Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
babayada, you cannot create your cells, because you are not the creator, only the re-creator.

Take the great pyramids, for instance. I believe their form signifies life. Symbolically, the Creator, which is the source of our spirit nature both male and female, yet infinite in number, is at the top... the all-seeing eye of all creation. "He" then starts the process, and it perpetuates itself.

Are there different views on life? Of course! And I know that this one has been around probably since the dawn of time. But I can see it, and it makes sense, so I don't mind accepting what it basically gives, and what it offers my potential, from a supernatural standpoint. At the same time, I understand that there is so much more that I don't know, but I'm not going to get all twisted out of shape about it. I have my faith, which in many ways is cloaked in antiquity, but I locate what is timeless and logical (to me), and go from there. With a selection of workable truths within the framed wisdom of Christianity, I can have it all, and give it all, and get back even more. It's the foundation of my freedom and the meridian of my happiness.

This is what counts the most... freedom and happiness.

Did you not read the first sentence of my previous post? In reply to jeffdengr's comment, I said, "...I'll agree that this is true to a certain extent, with certain things, but still, but it can't be applied to everything." So you see, babayada, I do not believe that all truth can be seen as only absolute, or only relative. It was by the wording of his statement which made that statement an absolute one, because he used the words NEVER and ONLY. Those two words are absolutes, and therefore re-qualify his statement as an absolute one, even though the intention of the statement ran counter to it.

In answer to your question, I would have to get into a political discussion, which I would rather not start right now, because I wouldn't have the time to finish it. I am absolutely (oops! there's that word, again) fervent in my political views, so much so that I have stopped discussing them in the Internet forums, because I literally go all the way with it, while my own life takes a backseat to the keyboard. I know myself, so within the past month, I have choosen to be true to myself by exercising restraint, exlusively with that topic. Politics lights my fire and stirs my strength, but so much so that it can also become my weakness. I do apologize. Maybe later...?

And no, I do not expect for everyone to mimic my core beliefs, because this would be an unrealistic expectation. Although there's a part of me that would like it to be so, the sensible part knows that this would be unfair to the rest of those who would rather follow the beat of a different drum, even if that drum leads them to uncertainty and pain. After all, I wouldn't want someone dictating to me how to live my life. I want to make that choice for myself. Still, I keep myself open to suggestions, because all of us, if we are truly living, do change and grow, as we mature and evolve.

[This message has been edited by SHEANIMA (edited September 21, 2004).]






Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Absolutely!






Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 119
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 119
Interesting topic and discussion.

I would propose that this original question could be answered by focusing on one very relavant question:

Who Am I? (both now and then, in fact at any time)

The true answer to this question is not relative and within it are the keys to all success, knowledge, power, love, etc.

[This message has been edited by livingsuccess (edited September 29, 2004).]






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
And by what means are we to know and measure this supposed truth? And against what?

As far as I know right now, who I am is something I am continually learning about and will probably forever remain a mystery, because I can ultimately only know myself from one perspective, from within. And there is so much to know and in so many situations. I think the answer to this question is very relative.

I mean, just ask several people about one person. You'll get several different description. Who is that person REALLY? I guess that depends on what you mean by REALLY.

Who is a person? Are they their memories? Their personality? What they do? Their consciousness? All these phenomena change over time and in varying circumstances. Just because the mind can and prefers to generalize ... this does not mean the generalizations are valid. There are many that propose that the notion of "self" is merely a convenient, functional illusion generated by language ... that is, the way our language makes us tend to generalize about experience. Those people might be right. I just don't know.








Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 119
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 119
babayada asked: And by what means are we to know and measure this supposed truth? And against what?

It may seem like a paradox, but it would be through Self-Inquiry. This process will not be "against" anything, you would have to let go of all concepts of antagonism.

babayada further said: who I am is something I am continually learning about and will probably forever remain a mystery...I think the answer to this question is very relative.

This is true, from the various relative perspectives. None-the-less, behind all of those perspectives, unifying them all, is one common absolute position.

