UFOs, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Exopolitics, Geopolitics, Paranormal, Crypto-zoology, Ancient History, Cutting-Edge Science & Special Guests.

Latest topics

» Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2
Yesterday at 6:45 pm by garzparz

» New Members & Returning Members, Welcome to OM
Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:30 pm by Cyrellys

» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:20 am by drwu23

» MIND MIX RADIO 2017
Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:24 am by dan

» Getting too Close
Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:11 pm by Earthling

» Morgellons and Nanotechnology
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:02 pm by Summers

» Dan Smith - "Just the Facts Ma'am"
Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:36 pm by dan

» space travel
Thu May 18, 2017 4:26 pm by jizba

» Uncommon Thoughts on Common Things - Cyrellys
Thu May 18, 2017 12:19 am by Cyrellys

October 2017

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Calendar Calendar

MIND MIX RADIO joins OMF

Fri May 06, 2016 6:27 pm by Admin



Mind Mix Radio hosted by Manticore Group joins the Open Minds Forum May of 2016. Featuring talk on a wide variety of subjects ranging from research to current events, it is expected to add a new dimension to the materials featured at OMF.


Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Share
avatar
Cyrellys
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1172
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 47
Location : Montana

Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys on Mon May 04, 2015 12:29 am

First topic message reminder :

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)



Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that. Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design. She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party. They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed. Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast? Like any of us would forget and forgive her? Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers. She's five ahead of this gun owner. And that's just what we happen to know about. There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart. I could go on but what's the point. Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.

I'm a celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC. Truth and justice equals neurosis? What kind of thinking is that?!! But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception. So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play. They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.

>>>on India and Greece...look at the Sanskrit language and old greek. Then compare it to Old Irish. Fascinating? Now look at some of the ideas each culture valued...same again. All three have same root system. Ah but why would anyone care about the legacy of the elder gods? 'er ET and the seeding of civilizations? Virmana are inconveniences...ah! and there once was one in the vicinity of Fermoy Eire of all places! That is if you can take the Christian overlay off the history.

>>> on the subject of the Glyphs:

432 Mystery

432 Mystery: the first lesson - the Abducted Preceptor







_________________

"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.



FEMA Orders 200,000 Death Certificates–What For?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfrNGx_nEwA&feature=player_embedded

avatar
dan
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:11 am

Pf and Eric,

Thank you for helping to fill the communications void, hereabouts.  

When left to my own devices, here at OM, I go into diary mode.  

The two of you are on opposite sides of the MoAPS, and I'm trying mediate from the middle.  

Where to start........?

Yes, I agree with the mystics that the world is an illusion.  Further, I agree with them that this illusion is produced by us.  

How do I disagree.......?

Generally, the mystics suppose that the world is a place of suffering, and is the result of all our negative karma.  Even this is partly true, in that much of the suffering is the result of human ignorance/evil.  

The function of the MoAPS is to overcome our ignorance.  

I might be seen as implying that ignorance is a bad thing.  That would be an incorrect assumption.  

At this point in the explication, it is necessary to wax philosophical.  Leibniz is my main mentor.  The main thing to garner from Leibniz is his principle of sufficient reason (PSR)..... there is a reason for everything.  Everything makes sense, if you look at it the right way.  IOW, this is the best possible world (BPW).  

IOW, Leibniz puts a positive spin on this illusion that we call the world.  

From whence came this positive spin?  It came from the j-man.  It came from the notion of incarnation and redemption.  More to the point, it came from the notion of Personalism..... Creation is by us, for us, and about us.  That's all.  

But what's missing....?  There's a caveat...... We cannot possibly appreciate the new perspective without undergoing the MoAPS.... without fully appreciating the gestalt switch from materialism to immaterialism.  

This mother of all paradigm shifts is a true gestalt switch of the most radical kind imaginable.  One place to start is with the notion of a hollow Earth.... but that's not right, either.  The better notion is to think of this as a concave Earth.  

What I'm leading up to is the small world hypothesis (SWH), and the idea that we inhabit a closed timelike curve (CTC).  

Put this all together, and you have the core of the mnemonic......

PSR = BPWH/SWH/CTC.  

The mnemonic is more fully outlined on and about p. 18 of this current thread..... http://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t236p425-hello-cy-omf-ii-part-2 .  

Just the mnemonic extends out to thee lines, as you will see.  BTW, for navigational purposes, the url of each forum page includes a thread (t) and page (p) number.  The p number is approximately the page number times 25...... we're on page 40 and p = 975.  

The outlining of the mnemonic continues on into page 20.  Anyone who wishes to be serious about the BPWH, has their homework cut out for them.  

Most all the key concepts are spelled out, within those three pages.  You might then do a google site search on OM, but mainly you can rely on Wikipedia, especially when you learn to interpolate/extrapolate between the various entries.  

Then, finally you might take a look at my earlier websites.....

