Spirit, which pervades all that we see, is imperishable. Nothing can destroy the Spirit."

Based on your model of Reality, the answer is straightforward: Upon your "ceasing to be", the ripple effects of your Life would be the only thangs that continued as part of the flow of Being; 'you' as an entity clearly wouldn't. :ph34r:
:blink:

In the first paragraph there you said:
..... it ain't possible to cease to be as an entity.

yet to finish off the post you said:
Upon your "ceasing to be", the ripple effects of your Life would be the only thangs that continued as part of the flow of Being; 'you' as an entity clearly wouldn't.
:huh:

If my 'entity' will never cease despite the fact that this shellcasing I carry it around in someday will, how will my 'entity' which has not ceased no longer be part of the flow? Assuming of course, that if there is an unceasing entity then there would probably be an accompanying unceasing energy... even if that energy was inert.. or not.. who knows?

Einstein "The Unique" ;) would have us believe in his Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy that the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. Neither can be created nor destroyed. So it stands to reason that if any part of my entity remains once my shellcasing has rotted into the earth that it should not be devoid of energy therefore if any entity remains then it's energy would still be a part of the flow.

Which I agree to a certain degree. Except that the energy that you might call my entity would exist in various forms as my rotted corpse will contribute to the flora and fauna and perhaps, my "spiritual" energy (for lack of a better word) will continue in the form of unresolved karma. But it would not be *my* entity. It would be energy and it would not be *mine*.

But anyhow, this is way departed from the original discussion where my thought of "Rosebud" only refers to my sled in my own mind. To Richie "Rosebud" means something entirely different... although, yes, my saying the word "Rosebud" on my death bed made him think..."chocolate"... once I died, my thought of Rosebud died with me. :)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by ...@Jul 23 2003, 06:43 AM
Is there more than "one" at a time?

Within space/time there are meriads...
Are the myriads all the same or is each on unique?

[rich]

If each myriad was not unique, it would be a stereotype. :D

[sahyo]

one-entity not
ceasingnotceasing not

:D

[DavidS]

In the first paragraph there you said:
..... it ain't possible to cease to be as an entity.
yet to finish off the post you said:
Upon your "ceasing to be", the ripple effects of your Life would be the only thangs that continued as part of the flow of Being; 'you' as an entity clearly wouldn't.
:huh:

Hi Polaris: the 'key' to the contradiction is that the first statement derives from and is 'true' in my 'view', and the second from yours. It's just that we are 'seeing' and logic-operating on the basis of different truth-axiom sets.

If my 'entity' will never cease despite the fact that this shellcasing I carry it around in someday will, how will my 'entity' which has not ceased no longer be part of the flow?* Assuming of course, that if there is an unceasing entity then there would probably be an accompanying unceasing energy... even if that energy was inert.. or not.. who knows?
** * *** *
Which I agree to a certain degree.* Except that the energy that you might call my entity would exist in various forms as my rotted corpse will contribute to the flora and fauna and perhaps, my "spiritual" energy (for lack of a better word) will continue in the form of unresolved karma.* But it would not be *my* entity.* It would be energy and it would not be *mine*.
The concept of one's (in this case, 'your') entity may be as simple or as complex as one wants (likes?) to make it and can mentally handle. In the 'view' presented by Jane Roberts, in Seth Speaks, each of one's reincarnational and probable and counterpart 'selves' are 'unique' parts of a 'multiple-unique' ENTITY or Soul; and, if I interpret him correctly, we 'as individuals' are 'fledgling' Entities or Souls.

I know, I know ... it ain't possible to logico-systematically evaluate such an 'imaginative' claim/assertion. But it sure can be fun to assume it as 'a possibility', and 'see' what the world of experience 'looks' and feels' while wearing those spectacles. Certain things even make 'sense' that don't/didn't otherwise.

such[/u] matters (I am sure they are 'too far out' to be of interest to most folks), I give the book my highest recommendation. Among other recommendations (included in front pages of the book), Deepak Chopra said: "The Seth books present an alternative map of reality with a new diagram of the psyche . . . useful to all explorers of consciousness."; Gerald G. Jampolsky, M.D., author of [i]Love is Letting Go of Fear, said: "The Seth books were of great benefit to me on my spiritual journey and helped me to see another way of looking at the world."; and Michael Talbot, author of The Holographic Universe and Beyond the Quantum said: "To my great surprise -- and slight annoyance -- I found that Seth eloquently and lucidly articulated a view of reality that I had arrived at only after great effort and an extensive study of both paranormal phenomena and quantum physics ...."]

Here's just one mind-boggling (but fun! I think) tidbit, from Ch.16 of Seth Speaks. Yikes, the implications if it is a fair description of our Reality/Truth!!

In your daily life, at any given moment of your time, you have a multitudinous choice of actions, some trivial and some of utmost importance. You may, for example, sneeze or not sneeze, cough or not cough, walk to the window or the door, scratch your elbow, save a child from drowning, learn a lesson, comit suicide, harm another, or turn your cheek.

It seems to you that reality is composed of those actions that you choose to take. Those that you choose to deny are ignored. The road not taken then seems to be a non-act, yet every thought is actualized and every possibility is explored. Physical reality is constructed from what seems to be a series of physical acts. Since this is the usual criterion of reality for you, then nonphysical acts usually excape your notice, discernment and judgment.

Let us take an example. you are reading this book when the telephone rings. A friend wants you to meet him at five o'clock. You stand considering. In your mind you see yourself {A} saying no and staying home, {B} saying no and going somehwre else instead, or {C} saying yes an keeping the engagement. Now all of these possible actions have a reality at that point. They are capable of being actualized in physical terms. Before you make your decision, each of these probable actions are equally valid. You choose one of these, and by your decision you make one event out of the three physical. This event is duly accepted as a portion of those serial happenings that compose your normal existence.

The other probable actions, however, are as valid as they ever were, though you have not chosen to actualize them physically. They are carried out as effectively as the one you chose to accept. If there was a strong emotional charge behind one of the rejected probable actions, it may even have greater valdity as an act than the one you chose.

All actions are initially mental acts. this is the nature of reality. That sentence cannot be emphasized too thoroughly. All mental acts therefore are valid. They exist and cannot be negated.

Because you do not accept them as physical events, you do not perceive their strenght or durability. Your lack of perception cannot destroy their validity, however. If you wanted to be a doctor and are now in a different position, then in some other probable reality you are a doctor. If you have abilities that you are not using here, they are being used elsewhere.

Now, again, these ideas may seem impossibly rich for your mental blood because of your propensity toward serial thought and three dimensional attitudes.

* * * [small amount of text omitted]

Now these facts do not deny the vailidity of the soul, but instead add to it immeasurably.

The soul can be described for that matter, as a multidimensional, infinite act, each minute probability being brought somewhere into actuality and existence; an infinite creative act that creates for itself infinite dimensions in which fulfillment is possible.

The tapestry of your existence is simply such that the three-dimensional intellect cannot behold it. These probable selves, however, are a portion of your idenity or soul, and if you are out of contact with them it is only becuase you focus upon physical events and accept them as the criteria for reality.

From any given point of your existence, however, you can glimpse other probable realities, and sense the reverberations of probable actions beneath those physical decisions that you make. Some people have done this spontaneously, often in the dream state. Here the rigid assumptions of normal waking consciousness often fade, and you can find yourself performing those physically rejected activities, never relaizing that you have peered into a probable existence of your own.

