In everything I do ....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby mental vagrant » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:36 pm

Whatshappening wrote:
mental vagrant wrote:
Whatshappening wrote:
mental vagrant wrote:You are saying there is no starting point, gary? An infinity of all infinities. The totality of time, doesn't include the timeless parts. Is this what your saying.


"Form follows function" is a common part of construction, it's not always the case but generally true. They are distinct concepts that often get confused.

Time is but one of many functions within reality. For your cognitive sake be clear regarding form and function, your ability to understand reality depends on it.

For example, "reality is never absent" is a logically true statement addressing form, not function.

Function
Gary


Function is an interpretation of form, it's us giving purpose to stuff in a way that relates to our survival, understanding or somthing between.

I don't think i'm confusing the two, are you saying you have a deeper grasp (which remains insubstantial, for obvious reasons) on reality than i, based upon your assesment of what form and function are? This self cancels because by my definition of yours, you are real but you worship function. How can you separate the two? Do you listen to the noise, all of it?


It's not all about us, that bias (anthropic) keeps popping up.

Popping
Gary


If i set it aside. Form as the thing and function its relations in the grand scheme?
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:46 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Mind and matter or,
physical and mental events are mutually dependent.
Neither is more real than the other.

there's a causal stream of physical process proceeding event by event, moving always.
there's a causal stream of mental process proceeding event by event, moving always.

Participatory.

The physical does not exist independent of conceptual designation.

'Box' cannot exist until conceptualised, nor without physical.

A mind that conceives of an electron,
that electron does not exist independently of that mind conceiving it,
that mind does not exist independently of that electron it conceives.
It's assumed that electron is retroactive, that there always were electrons.
The experience is electrons 'come into existence' at the instant a mind conceives it.

Today's world and equipment will soon be no more as mind imagines new possibilities for being.

600 years ago they were riding horses, lances poised, in jousting contests as an ordinary/ everyday event.
Who could have dreamed that shit up?

It all seems to be carried out in a mood that there's 'something at stake'...
very emotional, like a desparate bid for survival.

Can you hold the intricate web there in the mind's eye?
Get that detachment experience?


This brings up an interesting issue. An issue we come across in our daily activities. We go forward in our lives, in our daily lives, by conceptualizing our plans, always with at least one particular character or quality.

That characteristic is the difference between, what I humorously call , sidewalk talk and build-able thinking. Over the years I've noticed we go forward when our plans are build-able.

I've had numerous plan orientated discussions, some of those discussions led to action, while others never left the sidewalk. The difference between the two is about build-ability.

To chose an action or idea that has no build-ability...It's never worked for me. That tells me something.

Tell
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:50 pm

Popping
Gary[/quote]

If i set it aside. Form as the thing and function its relations in the grand scheme?[/quote]

MV...would you mind explaining that for a simpleton like me.

Simpleton
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:31 am

This brings up an interesting issue. An issue we come across in our daily activities. We go forward in our lives, in our daily lives, by conceptualizing our plans, always with at least one particular character or quality.

That characteristic is the difference between, what I humorously call , sidewalk talk and build-able thinking. Over the years I've noticed we go forward when our plans are build-able.

I've had numerous plan orientated discussions, some of those discussions led to action, while others never left the sidewalk. The difference between the two is about build-ability.

To chose an action or idea that has no build-ability...It's never worked for me. That tells me something.


You have designated 'sidewalk talk' and 'build-able thinking' as respective causes for either going forward or not going forward.

Sidewalk talk and build-able thinking are contexts one lives a life out of.

'Sidewalk talk' goes forward in its context.
'Sidewalk talk' gets up in the morning, does its thing, sleeps at night and gets up next morning to do it all again.

Causes/ conditions.

Causality is like fire.
When fire burns you,
does it think,
Oh dear, sorry Gary, I'm so terrible, can you forgive me?

So, anyway,
Your argument is that 'sidewalk talk' doesn't get a result.
I say it does.

Your argument of 'build-able thinking' is that it gets a result Gary desires whereas 'sidewalk talk' doesn't get a result Gary desires.

buildable thinking is Gary's winning formula.

I also say, for some people 'sidewalk talk' is their winning formula.
The fact that 'sidewalk talk' is conceptually designated as existent, it must therefore have characteristics, properties, functions which is it's beingness.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:29 am

To chose an action or idea that has no build-ability...It's never worked for me. That tells me something.
[/quote]

You have designated 'sidewalk talk' and 'build-able thinking' as respective causes for either going forward or not going forward.

Sidewalk talk and build-able thinking are contexts one lives a life out of.

'Sidewalk talk' goes forward in its context.
'Sidewalk talk' gets up in the morning, does its thing, sleeps at night and gets up next morning to do it all again.

