On the interpretation of events

[Caminetto]

In a creation where there may be thousands of dimensions of consciousness, man lives, moves and has his being in a state that can only see three. He has developed a crude science and religion, follows the ways that were taught to him by his small group of peers and those who have loved him, then defends his pathetic views as truth.

 

[tellsek]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It takes a strong man to admit the possibility that he might not be the end-all, be-all; that someone or something might actually be smarter, more powerful than he is. Life without religion (or a governing philosophy) is easy and thoughtless - you can do as you like without worrying about any consequences. Living up to standards requires much more strength than living however you see fit.

The reverse could be said as well. That life with religion is easy and thoughtless, you mindlessly follow the doctrine placed before you by your religion of choice. Whereas without religion you have to face the uncertainty of life without using religion as a psychological 'safety net'.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How is your conceit any different than his. Are you not both very proud of your dualistically oppositional strengths? As I said, the ego is strong because inside we feel weak. Reminds me of the contest between two great swords makers, one of who incessantly challenged the other to a test such that finally one had to be arranged. The challenger placed his sword blade facing into the current. A leaf floating downstream striking the edge was severed in two. When the challenged did the same the leaf went around without touching the blade establishing him as the winner.

My conceit is contrived to point out the flaws in his. I don't claim to know all the answers and can respect people whose opinion differs from mine in this regard.

In my experience tells me that I was very proud of my self abnegation and was attached to it. I may not have been enjoying fornicating all over the place like the animal inside of me might have wished, but I was so very egotistical about my restraint.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am afraid I don't know enough to give a truly informed opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

LunarRay: Or maybe psychotherapy can have an influence on chemical production.... I wonder... And I wonder if Freud and Jung considered this.

M: On the question of brain chemicals and brain states, the communality of human experience is that we were all put down, all made to feel the worst in the world. The genetic and chemical comparisons between one and another may in terms of significance pale in comparison. I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions. A real serial killer, for example, may not actually be human in the capacity to emphasize. He may have an organic defect as well as the schizophrenic. I would think the bipolar thing might fall somewhere on a spectrum but maybe not. I don't know and data of this kind would require the study of lots of people who have died to their egos. Such people are not in abundant supply and they would naturally be invisible. We can see in others, I think, only what we can see in ourselves.

 

[0marTheZealot]

It is usually true that either extremes in any doctrine goes so far as to be unlivable. Whenever one takes the moderate approach, it is more tenable.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Moonbeam, what if you find out some day that you actually have an eternal spirit living inside your body who will one day be held accountable for his actions?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Moonbeam, what if you find out some day that you actually have an eternal spirit living inside your body who will one day be held accountable for his actions?

what if when you die.... you die?

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions

Yes, fundamentally. Each organ more or less functions the same and within a given parameter defined as normal. The MIND is a horse of a different color, I think. It isn't an organ but is directly affected by the functionality of an organ... many organs actually. It is what feels the pain of stimuli. Now then... if it is what feels the hot poker against the skin what pain does it feel by the thoughts and external stimuli of words and or actions that it conjurs up into a hidden body of data that the sub-conscious somehow turns into information that the conscious somehow finds it must cover? And, how is this then kept secreted away by the outward adoption of philosophies and other beliefs that Might otherwise be maintained in any event? I'm guessing that all issues would, therefore, have one universally accepted position if but for this condition of 'Sad Mind Syndrome' (SMS). That notwithstanding the potential for brain abnormalities - you are speaking to the body of humanity that fall within the normal organ function parameters - evidence of SMS is observable by all by the variance to one central theme on each issue possible... and, pray tell, where can this central theme be found to use as the basis of observation.. who calls the shots?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,

I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions

Yes, fundamentally. Each organ more or less functions the same and within a given parameter defined as normal. The MIND is a horse of a different color, I think. It isn't an organ but is directly affected by the functionality of an organ... many organs actually. It is what feels the pain of stimuli. Now then... if it is what feels the hot poker against the skin what pain does it feel by the thoughts and external stimuli of words and or actions that it conjurs up into a hidden body of data that the sub-conscious somehow turns into information that the conscious somehow finds it must cover? And, how is this then kept secreted away by the outward adoption of philosophies and other beliefs that Might otherwise be maintained in any event? I'm guessing that all issues would, therefore, have one universally accepted position if but for this condition of 'Sad Mind Syndrome' (SMS). That notwithstanding the potential for brain abnormalities - you are speaking to the body of humanity that fall within the normal organ function parameters - evidence of SMS is observable by all by the variance to one central theme on each issue possible... and, pray tell, where can this central theme be found to use as the basis of observation.. who calls the shots?

