Synchronicity: Fact or Fraud?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Then Rupert Sheldrake pauses and says, "Descartes believed the only kind of mind was the conscious mind. Then Freud reinvented the unconscious. Then Jung said it's not just a personal unconscious but a collective unconscious. Morphic resonance shows us that our very souls are connected with those of others and bound up with the world around us."
You see, when I first became a truth seeker - I gravitated strongly towards thinkers like Rupert Sheldrake and Jung.

They left me with a great deal of optimism and joy - given that I started experiencing synchronicities and strange and unlikely events shortly before and after reading their works.

In the meantime, I despised Freud and didnt even acknowledge the existence of descartes.

I liked to think magically.....or as Alfred Alder would say; like a spoiled child.

Telepathy, astral bodies, literal immortality -- - becoming a rock shaman like Jim Morrison.

Those were the days....
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory »

I think you guys' definition of causation is too narrow. Causation encompasses more than just chains of events. Causation in its most fundamental form is simply distinction or "thingness". That is, if you have two things, any two things at all, they necessarily cause each other's existence.
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

PS Cosmic Prostitute, I feel that you and I are kindred spirits. Please forgive me if I created confusion on a Worldly Affairs thread. I was trying to confuse our perceptions about the nature of reality (to validate a point).

Here is a quote from a good friend of mine named Evan, he probably posted this at the exact same time I posted the previous posting, and I think it relates to our cause and effect discourse.
Have you heard of the concept of psychological duration? Something I learned in filmschool. It’s where the mind will try (and in most cases succeed) in mentally syncing up unrelated images and music. Adam did you study this? Kuleschev
(another damn Russian--Ha! ) in the 20’s or 30’s conducted a series of film experiments to prove this theory. Essentially what I am getting at is the mind wants to be tricked. It wants to be entertained and make sense of the senseless celiod world--the senseless cyber world--the senseless tangible world--even at its own expense. Self-deception is a bitch, right? “Love always begins in self-deception and always ends in deceiving others”--from Dorian Grey.
lost child
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

Matt G:
Causation in its most fundamental form is simply distinction or "thingness".
So what you are saying is that when QRS and the various others on this forum refer to causality they are simply saying “thingness” or that “things” exist, if so how is this helpful?
If you have two things, any two things at all, they necessarily cause each other's existence.
Please explain this in more detail.
lost child
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory »

AlyOshA wrote:Matt G:
Causation in its most fundamental form is simply distinction or "thingness".
So what you are saying is that when QRS and the various others on this forum refer to causality they are simply saying “thingness” or that “things” exist, if so how is this helpful?
Because that where a complete analysis of causality leads.

If you have two things, any two things at all, they necessarily cause each other's existence.
Please explain this in more detail.
Ok, I'll try.

Existence is caused by consciousness. In order for a thing to exist, consciousness has to distinguish it from everything else that is not it. So the thing and its inverse (everything that is not that thing) cause the existence of each other.

Ok, so if you have two different things, say A and B, then the two cause each other because A exists within not-B and B exists within not-A.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Cosmic Prostitute wrote:
DQ: A critical mass of behaviour reached on one island causes a change of behaviour on another island - this is supposed to be an argument against causality? I think you've lost your thinking cap there, dear boy.

CP: You’re missing my point, when the ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture, this variable changes the normal functioning of cauasality as modern science understands it.

For instance: Suppose I drop a glass on the floor because it’s slippery so the slippery glass causing me to drop it.

This is basic causality.

Already, you're falling into error by refering to this as "basic causality". Everything which happens in the world, whether it be glasses falling on floors, or synchronized events occuring via morphic fields, is "basic causality".

Now if a group of humans suddenly discover a more efficient type of arrowhead that will better increase their chances of killing a mammoth, and then over the next two weeks that information is transmitted across continents to all the other tribes that hunt mammoth, you must admit that this is causality functioning much differently than if I drop a glass on the floor?

Not at all. Causality never changes, no matter happens. Physical processes may change, physical laws may change, but causality itself can never change. It is the same everywhere.