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/aAquarium/content.html

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/index06.htm

http://best-possible.wikia.com/wiki/Best_Possible_Wiki

Then there are the OM archives.  We're talking about upwards of 1K web pages or something like 10K typed pages.  Then I have a box full of manuscripts, from before the Internet age.  

Then again, you can save yourself a whole lot of trouble by calling or Skyping me....... etc.....


10:40f--------

Ron calls...... I ask various questions, mainly about the DR and about next week.  He mainly doesn't answer.  


The most difficult part of the BPWH is the SWH, small world hypothesis.  This notion is pre-Copernican, pre-modern.  Don't under estimate the difficulty for us moderns to get our heads around that mindset.  Modern intellectuals treat the pre-moderns as clueless.  Leibniz, and maybe Hegel, were the only moderns to give the pre-moderns the time of day.  You have to embrace immaterialism.  If not, you will be clueless.  

But in order to embrace immaterialism, you have to embrace the SWH.  And the SWH will not make any sense, unless you simultaneously embrace personalism.  Yes, at first it will feel like a juggling act...... but then the coherence of it all will begin to take hold.  You will gradually begin to appreciate the CohTT and the PSR.  

Then you might appreciate how much significance I attach to the UTH v the ETH.  Once you're able to get beyond the notion of little green astronauts from Planet X, and be able to think about visitors from Dimesion X...... well, then the SWH might be easier to grasp.  

I don't know of any of the non-dualists, though, who have been able to grasp the SWH.  Non-dualism comes with a built-in negative assessment of life and humanity.  I differentiate the traditionally Eastern pantheistic non-dualism from the monism of the West.  

That monism originated with Parmenides' conception of the One.  It continued through Plotinus, and on into Leibniz' monadology.  This monism lends itself, rather easily, to monotheism and personalism.  

Eric, pbuh, is my exhibit A w.r.t. the problems of the non-dualists.  


1ft/noon (edt)----------

(ft = forum time = EDT + 1 = GMT - 3)

The non-dualists, rejecting personalism, too readily throw their lot in with the totally impersonal cosmology of science. And they think nothing of the consequences.


(cont.)

garzparz
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 896
Join date : 2015-06-22

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by garzparz on Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:27 am

Well said Dan. Nice setup and u hit it out of the park. There it goes...goes...but not gone. Perhaps a metaphysics thread would be good. Come one come all and taste our Turkish delights. Here is the MoAPS in your face!

Now everyone just go read some Rupert Spira, this dude knows the Force and he knows Love. I think he could be a good guru for you Dan. Kidding, don't get your disclosure panties in a wad.

http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/introduction

I'll stay out of your way.

---

Nondualism can become a belief and religion like all others. Nonduality is not so cut and dry Dan for most or rational. It is religious syncretism for most. It is personal is my understanding. There are those of the pure non-duality faith, but it's just more techniques to remind you your ego is the source of suffering. 

People like Rupert pull from many many sources. They have dynamic views. Rupert for me is a shining beacon of how to engage the public with this. He knows the traps. He sees the ego not needing dissolution, but insulation, enfoldment by the higher self. I am learning you must negotiate ego surrender. It lays down its arms.

I am close to the source as well and have shared my new gospel, an amalgam. Anyone can be a guru these days. We need a world of them now. I mean I have seen what I think is the fabric of space time. I actually have an image of it still in my mind. That or even the thought it beibg real changes you. We can use imaginary numbers to fill in the gaps and many do. When u strip it all down, we are here in this sensory soup. The ego is our heat for the reaction. Not so hard to understand really is it.

It is all so very simple. You have your head in the godhead you got no problems, down here, nothing but messy disorderly problems. What are we so busy about? We have forever already. You are already perfect and have all u need. 

Still we ask, what is all of this drama about now? 

We made this drama and we have to clean it up or just let it dissipate is more likely what will happen. Maybe in hellfire and brimstone.

Just more heat for the fire Wink I read something recently claiming the mushroom cloud is our greatest recent mandala. It brought us to a new level of consciousness and ecological awareness when we realized, holy shit, we can destroy the world 500 times over. Not just monkey brains with sticks anymore.

Monkey brains with nukes, the Universe just can't tolerate it.

This was all a game dudes, let's catch our breath and relax.

Dan hates it when I talk like this. Not paying enough attention to the drama. I read this place here to keep connected to some drama, but I'm just playing around with you.

The whole thing just a game of Pin the head on the Messiah. Some crazy shit is going down in my life. Must be happening everywhere I think. See how personal this is for me Dan.

I feel heat.
avatar
dan
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:00 pm

Eric,

I believe that you are confusing personalism with individualism.

With non-dualism, salvation is just a matter of the individual's spiritual virtuosity. With personalism, salvation is irreducibly inter-personal, and it is part of an historical process, nay, salvation is the crux of history. God is the God of history. Theism is synonymous with the Prophetic tradition.