In a mirror that reflects the universe the universe is perceived, even if it is a grain of sand. Truth is not in the chemicals that make up the mirror, but in the reflection and when the self is gone what is mirror and what reflection.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,

I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions

Yes, fundamentally. Each organ more or less functions the same and within a given parameter defined as normal. The MIND is a horse of a different color, I think. It isn't an organ but is directly affected by the functionality of an organ... many organs actually. It is what feels the pain of stimuli. Now then... if it is what feels the hot poker against the skin what pain does it feel by the thoughts and external stimuli of words and or actions that it conjurs up into a hidden body of data that the sub-conscious somehow turns into information that the conscious somehow finds it must cover? And, how is this then kept secreted away by the outward adoption of philosophies and other beliefs that Might otherwise be maintained in any event? I'm guessing that all issues would, therefore, have one universally accepted position if but for this condition of 'Sad Mind Syndrome' (SMS). That notwithstanding the potential for brain abnormalities - you are speaking to the body of humanity that fall within the normal organ function parameters - evidence of SMS is observable by all by the variance to one central theme on each issue possible... and, pray tell, where can this central theme be found to use as the basis of observation.. who calls the shots?

In a mirror that reflects the universe the universe is perceived, even if it is a grain of sand. Truth is not in the chemicals that make up the mirror, but in the reflection and when the self is gone what is mirror and what reflection.

Ok.. but how does the observer know the ego is gone and that what she sees is what is reflected and both are the same?

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,

I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions

Yes, fundamentally. Each organ more or less functions the same and within a given parameter defined as normal. The MIND is a horse of a different color, I think. It isn't an organ but is directly affected by the functionality of an organ... many organs actually. It is what feels the pain of stimuli. Now then... if it is what feels the hot poker against the skin what pain does it feel by the thoughts and external stimuli of words and or actions that it conjurs up into a hidden body of data that the sub-conscious somehow turns into information that the conscious somehow finds it must cover? And, how is this then kept secreted away by the outward adoption of philosophies and other beliefs that Might otherwise be maintained in any event? I'm guessing that all issues would, therefore, have one universally accepted position if but for this condition of 'Sad Mind Syndrome' (SMS). That notwithstanding the potential for brain abnormalities - you are speaking to the body of humanity that fall within the normal organ function parameters - evidence of SMS is observable by all by the variance to one central theme on each issue possible... and, pray tell, where can this central theme be found to use as the basis of observation.. who calls the shots?

In a mirror that reflects the universe the universe is perceived, even if it is a grain of sand. Truth is not in the chemicals that make up the mirror, but in the reflection and when the self is gone what is mirror and what reflection.

Ok.. but how does the observer know the ego is gone and that what she sees is what is reflected and both are the same?

Nobody likes to hear esoteric converstions.

Out of curiosity, LunarRay, to what degree are you a dualist? (If you are a dualist, this could mean that we have an anti-Moonbeam on this board.)

Don't mistake me for an academic philosopher; I just know a little of the philisophical jargon.

 

[Tab]

Moonbeam, can I have your grammar and forgien language skills?

 

[Pliablemoose]

While on one hand, I enjoy the luxury many of us in the US have to hold this conversation, rest assured that society has in fact set many rules in place and no matter how we rationalize or dissect them, those rules continue to exist.

Right & wrong put people in prison, on death row, get them killed, murdered & OMFG banned from teh intranets...