If there are individual probable selves, then of course there are probable earths, all taking roads that you have not adopted . . . .

ZOWIEEEEE!!!! :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

shenglingwriglfrmp

[pops]

Hi all,

This is my first message to post in this discussion forum :D

People here were discussing about some super power..which has created us...umm I too agree to it.

But where is that super power??? is that somewhere outside the world or is it around us?? Thats what in HINDU religion they told that GOD (super power)is there everywhere..ie it lies in you..in me..in the stone in the trees...etc...etc...

But due to our sixth sense..we will keep imagining things..so they started workshiping the idols that are made out of stone...for which in turn they had temple....

So if you see in each religion ,people are trying to give explanation for the super power in there own way..so the conclusion is all the religion are the path leading to the same place ie super power :D

bye
pops

[DavidS]

Hi there, straight-shooter pops. Only thing some might quibble about is whether that 'power' is 'super' or not (though I, personally think it's super-cool! and haven't come across anything close to being as wonderful to play with!).

Strikes me that what is being pointed to, or an attempt made at pointing to It, by the notion of some kind of power being "super" as compared to "ordinary" or "inferior"," is that it is 'primal', in-and-of-itself-causal POWER as opposed to the 'watered-down' or 'derivative' varietyies which are the 'usual' ways in which of thangs happen "in the world;" IOW, that it is the 'real' McKoy -- or the realer·than·any·other·McCoy McCoy -- or sump'n like that! :lol:

David

[rich]

Welcome pops,

Presuming that you are a kindly young man , a lot younger than I, for this ego is ancient. ;)

Nothing to disagree with, in what you wrote. Everyone's super power is
within ourselves. Thus, we are no different than anyone else, for all beings are unique. At least I hope so. So anyway, from one superpower
to another superpower, wishing you
Ha ppy __Posting.
:lol: ;) :blink:

[Polaris]

Hi Polaris: the 'key' to the contradiction is that the first statement derives from and is 'true' in my 'view', and the second from yours. It's just that we are 'seeing' and logic-operating on the basis of different truth-axiom sets.


"True" is a very unforgiving word, David and I don't think it should be used lightly even if it is used to describe your POV or my POV. There is one "TRUTH" and it is not your's or mine or anyone else's for that matter. It is fair to say that we may all be seeking what is "true" but it would be a dangerous deception on yourself if you firmly say that something is "'true' in my 'view'".

I know, I know ... it ain't possible to logico-systematically evaluate such an 'imaginative' claim/assertion. But it sure can be fun to assume it as 'a possibility', and 'see' what the world of experience 'looks' and feels' while wearing those spectacles. Certain things even make 'sense' that don't/didn't otherwise.


I can take a hit of LSD and see what the world looks like as the girl with kaleidoscope eyes but it would once again be a dangerous deception.

The only thing that is probable is what's under your own two feet at this very moment. There are no "probable selves". Only one action you choose is valid. The paths you did not take don't exist.

Books are great, David as long as you don't let the book do the thinking for you.

[DavidS]

Hi Polaris -

Let me try to get past what I think is a sort of 'impasse' between us.

I personally happen to 'see' that all points of view are, in a 'primal' way, 'valid' in of themselves, because, in my view, each and every aspect of consciousness lives according to it's own 'scenario-vision', and chooses/acts on the basis of what it perceives to be valuable (for them, 'validly' so) in 'it'.

In what follows, please understand that I understand (or think I understand) your POV, and therefore, what's 'valid' for you. I can 'see' that it serves 'you', and that you 'serve' Life (in general) by just being (and speaking as acting) as you.

I only wish to clarify what appears to be, and therefore is, in the way mentioned above, a just as 'valid' alternative scenario (i.e., the 'one' 'I' presently 'espouse'), for anyone who might be interested in beach-combing it, picking up or not, as they wish to (or not) scenario-elements to explore at their leisure. This is the way in which, besides enjoying cavorting around 'as myself', I also 'serve' Life and am reciprocally 'served' by (others in) It.

Pertaining to the topic under discussion, I only wish to exposite-add a contrasting 'view' to the smorgasbord table along-side of yours.

"True" is a very unforgiving word, David and I don't think it should be used lightly even if it is used to describe your POV or my POV.
I 'see' (i.e., think of) THE Truth (like many claim about 'God') as in fact being very forgiving, as it it many ways allows and supports a huge range and variety of personal 'truths', deriving from myriad unique points of 'view', being lived-experienced-and-experimented-with-in-evolving-sequence. I also don't think it should only be related to as 'solemnly' and 'seriously' as you suggest it should be. In fact, given my 'view', I 'see' the Whole Play of Truth (and for that matter, 'God') as a kind of 'divine', Abbott-and-Costello-each-with-his-own-'view'-of-the-truth, comedy.

Please understand, when interpreting the above, that I 'view' physical death as a 'material illusion', and material and bio-social 'identity' and 'organization' as no more than the 'illusory character' and 'roles' we, as personal 'script-writers', play-act out for our own and others' enjoyment and edification, as the opportunity to do so is provided to us on our conjoint spatio-temporal stage. Ultimately, its no more 'serious' (or less so, for that matter!), than the games kids invent and then enthusiastically play.

There is one "TRUTH" and it is not your's or mine or anyone else's for that matter.
YES, I also think-n-believe there is one 'ultimate' TRUTH, but, the way I see IT, IT includes "yours" and "mine", and everyone else's for that matter -- I guess, sort of the way some people think that "God's" Life includes, and to some extent 'consists' of, our own personal lives.

It is fair to say that we may all be seeking what is "true" but it would be a dangerous deception on yourself if you firmly say that something is "'true' in my 'view'".
Au contraire. I think that imagining-n-thinking and honestly/firmly saying "that something is 'true' in my 'view'", instead of imagining-and-thinking, and therefore implying-or-claiming-or-asserting that, it is THE TRUTH-Cat's MEEOOW is the safest way of not 'deceiving' yourself or others. Whether this strikes you as 'logical' based on your truth-axiom set or not, I submit it as a 'valid' (for me) personal opinion.

I can take a hit of LSD and see what the world looks like as the girl with kaleidoscope eyes but it would once again be a dangerous deception.
I am not advocating anyone do so, but from what I've read and heard, my impression is that not a few sincere and meticulously honest-with-themselves 'seekers' have reported experiencing things like 'cosmic consciousness', gaining greater insight(s), arriving at a 'new', more encompassing comprehension of Truth, via such methodology. Though I also am of the impression that at least as great a proportion of people get caught up in unconsciously-'manufactured' deceptions via that route as any other.

The only thing that is probable is what's under your own two feet at this very moment.* There are no "probable selves".* Only one action you choose is valid.* The paths you did not take don't exist.
In your 'view' (the one you 'believe' is 'probably' :lol: most 'reflective' of Reality/Truth clearly, YES! However, I hope you can 'see' that things are not so in mine (the 'view' I 'believe' is 'probably' most 'reflective' of that same Elephantine-Truth).

Books are great, David as long as you don't let the book do the thinking for you.
Double "Aye" to that, Polaris. And I'd say the same thing (i.e., what you said about 'books' in partcular) about other personages and established group-think world-view compendiums of any sort.