OTOH, non-dualism is notoriously acosmic, ahistorical. Salvation is an escape from this world of illusion, and it comes about only with individual effort. The concept of a savior is totally foreign, Buddha notwithstanding.



(cont.)
avatar
Cyrellys
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1172
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 47
Location : Montana

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys on Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:01 pm

dan wrote:Hmmm.........

My dear Eric, me thinks 'tis a bit early for high fives.  

But I would prefer high-fives to brick-bats, thank you very much.  

Yes, I'm the wannabe fat lady.  When my service option expires, is preempted, I'll try not to cry too much.  I've given a few folks a run for their money.  

Yes, it is my story, and I'm sticking to it, until I see something that makes more sense.  Miracles?  Nah.  That was for another time and place.  Let's see if we can move beyond that.  Phenomena?  I think there will be enough phenomena to go around, but I'm content to let others be their amanuensis.  Not my job.  


5:30ft(forum time)/4:30---------

Ron continues to be circumspect about the agenda of this meeting in the desert.  It's about trying to resolve an old issue.  The are six of ours, no surprises, and an unspecified number of the others.  Were the others like visitors?  No intelligible response.  

There is a definite protocol, and the one of ours, who seemed untrustworthy w.r.t. to it, was disinvited.  

Why would I be interested in this meeting?  Might it have anything to do with September?  No discernible response.  

There you have it.  Lean pickin's.  



(cont.)


I would be interested in finding out from RP if there was an attack involved somewhere around July 1 or "a problem" wrt this meeting? Interlopers?

consider it possibly comparing notes...Just curious about conjunctions...if we're considering the same 'meeting'. If so there might be more to say. Cy



_________________

"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.



FEMA Orders 200,000 Death Certificates–What For?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfrNGx_nEwA&feature=player_embedded

avatar
dan
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:12 pm

Cy,

The desert rendezvous has been delayed until the first part of next month.  Whether there might have been external interference was not specified.  
---------

According to the non-dualists, the cosmos is just a collection of bad karma, from which the individual attempts to escape, on her own recognizance.  This karmic dung heap continues to accumulate and deteriorate, right up until the end of this fourth age, the Kali Yuga, some 20,000 years hence, in a natural conflagration.  

There is no rhyme or reason behind the cosmos. The karmic cycle just keeps repeating itself, eternally.

This non-dualist cosmology only bears a superficial resemblance to the prophetic cosmology. The main point is that the former has no meaning or purpose. No wonder, then, that the non-dualists have been so quick to embrace the scientific cosmology. The ease of this embrace has been a point of pride for them.



(cont.)


Last edited by dan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

garzparz
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 896
Join date : 2015-06-22

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by garzparz on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:14 pm

Dan, we can agree to disagree. You don't need to respond or be distracted, but maybe its important to clear this stuff up. I don't see things so cleanly as you. You picked a path through all the different metaphysical arguments. I feel you are over generalizing. I'm not sure who your audience is again. I know you are working on a bridge between materialism and impersonal Godhead using coherent rationalism.

I think current non-duality teachers are closer to your middle ground than you think.

It's all swirling together in the individual, the inter-personal, the unmanifest. We are the veil and the experience of it. The problem is separation and identifying with your ego only in this feeling of separation. It is a balance. I acknowledge an active agency that loves us beyond space and time. I believe it uses a substance to create all this. I know it always was, is and will be. I have touched it. It has touched me. That's personal to me, but maybe not formally.

It is not important to put a fine point on it. Simply, we are not separate and self realization is working that out for yourself after you accept this simple truth. Them is the broad strokes Wink Then you learn what's behind the light, love and Truth is in the Light. That's revealed through mystical synchronistic experience. That is 5 steps ahead, I know, but that's where anyone on this path is heading. Something is not 'out there', it's 'in here' if you want to plug into it. The Light brings wisdom and insight. You pull your head out of the fog of maya.

I am not confused in the least. I am clear. Let's not argue it, but I think you need to take another look at the state of non-dualism where it mixes with East and West. Many I think are seeing the mixture is good and stronger. A lot of current non-duality teachers I respect are pulling pieces from West and East, which I think is on the right track.

Personalism is the synthesis of the realistic and idealistic. If I understand you, you reject impersonal pantheism. I am not an absolute idealist either. I do not believe nature is God. So I am not a natural pantheist either. I see God as bigger than nature. Maybe in part another way to understand this relationship is the Hindu concept of Jiva, wherein the human soul is an aspect of God not yet having reached enlightenment (moksha), after which it becomes Atman. Can this not accoount for the impersaonl nature of their Eastern experience? I am not a monist either supposing that we come from non-spiritual stuff, but this is a good middle ground for materialists to come and engage on.