Causes/ conditions.

Causality is like fire.
When fire burns you,
does it think,
Oh dear, sorry Gary, I'm so terrible, can you forgive me?

So, anyway,
Your argument is that 'sidewalk talk' doesn't get a result.
I say it does.

Your argument of 'build-able thinking' is that it gets a result Gary desires whereas 'sidewalk talk' doesn't get a result Gary desires.

buildable thinking is Gary's winning formula.

I also say, for some people 'sidewalk talk' is their winning formula.
The fact that 'sidewalk talk' is conceptually designated as existent, it must therefore have characteristics, properties, functions which is it's beingness.[/quote]

"what I humorously call..." thanks for the back and forth, though. I enjoyed that.

Enjoyed
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:41 am

Thanks Gary.
Grateful.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:11 pm

jufa wrote:What you presented is a very good pattern of execution. However I do not see the beginning nor ending structure as a possibility, but a reality within the sub-conscious. All this is secondary from my point of view. To me the the entire format is initiated by thought, analyzed, then objectified in vision, and subjected by design. What is not included in all this is the unknown, which to me is the impossibility which cannot be a +1, -1, nor 0 until occurrence. Here again thought become the engineer.

What I am saying is from beginning to end thought is the visionary, the architect, builder, and finally the initiator which produce effect.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com


Reality is never absent. Introducing first cause is just moving the issue further down the road. There comes a point where the honest person recognizes this and understands, on some level, reality is inescapable. Absence still has presence.

Secondly, as soon as you accept and apply the law of possibilities, the valid deductive argument concludes, numerically, as +1's,0,-1's. Now all that needs to be recognized is place. Fortunately it's part of the equation, it's the space between the numbers.

It seems to me our "presence" biases us to ignore what is absent. How can our understanding be complete while ignoring what isn't?

Isn't
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:10 pm

Jufa,

What I am saying is from beginning to end thought is the visionary, the architect, builder, and finally the initiator which produce effect.


Are you saying Absolute or the notion of Absolute is beyond the realm of conceptual designation (thought),
and that conceptual designation is a phenomenon or property of relative existence?

that relative existence is merely conceptually designated?

that the effect 'rain falls' is an effect that has its existence thru' conceptual designation?

illusory like in nature?

that relative existence is essentially a thought out design that has the design characteristic that permits change?
that 'thought' is the change agent,
rendering the status 'participatory universe'.

Are you not signifying that Gary when you assert:
'reality responds accordingly'
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:32 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Jufa,

What I am saying is from beginning to end thought is the visionary, the architect, builder, and finally the initiator which produce effect.


Are you saying Absolute or the notion of Absolute is beyond the realm of conceptual designation (thought),
and that conceptual designation is a phenomenon or property of relative existence?

that relative existence is merely conceptually designated?

that the effect 'rain falls' is an effect that has its existence thru' conceptual designation?

illusory like in nature?

that relative existence is essentially a thought out design that has the design characteristic that permits change?
that 'thought' is the change agent,
rendering the status 'participatory universe'.

Are you not signifying that Gary when you assert:
'reality responds accordingly'


To All...

Dennis understands "...reality responds accordingly". He understands that for any creature capable of influencing outcomes, theirs/ours is a "participatory universe". (if not...pretend it is, just try it. When it hurts, change course or not)

Understand also, when that influencing creature recognizes reality always responds accordingly, they have found a road to...where ever they can go.

Fortunately there's only three to the street. You, reality and your relationship to it. All that's needed is the time to traverse. Oh and some effort.

I suspect Dennis learned this long ago, hence his writing style. (as well as mine)

Style
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby jufa » Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:59 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:Jufa,

What I am saying is from beginning to end thought is the visionary, the architect, builder, and finally the initiator which produce effect.


Are you saying Absolute or the notion of Absolute is beyond the realm of conceptual designation (thought),
and that conceptual designation is a phenomenon or property of relative existence?

that relative existence is merely conceptually designated?

that the effect 'rain falls' is an effect that has its existence thru' conceptual designation?

illusory like in nature?

that relative existence is essentially a thought out design that has the design characteristic that permits change?
that 'thought' is the change agent,
rendering the status 'participatory universe'.

Are you not signifying that Gary when you assert:
'reality responds accordingly'


Here is how I am going to answer you Dennis.

What are the experiences men bring to the awareness of their fellow men? Have all the conjectures, theories, interpretation and teaching, no matter academic or not, been the cloning which continues to clothe men in opposition to tolerance of points of understanding not in line with their indoctrinated conformed thinking? And has this disrespect cause man's mental comprehension to pay the ultimate price for their irresponsibility to utilize the individual gifts they are bless with when entering the world? The price of living by a law not made for a righteous man which inspires wars, greed, and lack of trust. A law which locks the chamber of the the sub-conscious in the dark reality of an illusion of ignorance and beliefs formed to fulfill a purpose of self-righteous deceit and pride bent totally on self survival. A law initiated by the human consciousness which feeds the mind and imaginations with a comprehension which will not go beyond the noise of the human opposition of their Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personalities.