'Me' no Seth-clone; 'me' great-big hybrid mutt as a result of having smorgasbord-ingesting mind-n-spirit-nourishing (for 'me') 'memes' from all over the place -

David :)

[sahyo]

'Me' no Seth-clone; 'me' great-big hybrid mutt as a result of having smorgasbord-ingesting mind-n-spirit-nourishing (for 'me') 'memes' from all over the place -


davidthinking'parroting'delusion"memes"imagining'point of view'whichnot

:)

[Polaris]

Hi Polaris -

Let me try to get past what I think is a sort of 'impasse' between us.

Hi David,

I don't think we have an impasse. That makes it sound like this is some sort of arguement and for me, at least, it isn't. I really hope it's not that for you. You have your way of thinking and I have mine. I haven't got a problem with that at all. I've been sort of using this dialogue between us as a exploratory into another POV and it's great because I enjoy hearing how other people differ from me. Discussions such as this are always a lesson on so many levels other than just learning and/or comparing/sharing information. A stimulating conversation is always a wonderful opportunity to flex that big grey blob we store between our ears. :) I would be surprised if we were to ever meet on totally common ground in our opinions but that's fine with me. You are who you are because that is where you have arrived at this moment.. and likewise with me. Neither of us can be something that we are not. :)

[rich]

Is David S, the same David who used to post on the www.zen-buddhistforum.com?

[sahyo]

Discussions such as this are always a lesson on so many levels other than just learning and/or comparing/sharing information.


dividing?-"levels"?


A stimulating conversation is always a wonderful opportunity to flex that big grey blob we store between our ears.


are sure is "big gray blob" which "flex"ing? ;)


that is where you have arrived at this moment..*


"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 25 2003, 03:32 PM
davidthinking'parroting'delusion"memes"imagining'point of view'whichnot
Whether this label-descripion or "not-label-description" (as I image·in not-asheera would prefer and/ornot-prefer to think and/or not-think of it as being and/or not-being) is 'true' or 'not true', or some combination of both, in relation to my life-process, I am having as much fun with it as you and/or not-you seems to be having with yours or not-yours.

But talk about 'parrotic' repeating idea-'views' - strikes me I ain't the king o' this castle in that regard! :lol:

No, rich, I'm not the same 'David' as the one you mentioned (can't find where now) and asked if I was.

Thanks for the 'position statement', Polaris. I wasn't sure if we were getting 'caught up' in 'arguing' or not, but wanted to cover that base just in case.

David :)

[sahyo]

:lol:

does help to 'ignore'?:

davidthinking'parroting'delusion"memes"imagining'point of view'whichnot

by 'thinking'?:

Whether this label-descripion or "not-label-description" (as I image·in not-asheera would prefer and/ornot-prefer to think and/or not-think of it as being and/or not-being) is 'true' or 'not true', or some combination of both, in relation to my life-process, I am having as much fun with it as you and/or not-you seems to be having with yours or not-yours.

in relation to my life-process?

But talk about 'parrotic' repeating idea-'views' - strikes me I ain't the king o' this castle in that regard!

not important whether are or arenot king o' this castle in that regard!............still:

davidthinking'parroting'delusion"memes"imagining'point of view'whichnot

:D
;)

[Polaris]

Discussions such as this are always a lesson on so many levels other than just learning and/or comparing/sharing information.


dividing?-"levels"?

Dividing? Did I say dividing? :blink:


A stimulating conversation is always a wonderful opportunity to flex that big grey blob we store between our ears.


are sure is "big gray blob" which "flex"ing?

Well, maybe more like quivering like a bowl of loose Jello ;)


that is where you have arrived at this moment..


"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?

Where is it that Asheera has arrive at? :huh: ;) :D

[Polaris]

Thanks for the 'position statement', Polaris. I wasn't sure if we were getting 'caught up' in 'arguing' or not, but wanted to cover that base just in case.

David

:)

[sahyo]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 26 2003, 04:51 PM



Discussions such as this are always a lesson on so many levels other than just learning and/or comparing/sharing information.


dividing?-"levels"?

Dividing? Did I say dividing?

separatingdividing"levels?"comparing"?


A stimulating conversation is always a wonderful opportunity to flex that big grey blob we store between our ears.


are sure is "big gray blob" which "flex"ing?

Well, maybe more like quivering like a bowl of loose Jello

does "like quivering like a bowl of loose Jello" need "flex"ing? :)


that is where you have arrived at this moment..


"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?

Where is it that Asheera has arrive at?

"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?




;) :D

[rich]

errerrerrerrrrrrrrrrrr

kkkkkkkkkkkkwwwwwwwwwiverrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnggggg gg
like
loose
jellllo?????????


what flavor?

[Polaris]

Discussions such as this are always a lesson on so many levels other than just learning and/or comparing/sharing information.


dividing?-"levels"?


Dividing? Did I say dividing?

separatingdividing"levels?"comparing"?

You can have different parts of a single thing which can be looked at individually, in small groups or as a whole and it doesn't change the thing. ie a piano has 88 keys which you may strike individually or in groups. It doesn't matter how many keys you strike at any given time, they are still part of the piano.



A stimulating conversation is always a wonderful opportunity to flex that big grey blob we store between our ears.


are sure is "big gray blob" which "flex"ing?


Well, maybe more like quivering like a bowl of loose Jello

does "like quivering like a bowl of loose Jello" need "flex"ing?

I enjoy giving my mind a workout. My workout differs from your workout, obviously. I don't have a problem with that. Just know that although I might give your workout a try, I have the option of declining if I begin to find your type of workout tiring, predictable and perhaps a tad bit monotonous. This does not mean that I am not still working out.


that is where you have arrived at this moment..


"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?


Where is it that Asheera has arrive at?

"that"?-"where"?-"at"?-"arrived"?

Case in point ;)

[sahyo]

parts of a single thing


"of a single thing"? so "parts"?


I enjoy giving my mind a workout. My workout differs from your workout, obviously.


"I"? "my"? "your"?

;)

[Polaris]

"I"? "my"? "your"?

Asheera, since you, asheera, have given yourself the label "asheera" for the supposed purpose of identification and communication, I think it is evident that you, asheera, function as we all do here, in the relative, asheera.

Asheera, please communicate to me as a non-self.

[sahyo]

self-"non-self"?

:)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 27 2003, 08:03 PM
self-"non-self"?

:)
nope.

[sahyo]

ha :D haha

[sahyo]

Asheera, since you, asheera, have given yourself the label "asheera" for the supposed purpose of identification and communication, I think it is evident that you, asheera, function as we all do here, in the relative, asheera.

Asheera, please communicate to me as a non-self.


polaris thinks using words requires thinkingseparate"I"you"me"whichnot?

if polaris not thinkbelieving'selfwhichnot', polaris wouldn't thinkbelieving"non-self"whichnot

:)

[a random hack]

*flexs 'his' (like) a bowl of grey-blob flavoured Jello for a while

How would a 'self' know it was talking to a 'non-self' or a 'self'?
Or would it just assume?
What the hell is a 'non-self' anyway?
:lol:

[sahyo]

:lol: :lol:
:lol:
:lol:

[pops]

Hi all,

This dicussion is going no where.... :P

Comming straight to the point, Do you guys belive GOD is there???

regards
pops

[rich]

Originally posted by pops@Jul 28 2003, 11:53 AM
Hi all,

This dicussion is going no where.... :P

Comming straight to the point, Do you guys belive GOD is there???

regards
pops
Pops,

I think there is a power, above or a greater power than that of man.

I would call that Power, God

Man has some of this power within himself, and everyday man has the potential to receive more of this power, by living his life in an honorable way.

