The time wasn't right...

[Mikha'El]

@Minas Tirith: I originally started posting this reply in the same manner as you do, with multi-quotes but I really feel that lessens the impact and alters my ability to ingest the material properly. So I will reply in the way that seems most natural to me. If people need to refer to your post for context then they can do so at their leisure.

Yes, my sense of how I will lead (perhaps guide is a better term?) is that it will be during a period of turmoil. I don't know for sure though (and can't know until it occurs) and I don't want to limit the reality of what is to be with my own conceptions, which in all honesty could be entirely false. So, I believe that is the circumstance in which I will assist, but the only thing that I can say with any assurance is that is the impression that I always receive when meditating on my future role in this density. My meditations on the subject have also revealed that I will only act in that capacity in the current paradigm, I do not see myself as being a guide beyond that point of turmoil.

I know that I did not describe my apprehension of all those signs, omens, sychronicities, etc. very well, if at all. I guess that I made the assumption that expressing my reluctance to believe them would imply my suspicions of them. I do not blindly believe anything, I always examine what is presented to me with a fine-toothed comb. I have been metaphorically hit over the head so many times though that it is becoming harder and harder to disregard them as being false. I continue to examine all that is presented to me, I take absolutely nothing for granted in that regard.

There was a technical issue with my phone which deleted most of my reply to truthseeker, I have since replied again. Thank you once more to BrightLight11 for pointing that out.

My thoughts on instinct is that it is pure, it is our interpretation of our instinct that corrupts it. Again, I feel that this is a highly individual process. No one can tell another how to properly listen to their instincts, it is something that must be discovered by the self alone. I believe that our instincts prove themselves through the results of following them or not following them, as the case may be. I could expound on this subject for some time, but I do not want to waylay this post. Just bear in mind that this is a simplified explanation.

As far as the "inner circle" goes, I have learned through posts here that to get an invitation to the private board you must post as much as possible and hope to be noticed and be granted an invitation. I do have a personal problem with this as I feel that it is very limiting to the group as a whole. There are many people out there who have skills that do not cover being a good forum poster. I am a case in point of that. I also get a certain sense of elitism from that stance, but I am fully aware that could just be my personal interpretation of the facts at hand. I'm sure that there are legitimate reasons for the core members deciding to do things that way.

I do believe that I can be of assistance to the Fellowship in a capacity that can't be realized in this context. I am interested in forming local meetup groups or possibly lending my technical experience to the cause. I am an experienced web developer as well as graphic artist and I have participated in many group functions in the capacity of organizing and rallying. I have also helped to organize many civil protests and group events and I feel that my strengths and skills are better realized in real life situations than in the cyber world.

I have attempted to reach out in many ways and have not received any response so now I have returned here to hopefully be recognized. Possibly a contributing factor is that I post in different places under different names. On SOTT I post under the name Jean Michel and on SOTT Radio chat I am Michael Janes. I used to go under the name of Anarkissed on this forum but I have left that persona behind as I didn't feel it gave a very good first impression of me.

Personally, I do not feel that this digital environment is the most optimal way to make real connections with people. It is very easy to misrepresent yourself and/or others and it is nearly impossible to get a sense of a person's energy through a computer monitor. Even voice chat or telephone would be a better source for continued communication, in my opinion. At least then you can get a better sense of people's tones and attitudes. I think that these forums are a great place for connecting initially with people and for conveying information but I don't feel that you can make a true connection with a person through this medium. On that note, having to be at a minimum of 50 posts before you can edit is a really high number.

Bear in mind that I do have a problem with self-esteem, I am one of those that feels better offering advice or asking for help if I feel that I am truly wanted. I know exactly why I feel this way and it is something that I am working through. If I have helped anyone in any way, I would really appreciate hearing about it. I cannot assume that this is the case, however.

On the last point, I do not feel that I desire to help people for selfish reasons, I truly want everyone to have easier lives and if I can help to achieve this then I feel a sense of satisfaction. But I do not think that I do it solely for the reason of self-satisfaction. That is a very blurred line, to be able to define where selflessness and selfishness divide. I help others in order to help myself. I think what really matters is that my intention is to work from the outside in and that makes it more STO than STS.

We are all STS though, the C's have made that abundantly clear. Since we are in 3D STS we must act 3D STS to some degree, we can strive to act only from STO but it is impossible to be completely STO simply because of the fact that we exist in a STS oriented density. Hence the term STO Candidate, which I truly hope I am.

I really want to digress more into these subjects but I am resisting the urge to create a wall of text that I know a lot of people will skip for various reasons. I can read books all day long but I can only read from a monitor for limited periods of time due to eye strain.