Continue along these lines of reasoning & cats & dogs will become pacificists & the mice will take over the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,

I believe we are all fundamentally the same with probably some exceptions

Yes, fundamentally. Each organ more or less functions the same and within a given parameter defined as normal. The MIND is a horse of a different color, I think. It isn't an organ but is directly affected by the functionality of an organ... many organs actually. It is what feels the pain of stimuli. Now then... if it is what feels the hot poker against the skin what pain does it feel by the thoughts and external stimuli of words and or actions that it conjurs up into a hidden body of data that the sub-conscious somehow turns into information that the conscious somehow finds it must cover? And, how is this then kept secreted away by the outward adoption of philosophies and other beliefs that Might otherwise be maintained in any event? I'm guessing that all issues would, therefore, have one universally accepted position if but for this condition of 'Sad Mind Syndrome' (SMS). That notwithstanding the potential for brain abnormalities - you are speaking to the body of humanity that fall within the normal organ function parameters - evidence of SMS is observable by all by the variance to one central theme on each issue possible... and, pray tell, where can this central theme be found to use as the basis of observation.. who calls the shots?

In a mirror that reflects the universe the universe is perceived, even if it is a grain of sand. Truth is not in the chemicals that make up the mirror, but in the reflection and when the self is gone what is mirror and what reflection.

Ok.. but how does the observer know the ego is gone and that what she sees is what is reflected and both are the same?

What observer?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Continue along these lines of reasoning & cats & dogs will become pacificists & the mice will take over the world.

Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Continue along these lines of reasoning & cats & dogs will become pacificists & the mice will take over the world.

Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Yes, real truth is a total revolution which shouldn't really be a surprise since if it were easy everybody would know it.

 

[LunarRay]

Gen. Jackson,

Nobody likes to hear esoteric converstions.

Out of curiosity, LunarRay, to what degree are you a dualist? (If you are a dualist, this could mean that we have an anti-Moonbeam on this board.)

Don't mistake me for an academic philosopher; I just know a little of the philisophical jargon

A dualist?... hmmm Not sure... I am for sure who I am but as compared to some standard I'd have to say my evaluation would be different than that of the observer.
Maybe if I said I have no problem with the following statement you could define me better...

"No matter how deeply or far back we search, no phenomenon can ever be found which is fundamental, a first cause, or a thing-in-itself. Neither the observer nor any observed phenomenon exist independently, but are inextricably intertwined. This viewpoint is known as dependent relationship."


An anti-Moonbeam... sorta like anti-matter and matter cancel each other out... doubt it.

Esoteric... interesting notion that.. from the point of view of the listener would be based on the listener's point of view but from mine it would be a discussion regarding the origin of the species... On board my Beagle I bob along the seas in search of meaningful ways to understand why ... just why some folks think it is appropriate to do something I find utter contempt for... like killing so many folks in a war to save a lessor amount from possible death... makes no sense to me.. should be a universal truth to it all.. one truth.. one way.

Well.. I don't mistake one for anything at all.. I make no such observations.. I figure aside from my generally accepted forte in an academic field my opinion is as valid as yours and visa versa... I don't know jargon other than that commonly used to communicate .... reasonably.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

What observer?

The one what looks in the mirror and sees what she sees.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,

What observer?

The one what looks in the mirror and sees what she sees.

Without self there is only reflection.

 

[PatboyX]

i think its fair to assume that our beliefs are reflections of ourselves in many respects. otherwise, the battles wouldnt get so intense.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

I just noticed that "LunarRay" and "Moonbeam" are really the same name. Does this mean that LunarRay is not an anti-Moonbeam? Does he hold Moonbeam's views only with a different style (hence the synonymous name)? Or is he really Moonbeam, holding two accounts illegally? :Q (Hopefully not.)

(LunarRay's veiled condemnation of the Iraq War has led me to believe that he shares at least some of Moonbeam's beliefs; though he delivers his messages a little more gently than does Moonbeam.)

This amicable attention I'm giving Moonbeam does not mean that I have formed any sort of regard for his perspective; I still believe it will doom him to ruin.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i think its fair to assume that our beliefs are reflections of ourselves in many respects. otherwise, the battles wouldnt get so intense.