This is what I think, and I do not expect others to agree with my thoughts. :D

[pops]

Hi rich,

I too agree there is power above us, which makes this universe to go on.....but by giving names to that power, the way our people( in earth ) fighting each other saying mine is good yours is bad etc..etc...is very bad. Killing people by the name of god and sacrificing other living beings in the name of god etc etc is too bad...do you agree what we are doingis correct.

pops

[sahyo]

hi pops :D

[Polaris]

How would a 'self' know it was talking to a 'non-self' or a 'self'?
Or would it just assume?
What the hell is a 'non-self' anyway?


I don't think a self would know he/she were talking to a non-self, but if he/she recieved a response then he/she would definitely know they are talking to a self. That's why Asheera can't communicate to me as a non-self because as soon as she does she reveals her self through her expressions, POV, opinions, style of writing, her proof-reading for typos and editings those typos when she finds one etc...

[Polaris]

Comming straight to the point, Do you guys belive GOD is there???

nope :)

And where is there?? :huh:

:)

[rich]

Originally posted by Polaris@Jul 28 2003, 08:16 PM
Comming straight to the point, Do you guys belive GOD is there???

nope

And where is there??

:)
Polaris quoting pops:Do you guys belive GOD is there???

answer: nope

And where is there??



:)



Polaris should not answer for everyone. :o

Let each one be polite enough to answer poor old pops for themself. I previosly answered for myself, 5 posts before this post. :P

[Polaris]

Polaris should not answer for everyone. :o

Right Rich, I only speak for myself. :)

[pops]

Hi all,

Thanks for your replys....God only knows where he is :D

Special hi to asheera :)

pops

[sahyo]

That's why Asheera can't communicate to me as a non-self because as soon as she does she reveals her self through her expressions, POV, opinions, style of writing, her proof-reading for typos and editings those typos when she finds one etc...



did buddha quit speaking, polaris?

polaristhinking"me"non-self"POV"whichnot

[sahyo]

I don't think a self would know he/she were talking to a non-self


"a self"?
talking "to"?
"a non-self"?

'a where'?

[rich]

watching you monologging to self/non-self.
when one talks/writes to self, they say,
hasmoneyinthebankorflippedthelid:wacko:
thats what they say, asheera, not i. ;) :lol:

[Polaris]

did buddha quit speaking, polaris?

:huh:
Does Asheera consider herself as a buddha?
:huh:
Did the Buddha use nouns and pronouns when speaking to people?
:huh:

polaristhinking"me"non-self"POV"whichnot
Polaris NOT thinking "me" or "you" non-self. Polaris knows "me" and "you" self not non-self..
Polaris thinking "you"thinking"you" non-self"POV"whichnot.

[sahyo]

Does Asheera consider herself as a buddha?


"consider"?


Did the Buddha use nouns and pronouns when speaking to people?


polaris thinking rules using words which cannot say?


Polaris knows "me" and "you" self not non-self..


"knows"?


Polaris thinking "you"thinking"you" non-self"POV"whichnot.


"non-self"?
"POV"?

[sahyo]

:) pops

[a random hack]

Hmmm...

Did Buddha consider Buddha ('himself') a Buddha?

'Personally' ('self'), 'I' ('self') thinks of 'myself' (guess... :D) as both 'self' and 'non-self', but also, as soon as 'I' discern 'non-self', 'it' becomes 'self', and as soon as 'I' stop discerning 'self', 'it' becomes 'non-self' (not that 'I' know it...)
And, 'I' talk to 'my' 'non-self' quite a bit... :lol:

Does God talk to himself?

:lol:

[...]

Does God talk to himself?

Incessantly...

[rich]

About the only way to talk to God is to talk to ones' self. <_<

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Jul 30 2003, 08:29 PM
'Personally' ('self'), 'I' ('self') thinks of 'myself' (guess... :D) as both 'self' and 'non-self', but also, as soon as 'I' discern 'non-self', 'it' becomes 'self', and as soon as 'I' stop discerning 'self', 'it' becomes 'non-self' (not that 'I' know it...)
That boing-boing run k·chinged up at least 100,000 points on the board, Pinball Wizard!

That is, as 'I' 'see' and 'hear' 'it' :lol: )

[sahyo]

:lol:

[sahyo]

is 'awho' which can "monologging"?, richie ;) :D

[a random hack]

That boing-boing run k·chinged up at least 100,000 points on the board, Pinball Wizard!


Do I get a replay? :D

Incessantly...

:lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 1 2003, 01:25 PM
is 'awho' which can "monologging"?, richie ;) ;D
asheera asked thisquestion:is 'awho' which can "monologging"?, richie ;) :D

That excellent question deserving of 2 [two] answers asheera.

#1 'awho', of course is 'asheera' which was monologging. :D
#2 'awho' is 'youwho' which was monologging. ;)

[sahyo]

'a-where-thing'??? :)

[rich]

a where thing? :unsure:

a ware thing? :unsure:

a sure thing ? :unsure:

nothing sure, that's for sure :huh:

[sahyo]

:) richie


#2 'awho' is 'youwho' which was monologging.


'a-where-thing' which can "monologging"?

[rich]

Thinking of greeting before 'a' was given present 'body', yoo-hoo
meaning hello.

wish I knew what monologging,( talking to one's self is meant by 'a-where-thing'? Do not think I am ,'a-ware-thing's' meaning to asheera. :unsure:

maybe we should have a moon-o-log, before Dave :angry: beats me to it. ;) :)

[rich]

I was only kidding asheera, david, and random.

Please continue your dialogues with each other. I had already sent a private message to A Random Hack a few weeks back, describing my feelings on posting here. Finding the generation gap too great, for our interests and concerns to have anything in common.

Now and then, if I have something of importance to contribute, will do so, otherwise, shall try to remain silent. Wish me luck. :huh:

Peace to all of you. :D

Richie

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Aug 22 2003, 07:35 PM
I was only kidding Wish me luck.
If that's what you wish . . .

:) David

[rich]

It is 12:39 AM, on 9/18/03, the day Isabel is to arrive at North Carolina, with all of her fury. A battle of high and low pressures, fighting for dominance, and destroying who and whatever is in its path.

A day when many of us do not know, how much damage will be inflicted, or how little we received, and so much we escaped.
Whatever, it is a force we have no control over , but many of us hope for the best. Some here think our hopes are in vane. Maybe they are, but, I hope they will carry me through the storm.

We'll see, hopefully. :D

[Polaris]

In the immortal words of Doris Day...

What will be, will be

[a random hack]

Still with us, rich?

[BeyondBeliefs]

I'm a "Daddy" .. three new kittens have joined the sleeping pile of nine.

It is amazing how an 80 pound dog can tip toe around a 5 ounce kitten. His toungue does not knock them over. He stands on three legs to avoid stepping on one. Spends hours flat on the carpet watching the kittens play. His ears are the kittens toys.

And this is the same dog that terrifys all who come near my gate. Protecting me, and the kittens, from those terrible people, out there, who shot him and beat him until I risked my well being to step in to save him.

For me, the arguement over 'Nature or Nurture' has ended.

We become whatever we are 'TOLD' is required of us by the people in the place that we are born into. We become what our observation of the world shows us we need to be.

A lion raised in a gentle house becomes a gentle lion. Just Like Children do.

Reality is the best teacher. Truth Saves. The sheltered will become the THREAT that we then shelter the children from.
"The Paradox of artificial life. "

[BeyondBeliefs]

Rich,
(Isabell) We can only loose what we have built.