I don't know of any interpretations of Chief Red Eagle's quotes other than what it says. Those who are angry and do not concern themselves with community ideals are usually inclined to speak themselves up, often falsely, to appear to be a person worthy of admiration or worship. Those who are community oriented are more inclined to speak up the skills and talents of others in order to strengthen the group as a whole. I feel that having that in my signature is a sign to others and a reminder to myself to always strive to act in the benefit of the community. To allow others to realize their own strength and power in order to raise up the awareness of the group as opposed to the individual.

I understand that could come across as hypocritical in this thread because all I have been doing is talking about myself but this is an introductory thread.

 

[Minas Tirith]

As far as the "inner circle" goes, I have learned through posts here that to get an invitation to the private board you must post as much as possible and hope to be noticed and be granted an invitation. I do have a personal problem with this as I feel that it is very limiting to the group as a whole. There are many people out there who have skills that do not cover being a good forum poster. I am a case in point of that. I also get a certain sense of elitism from that stance, but I am fully aware that could just be my personal interpretation of the facts at hand. I'm sure that there are legitimate reasons for the core members deciding to do things that way.

Thanks for further clarifying, Mikhael. I wasn't aware that you don't have access to the FOCM Member Board yet. I guess when you mentioned that you are a member of FOCM in your original post, I was just assuming you had, even though your number of posts should have alerted me that you might not have (and I didn't check the button either). Now it also becomes clearer to me what you mean by "inner circle".

The reason why there are these restrictions are (as I see it) founded in the fact that Laura and this group have had and still have enormous difficulties with ponerized psychopathological individuals. Hence the barrier, and the need to check out the person who wants to join thoroughly. People might hide behind masks, especially online, and it might take a while to see who somebody really is and how she/he really ticks. This has nothing to do with elitism, but "strategic enclosure", also to protect the members who take part in private meet-ups. Another reason is (I believe) to see if the individual is "collinear" to the "aim" of the group. So have patience and post about topics that interest you!

Personally, I do not feel that this digital environment is the most optimal way to make real connections with people. It is very easy to misrepresent yourself and/or others and it is nearly impossible to get a sense of a person's energy through a computer monitor.

Hmm, one can get an impression of the person through posts with time, I think (not judging just by a few posts). It's not about eloquence, quite a few people started writing here with only a very rudimentary grasp of the English language. It's more that the emotional center picks up on the person behind the posts, behind what is being said ...Also, once one has written something, it's there and cannot be discussed away like in RL ("I never said this!"). I agree that meeting in person though is a completely different experience altogether, but I don't believe that a person can so much misrepresent themselves over time that they would be judged as a completely different being.

I don't know of any interpretations of Chief Red Eagle's quotes other than what it says. Those who are angry and do not concern themselves with community ideals are usually inclined to speak themselves up, often falsely, to appear to be a person worthy of admiration or worship. Those who are community oriented are more inclined to speak up the skills and talents of others in order to strengthen the group as a whole. I feel that having that in my signature is a sign to others and a reminder to myself to always strive to act in the benefit of the community. To allow others to realize their own strength and power in order to raise up the awareness of the group as opposed to the individual.

I asked because I felt that there can be different interpretations of that quote, depending on how someone would define "power" in that context. Thank you for explaining.

M.T.

 

[electrosonic]

Mikha'el, just carry on doing what you feel is right in life, but put all the expectations aside. It'll work out so much better.

 

[Oxajil]

As far as how I determine truth, I see truth as being different for every individual, it is up to us to decide what we choose to be truth. I don't believe that we have the capability as STS oriented individuals to discern absolute truth, if it even exists. In my experience everything in this world is determined by perspective.

Research and networking can help with discovering the objective truth or close to it, whether it is truth about ourselves or the world. You say that it is up to us to decide what we choose to be truth, to be honest, I think that it is up to us to find out the truth. And objective truth isn't different for everyone, it just is.

As Laura once wrote:

“The survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming as to what IS or is NOT possible; what we are “allowed” to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society – our peers – to believe.
[...]
One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

Suffice it to say that, under ordinary conditions of reality, we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS. There are thousands of different little “hypnotic suggestions” that have taken hold of us from infancy on, that determine, in any given moment, what we believe or think or think we believe or believe we think.”

Which is why it is important to network, and to have knowledge of how the mind works. If you've read the Psychology books that we recommend here, you'll see that we can't think with the way we think! Therefore, getting feedback from others, can be crucial to development.

You might also find this interesting:

“Our universe seems to be made up of matter/energy and of consciousness. Matter/energy by itself “prefers”, as it seems, a chaotic state. Matter/energy by itself doesn’t even have a concept of “creation” or “organization”. It is the consciousness that brings to life these concepts and by its interaction with matter pushes the universe towards chaos and decay or towards order and creation.