We don't have to find it. Some never look. Some look forever and never find it. If you are after this, you must let go of your searching - it is a fish too big to swallow. You simply have to become the fish.

Best wishes.

[This message has been edited by livingsuccess (edited September 29, 2004).]






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
The metaphor isn't the only thing fishy about what you're saying.







Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
My grandfater always said "Fish, is the smell of money". In the Unlimited Futures Book refered to by Bobbi Stevens, life is about choosing what you want and make it happen.

This original question for me introduces uncertainty into ones thinking and very unworkable. Maybe putting it on the back burner until I have matured enough to cook it properly is the right thing.

When I was a young Lad I asked myself "What is God" and about 45 years later I started getting an answer that made sense to me. I'm not doing that here because I really don't want to know, there are to many other things I am pursuing.

Consciously choosing what you want in life is better than blindly accepting what life gives you. Some things you cannot control or know about and that is OK, you simply can't know that or do that. I always wanted to fly like superman but haven't found the superman suit that worked for me yet.

Good Fishing.

Jeff






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
{deleted}

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited October 06, 2004).]






Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 106
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 106
Babayada,

Why did you delete your message?







Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
I feel I am beating a dead horse. I believe what I believe, and others believe what they believe, and that is the long and short of it.

The basis for a lot of this material has its origin in the discovery that what we are convinced is truth is actually simply the result of our perceptions.

What we consider limitations are often just perceived limitations, and instead of giving up on those areas, we should simply experiment and lift the limitations by exploring possibilities ... and that begins by having a sense of possibility.

I am all fine and dandy with that. But the methods and philosophies involved with the abundance for life course and the people who have enthusiasm for it appear to me to move closer and closer to religion and ritualized responses. Frankly, that scares and irks the hell out of me.

It's all about perception. When you start talking about truths and deeper truths, well, you're moving away from what provided the magic of NLP in the first place.

You know ... if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

It seems to me that people find something really magical, and then they end up missing the point and doing the same old crap everyone else did. You have something great and ultimately end up with a dead system that doesn't work and creates the kinds of limitations it was supposed to create alternatives for in the first place.

What is happening here is that a sort of "privileged view" is being proposed. It's labeled as truth. This is the same old nonsense. Don't give me truth, give me possibility. Don't try and tell me the way things are, give me a new possible way of looking at things that is just as good as many other ways. Don't lock me into not having choice by trying to have me believe in a so-called "truth."

Paul Scheele talks about freeing people from trances. But, really, what he is doing is creating a new trance for people that he probably thinks is better. By definition, it's *not* better. Just different. Labeling something "truth" however, locks it into a privileged status. It also locks people into stupidity.

There are alternative views that work just as well. Just because something works does not mean it or the offered explanation for it is "true," it means its a viable approach to a given set of problems or goals. Our explanations for how things work are not true just because they make sense. It simply means that the explanation fits some well-formedness criteria. That's it. Our explanations for things are not necessarily the magic in them that makes them work. The work with modeling in NLP at the beginning made this abundantly clear. How soon we forget.

When you asked people to explain how they did what they did, they'd give you their beliefs, which usually was a bunch of crap that had nothing at all to do with what they did consciously and unconsciously to produce results. This is why a system of modeling was necessary. How do you model? Perceptual shifts. Not into truth, but into an experience that, hopefully, will more and more closely resemble the activity that goes on within the subject being modeled. Observation. Actually using your senses to get good data ... not free associating in a trance and thinking you're receiving direct wisdom and truth from God or whoever. Separation of interpretation from sensory specific data. Realizing when you are "explaining" something or adding useless info vs. being sparse and accurate. This is the difference between "the subject is breathing in for a count of 4 seconds, out for a count of 4 seconds and has a lack of muscle tone in the face and upper body" and "the subject is in a calm, spiritually transcendent state."

What I see here is a movement away from all the good practices and skepticism that are simply prudent and into sloppy and fluffy thinking. I see a sort of religion developing, and it is both irritating and sad.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited October 11, 2004).]






Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Wendy_Greer 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5