[rich]

BB,

In other forums and threads on thebigview, Rich has been posting, probably you and Hack are not aware. As you see, we survived the storm w/o damage. We consider ourselves as being lucky ones and fortunate, in comparison to others. We lost power
for a mere 1-1/2 hrs., and that was all. :)

Congratulations to you, and your little kittens. You probably will give some of them away. Hope that the kitty's dog god-father, does not become too attached to them, to see some of them go. ;)

Take care of yourself, Thomas. :)

[sahyo]

It is amazing how an 80 pound dog can tip toe around a 5 ounce kitten. His toungue does not knock them over. He stands on three legs to avoid stepping on one. Spends hours flat on the carpet watching the kittens play. His ears are the kittens toys.


:D

[BeyondBeliefs]

Rich,
Glad to hear all is well. (Survivor of Isabel)
I have not had enough time to read many other threads.
I spend an hour before writing a one line reply.
(Not unlike hurricanes and run-away trucks.)
South Carolina was Lucky this time.
I still have broken trees here left by Hugo.

(Funny frolicking fast fuzz) I always keep the kittens. Its a genetic defect in me. Can't trust anyone else to love them as I do.
Keeping the boys and girls in separate parts of the house is a challenge. Obviously.

asheera, :D Those who live in peace, live in Joy.
"Cats" and "Dogs" by name alone. In Fact Life. In Fact Joy.

[a random hack]

loves kitties as much as the next (1)80 lb 'dog' :lol:

takes time to count bless-ing-ings.

[sahyo]

:D

[sahyo]

Funny frolicking fast fuzz

bb :D

[a random hack]

loves kitties as much as the next (1)80 lb 'dog'

Actually, more like 200 lbs, forgot the .2 :lol:

Woof!

[sahyo]

:D

[theclown]

Originally posted by dog goddess@Jul 1 2003, 02:51 AM



The truth is, we "believe" what we believe, not because we really believe it, but because society gives us no choice but to force ourselves to try and believe it, or we come to inhabit a living
death.

The truth is that some of us believe what we believe because it has been revealed to us in some form or another. I have known I will die (again) from the moment I could think. I've seen death over and over in my profession (I'm an RN), and death is not painful at all. It's life that holds the pain.

If we don't accept the indoctrination of lousiness and promote that philosophy vigorously, we get hired for nothing, no one will work with us, we are strangulated from any way to make money and/or feed ourselves. We sleep alone at night, every night. The physical and psychological toll that this takes on us is unendingly devastating, and eventually we get cancer or diabetes and die a slow, painful death.

One has total control over their own life if they only accept that fact. Until you do, however, what you have written is often true.

My answers should tell you about my beliefs if you are aware.



To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children...to leave the world a better place...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.
~~Ralph Waldo Emerson

[sahyo]

clown :)

One has total control over their own life if they only accept that fact.

My answers should tell you about my beliefs

yes only "beliefs"....which believes? ;)

[BeyondBeliefs]

We'll all be fine, as long as we don't harm Reality over differences in ancient beliefs. There is always Hope. Reality is an excellent teacher.

Life in Reality would be a joy, if the various beliefs would stop attacking each other over nothing more than their ancestor's suspicions about the "correct" purpose of this Creation.

Creation Continues ( As a Humongous Webpage :)

Life could be a Vacation (http://bellsouthpwp.net/t/t/TTPANTO/journey/sand.htm)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Sep 29 2003, 04:36 PM
Creation Continues ( As a Humongous Webpage :)
I hope and assume you are 'pacing' your 'self', bro.

[BeyondBeliefs]

Making page after page , new songs, new paintings.

The daily flood of news keeps me scribbling my notes to myself and each note takes a month to process into something presentable.

There really is no nice way to say that our greatest enemy is our own upbringing.

But I'm trying:

http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/On...ing/Reaper.html (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/Reaper.html)

Reaper (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/Reaper.html)

[rich]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 11 2003, 10:14 PM
Making page after page , new songs, new paintings.

The daily flood of news keeps me scribbling my notes to myself and each note takes a month to process into something presentable.

There really is no nice way to say that our greatest enemy is our own upbringing.

But I'm trying:

http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/On...ing/Reaper.html (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/Reaper.html)

Reaper (http://www.enabling.org/Journey_of_Life/One_Beginning/Reaper.html)
Dear Thomas,

Though I tend to agree with much of what you say about religion, the innocent followers of a religious persuasion, are not exactly to blame for following that which they were taught.

It may be nice if all saw religious beliefs as you do, but do you have any code of moral conduct you follow? Do you believe in being faithful to your partner in creation till death do you part, as a marriage vow would do. Do you condone adulterous relationships, or do they not exist in your POV?

I think Journey_of_Life is excellent. However, it is too long, for it never seems to end, and the same message is continuously being repeated, with a few minor variations. Maybe some of them could be used as 1 page essays, w/o making them p/o Journey of Life. I hope that you do not mind my critiquing your creation. :)

[BeyondBeliefs]

Do you believe in being faithful to your partner in creation till death do you part, as a marriage vow would do. Do you condone adulterous relationships, or do they not exist in your POV?


Like any other action, Rape and Adultery can be a "crime" if it is done TO someone and not FOR someone, lovingly.

I am Faithful to everyone that I love. The world.
There are few on earth that I can not love.

The Greedy live in fear of Loss, make demands, and place limits.
But there is no one that I do not belong to and am not faithful to.

My 24 hours in a day are directed by me.
Those who demand more of me will have to convince me to make them a higher priority.

===

"Journey of Life"
It bagan with thousands of pages and I've been trying to condense them without confusing their point.

Once, millions of minds lived and died pondering the shape and placement of the earth in space. Now we teach it to kindergarten children in 5 minutes. It took thousands of years to find or invent the right words.
Erasing the wrong words from Human Minds takes even more time.
"Crystal Sheres swimming in the Ether"

[BeyondBeliefs]

Note:

I can not be faithful to the world and to God if I am forced to be faithful to one tiny entity.

Creation is an ability.
I must remain faithful to Life.
Limited only by my capacity.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 10:15 AM

Like any other action, Rape and Adultery can be a "crime" if it is done TO someone and not FOR someone, lovingly.


:o

Soooo, you're thinking rape and adultery are okay under certain conditions?

I have this image in my mind ...

....of a filthy rapist dragging an innocent young woman into a back alley at knife-point and telling her "I know what you need! You're going to thank me for this later."

Thanks for the approval but I hope to be spared that kind of "loving" in my life. <_<

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris,Soooo, you're thinking rape and adultery are okay under certain conditions?


"rape and adultery" are Words of Condemnation in your culture. (Edit) to you they mean violence and abuse."

Our actions, in Reality, are Good or Bad depending on what they give to the people we love.

The Greedy (Marriage) hurt themselves by demanding that Life loves no other.

If you were a Devout Catholc, I would try to be gentle when helping you,
But being Good to you, would hurt, because you would have to admit that your time was misspent.
And That Pain was inflicted by those who lied to you, and limited your life to that religion.

To avoid hurting others, many people would rather lie, and be called a liar when the truth is revealed.
In my experience, it is better to tell the truth first.
(edit) What Harms people the most? Loving each other?
Or calling that Love, "Adultery" and "Sin"?