Man plows on into the myth of flesh. Flesh which is real, but not reality. Real in the sense that all is the reality of thought, and what a man thinks and demonstrates by action taken to be real to him. Real but not reality because man is not an original thinker of thoughts, only a subject which Cosmic Consciousness has objectified by It Spirit of perception.
.
"My thoughts are not your thoughts," man is forewarned. But men take no heed. They boast God has given them a right; a choice to think as they please. This is also real, but it is not Reality. The reality of man is found when he adheres to the commandment "be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that YE may PROVE what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God." This obedience reverts the human consciousness to its First Love established in the intent, purpose and will of the Father in the invisible when there are no forms of matter for distraction; only a VOICE of Silence knowing I AM THAT I AM.

Continuously men cry out to God of the universe for the meaning of life. They ask for the revealing of their purpose of being. Never is an answer to these questions manifested because the answers can only be comprehended in the depth of the invisibility of the power of the breath of life. The breath of life is not of the air inhaled and exhaled, it is in the essence of God thinking, and the Spirit which activates the substance of His thinking to perform "the word of his power." Purpose is to continuously live life in the completeness of the Spirit which has manifested as individual beings. This requires one to live in the fullness of comprehending the law of the Spirit is applicable to every phase of ones living, be it good or evil. And any deviation from applying righteous thinking to any and all of ones intent and purpose of thoughts sent forth into the earth mental soil, will justly return and be activated upon the sender.

To live in the fullness of Spirit there must be a "casting down [of] imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." 2 cor.10:5. As men have been conformed to this world, their purpose now must be the transforming of their minds so they can again wallow in the "love, joy,peace, long-suffering, goodness, faith, and temperance" of the fruit of the Spirit of the most high God.

Have you not heard the Voice say to you "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. . .I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son."

Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - Jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

It looks like you are identifying 'the sense of a separate I' as the cause of confusion Jufa.
As the cause of division/conflict.

More than that really.
It looks like you are identifying 'the sense of a separate I' (the idea of sole survivor) as legitimately existing,
and refuting the phenomenon as Ultimate Reality.

Can we not cut away to 'love and other bruises',
and play for mental clarity,
sheer intelligence,
radiant mind.

What do you say after you say hello?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby mental vagrant » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:18 am

If i set it aside. Form as the thing and function its relations in the grand scheme?


MV...would you mind explaining that for a simpleton like me.

Simpleton
Gary


I was separating the thing from it's voyeur. A fundamental construct, which is transmutable by it's unavoidable relations to everything present and not present at the same time.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby jufa » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:21 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:It looks like you are identifying 'the sense of a separate I' as the cause of confusion Jufa.
As the cause of division/conflict. You have to identify by my words where it looks like I am identifying "the sense of a separate I."

More than that really.
It looks like you are identifying 'the sense of a separate I' (the idea of sole survivor) as legitimately existing,
and refuting the phenomenon as Ultimate Reality. Point out what words of mine where your conclusion derive from.

Can we not cut away to 'love and other bruises',
and play for mental clarity,
sheer intelligence,
radiant mind. Deal with me on my terms, and I'll reciprocate. Deal with the way I write, as I deal with your way. What's the matter, you did not understand the way I answered your questions?

What do you say after you say hello? What is apropo.




Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:44 pm

You've got your Absolute,
God/Father.
Your Relative.
Son.

Son either ignorant or not.

Jufa,
What do you say after you say hello?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby jufa » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:57 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:You've got your Absolute, Give me evidence of and entity, or anything is absolute, including yourself absolutes.
God/Father.
Your Relative.
Son. Show me some entity or anything absolute, including yourself?

Son either ignorant or not. Ignorant of what?

Jufa,
What do you say after you say hello? What is apropo. This is not a question.



Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:48 am

In your writing Jufa,
you conceptually designate,
God/father
Son
Ignorance

You give these things nominal existence.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Tomas » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:31 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:In your writing Jufa,
you conceptually designate,
God/father
Son
Ignorance

You give these things nominal existence.

Alright there, Dennis. What is Jufa saying below?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength.

.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby jufa » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:26 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:In your writing Jufa,
you conceptually designate,
God/father
Son
Ignorance

You give these things nominal existence.