Cool PatboyX, and further analysis I think will reveal that the intensity is derived from the degree of need to protect and that need can only be a need to hide an underlying sense of inferiority. While there are plenty who would loose it if called a poopoo head by a child, most of us handle such things with some measure of equanimity because our superiority is pretty obvious, but when the professor says your a dunderhead we are more frequently hurt. I believe, perhaps differently than LR, that the incidents in which we acquired our negative self image are limited and that reliving them can remove them all to the extent that a revolution in consciousness can occur. It is possible, I think, to be 99.999% sure that you are OK.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I just noticed that "LunarRay" and "Moonbeam" are really the same name. Does this mean that LunarRay is not an anti-Moonbeam? Does he hold Moonbeam's views only with a different style (hence the synonymous name)? Or is he really Moonbeam, holding two accounts illegally? :Q (Hopefully not.)

(LunarRay's veiled condemnation of the Iraq War has led me to believe that he shares at least some of Moonbeam's beliefs; though he delivers his messages a little more gently than does Moonbeam.)

This amicable attention I'm giving Moonbeam does not mean that I have formed any sort of regard for his perspective; I still believe it will doom him to ruin.

My dear Gen Stonewall, remind me not to butt my head against you, let me put my case a different way. You, and LunarRay, my fellow poster and now dear internet friend, are fortunate enough to be Christians. I wasn't able to walk that way and lost on that path long ago or so it seems subjectively measuring time. That loss broke my heart and took me to the place perhaps that you fear, the place where everything is hopeless, meaningless, and relative, where there is no escape. The wind hit my house one night and one me died and another awoke. I discovered that what I had been seeking had been with me all along. The treasure that can't be taken is found when you loose all that you can. I found what I was looking for when I realized that what I was looking for can never be found. The I that is a seeker is lost but the I that is lost is found. 'I seek' becomes 'I am' even for an instant, and in I am there is only being. There is no I in being, except, of course, for the letter.

This is what I here want to call the wheat and it is the wheat from which one can make Christian bread, because he who surrenders his life in His name finds this truth, I think. So for me any religion whose real function is to help one surrender the false self to find what is real is serving up one of the many byproducts that can be made from wheat.

We can say wheat or we can say nutriment or call it a thousand things, but it all comes down to being.

In short, I have no problem with your Christianity except for its notion of exclusivity and that is there in part because it isn't easy to die and serving two masters doesn't help with that very much. I am only one person and know really nothing at all, but it seems to me that the world is dying in great part because of exclusivity. If one is humble I think one can respect people who walk a different way.

I believe these words I read some time back:

"There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart."

What has heart has being.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
I just noticed that "LunarRay" and "Moonbeam" are really the same name. Does this mean that LunarRay is not an anti-Moonbeam? Does he hold Moonbeam's views only with a different style (hence the synonymous name)? Or is he really Moonbeam, holding two accounts illegally? :Q (Hopefully not.)

(LunarRay's veiled condemnation of the Iraq War has led me to believe that he shares at least some of Moonbeam's beliefs; though he delivers his messages a little more gently than does Moonbeam.)

This amicable attention I'm giving Moonbeam does not mean that I have formed any sort of regard for his perspective; I still believe it will doom him to ruin.

Hehehehe... Moonbeam is Moonbeam and I am I, Don Quixote! Well Cervantes didn't know how to spell LunarRay...

I believe as does Moonster that there are many paths toward nowhere. That we get there upon the path we took and that hopefully they each have being... warmth.. a heart. But it is obvious that this is not the case. Upon life's splintered bridge a garish sneer awaits the faulty step.. We'll often treat the symptom of inflicted pain but hardly ever its cause!

I am a Christian.. that is I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the means to my eternal life. I have no regard for organized religion of any kind. I chuckled at the clusters and their propounded differences...

I said War.... but you can infer I implied Iraq. That event is now... But in my mind was an event that occurred some time ago...

I also believe all life has a sentient property of some sort even if only amongst its similarity. I see majesty in a tree and hopefulness in a puppy... I see life and I see death... and I see eternity and in that order.