So I have my individual experience. You're cheating, there are divisions among Pantheists and much confusion between that and Panentheism, which I lean towards if I was to describe it rationally. You helped me work a lot of my position on this stuff out, because I just didn't feel you quite had it or I could not see it like you were. It's all still fuzzy word wise. But there are threads you picked up leading to what I found, so you are onto something, whether I understand it or not, that's mystical to me.

My definition of personalism, we are an individual and part of a whole. Is that whole nature? Balanced self interest in love aware you are part of a system and whole is a perfectly fine way forward to me.

I dunno.

I think there is more than nature. Does nature extend into other dimensions or stop at the veil?

I dunno.

Non-dual consciousness is the natural state, not two but One. Is that not enough of a starting place for most people to grasp? That is enlightenment by the way, accepting that simple truth. But then you need to work it out and realize this Truth to make it real. It's only real if you learn to Love. It is beyond ego love.

As you were, I was never here.
avatar
Cyrellys
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1172
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 47
Location : Montana

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:32 pm

dan wrote:Cy,

The desert rendezvous has been delayed until the first part of next month.  Whether there might have been external interference was not specified.  
---------

According to the non-dualists, the cosmos is justthis  a collection of bad karma, from which the individual attempts escape, on her own recognizance.  This karmic dung heap continues to accumulate and deteriorate, right up until the end of this fourth age, the Kali Yuga, some 20,000 years hence, in a natural conflagration.  


(cont.)


Thank you Dan.  Perhaps it is not the same 'others'.  There was a gathering somewhere and I don't believe the incident was in the desert in question at the time that ran into a 'problem'.  The problem was courtesy of a all too human wet work crew as I understand it and was dealt with.  I was curious since the time frames were virtually the same.  And considering you were speaking of the CIA/avians potentially being involved if these were the same circumstance, then my head turned and I paused mid-stride.  I hope you can understand considering the long-running history.

The response relayed about the wet-work crew was sarcasm:  "When will they ever learn?"

and maybe this:

"We believe many people have become aware there is no Nibiru and we will no longer promote this ridiculous notion since the pope and Obama did not make the statement of our existence on September 23, 2015."

Sound of stainless steel milk bucket rattling downhill...

Cy

Definition: Wet Work Crew - assassination squad. Attempted murder by more than one clandestine operative or a group.


_________________

"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.



FEMA Orders 200,000 Death Certificates–What For?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfrNGx_nEwA&feature=player_embedded


garzparz
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 896
Join date : 2015-06-22

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by garzparz on Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:51 pm

Dan, last I will share on this topic for now. How can you say non-duality is not personal? Is the One not totally personal in itself? Form is shadow, do you accept this?

Form is just shadow.

We are just named forms. Maybe you don't accept this. Would you have anyone feel ultimately otherwise? A story about a reporter asking about non-duality below. A great story, sorry, little long. Again, not trying to distract, just feel this.


Dennis Waite wrote:"So, Swami-ji, what would you say that Advaita is?" The eager young woman crossed her legs and sat expectantly, pencil poised above a pristine pad of paper.

"It simply means ‘not two' - the ultimate truth is nondual," replied the Sage, reclining in a large and comfortable-looking armchair and not sitting in an upright lotus position, as he ought to have been, for the sake of the photograph that she had just taken, if nothing else.

She continued to wait for further elucidation before beginning to write but it soon became apparent that the answer had been given. "But is it a religion? Do you believe in God, for example?"

"Ah, well, that would depend upon what you mean by those words, wouldn't it?" he responded, irritatingly. "If, by ‘religion', you mean does it have priests and churches and a band of followers who are prepared to kill non-believers, then the answer is no. If, on the other hand, you refer to the original, literal meaning of the word, namely to ‘bind again', to reunite the mistaken person that we think we are with the Self that we truly are, then yes, it is a religion. Similarly, if by ‘God' you mean a separate, supernatural being who created the universe and will reward us by sending us to heaven if we do what He wants, then the answer is no. If you use the term in the sense of the unmanifest, non-dual reality, then yes, I most certainly do believe in God."

The pencil raced across the paper, recording the answer for the benefit of the magazine's readers but, as the words clashed with previous ideas in her memory, the lack of a clear resolution of her questions was reflected by an increasing puzzlement in her expression.

He registered this with compassion and held out his hand towards her. "Give me a piece of paper from your pad." She looked up, mouth slightly open as she wondered why he could possibly want that. But she turned the pad over, carefully tore off the bottom sheet and placed it in his outstretched hand. He turned to the table at his right and deftly began to fold and refold the paper. After a few moments, he turned back and, before she had had time to see what he had done, he held the paper aloft and launched it into the air. It rose quickly and circled gracefully around the room before losing momentum and diving to meet a sudden end when its pointed nose hit a sauce bottle on the dining table. "Could you bring it back over here do you think?" he asked.

"So, what would you say that we have here?" he asked, as she handed it back to him.

"It's a paper aeroplane," she replied, with just a hint of questioning in her voice, since the answer was so obvious that she felt he must have some other purpose in mind.