My writing makes statements. What you accept as evidence is only relative to you your assumptions, concepts and interpretations of a metaphor. So I ask you now, in more specific terms, give me objectified evidence by presenting a subject that is not of relativism?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:09 pm

Nothing exists independent of mind.

Is that a runner?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby jufa » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:56 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Nothing exists independent of mind.

Is that a runner?


What is Nothing? Give me an example.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:14 pm

"...,reality responds accordingly". Doesn't mean it responds to your wishes, at least not directly. But we knew that already. So if not that, then what?

I read a comment here at GF, "The desire to grow into the mode of sustained non-attachment ..." the subject matter is obvious. It's about non-attachment and desire. There was other stuff, but for the sake of discussion it'll be ignored.

Applying the principle of ...accordingly, can anyone imagine a person could desire their way into non-attachment. Realities' response to the condition of desire is NOT non-attachment. The moment you strife is the moment you lose.

The condition of non-attachment is something you ,incidentally, find yourself in. A condition that happens "accordingly", naturally and incidentally.

To desire non-attachment, is as effective as wishing.

" So if not that then what?", reality responds accordingly with associated conditions. That's a constant you can count on, now it's just a matter of how.

How
Gary

P.S. The condition of love also happens incidentally, It happens, naturally....could it be any better? It's so easy, so wonderful.
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:21 pm

mental vagrant wrote:
If i set it aside. Form as the thing and function its relations in the grand scheme?


MV...would you mind explaining that for a simpleton like me.

Simpleton
Gary


I was separating the thing from it's voyeur. A fundamental construct, which is transmutable by it's unavoidable relations to everything present and not present at the same time.


Dude..you're just robbing yourself. A cognitive model needs clarity, otherwise it's just confusion.

Confusion
Gary
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby David Quinn » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:31 am

Whatshappening wrote:"...,reality responds accordingly". Doesn't mean it responds to your wishes, at least not directly. But we knew that already. So if not that, then what?

I read a comment here at GF, "The desire to grow into the mode of sustained non-attachment ..." the subject matter is obvious. It's about non-attachment and desire. There was other stuff, but for the sake of discussion it'll be ignored.

Applying the principle of ...accordingly, can anyone imagine a person could desire their way into non-attachment.

I certainly can. Intelligently and systematically breaking the spell of everything until there is nothing left to bind.


Realities' response to the condition of desire is NOT non-attachment. The moment you strife is the moment you lose.

The condition of non-attachment is something you ,incidentally, find yourself in. A condition that happens "accordingly", naturally and incidentally.

Nonsense. If you don't strive for enlightenment, you will never find it. You will have no more chance of becoming enlightened than a cow or a rock.


P.S. The condition of love also happens incidentally, It happens, naturally....could it be any better? It's so easy, so wonderful.

This is a different matter. Things like falling in love, experiencing intuitions and altered states, or sublime forms of happiness, can happen "incidentally", without our intending to experience them. But enlightenment is not like this. Enlightenment can only come about after a long and sustained conscious effort to understand reality. It is an act of genius.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:24 am

Tomas,

Alright there, Dennis. What is Jufa saying below?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength.


That, in and of itself is a power play.
Fronting up as a brick wall.

That's why I ask,

What do you say after you say hello?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Postby Whatshappening » Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:27 am

David Quinn wrote:
Whatshappening wrote:"...,reality responds accordingly". Doesn't mean it responds to your wishes, at least not directly. But we knew that already. So if not that, then what?

I read a comment here at GF, "The desire to grow into the mode of sustained non-attachment ..." the subject matter is obvious. It's about non-attachment and desire. There was other stuff, but for the sake of discussion it'll be ignored.

Applying the principle of ...accordingly, can anyone imagine a person could desire their way into non-attachment.

I certainly can. Intelligently and systematically breaking the spell of everything until there is nothing left to bind.

" Intelligently and systematically" could be worked into a casual network, by your own words, desire is not part of it.


Realities' response to the condition of desire is NOT non-attachment. The moment you strife is the moment you lose.

The condition of non-attachment is something you ,incidentally, find yourself in. A condition that happens "accordingly", naturally and incidentally.

Nonsense. If you don't strive for enlightenment, you will never find it. You will have no more chance of becoming enlightened than a cow or a rock.

I agree regarding enlightenment, but I was talking about non-attachment. This happens incidentally in the presence of understanding.


P.S. The condition of love also happens incidentally, It happens, naturally....could it be any better? It's so easy, so wonderful.

This is a different matter. Things like falling in love, experiencing intuitions and altered states, or sublime forms of happiness, can happen "incidentally", without our intending to experience them. But enlightenment is not like this. Enlightenment can only come about after a long and sustained conscious effort to understand reality. It is an act of genius.

Agreed...and then comes non-attachment.

Non
Gary

-
Whatshappening
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron