Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
I like to get on with the contemplation of living more than the business end of it.

I wouldn't call the idea novel, Sheanima. Most people are pretty familiar with some variation of it.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited September 17, 2004).]






Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 32
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 32
If you fly a thousand million miles into outer space and look back at the Earth you will see a tiny dot just like a grain of sand on the beach against a background of billions of dots. Its sobering to realize that every human thought that ever existed emanated from that dot; every Napoleonic war, the pain of every stone-age man with a toothache came from that dot, every act of terror, death and destruction came from that dot, the pain of every starving child wanting for a spoonful of rice.

Who were we before we were born??? I wonder just how significant we really are. I feel this puts us into context.

Do we really exist before and after death or is it just a trick of the mind making us think there is more?

The AFL course teaches us that the mind does play tricks…

Mark.







Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
And tricks of negative entities can play with the mind.






Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
quote:
Originally posted by babayada:
I like to get on with the contemplation of living more than the business end of it.

I wouldn't call the idea novel, Sheanima. Most people are pretty familiar with some variation of it.


(PLEASE SEE NOTE AT BOTTOM BEFORE READING THIS REPLY.)

I made a bet with myself that if I used that word, "business", someone would interpret my use of it as a money-making enterprise.

What this means is, using my Webster's Dictionary, "purposeful activity; mission; activity requiring time and effort, usually the avoidance of distractions". Not that I was discounting recreation, in any way. I just said it in such a way to make a point.

And when I mentioned what I said as a "novel" idea, I was being somewhat sarcastic.

Most people are also pretty familiar with mathematical variations of what equals 4. Some say that 1 + 3 = 4. Then others state that 2 + 2 = 4. Of course, someone else will come along and claim that 3 + 1 = 4. As you said, most people are familiar with these variations, because they are conclusive, and therefore reliable and useful, as they share a common sum.

But where I draw the line, is questioning something that is already absolute: "Do 2 + 2 REALLY equal 4?? Is 4 actually 4, or is it zero in reality? The mind does play tricks, you know. Hmmm.... let us contemplate."

That kind of "math" will not build houses, or effect inventions. It will not balance books or measure a child's progress in school. With nonsensical math, nothing would ever get done, and everything would be a cluster f_.

Working is constructive, playing is constructive; laughing, loving, and praying are constructive. But doubting the very existence of 4, or asserting its value as insignificant, is NOT constructive.

I don't mean any disrespect against those who think along such lines, but I see it as just a big waste of time.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Let me clarify emphatically, that by no means are any my comments on this thread intended to specifically challenge in any way, the Abundance for Life course. On the contrary, I have deep respect and appreciation for the programs that Paul and Pete provide for us, to utilize to our best advantage. I choose to approach Learning Strategies' products with the assumption of neutrality on the issue of religion. To me, they are not meant to destroy our individual faiths, but to enhance and fulfill all positive truths which are held as self-evident. As a free-thinking, wisdom-seeking Christian believer, this is how I approach the content of their programs, and I believe that this has allowed me to gain the greatest possible benefit from them.

[This message has been edited by SHEANIMA (edited September 19, 2004).]






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
I disagree.

Sometimes examining statements such as does 2 and 2 really equal 4 can be very enlightening.

Sometimes contemplation exists in a vacuum. Sometimes it's a game played for sheer enjoyment. Symbols get manipulated and pushed around, but does anything ever really change? Sometimes, no.

Lao Tzu might say that when nothing happens it is a very good thing. It is not a danger when ideas mean nothing. In contrast, it is when the ideas of people are taken too seriously and acted upon that wars begin.

There's another side of it, too. The theme of does 2 + 2 = 4 or not plays very nicely in Orwell's 1984. The book has had a lot of impact on many people.

Two and two not equalling four might be a message about not judging a book by its cover. It can point to the fact that mathematical equalities may not necessarily exist in reality but are products of the human mind as it interacts with the world around us. That is, mathematics is more a descriptions of how human brains interact with reality than reality itself. Absolutes are not necessarily absolutely absolute. It depends on the situation and your point of view.

And what can come of conjecture like that? Well, the field of NLP for one thing. And what did NLP help give rise to? Paraliminal tapes and courses.

Do not dismiss so-called useless conjecture as ephermeral and useless. It is the foundation of many of the wonders and horrors of the modern world.

Asking questions that no one else will ask, because they are stupid or nonsensical is exactly what some of the greatest thinkers in the world (namely the rebellious Einstein) have done. It is this kind of thinking that is behind some of the greatest innovation.

It's in the questions you do not ask, the areas you do not explore, the ideas you do not have (and thus the things you do not do) that there is the largest domain for discovery and growth.