"Really?" he responded and, in an instant, he screwed up the object and, with a practised, over-arm movement, threw it effortlessly in a wide arc, from which it landed just short of the waste paper basket in the corner of the room. "And now?" he asked.

"It's a screwed-up ball of paper", she said, without any doubt in her voice this time.

"Could you bring it back again, please", he continued. She did so, wondering if this was typical of such an interview, spending the session chasing about after bits of paper like a dog running after a stick. He took the ball and carefully unfolded it, spread it out on the table and smoothed his hand over it a few times before handing it back to her. "And now it is just a sheet of paper again," he said, "although I'm afraid it's a bit crumpled now!"

He looked at her, apparently anticipating some sign of understanding if not actual revelation but none was forthcoming. He looked around the room and, after a moment, he stood up, walked over to the window and removed a rose from a vase standing in the alcove. Returning to his seat, he held the rose out to her and asked, "What is this?"

She was feeling increasingly embarrassed as it was clear he was trying to explain something fundamental, which she was not understanding. Either that or he was mad or deliberately provoking her, neither of which seemed likely, since he remained calm and open and somehow intensely present. "It's a flower," she replied eventually.

He then deliberately took one of the petals between his right-hand thumb and fore-finger and plucked it. He looked at her and said, "And now?" She didn't reply, though it seemed that this time he didn't really expect an answer. He continued to remove the petals one by one until none remained, looking up at her after each action. Finally, he pulled the remaining parts of the flower head off the stem and dropped them onto the floor, leaving the bare stalk, which he held out to her. "Where is the flower now?" he asked. Receiving no reply, he bent down and picked up all of the petals, eventually displaying them in his open hand. "Is this a flower?" he asked.

She shook her head slowly. "It was a flower only when all of the petals and the other bits were all attached to the stem."

"Good!" he said, appreciatively. "Flower is the name that we give to that particular arrangement of all of the parts. Once we have separated it into its component parts, the flower ceases to exist. But was there ever an actual, separate thing called ‘flower'? All of the material that constituted the original form is still here in these parts in my hand.

"The paper aeroplane is an even simpler example. There never was an aeroplane was there? And I don't just mean that it was only a toy. There was only ever paper. To begin with, the paper was in the form of a flat sheet for writing on. Then, I folded it in various ways so that it took on an aerodynamic shape which could fly through the air slowly. The name that we give to that form is ‘aeroplane'. When I screwed it up, the ball-shape could be thrown more accurately. ‘Aeroplane' and ‘ball' were names relating to particular forms of the paper but at all times, all that ever actually existed was paper.

"Now, this sort of analysis applies to every ‘thing' that you care to think of. Look at that table over there and this chair on which you are sitting. What are they made of? You will probably say that they are wooden chairs?"

He looked at her questioningly and she nodded, knowing at the same time that he was going to contradict her. "Well, they are made of wood certainly, but that does not mean that they are wooden chairs! On the contrary, I would say that this, that you are sitting on, is actually chairy wood, and that object over there is tably wood. What do you say to that?"

"You mean that the thing that we call ‘chair' is just a name that we give to the wood when it is that particular shape and being used for that particular function?" she asked, with understanding beginning to dawn.

"Exactly! I couldn't have put it better myself. It is quite possible that I could have a bag full of pieces of wood that can be slotted together in different ways so that at one time I might assemble them into something to sit upon, another time into something to put food upon and so on. We give the various forms distinct names and we forget that they are ONLY names and forms and not distinct and separate things.

"Look - here's an apple," he said, picking one out of the bowl on the table and casually tossing it from one hand to the other before holding it up for her to examine. "It's round or to be more accurate, spherical; its reddish in colour and it has", he sniffed it, "a fruity smell. No doubt if I were to bite into it, I would find it juicy and sweet.

"Now all of these - round, red, fruity, juicy, sweet - are adjectives describing the noun ‘apple.' Or, to use more Advaitic terms, let me say that the ‘apple' is the ‘substantive' - the apparently real, separately existing thing - and all of the other words are ‘attributes' of the apple - merely incidental qualities of the thing itself. Are you with me so far?"

She nodded hesitantly but, after a little reflection, more positively.
"But suppose I had carried out this analysis with the rose that we looked at a moment ago. I could have said that it was red, delicate, fragrant, thorny and so on. And we would have noted that all of those were simply attributes and that the actual existent thing, the substantive, was the rose. But then we went on to see that the rose wasn't real at all. It was just an assemblage of petals and sepals and so on - I'm afraid I am not a botanist! In the same way, we could say that the apple consists of seeds and flesh and skin. We may not be able to put these things together into any form different from an apple but Nature can.