I am posing the question: Does the normal functioning of causality change when the variable ‘novelty of consciousness’ enters the picture?
Yes, the "normal functioning of causality" - i.e. the particular physical processes that we are most familiar with at this time - can certainly change ...... if the causal circumstances are ripe.

This is really the crux of my problem with Quinn and Solway.

I've even heard Quinn say he wasn't 100% sure if consciousness was extinguished at death. He speculated consciousness might be some sort of alogrithm that gets transfered to a greater computer following death.

how can there be ultimate understanding of reality AND uncertainty about the mind?

Uncertainty is built into the very fabric of empirical reality, and the question of what happens at death is essentially an empirical one. And like all empirical questions, it is a question which can never be resolved. It can't even be resolved when we die - either because we will be unconscious and therefore incapable of resolving anything, or because we will still be conscious and therefore very much alive.

Acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of empirical phenomena is a basic component of understanding the nature of Reality itself. But so too is acknowledging that all phenomena is illusory, empirical or otherwise.

Thus, to worry about not being able to understand every little detail in the Universe is like worrying about not being able to know every little detail in a dream, or be aware of every little nuance of a fleeting mirage. It's a form of desperate madness. From the point of view of enlightenment, everything is like a mirage. And as a consequence, the details become unimportant.

-

[edited for spelling - DQ]
Last edited by David Quinn on Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Alyosha,
PS Cosmic Prostitute, I feel that you and I are kindred spirits.
Why do you feel a need to bandy together with other people so much? You've done this quite a bit in the short time you have been here.

Cause and effect creates a narrative, and narrative is mankind’s favorite way of viewing the world (just look at how we invented our history in the various history books). ynchronicity, Remote Viewing, and the I Ching, all acknowledge cause and effect, but they provide an alternative way of analyzing the exactness of the moment. Yes, Cause and effect are dependant on connections, but Synchronicity argues that connections are not limited to being merely cause and effect.

It can only do so by arbitrarily narrowing the concept of cause and effect.

If we were to analyze a dissection of this exact moment we would undoubtedly be analyzing connections, but are connections solely defined as cause and effect? Synchronicity and the I Ching acknowledge the psychic connections (/interventions and interdependencies), the coincidences, the simultaneous manifestations in totally separate areas and circumstances, the interdependence of the exact surroundings in dictating those manifestations, as well as the unconscious, totally unpredictable elements of chance.

All of these things easily fall within the purview of causality.

For example, imagine that you are a flatlander living in a 2D universe and that a large V-shaped object descends upside down from another dimension and stops just as it intersects the 2D universe. From your perspective, it would appear as if two small objects simultaneously appeared out of nowhere a long way apart.

Now you could either take this "simultaneous event" at face value and cook up all sorts of exotic theories, like synchronicity and so forth. Or you could take on board the logical truth that all things are necessarily caused and try to find a more sensible explanation.

Do you believe in chance? Doesn’t chance go against cause and effect?

Obviously not. For example, when we throw a dice and it reveals a 6, we tend to say that it was a fortunate occurance, a product of chance. And yet the entire event was fully causal from beginning to end. It is only because we are ignorent of most of the causal factors involved in the event that we begin to entertain notions of chance.

From our perspective, it is chance. But from the Universe's perspective, no element of chance is involved at all.

Isn’t it possible to understand the randomness and unpredictability of chance elements separately from (but not in disagreement with) the cause and effect narrative?
Well, that is certainly possible, and even useful. And indeed, this is essentially what modern physics has done over the past few decades - i.e. blocked out the niggling issue of causality in order to focus more fully on developing statistical theories which can give us greater predictive power.

Of course, a lot of people gullibly believe that modern physics, in doing this, has somehow disproved causality, when all it has done is push the issue to one side.

-

[edited for grammer - DQ]
Last edited by David Quinn on Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Please pass the enlightenment, I'm missing a clue here...

In the movie What the Bleep Do We Know? there was a demonstration of how human thoughts can change the molecular arrangement of water. That, if it is true, would be an example of interconnectedness. It also went on to remind us that the vast majority of human bodies (monkey bodies too, I'm sure) is composed of water, and "proved" in that way how our thoughts can have a physical impact on others.

Does anybody know if that was truth, or was the movie a work of fiction?
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

Why do you feel a need to bandy together with other people so much? You've done this quite a bit in the short time you have been here.
ha ha ha. Sorry this is just too lovely for me to pass by. David it is important to recognize that we are all people here on this forum, actual, breathing, human beings. It becomes so easy for you, with your primary focus being detachment, to forget that fact. If we become nothing more than impersonal, alienated, endlessly debating minds than what are we accomplishing, and where are we going? Nowhere my friend, we are just exercising the muscles of our mind and our egos. You are right, I feel that a human connection, beyond the shallow pondering of conundrums is necessary for understanding. I elicit information from you differently than I elicit information from Beingof1. You are ubermasculine and detached, I reach you with aggression and competition. Beingof1 is easier to approach by asking questions, and taking on the role of student/teacher. It is all a persona for effect. I have no emotional vested interest and frankly I find that you are an incredible source of wisdom (although I still can’t comprehend your views of women). I must go to Kung Fu right now (uh oh! personal… scary…) but I will leave you with one question, a Christian question that is. If Christianity has it right then God and suffering are synonymous. If suffering has some kind of greater purpose, then God exists (in the Christian sense). I don’t know you David Quinn, but I would suffer for you. Would you suffer for me?

More from me later. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
lost child
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:In the movie What the Bleep Do We Know? . . . Does anybody know if that was truth, or was the movie a work of fiction?
I don't think it was meant to be a work of fiction, but has all the hallmarks of one.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

I looked up that water-experiment after I watched the movie. It took some digging to find any reference to it (you'd think a theory like that would be sensational enough to be all over the place), and, like I expected, it turned out to be bogus pseudoscience.

Just as you will not find the full expression of an important philosophic concept in the fiction section of a bookstore (philosophers make the worst novelists), you will not find an accurate depiction of real science in the movie theatres. If you want knowledge, you can always go to the library and rent some of those boring highschool biology videos about cell mitosis or what-have-you.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Thank you.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Alyosha,
David it is important to recognize that we are all people here on this forum, actual, breathing, human beings. It becomes so easy for you, with your primary focus being detachment, to forget that fact. If we become nothing more than impersonal, alienated, endlessly debating minds than what are we accomplishing, and where are we going? Nowhere my friend, we are just exercising the muscles of our mind and our egos. You are right, I feel that a human connection, beyond the shallow pondering of conundrums is necessary for understanding.
I agree it is important to recognize that we are all actual, breathing, human beings. That is why, for example, Kevin, Dan, and I have been open with our lives, publishing our real names, photos, personal details, private letters, etc, on our various sites. We want to show that we are real people practising real philosophy. We're not anonymous entities hiding behind psuedonyms and engaging in "impersonal, alienated debates" for mere intellectual entertainment. What is discussed here on this forum is intimately connected to real life for us.

As for your depiction of the discussions here as "shallow pondering of conundrums", I can only register my profound disagreement and suggest that you may be artificially confining the implications of these debates for the sake of your own personal protection.

If Christianity has it right then God and suffering are synonymous. If suffering has some kind of greater purpose, then God exists (in the Christian sense). I don’t know you David Quinn, but I would suffer for you.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What if I was a child molestor who loved gaining sexual gratification from 5-year-olds. Would you be willing to pass over your child to me? Or do you plan on being selective with your choice of suffering?

Christian suffering, as conceived by people like Jesus and Soren Kierkergaard, has nothing to do with suffering for the sake of other people. It is purely about the spiritual man's clash with the world (which is steeped in lies) and his suffering for the sake of truth. Jesus frequently spoke about the realities of being persecuted for openly valuing truth, a theme that was fleshed out in great detail by Kierkegaard.

If you haven't already, you should check out some of Kierkegaards' writings - for example, here. They are extremely powerful.