It is also the source some of the greatest enjoyment there is, too.

And it all depends on your perspective.

I will note that I did not miss your equation of the presence of an afterlife and divine being with something that is established fact within a system of reasoning that is, more or less, rock solid. I don't agree here.

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the existence of an afterlife is an area of speculation and not absolute knowledge. I take it for granted that there *may* be an afterlife, and then again there may not be. For me, it teeter totters. It gives me breathing room. There are distinct benefits of just being a meat-bag with no soul, no god, and no afterlife. There are also detriments. The same holds true for the existence of a god, soul, and afterlife. And then there is that interesting and strange area of possibilities that is neither and/or both. Maybe the reality is not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we *can* think (I don't remember where that quote is from, but I like it).

Side note: I don't know why you feel you need a disclaimer about disgareement with the course. The LSC police will not break down your door if you disagree or criticize. I have plenty of times, and they haven't caught me yet.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited September 19, 2004).]






Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
What you say is very plausible, babayada, but in denying that which is absolute and constant, one denies by default, the work of love - the ultimate of both in its purest form - which ignites, permeates, and furthers the essence of all good. Without the constant and absolute, there would be no foundation upon which to build, scientifically or spiritually. If the beginning of all life as we know it to be, had been attempted without them, it would have never begun. In order for the cycle of life to be perpetual, certain fixed laws have to be set in motion. From this perspective, it would look ludicrous to suppose those laws to be an incorrect calculation or non-existent, even for the sake of "meditation". As a wise man climbs higher up the stairs, he neither disregards the floor upon which the stairs are laid, nor discounts the steps below. For he knows that without these things, he would be incapable of ascending.

A house cannot initiate the construction of itself. It can only begin as a dream, or concept, in the mind of the designer; then a team of professionals are typically contracted to complete what has been imaged. The designer's idea is eventually brought to fruition by that inner vision inspired by hope, faith, and passion, all of which become infused with the project. To work is an act of love. To build is an act of lifting up and giving to life, to share yourself with others, as those deep, inner expressions are manifested.

All of this may sound simple-minded to a few, but if you've been around children for any length of time, I'm sure you've found that some of the most profound comments can come from the mind of a simple, young child, because that child has not yet been fully indoctrinated with formal methods of thought. Just because an answer isn't enigmatic or scientifically sophisticated, does not mean it is not sound.

To question the existence of our creator(s), would be as the cells of your body doubting the existence of babayada (since I don't know your real name). Even a newborn baby whose eyes are not yet opened, who has just been removed from his mother's body and has not yet been held in her arms, knows that she exists, because he has been with her for the previous 9 months in another dimension of life. And when he is placed to her bosom, he recognizes her and becomes nourished and secure.

It goes against the laws of nature to deny one's source, because recognizing that source will mean the difference between survival and extinction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, that note at the bottom of my post was not meant to be a disclaimer. I was simply stating a clear-cut fact. I place high value on good communication, and I will go the extra mile in an effort avoid any possible misunderstandings. I've found that as a matter of course, people often misinterpret, so it should be our responsibility as communicators to clarify anything which might hinder that understanding.

As I stated in one of my other posts, I haven't taken the Abundance for Life Course, as of yet. Until which time I've had a chance to personally experience it, or have been made aware of something about it that I find questionable, the only opinion I will rightly hold is that of general appreciation. Any disagreements I've voiced in this thread were prompted by the overall *responses* to the original post, and were not targeted at the actual quoted question of Paul's, or the AFL course itself.

If you really knew me, you'd know that I am very genuine. With the combined help of Learning Strategies' Paraliminals and sound reasoning, I've conquered the typical and atypical habits of fear. With the help of my personal faith, I no longer harbor any grudges or regrets. And I have never been one to play manipulative mind games. My heart travels light, with absolutely no baggage. I do my best not to criticize a person, but instead address the words, thoughts, or deeds of that person. Nevertheless, I do not make a habit of criticizing, because I am reminded of a quote by Zig Ziglar, "No one erects a statue to a critic." Anyone with an IQ of 52 can complain and find fault, but it takes an extraordinary person to build humanity and move beyond the walls of mediocrity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit, babayada, that I completely understand where you're coming from. I really do. There was a time, maybe 20 years ago, I would have been susceptible to crossing that line of reason to non-reason, for the sheer fantasy of it. I would have chimed in, right along with you on it. But I am now very aware of the subtle sociological, psychological, and even political changes which will inevitably occur over the generations, as a result of meditating on certain eastern philosophical ideologies and practicing patterned nonsensical reasoning. The end results of those changes go directly against the grain of my core beliefs, and I will not take part in them. I truly believe that the most important type of logic to have in one's arsenal, is solid, good old-fashioned American pioneering "horse-sense". Joined with a healthy degree of flexibility and refined intuition, you can't go wrong.