"If you ask a scientist what makes an apple an apple, he will probably tell you that is the particular configuration of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA of the cells. There are many different species of apple and each one will have a slight variation in the chromosomes and it is that which differentiates the species. If you want to explain to someone what the difference is between a Bramley and a Granny Smith, you will probably say something like ‘the Bramley is large and green, used mainly for cooking and is quite sharp tasting, while the Granny Smith is still green but normally much smaller and sweeter'. But these are all adjectives or attributes. What is actually different is the physical makeup of the cell nuclei.

"But, if we look at a chromosome or a strand of DNA, are we actually looking at a self-existent, separate thing? If you look very closely through an electron microscope, you find that DNA is made up of four basic units arranged in pairs in a long, spiral chain. And any one of these units is itself made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, again arranged in a very specific way. So even those are not separate ‘things-in-themselves'; they are names given to particular forms of other, more fundamental things.

"And so we arrive at atoms - even the ancient Greeks used to think that everything was made up of atoms. Are these the final ‘substantives' with all of the apparent things in the world being merely attributes? Well, unfortunately not. Science has known for a long time that atoms mainly consist of empty space with electrons spinning around a central nucleus of protons and neutrons. And science has known for somewhat less time that these particles, which were once thought to be fundamental, are themselves not solid, self-existent things but are either made up of still smaller particles or are in the form of waves, merely having probabilities of existence at many different points in space.

"Still more recently, science claimed that all of the different particles are themselves made out of different combinations of just a few particles called quarks and that those are the ultimately existing things. But they have not yet progressed far enough. The simple fact of the matter is that every ‘thing' is ultimately only an attribute, a name and form superimposed upon a more fundamental substantive. We make the mistake of thinking that there really is a table, when actually there is only wood. We make the mistake of thinking that there is really wood, when actually there is only cellulose and sugars and proteins. We make the mistake of thinking there is protein when this is only a particular combination of atoms. "Ultimately, everything in the universe is seen to be only name and form of a single substantive.

The journalist was transfixed; not exactly open-mouthed but her pencil had not moved for some time. Eventually, she asked in a small voice: "But then where do I fit into all of this?"

"Ah", he replied. "That again depends upon what you mean by the word ‘I'. Who you think you are - ‘Sarah' - is essentially no different from the table and chair. You are simply name and form, imposed upon the non-dual reality. Who you really are, however... well, that is quite different - you are that nondual reality. You see, in the final analysis, there are not two things; there is only nonduality. That is the truth; that is Advaita.

The question, are we different than the table? I would say yes. I do not think the table is conscious. We are representatives of the One's Mind. That maybe is the grey area? No pun intended.

---

And finally, this is how I see peronalism and I have always demonstrated and maintained this awareness in my poetry, prose and fun times here.

Personalism stands for the love of one’s fellow-beings, of unique personality, of Divine humanity…

---

No mental thought can answer, can satisfy. Even the question who and what am I. The awareness u have of your thinking is the One you seek. It is the answer that kills every question. It is beyond concept. It must be experienced. Who wants to know what you are? There is no simpler way to say it. Are u ready to go beyond the surface of conceptional consciousness and experience and wander in nonbeing and being. You know nothing else but this experience will answer and scratch this itch that is driving you crazy. Are u the object in the lense or behind the lense? You are both. Eric is a form, a shadow of the Light. It's fine to identify with him. But I am not Eric, I am also all beyond Eric as well. 

We have come a long way from the caves haven't we? To be able to contemplate these things and then let go finally and go beyond mind, which is a heroic quest and takes great courage. The questions of the One echo in our minds, the phenomena. 

It is You, the supreme consciousness that asks these questions! 

Can the perceived be perceived? The perceiver is needed for there to be a quality of experience. The perceiver interested in what it perceives shares in the qualities of the things it wants. It is not ultimate. If this is knowable then there is a wider perception possible, maybe impersonal. Who is it seeing the perceiver perceiving? Who is there? Is it a little man behind the curtain? Can the Perceiver be a form? If I say You are behind all this, then who am I seeing you? We are lost in phenomena. Can we witness ourselves? Can a knife cut itself? I would describe u as Danny mind stuff. I am Ericy shaped mind stuff. We are just forms. 

St. Francis said, well a lot of forms have, "The place you are looking for is already the place you are looking from." What we are looking for is already 'in here'. 

"The Wound is the place the Light enters you." - Rumi
avatar
dan
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:02 pm

Cy,

Thank you for asking. The meeting I was informed of, was to be in the future. There might have been an earlier meeting, but I was not informed.
------------

Eric,

Yes, you are definitely marching to a different tune.



garzparz
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 896
Join date : 2015-06-22

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by garzparz on Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:57 pm

Just waitin around...keeping the drama at arms length. I have had maybe more than one thought of two about some things...processing.

“What you're looking for is inside you. You've heard this before, but the holy thing inside you really is that which causes you to seek."-Anne Lamott
avatar
Cyrellys
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1172
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 47
Location : Montana

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys on Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:15 pm

Thanks Dan!