-
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Voodoo Bullshit

Post by DHodges »

AlyOshA wrote:Off subject (or is it off subject?)
I think it is germane.
DHodges do you consider the (U.S.) government developed and scientifically proven method of Remote Viewing to be “voodoo science”? Look it up friend and you might reconsider what constitutes “voodoo science”.
Maybe a better term than "voodoo science" would be the more technically accurate "bullshit". No, I haven't bothered looking it up. I don't feel obligated to look into claims that are obviously crap (like perpetual motion machines). The U.S. government is hardly immune. The government is run by politicians, not scientists.

If your philosophy depends on this kind of crap, then your philosophy is also crap.
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

I don't feel obligated to look into claims that are obviously crap
DHodges you won’t even indulge a brotha? OK you made your stance very clear.
lost child
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

You brought Kierkegaard into it. Oh David you ruined the artistic flare of the whole thing (joke).
I was wondering if it were possible to get an emotional reaction out of you, you didn’t give me much, but I feel something here, no? Whatever it is, it is a strong response.
I agree it is important to recognize that we are all actual, breathing, human beings. That is why, for example, Kevin, Dan, and I have been open with our lives, publishing our real names, photos, personal details, private letters, etc, on our various sites. We want to show that we are real people practising real philosophy. We're not anonymous entities hiding behind psuedonyms and engaging in "impersonal, alienated debates" for mere intellectual entertainment. What is discussed here on this forum is intimately connected to real life for us.
Well that is very nice (NOT a joke), I forget that some of y’all have been posting for what nine years, I sure hope that some personal things leaked out in that amount of time. But my original intention was cleverly masked (by making warrentless accusations against you). It would have been much easier to ask you straight out, are you emotionally detached and to what extent?
Hi David. My name is Adam. AlyOshA is my screen name solely because I found this site via an egoist named RaskOlikOv (Alyosha and Raskolikov are both characters from Dostoevsky novels and Dostoevsky is my favorite author). I live in Los Angeles, drink good quality Japanese green tea, play chess, and practice Chi Kung.
As for your depiction of the discussions here as "shallow pondering of conundrums", I can only register my profound disagreement and suggest that you may be artificially confining the implications of these debates for the sake of your own personal protection.
I don’t think the postings here are shallow, I just think that without the human qualities they are shallow, I was trying to accentuate the “human” point (and I wanted your reaction in particular). But you can assume that I think everyone on this forum is shallow, if that suites you. After all – I am “bandy”. But please elaborate, in what way am I “bandy”, in that I take sides on issues during debate, or because I recognize similarities on a personal level (hence calling someone a kindred spirit)? Are you saying that you are not “bandy” with anyone on this forum? You don’t take sides on issues during debates or recognize similarities on a personal level? Beingof1 warned me against taking sides because he said it would cause resentment. In average cases there is a lot of validity in that, but I can’t honestly tell you the last time I felt resentment of any kind. I really do not resent the way things happen, and if someone resents me, well then maybe by my causing their resentment they will eventually learn that they are trapped in destructive thought patterns and I might actually bring them one step closer to breaking free. Personal Protection? Protection against what exactly? To be perfectly honest (without sounding defensive) I am beyond needing “personal protection” at this stage of my life. But personally speaking, I have spent my entire life pondering conundrums and it wasn’t until I stepped out of my head and into life, that I started to understand things. I am fishing you out David, trying to learn you better; I once heard a reference to having thick skin, so I don’t think my tactics were too brash, just a little bit of unwarranted judgments here, a little tickling there. Would you laugh if I tickled you David (and my question is not intended to be facetious)?
What if I was a child molestor who loved gaining sexual gratification from 5-year-olds. Would you be willing to pass over your child to me? Or do you plan on being selective with your choice of suffering?
I was referring to suffering “In the Christian sense” not the Michael Jackson sense (well I guess Jehovah’s Witnesses are a brand of Christianity). I don’t think there are too many Christians that would consider your proposition as equating to “Christian” suffering, but it sounds good in a debate.
Christian suffering, as conceived by people like Jesus and Soren Kierkergaard, has nothing to do with suffering for the sake of other people. It is purely about the spiritual man's clash with the world (which is steeped in lies) and his suffering for the sake of truth. Jesus frequently spoke about the realities of being persecuted for openly valuing truth, a theme that was fleshed out in great detail by Kierkegaard.
I am familiar with Kiekegaard, but thank you for the link, it has been a while since I visited him. Kiekegaard is foremost an existentialist, and is usually studied in the context of existentialism, he is undoubtedly Christian, but I don’t think all Christians equate his brand of Existentialist Christianity as being the mainframe. (Existentialism happens to be my favorite faux-category of philosophy by the way). But it can’t be denied that Jesus suffered for the truth. Jesus suffered for the truth, which entailed suffering for mankind, which ultimately entailed forgiveness. Under this context I say that I would suffer for you David. I am a balanced person, but I am not beneath dropping to my knees and weeping, moistening the earth with my tears, and begging it for forgiveness, just for the shear beauty of it, and just for the sake of forgiveness. Sound emotional? I acknowledge and utilize my emotions David, but I do not confuse them with my true substance.
lost child
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick wrote:
In the mean-time I'll be focusing directly on the nature of the totality itself.
You can focus and focus and focus, and sure you will refine your intellect by contemplating concepts such as cause-effect which will help you end emotionalism/attachment which is essential.