Three wives and nine children later, I am certain.
"Adultery" is the Lie. (edit) Loving People is not hate.
(edit) "Rape" was the most fun we ever had.
Truth Saves. (edit) Lies Hurt.

[Polaris]

BB... honey, you're scaring me. :o :(


Rape has nothing to do with love and it is a violent act no matter what your culture.
Maybe you have to be a woman to understand that.
<_< :huh:

[BeyondBeliefs]

Your definition for "Rape" is what scares you.
Your definition of "Rape" is the one that should scare everybody.

Romeo would be in Jail.

(Because you struggle to give me a hard time,
I try to do the same when responding to you, and I hope you appreciate my effort to accommodate your prefered method of communicating )

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 01:24 PM
Your definition for "Rape" is what scares you.
Your definition of "Rape" is the one that should scare everybody.

Romeo would be in Jail.

(Because you struggle to give me a hard time,
I try to do the same when responding to you, and I hope you appreciate my effort to accommodate your prefered method of communicating )
I don't struggle to give you a hard time although I am sorrow if you allow yourself to have a hard time.

Please, if you would, explain to me what "rape" means to you. I'm interested in knowing your definition of the word and the act.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs+Oct 13 2003, 01:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BeyondBeliefs @ Oct 13 2003, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your definition for "Rape" is what scares you.
Your definition of "Rape" is the one that should scare everybody.

Romeo would be in Jail.[/b]
I appreciate the 'cleverness' of your 'provocateuring', BB. But, because of the 'sensibility' evident in all of her posts, I can't even begin to imagine that Polaris might 'really' 'agree' with the 'definition' of "rape" which is implicit in your Romeo comment. What you just did was to 'set up' and then 'destroy' a 'paper tiger', seems to me (Did it feel gooooood to you? I assume it did! ;) )

BB: Because you struggle to give me a hard time, I try to do the same when responding to you,

You 'confess' as well as 'demonstrate' that you choose to be an eye-for-an-eye-tit-for-tat·ter -- this is how you personally free-will(?)-'discharge' your response·abilities?

BB: and I hope you appreciate my effort to accommodate your prefered method of communicating

simultaneously 'boasting' that you are being 'accommodating' to her 'preference' - !!! - hello? - what's 'wrong' with this 'picture'? - you must have skipped 'Rape 101' @%^$#&?!!.

<!--QuoteBegin--Polaris@Oct 13 2003, 09:49 AM
I don't struggle to give you a hard time although I am sorrow if you allow yourself to have a hard time.[/quote]

BB: Methinks you are taking what Polaris is 'giving' you (inapppropriately) 'personally'. The way I 'read' what she posts is that she is a genuine 'truth-testing' 'hound' who 'bays' when she 'sniffs' either 'distortions' of 'inconsistences' in what someone (meaning anyone here) puts forth as being a representation of truth with a capital T. Methinks there's no 'struggle' involved. She does 'gags' at anything which strikes her as being tainted by 'cowdung' or 'bullsh*t'. She's an EEOC swash-buckler, IMO. ( ;) to Polaris)

Polaris: Please, if you would, explain to me what "rape" means to you. I'm interested in knowing your definition of the word and the act.

Am not sure what BB will come up with in that regard, and I don't want to get 'between' you, but I feel 'moved' to jump into the same pool to add my two-bits , to wit, that I think that any kind of, and I mean ANY kind of, 'giving' or 'taking' which is isn't voluntarily consented to 'in spirit', is a kind of "rape".

Not that one necessarily knows 'in advance' that 'doing' this or that would consitute such a 'violation'. But anyone who 'persists' in such 'behavior' after having been informed otherwise may be 'appropriately' (IMO) termed a "rapist."

Whatever 'spin' you might try to put on the meaning of the word, BB, on the basis of long-established consensual 'usuge', I submit that the term "rape" carries with it the 'connotation' of 'violation' which is, by definition, unloving - this may apply to something in the physical 'realm' (i.e., the 'rape' of a 'body') or in the 'psychospiritual' realm (i.e., 'rape' of the 'soul' or 'psyche', or of meaning which lives in humanity's 'awareness'-flow stream).

Given that that meaning is the one generally consented to, and given that you are receiving 'objections' to your abuse of the word (however 'cutely' you may have done so), I would suggest that your 'persisting' in such [ab]usage would, by my definition, earn you the title (in people's Mind's, even if they didn't 'speak' it) of "rapist."

Strikes me that there are others here to whom this 'label' may also apply. It is is a 'slippery slope' kind-o'-thang, which I also have to 'watch out' that I don't ski 'down', out of some sort of misguided 'enthusiasm', myself.

[sahyo]

rape
not moreless like
walking falling when tripping
owing standing when can
burshing off body
walking

[sahyo]

which is isn't voluntarily consented to 'in spirit', is a kind of "rape"

voluntarily consenting to teaching,
which tells to thinkbelieve,
which 'trys' to teach,
as though is 'truth'?

[rich]

Many years ago, someone told me this;

Confuscius say, no such thing as rape. Woman can run faster with dress up, than man with pants down.

[sahyo]

:lol:

[Polaris]

She's an EEOC swash-buckler, IMO. ( ;) to Polaris)

What's an EEOC? I'm almost afraid to ask. :unsure:

But David, your analysis of me is pretty accurate. I've crawled through a lot of dungheaps in my day. They come in many different varieties. I try not to crawl through anymore than I need to so before I forge ahead I want to see what I'm dealing with... poke it with a stick a few times, as it were. ;) (Sorry BB, I'm just poking you with a stick) Sometimes it's appearance has decieved me and it's not dung at all, sometimes I'm fooled into thinking it's harmless and I walk right into it, but the plan is always to avoid falling ass-over-tea-kettle into a steaming cesspool. (not implying that anybody here is a cesspool)

I think that any kind of, and I mean ANY kind of, 'giving' or 'taking' which is isn't voluntarily consented to 'in spirit', is a kind of "rape".


I would tend to agree with you definition and your further use of the word "violation" to describe it and add that such 'giving' or 'taking' is done in a fashion which seem extreme in the case of inamimate objects (for example clear-cutting a forest, strip mining etc..) and violent in the case of living beings (women, girls, boys, sheep.. whatever the preference)

I'd have to say that I have never felt 'violated' in such a way by anything that anyone has ever said here. In a physical struggle I might be an easy mark for physical rape but in the conversation, mental sense it would be difficult to 'rape' me because to me, rape in that sense would be to strip me of everything I ever held as truth. But hey, I'm quite open to be shown undeniable proof that I'm wrong. I'm am always ready to admit I'm wrong. I'm wrong, I'm right. I'm just looking for proof either way. Hmmm, let's just say I walk around in a constant state of "readiness"! :o So raping me in that sense would be almost impossible.... I think ;)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 13 2003, 05:55 PM
Many years ago, someone told me this;

Confuscius say, no such thing as rape. Woman can run faster with dress up, than man with pants down.
:lol: :lol:

[sahyo]

I'm am always ready to admit I'm wrong.
which is informing"I'm am always ready to admit I'm wrong."?

I'm just looking for proof either way.
which is "looking for proof"?

Hmmm, let's just say I walk around in a constant state of "readiness"!
which is thinking"I walk around in a constant state of "readiness"!"

[rich]

ugh!

asheera chief guru

On thebigview,

Very wise indeed,

To search for proof,

For the proof is in the pudding.