@Eric...if the drama you are referring to is my seeming drama..it's not really Dan and I use each other for springboards in paradigm all the time.

Pivoting keeps the worlds gears well oiled. And who knows...if All Being (Old Irish) and Soyal (Hopi) are one in the same within the Cosmic Symphony how is anyone to know unless the boundaries of causality are continually tested for that compensatory reaction we sometimes refer to as Karma?

Hope all is well with you Eric. Cy


_________________

"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.



FEMA Orders 200,000 Death Certificates–What For?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfrNGx_nEwA&feature=player_embedded


garzparz
Gold Member
Gold Member

Posts : 896
Join date : 2015-06-22

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by garzparz on Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:20 pm

When I speak, I always speak for myself. Reactions, well everyone gets to deal with those on their own Wink

Just general life drama. I come here to watch your drama too.
avatar
Cyrellys
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1172
Join date : 2012-04-25
Age : 47
Location : Montana

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Cyrellys on Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:19 pm

garzparz wrote:When I speak, I always speak for myself. Reactions, well everyone gets to deal with those on their own Wink

Just general life drama. I come here to watch your drama too.

lol, I'm good for it...or maybe I should say I 'resemble that!' My mother once commented on my weirdness magnetism. So I cobbled together a career that suited it.

Grin,

Cy


_________________

"This is an indeterminite problem. How shall I solve it? Pessimistically? Or optimistically? Or a range of probabilities expressed as a curve, or several curves?..........Well.....we're Loonies. Loonies bet. Hell, we have to! They shipped us up and bet us we couldn't stay alive. We fooled 'em. We'll fool 'em again!" Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.



FEMA Orders 200,000 Death Certificates–What For?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfrNGx_nEwA&feature=player_embedded

avatar
ParanoidFactoid
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 84
Join date : 2016-07-04

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by ParanoidFactoid on Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:53 am

Dan,

I'm away from home at the moment. I'll get back to this thread when I return. And after having read some of the links you recommended.
avatar
X. Troy Dinaire
Full Member
Full Member

Posts : 31
Join date : 2016-07-08
Location : Laval

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by X. Troy Dinaire on Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:11 am

Cyrellys wrote:


Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.  

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that.  Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design.  She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party.  They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed.  Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast?  Like any of us would forget and forgive her?  Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers.  She's five ahead of this gun owner.  And that's just what we happen to know about.  There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart.  I could go on but what's the point.  Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.  

I'm a Celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC.  Truth and justice equals neurosis?  What kind of thinking is that?!!  But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception.  So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play.  They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.  


That is so right on. Hillary is also responsible for attacking the legitimate accusers of her husband, who is also guilty of murder and running a drug trafficking ring. And he's also guilty of pedophilia. And Hillary supports Robert Boyd, who was with Klan. The proof of all this is all on You Tube.


_________________
The light of reason cannot penetrate the darkness of dogmatic skepticism (paraphrase of John 1:5).
avatar
dan
Special Guest
Special Guest

Posts : 2577
Join date : 2012-04-25
Location : Baltimore

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by dan on Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:48 am

Troy,

Nice to make your acquaintance.  Always glad to have another fan of Leibniz around.  

BTW, this thread is only incidentally political.  The post of Cy's you are quoting from, is a just a filler, from way back..... a bit confusing.  
-----------

What is the evidence for immaterialism......?

We have no direct evidence.  There is no smoking gun..... no material evidence for immaterialism.  We have indirect, inferential evidence.  

But, by the same token, we have no material evidence for materialism.   We have sensory and scientific evidence for materialism.  Isn't that enough?  

Well, it's enough to make me want to take science with a grain of salt or two.  See, according to the best scientific evidence, you and I don't actually exist, certainly not as persons.  I'm just inclined to return the favor, that's all.  

Science is based on measurement, but there is no scientific account of measurement.  Measurement is a strictly normative process.  Science has no account of norms.  Norms exist only in the domain of sapience.  Science has no account of sapience.  

IOW, despite all its protestations to the contrary, science is a castle built upon a cloud of human abstractions.  It has been a very useful castle, for the duration of the technological/industrial revolution.  

A castle in the clouds..... a mighty fortress.....?

It seems that we, truth seekers, have been cast adrift from the two great established bastions of society.... science and religion.  We roam about, on the plains below, while these two Goliaths lob the occasional shell at one another.  

What's a poor truth seeker to do......?  Be gentle as a dove and clever as a serpent?  

My only bit of cleverness is to become an honorary member of the Aviary, under the nom-de-guerre of Chicken Little.  With that pedigree, every time I go to NYC, I can get a cup of coffee for $4.25.  

True, but.........

I'm thinking/hoping there is a method in my madness...... And my hope springs eternal, almost.  

As my CL moniker might imply, I'm an eschatologist.  A long an winding path led me to eschatology.  My job is to make that path shorter and friendlier.  Yes, my Eschaton comes with a smiley face.  