However at the end of the day, to steal Cory Patrick’s word the world still is rather “un-rational”

Cory Patrick wrote:
becoming a rock shaman like Jim Morrison - Those were the days....
Yes, I can remember my early truth seeking days as if it were only yesterday, I thought I was going to be the next Stephen hawking; minus the wheelchair of course. Yes Stephen Hawking, only a more aesthetically pleasing Hawking with a beautiful woman on my arm.

Ha, and I actually thought I was going to use my next door neighbor to attain it, he had me convinced that he was going to become some mystical psychedelic rock star or some crap. Yes, he was the sea turtle that I was going to ride all the way to a imaginary utopian island that I magically created in my brain. What a cosmic joke.

Cory Patrick wrote:
However, I value Quinn, Solway, Rowden and other G forum members because they agree that its important to be as free from sensuality and emotinalism as possible in order to have a calm clear mind.
Yes I agree, good work boys, but I’m still skeptical of the possibility of ending all sexual desire, it sounds a tad too excessive. Easy on the negation of the senses QRS, you’re gonna negate the entire species for Christ sakes!

And Kevin: if you’re out there in genius forum land, I challenge you to find me a direct quote by Buddha or Jesus of them stating “I have ended all sexual desire and the seeker of truth must do the same”

I have yet to find a sage that has proposed such a thing. And I want a direct quote, don’t try to fool me with a quote from Jesus’ twin brother or the Buddha’s servant...

AlyOshA wrote:
PS Cosmic Prostitute, I feel that you and I are kindred spirits. Please forgive me if I created confusion on a Worldly Affairs thread. I was trying to confuse our perceptions about the nature of reality (to validate a point).
Don’t say that yet friend because all I can do from here on in is disappoint you.

Friendship is difficult, it requires a lot of suffering, I have come to realize that there are many hurtles such as: Inferiority complexes, the suffering of having a deluded perspective crushed and in the beginning stages intense hatred passes between seekers.

This is true because your fellow seeker is the one that exposes all your weaknesses which humiliates you and you hate him for it even though he is helping you and you also feel hatred towards him because you’re aware of all his weaknesses that affect you directly.

In the beginning stages extreme hatred can pass between seekers.

However I have only been focusing on the difficulties of friendship and I still feel that genuine laughter, joy and discovery can spark between two inquiring minds and overall I believe the universe is a rather beautiful design.

Quinn wrote:
Already, you're falling into error by referring to this as "basic causality". Everything which happens in the world, whether it be glasses falling on floors, or synchronized events occurring via morphic fields, is "basic causality".
Okay Quinn I’ll give you this one, causality is causality and yes both of my examples are basic causal events, you’re the victor;

However a question:

Do you feel that you have an ultimate understanding of everything? Do you no longer feel a sense mystery in your life? Do you feel existence is an entirely rational occurrence that can be summed up beautifully using the powers of logic?
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

Don’t say that yet friend because all I can do from here on in is disappoint you.