How could she be wrong? ;)

P.S. How many proof? :lol:

[rich]

rape
not moreless like
walking falling when tripping
owing standing when can
burshing off body
walking

asheera
Posted: Oct 14 2003, 03:38 AM



Guru


Group: Members
Posts: 563
Member No.: 3
Joined: 19-June 03

which is isn't voluntarily consented to 'in spirit', is a kind of "rape"

voluntarily consenting to teaching,
which tells to thinkbelieve,
which 'trys' to teach,
as though is 'truth'?

Are you saying that what i write, is not truth? My guess is that you are right, and you are able to see through me. There is lots of meaning in the words you write. They take a long time to sink in.

B) -_- :blink:

[BeyondBeliefs]

I don't like any form of Physical Force applied to the victims of civilizations.
I enjoy the opportunity to point to it's flaws.

We are alive because most of our body and mind is doing what is correct.
The harm is don't by traces of error.

[BeyondBeliefs]

I don't like any form of Physical Force applied to the victims of civilizations.
I enjoy the opportunity to point to it's flaws.

We are alive because most of our body and mind is doing what is correct.
The harm is done by traces of error.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 13 2003, 08:44 PM
I'm am always ready to admit I'm wrong.
which is informing"I'm am always ready to admit I'm wrong."?


:) Thanks once again, Asheera, for pointing out my mistakes.

I'm not exactly sure where I'd be without you. ;) :)

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by rich@Oct 14 2003, 03:55 AM
Many years ago, someone told me this;

Confuscius say, no such thing as rape. Woman can run faster with dress up, than man with pants down.
Sister Logical told Sister Mathematical the same thing! :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by sonrisa+Oct 14 2003, 09:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sonrisa @ Oct 14 2003, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--rich@Oct 14 2003, 03:55 AM
Many years ago, someone told me this;

Confuscius say, no such thing as rape. Woman can run faster with dress up, than man with pants down.
Sister Logical told Sister Mathematical the same thing! :) [/b][/quote]
Yeah, sonrisa, I 'heard' the same thing from 'them'. Methinks richie must has just gotten his Confuciuses confused.
:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Polaris@Oct 13 2003, 04:11 PM
She's an EEOC swash-buckler, IMO. ( ;)* to Polaris)

What's an EEOC? I'm almost afraid to ask. :unsure:
I thought the acronym might 'stump' someone from outside the U.S., specifically maybe you, but it didn't go beyond my saying to myself that t'would have been 'better' if I'd spelled the name out. The letters 'stand' for the Equal Employent Opportunities Commission which is seen as a 'savior' by some and 'the devil' by others, either way, a 'big deal' is often made of it,. here in the U.S.

From the rest of your response, I 'see' that you got the 'gist' of EEOC's meaning ... but I'm appreciate of the opportunity to do/say what I wouldn't have done/said otherwise, thinking that would be unduly 'anal'. :lol:

[sahyo]

polashariseera ;) :D

[sahyo]

was responsing:

I'm not exactly sure where I'd be without you. ;) :)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 15 2003, 07:45 PM
polashariseera ;) :D
Can it be!? Can it really BE!!?? Asheera!? Are you trying to tell me that I've gotten under your skin?! ;) :D

[sahyo]

hehheheheeee :D ;)

[BeyondBeliefs]

Polaris :
Both the "throw" and the "catch" are equally important
People have been burned at the stake for thinking the earth is round.
A worse fate is to say nothing.

===

15 years ago "Rape" was the most fun we could have.
The meaning of the word has changed in time,
but we still use the word when we reminisce.

We use the word that exists, until someone invents a new word that reflects more correctly the actual activity of the time.

Don't blame us because the deprivation of your civilization has caused the meaning of the word to be changed.
Those who respect these fragile living things of earth do not abuse others or themselves.

===

Confuscius speaks from personal experience.

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 16 2003, 11:24 PM
Polaris :
Both the "throw" and the "catch" are equally important
People have been burned at the stake for thinking the earth is round.
A worse fate is to say nothing.

===

15 years ago "Rape" was the most fun we could have.
The meaning of the word has changed in time,
but we still use the word when we reminisce.

We use the word that exists, until someone invents a new word that reflects more correctly the actual activity of the time.

Don't blame us because the deprivation of your civilization has caused the meaning of the word to be changed.
Those who respect these fragile living things of earth do not abuse others or themselves.

===

Confuscius speaks from personal experience.
BB,

I'm sorry. I really don't understand what you think the word "rape" means. It obviously means something quite different to you than is does me... and for that matter everyone I know.

Rape is a violation to me. A violation that comes in many different forms... none of which is enjoyed or considered "fun" by the victim. Please explain to me what it means to you and how it could ever have been "the most fun we could have"?

15 years ago I was 28 years old and raising two preschoolers. Rape... in any possible meaning of the word, was not something I did for fun... ever. I'm not sure why you use the term "we" pronoun when discussing it but I can assuring you... WE do not reminisce about rape. You might. But we don't. Rape is only fun for the rapist. There is no "we had fun" involved.

Are you trying to tell me that in 15 short years the meaning of the word has changed? It hasn't changed to me. Rape is a violation now just as it was 15 years ago just as it was 100 years ago, just as it has always been. Maybe the meaning of the word hasn't changed at all. Maybe it's your understanding of the word that has changed in the past 15 years. What were you doing 15 years ago to make you think rape was anything other than rape!?

I don't understand you BB. Really. You start out by telling me that rape is the most fun we could ever have and that you reminisce about but you end by telling me "Those who respect these fragile living things of earth do not abuse others or themselves." How do you reminisce about the fun of something unless you experienced in at least some form? But then you seem to contradict yourself once again by telling me that those respect life do not abuse it. On one hand you reminisce about the fun of rape but on the other hand you talk about respect.

Please tell me how any of this makes sense to you because it makes no sense at all to me. I wish it did but it doesn't.

Confuscius said: Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.

I'm asking you to simplify, please.

[BeyondBeliefs]

When we were 6,7 and 8, my brothers and I built an "Out House" in the back yard. My father, being Hungarian, was not aware of the American use of the term, and so, for a year we were the only house on the street with an "Out House" in which we played, read, ate lunch and napped by candle light.

Because you try to find what is wrong with my words, you do. Your Choice? Purpose? Genes? Revenge? or just something to do?

I willfully attempt to read your words in the best light possible.
When I am wrong about your words, then I am wrong in your favor.

This is the difference between us.
And I say it with the best of intentions.
Now, how do you read it ?

You See?

[Polaris]

That's all very fine and well. I know a family whose surname is Outhouse. I know some words can be used for many different purposes.

What I really want to know what purpose you assign the word "rape". I have never heard that word used in anything other than a derogatory, disrespectful and perhaps even violent way. If there is another meaning to the word that includes "fun" worth "reminiscing" about for all parties ("we") involved, I am ready to be educated.

[Polaris]

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, BB. I am trying to understand your words the best way I know how. If my persitence seems like it means you are not in my favour it's only because I'm trying to figure out what on earth you are trying to say. You seem to go in circles, backstep and hedge. I did, afterall, ask you to simplify.

Now once again, not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me you write as though you are attempting to make each thing you say into a long-lasting quote that will defy the ages and which people 500 years from now will be marvelling over for it's wisdom. I wont be alive in 500 years so if you want me to understand you, you're going to have to speaking in a fashion that makes some measure of sense to me. Trust me when I say, I am not a stupid person but I haven't got much time for riddles and half-analogies. I know what I know and I usually know what I believe and I try very hard not to confuse the two.