My Eschaton is long on the bark, and short on the bite.  It has just enough bite to wake us from our slumber of materialism.  

In short, it is the best possible Eschaton of the best possible world, and, it is my contention that, no self-respecting world would leave the drawing board without one.  In fact, I believe I have proven that, beyond all reasonable doubt.  

But, guess what..... the world is full of unreasonable folks.  


noon (ft)----------

The crux of the matter lies in the very concept of reason......

Over only the faintest of protests from philosophy and religion, science has erogated reason unto itself.  More crudely, science has simply hijacked reason, and there is no one to protest.  

If one intends to defend old-fashioned reason, one had better be prepared to slay Goliath.  I've gone to the river bank and picked out a smooth stone.  

My 'smooth stone' is actually just a wild-eyed piece of speculation......

My speculation is based on two, seemingly contrary, 'facts'.......

1.)  Humanity appears, on many reckonings, to be in dire straits....

2.)  and, yet, we do not appear to be here by accident.  

Sure, scientists will jump up and down, swearing that we are an absurdity in a meaningless universe.  IOW, humanity simply does not fit the scientific mold.  We are flukes.  We are a flash in the pan.  

Is it too bad for humanity, or too bad for science.....?

By the best and brightest of science, you and I, sister, are an inconvenient truth.... very inconvenient.  My intention is to make this truth much more inconvenient.  


1pm--------

I'm betting the farm that science is not playing the reality game with a full deck, and its half of the deck of 'facts' is badly skewed.  

When it comes to matters of truth, science has the CorTT deck, and I have the CohTT deck.... it's Correspondence v Coherence.  And I've peeked...... Coherence is gonna win.  

What will coherence buy us.....?  It will buy us the world.

But, even more important, what does Coherence tell us......?

It tells us that the game is fixed, in our favor.  

People are out there, worrying themselves sick about our future or lack thereof.  Me....?  I sit here, sipping my wine, waiting for Ron to call.  Sometimes he does..... sometimes he don't.   You pays your money, and you takes your chances.

Ok, Smitty, quit messing around.......

Alright then......

The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone of a whole new world......

It's persons...... all the way up, and all the way down.  

It's personal idealism/immaterialism.  That's where it's at.

The rest.......?  Well, we, in all our magnanimity, will allow scientists to continue picking over the bones.  


2pm---------

Ok, fine, we have persons.  But so what.......?  

Personalism <==> small world (SWH)

SWH <==> Eschaton

That's what.  That's all she wrote.

Once we are granted the reality of persons, everything else comes for free.  

What.......?  You'd like to take a pass on the Eschaton?  

Hmmm...... sorry 'bout that.... but not really so sorry.  It turns out that the Eschaton is the best possible frosting on our best possible cake.  

But, hey, says you....... it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.  Ok, if you insist.  We are giving up our blue sky dreams..... for what?  

The happy hunting ground......?  True..... more or less.......

The happy hunting ground is our Source.  It is the Monad..... it is God..... you name it......

Sure, you say, but we're not nearly ready for that final leap.  

Well, get over it..... get used to it.  

Ready or not...... all ye, all ye, in free!

See, the only reason you think we're not ready is because you've not been paying attention..... you've not been doing your BPWH homework.  

Uh, oh..... are you going to fail?  No.  Nobody fails.  

Had you been paying attention, you'd know to take your monism seriously.  

Even Leibniz and/or his followers did not take their monism sufficiently seriously.  The Monadology was all about the monads..... not much talk of the Monad.  

Let me be the first to tell you..... the Monad is where it's at.  Well, I'm a little late..... Parmenides got there first.  


3---------

And Parmenides was just plagiarizing the non-dualists down on the subcontinent.   Hmmm....... Not so sure about that.  

It turns out that there's a big difference between Western monism and Eastern non-dualism.  Eric, who drops by here, once in awhile, does his darnedest to bridge the gap.  Me?  I say, mind the gap.  I'm saying, until Eric proves me wrong, it's apples and oranges.  

And, speaking of the devil, Eric chimes in...... I'm half right.... he's half right.  

I'm not sure I'm going to be quite that generous, Eric.  I'm not so sure that Eric has done his homework.  

Eric calls me a seeker.  Them's are fighting words.  No, Eric, you're only half right....... I'm a thrill seeker.  Oh, yes, I'm also a drama queen.  But you already knew that.  Right?  

Yes, if I'm reading the tea leaves properly, we're in for a few thrills, and I hope, not too many spills. It might even start next week, but, you know me, I don't count my chickens. It's always been hurry up and wait. On 9/9/2001........ not so much. But, hey, that could have been just a fluke.

Wait...... I think I might have jumped ahead.......



(cont.)

-------

http://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=251


Last edited by dan on Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:46 pm; edited 14 times in total

Sponsored content

Re: Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:45 am