This is where I stand, and I remain firm in it. To each his own. If it makes you happy to think the way you've chosen, if it serves you well in life and gives you joy, if it allows you to become the best that you can be, and if it fuels you to give of yourself by lightening the load of the less fortunate, without increasing the load of the more fortunate on an involuntary basis, then that's great.

[This message has been edited by SHEANIMA (edited September 20, 2004).]






Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 481
I was reading a story the other day about Absolute Truth and Relative Truth. We could never know the Absolute Truth about something because there are so many wheels turning at the same time, consciously it is beyond us. What we can know is the Relative Truth that affects our everyday living in the here and now, what applies you our lives.

I use numbers alot to get a ballpark idea of the power of electricity. I know 90 amps using a welder can either blow a hole in 1/2 inch of steel or it can fill it stronger than it was depending on who is doing the welding.

Stupid questions have always been my favorite and I resolved years ago to attempt to ask a stupid question everyday. After all the stupid questions are asked and you get answers to them you are left with only wisdom, is it worth the embarrassment?

Jeff






Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 25
jeffdengr, I'll agree that this is true to a certain extent, with certain things, but still, but it can't be applied to everything.

If you indeed accept the assumption that "ALL absolute truth can ONLY be perceived as relative", then you are without realizing it, rendering this assumption, itself, as an absolute.

The assumption that ALL truths can ONLY be perceived as relative, actually cancels itself out by its the very nature of its absoluteness.

If that assumption were accurate, it would never have been perceived by you, because of its absoluteness.

By stating that ALL truth is relative, this very assumption therefore succeeds in canceling itself out, because it is now absolute, by the nature of its statement.

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






Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 795
The idea that the world was created and didn't grow or self-organize is a predominant one in our culture.

A kind of thinking that allows for seeing forms in the universe as composed of elements with self-organizing properties fits better for me.

I did not create my cells. Rather, I view myself as a phenomenon that emerges from the existence and activity of my cells. I could not tell you the first thing about creating a cell. I couldn't tell you any of the steps in how to do it. I could only ramble on about meosis or mitosis, cell walls, the nucleus, and other things I remember from my biology classes. But that's it.

How can I create my cells without knowing how to do it? I know how to create a 3D model in Maya 6.0. I know how to cook fettuchini alfredo. But to create a cell? Thats being done by automatic processes in my body.

Through visualization, intention, and other activities I can influence the development of my cells and varying bodily processes, but this does not mean that I created them. I do not need to have created a ball in order to influence its position. I merely have to kick it.

I am interested in your statements about the psychological, political, and other such changes that come about through thinking and acting in ways that conflict with your core beliefs. Is this true for you in terms of being congruent or incongruent, or do you think your core beliefs form a template for what is best for all to believe?

As to accepting that all truth is relative as an absolute truth, you are assuming that the only kind of thinking is absolute thinking. That one MUST accept that statement absolutely.

One could simply say, yes, I do apply it to the statement. All truth is relative except when it is not.

Now, that makes the statement sound ridiculous, but, honestly, it really fits with my experience.

It boils down to a statement that, more reasonably, goes, "It may very well be that most truth is relative ... except when it isn't. And life is a process in which you're constantly figuring what is what."

Your beliefs are essentially where you have decided to stop thinking. I say this knowing that thinking MUST stop somewhere. But that doesn't mean it can't start up again when you need it.

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






Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Learning Strategies Admin
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies Admin
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Mark-11,

If you're still following this thread.

As you can see there are many pausible answers but none will ever be conclusive.

Who was I before I was born... not physical
Who will I be when I'm gone... not physical

The only time I know is now the past is a memory and the future is a dream so the only time I can experience myself is in the now and even in the moment that it is written that now is already in the past.

Who was I before I was born? It doesn't matter.
Who will I be when I leave? It doesn't matter Because I am here and here is my now moment, it is really the only experience that I own. From this point I cannot change what was nor what will ultimately be. I can only change what is my thoughts in my here and now.

Was I a being before I was born? perhaps though I doubt it was of the limited consciousness that I experience in the physical. It is probably even a different type of consciousness. Science has shown that all things are energy energy cannot cease to exsist although it does change form.

Who am I?

Right now I am... looking forward to the now momment where I'm enjoying my late lunch

Enjoy Life
Alex






Page 3 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