When I exercise acceptance, disappointment is not a factor. I would only challenge you to constantly better yourself, and you would do the same for me. (This is speaking hypothetically of course.)
Friendship is difficult, it requires a lot of suffering, I have come to realize that there are many hurtles such as: Inferiority complexes, the suffering of having a deluded perspective crushed and I believe that the most intense hatred passes between friends.
I had a feeling you would say something like this, and I have a feeling that David Q will say something very similar. You need suffering in order to transcend suffering. You could say everything you just said but replace the word “Friendship” with “the search for truth”. Does that mean that you will abandon all efforts to search for truth? These negative qualities that you think emerge from friendship are only projections of fear within yourself. These things only apply if you haven’t transcended fear and suffering. I suggest facing fear and suffering head on instead of avoiding it, hiding from it, or abstinence from it.
This is true because your friend is the one that exposes all your weaknesses which humiliates you and you hate him for it even though he is helping you and you also feel hatred towards him because you’re aware of all his weaknesses that affect you directly.
It is important for me to expose my weaknesses, because then I acknowledge them and analyze how to deal with them or overcome them. I don’t get humiliated, what good is being humiliated, I don’t find it necessary, and humiliation is just another projection of fear. Most importantly I do not hate my friends in the slightest. In fact I rarely hate anything, I occasionally utilize spite but only for the sake of competition, but hate is not very useful for me.
A true friend hates you for what you’re not.


I wholeheartedly disagree. A true friend loves the entirety of your person, even the things that others would see as “negative” qualities. A true friend loves everything that you ARE, and cares nothing for what you’re NOT.
However I have only been focusing on the difficulties of friendship and I still feel that genuine laughter, joy and discovery can spark between two inquiring minds and overall I am not bitter and I believe the universe is a rather beautiful design.
I concur with this sentiment, but friendship is not limited to “two inquiring minds” there is flesh and blood and soul attached to those “inquiring minds”.
lost child
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

For example, imagine that you are a flatlander living in a 2D universe and that a large V-shaped object descends upside down from another dimension and stops just as it intersects the 2D universe. From your perspective, it would appear as if two small objects simultaneously appeared out of nowhere a long way apart.

Now you could either take this "simultaneous event" at face value and cook up all sorts of exotic theories, like synchronicity and so forth. Or you could take on board the logical truth that all things are necessarily caused and try to find a more sensible explanation.
Back to Causality, oh there goes gravity, oh there goes Rabbit.
Yo DQ!
So you are basically supposing that there are “alternate realities” or “dimensions of time and space (alternate universes)” and that just because something appears to be a “coincidence” or “chance occurrence” it is really just a cause and effect scenario that can’t been recognized (do to the fact that it is from an alternate universe)? I think that what you are saying is totally possible, but I don’t see how it is more grounded in logic than just supposing that the moment has a spontaneous variable that exists beyond cause and effect (but in concurrence with it). This spontaneous variable might not necessarily come from an alternate universe but could simply exist as a free form element without a birth and death, an A and a B, a cause and effect, or any chain of connecting occurrences that form a narrative. Is it possible that this spontaneous variable is simply a product of any given moment and not a product of a past and a present (which is what cause and effect is am I right)?
lost child
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

AlyOshA wrote:
I wholeheartedly disagree. A true friend loves the entirety of your person, even the things that others would see as “negative” qualities. A true friend loves everything that you ARE, and cares nothing for what you’re NOT.
Yes, I should have been more specific, In the beginning stages of a friendship when two seekers are searching out truth sometimes a necessary causal hatred can emerge between them, but I agree with you that the goal is to be free from all hatred. The emotion has been absent from my life for a long time now.