Quite frankly, if we're not on the same page we might as well not even be in the same book. So I really would like to understand your meaning, so that we can at least be in the same book.. even if we just share a footnote.

[sahyo]

Rape is a violation to me. A violation that comes in many different forms... none of which is enjoyed or considered "fun" by the victim. Please explain to me what it means to you and how it could ever have been "the most fun we could have"?


is adoer"victim"?, polaris

[sahyo]

I willfully attempt



And I say it with the best of intentions


is "willfully"attempt"intentions", bb? :)

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 17 2003, 03:52 PM

Rape is a violation to me. A violation that comes in many different forms... none of which is enjoyed or considered "fun" by the victim. Please explain to me what it means to you and how it could ever have been "the most fun we could have"?


is adoer"victim"?, polaris
Yes, I suppose a doer is also a victim.

[sahyo]

is 'adoer'?....is 'a"victim"?

is 'adorer"victim"?

[sahyo]

Rape is a violation to me.



is "me"?....is "violation"?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 16 2003, 07:24 PM
15 years ago "Rape" was the most fun we could have.
The meaning of the word has changed in time,
but we still use the word when we reminisce.
Am 'following' your conversation, Polaris, experiencing an inner 'echo' in resonance with your curiosity to 'know' what BB is 'cryptically' (it seems to me) referencing.

Only thang Sherlock can guess is that, what is being referenced is that 15 years ago, BB and his 'play' 'mates' were under the 'legal age' for 'consensual' sex -- and that they had a lot of fun doin' 'it'. His 'secrecy' on this score (since he is so unsecretive in other ways) may derive from some kind of 'embarassment' (because he would might be 'judged' as a 'pervert') feels regarding the matter.

Assuming Sherlock is right about the matter, bro, let tell you that me and my biological bro also 'fooled around' at a 'young' age - without actually doing the any kind of 'rape'-by-'definition' thang I have to say, but I would also have to say that, had we been a little more 'knowledgeable' at the time we were 'playing' around, given the degree of our genuine 'innocence', I see no reason why we wouldn't have at least 'tried' 'it'.

And, assuming Sherlock is wrong (which it's a fair bet that he is, since he's only fill-in-the-crossword-puzzle-with-any-'word'-that-will-'fit'-guessing), please just take the above to be the result of 'projection' deriving from on my own personal experience -- nothing 'insidious' is implied or intended.
:)

[BeyondBeliefs]

From 1957 to 1986 , the word "Rape" was never used around me to describe a disrespectful activity. But I was never part of the main stream.
Though not a "Loner" I was separate from the typical American crowd.
Most of my friends were either not American or were un-"All-American" kids.
Rebels, outcasts, and refugees from the street gangs and hub cap stealing, glue sniffing lunatics of the NY city streets of the time.

I once thought that the play "West Side Story" would save America.
I once thought the whole country was like my school mates. Animals.

When animals can't control their "hunger" then you may need strict laws, like cages to keep them from eating each other. But that is not a cure for hunger.
It makes them even more desperate for "food", and when the cage is open and the guard is asleep then they will eat anything, even paper centerfolds, staples and all.

[edit] So, to clarify, the only use we ( I and those I've known well) have had for the word "rape" is in a playful context.

I don't know much about "Rapists" but I suspect that , like most violent crimes, the perpetrator's life is about over, meaningless, joyless, and so they are willing to risk death or jail as they lash out at the world that did not raise them, or include them or satisfy them....? or something. I suspect that crime is a slow version of suicide.

[sahyo]

"Rapists"


was also which are called gangs town lived
....which people call rape happened a gang....
didn't think "rape" and didn't see "rapists"

thinking didn't happen, knife next to face

[sahyo]

didn't see "rapists"


didn't thinking "rapists"

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 17 2003, 05:08 PM
is 'adoer'?....is 'a"victim"?

is 'adorer"victim"?
In the case of rape adoer is a victim as is the do-ee.
Sometimes doer is not victim depending on action.
Is Asheera victim for being adoer at the BV?
(Polaris sometimes thinks she is Asheera's victim at the BV ;) )

Adorer is always a victim.

is "me"?....is "violation"?

Sometimes maybe

[Polaris]

Originally posted by BeyondBeliefs@Oct 17 2003, 11:24 PM
From 1957 to 1986 , the word "Rape" was never used around me to describe a disrespectful activity. But I was never part of the main stream.
Though not a "Loner" I was separate from the typical American crowd.
Most of my friends were either not American or were un-"All-American" kids.
Rebels, outcasts, and refugees from the street gangs and hub cap stealing, glue sniffing lunatics of the NY city streets of the time.

I once thought that the play "West Side Story" would save America.
I once thought the whole country was like my school mates. Animals.

When animals can't control their "hunger" then you may need strict laws, like cages to keep them from eating each other. But that is not a cure for hunger.
It makes them even more desperate for "food", and when the cage is open and the guard is asleep then they will eat anything, even paper centerfolds, staples and all.

[edit] So, to clarify, the only use we ( I and those I've known well) have had for the word "rape" is in a playful context.

I don't know much about "Rapists" but I suspect that , like most violent crimes, the perpetrator's life is about over, meaningless, joyless, and so they are willing to risk death or jail as they lash out at the world that did not raise them, or include them or satisfy them....? or something. I suspect that crime is a slow version of suicide.
Phew! Thank you BB! That's the type of response I was looking for. :)
Thank you for explaining your 'take' on the word 'rape'.

I think you may have been the guy my mother warned me about ;) :)

From your description of what you think a rapist is, is it fair to assume that you no longer think of 'rape' in a playful context? (beyond the good times you may have had in your youth,that is).

[sahyo]

In the case of rape adoer is a victim as is the do-ee.
Sometimes doer is not victim depending on action.


"adoer"? "do-ee"?


Is Asheera victim for being adoer at the BV?



Adorer is always a victim.


which is thinking"adoer" "victim, polaris?


(Polaris sometimes thinks she is Asheera's victim at the BV )


yes is "thinks" which thinking"victim"whichnot

[sahyo]

polaris:


I have this image in my mind ...

....of a filthy rapist*



victim

[Polaris]

"adoer"? "do-ee"?

'Adoer' is your word, Asheera so you should question mark yourself for that one.
'do-ee' is my attempt to use variations of the word you initially used.

"Adorer is always a victim."
which is thinking"adoer" "victim, polaris?

No, I was thinking "adorer" :)

yes is "thinks" which thinking"victim"whichnot

Not totally clear on this one, sorry :unsure:

[Polaris]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 18 2003, 06:05 PM
polaris:


I have this image in my mind ...

....of a filthy rapist



victim


I don't remember writing 'filthy rapist'. :blink:

But a rapist, even a filthy one, is a victim.

[sahyo]

this post polaris

Originally posted by Polaris+Oct 13 2003, 06:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Polaris @ Oct 13 2003, 06:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--BeyondBeliefs@Oct 13 2003, 10:15 AM

Like any other action, Rape and Adultery can be a "crime" if it is done TO someone and not FOR someone, lovingly.


:o

Soooo, you're thinking rape and adultery are okay under certain conditions?

I have this image in my mind ...

....of a filthy rapist dragging an innocent young woman into a back alley at knife-point and telling her "I know what you need! You're going to thank me for this later."

Thanks for the approval but I hope to be spared that kind of "loving" in my life. <_<[/b][/quote]