And I'm not saying there will always be hatred between seekers when they first begin their journey, it varies I suppose, and I suspect there are some that may not even feel too much hatred at all.

genetic constitution is a big factor.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Nick »

I haven't made any friends since junior highschool. Sure I've met a few people who I see more frequently than most, but the only "friends" I have now are from elementary and junior high school. The people I meet in person don't spark my interest enough to bother with getting to know them more in depth. Probably because there really isn't much depth to the people I meet. The friends I still have provide me with a comfort zone when I'm around them because I've known them for so long and they've seen just about every side of me there is. Especially my sarcastic, smart-ass, and goofy-son-of-a-bitch side.

I consider some people on this forum "spiritual friends", because when I come here I'm only displaying my philosophical side, my most passionate side you could say. I can't disuss much of what I discuss on here with my friends. Philosophy isn't there thing, or they just don't posess enough logic to produce quality philosophy. In a way the people on this forum know me better than some of my friends I've had for over fifteen years.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick wrote
I haven't made any friends since junior highschool. Sure I've met a few people who I see more frequently than most, but the only "friends" I have now are from elementary and junior high school. The people I meet in person don't spark my interest enough to bother with getting to know them more in depth. Probably because there really isn't much depth to the people I meet. The friends I still have provide me with a comfort zone when I'm around them because I've known them for so long and they've seen just about every side of me there is. Especially my sarcastic, smart-ass, and goofy-son-of-a-bitch side.

I consider some people on this forum "spiritual friends", because when I come here I'm only displaying my philosophical side, my most passionate side you could say. I can't disuss much of what I discuss on here with my friends. Philosophy isn't there thing, or they just don't posess enough logic to produce quality philosophy. In a way the people on this forum know me better than some of my friends I've had for over fifteen years.
This forum is a great place to meet people who are striving for greatness. And in that sense exchanges between clear-minded people could be considered “friendly” exchanges.

I still keep in contact with a few old friends from high school although we do not relate as easy because our values no longer match. One of my old friends from high school experiences quite a bit of plight from time to time and he'll only call me because he knows I can logically direct him, but he never listens anyway. I don’t expect too much growth from him because environmentally and genetically speaking he’s been fairly screwed over.

The presence of an old friend makes him feel better because he feels like someone actually cares for him and I like to throw out a profound question at him from time to time. However overall he will probably continue to inflict suffering on himself through various attachments such as women and drugs. He isn’t strong enough to negate the world and I have come to accept that. I only speak to him a few times a month.

Generally most of my old male friends from high school only call me if they’re suffering because they’re drinking buddies have no interest in listening to their problems.

Many drinking buddies are only “friendly” when there is cold "beer" in the fridge and "funny" stories to tell because when it comes time to actually get down to business, they take their beer and Metallica records and run for the hills.

My sorrowful friend is a little different because he has the meekness to tolerate truthful conversations, but genetically/environmentally speaking I don’t believe he has what it takes.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Post by Nick »

Whenever I decide to strike up a philosophical conversation with a friend they either A. block it out and don't want to hear about it, or B. engage in the discussion, but their logic is so horrid that they get lost before they even make one statement. Most of my friends fall under category B, but there are a couple who fall into A. I think they fear being exposed by the truth, not wanting to see how egotistical and self centered they are. They would prefer to remain ignorant, because afterall, ignorance is bliss. These friends are the ones who might actually have potential for philosophy becase they respect it in regards to the way they fear it, or feel dis-comforted by it. Reminds me of the saying that goes; "Often in our greatest fears, lies our greatest strength", not sure who it's by though.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Cosmic Prostitute wrote:
My sorrowful friend is a little different because he has the meekness to tolerate truthful conversations, but genetically/environmentally speaking I don’t believe he has what it takes.
How open minded/maculine of you, Ryan.

I am humbled.

You believe I don't have what it takes to do 'what' exactly?

Is this 'belief' of yours that says that I don't have what it takes, the corollary to another belief? What is the corollary?

And do you believe that you have what it takes?

I'd love to hear your take on 'what' it is that you believe I can't do.
AlyOshA
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:23 am

Post by AlyOshA »

I’m wondering to what extend Nietzsche is influencing this whole “masculinity” obsession?
lost child
Locked