This phenomenon can be modeled mathematically and simulated on a computer using EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory). Whether EEQT faithfully models the interaction of consciousness with matter, we do not know; but chances are that it does because it seems to describe correctly physical phenomena better than just the orthodox quantum mechanics or its rival theories (Bohmian mechanics, GRW etc.)

What we learn from EEQT can be described in simple terms as follows:

Let us call our material universe “the system”. The system is characterized by a certain “state”. It is useful to represent the state of the system as a point on a disc. The central point of the disk, its origin, is the state of chaos. We could also describe it as “Infinite Potential.” The points on the boundary represents “pure states” of being, that is states with “pure, non-fuzzy, knowledge”. In between there are mixed states. The closer the state is to the boundary, the more pure, more ’organized’ it is.

Now, an external “observer”, a “consciousness unit”, has some idea – maybe accurate, maybe false or anywhere in between – about the “real state” of the system, and observes the system with this “belief” about the state. Observation, if prolonged, causes the state of the system to “jump”. In this sense, you DO “create your own reality”, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

The details are that the resulting state of the system under observation can be more pure, or more chaotic depending on the “direction” of the jump. The direction of the jump depends on how objective – how close to the reality of the actual state – the observation is.

According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state. If, on the other hand, the expectation of the observer is close to the negation of the actual state (that is when the observer’s beliefs are not TRUE according to the ACTUAL state – the objective reality), then the state of the system, typically, will jump into a state that is more chaotic, less organized. Moreover, it will take, as a rule, much longer time to accomplish such a jump.

In other words, if the observer’s knowledge of the actual state is close to the truth, then the very act of observation and verification causes a jump quickly, and the resulting state is more organized; pure. If the observer’s knowledge of the actual state is false, then it takes usually a long time to cause a change in the state of the system, and the resulting state is more chaotic.

In short, everyone who “believes” in an attempt to “create reality” that is different from what IS, adds to the increase of chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain’t gonna win that contest. You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this “staring down the universe” exercise with you.

On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance of the reality and appropriate responses to how things really are, you then become more “aligned” with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order energy, and your actions are consonant with what is. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, matched by the appropriate actions, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential.
[...]
Since Humanity – as a whole – is an “organ for transducing energies onto our planet”, the condition of humanity – as a whole – is reflected by the planet. The suffering of humanity, the lies that humans believe, all have a profound effect on the planet.

VERY IMPORTANT: it is not whether or not one “believes” in good things or bad things that makes good things or bad things happen. It is the factual observation of reality and whether or not it leads to a true assessment or lies.

The effort to view the universe AS IT VIEWS ITSELF with love and acceptance even in the face of what might be termed “horror” can actually lead to amelioration of that horror. To view the universe and to deny the truth and to insist that one can believe whatever one wants to believe and thereby make it so, is to deny reality and contributes to the chaos, the destruction, the suffering.

And so, what is the solution? The TRUTH – as close to it as we can objectively get – MUST be propagated as widely and as soon as possible. That is the only thing that will “save the planet”. Because it is in the creative centers of humanity… that the fate of the earth lies.
[...]
…how do we learn to see the universe objectively, as it sees itself? Another way of putting it is: how do we overcome our own subjectivity? The answer is by mastering the impermanent parts of our personality and bringing them under control of the part of us that is permanent, that part of us that has a link with the Creative force. And in this struggle, we discover that not only do we bind with truth spiritually, but this process also induces a change in our brain chemistry, which can literally lead to a physical transmutation.”

- from “The Secret History of the World” by Laura Knight-Jadcyk

Quotes taken from: _http://veilofreality.com/2011/02/02/the-positivity-of-objectivity-and-the-time-of-transition/

 

[edgitarra]

If you feel like a future teacher, then start doing it, and tell us how it is. It's already too much noise on the forum I think.

 

[Psalehesost]

As far as how I determine truth, I see truth as being different for every individual, it is up to us to decide what we choose to be truth. I don't believe that we have the capability as STS oriented individuals to discern absolute truth, if it even exists. In my experience everything in this world is determined by perspective.

Research and networking can help with discovering the objective truth or close to it, whether it is truth about ourselves or the world. You say that it is up to us to decide what we choose to be truth, to be honest, I think that it is up to us to find out the truth. And objective truth isn't different for everyone, it just is.

[...]

In addition to those quotes, the thread on opinion might also be useful to read.

There is also this article, which goes into how work on the self is all about striving to gain objectivity, or overcoming one's subjectivity: Living in Truth

Ultimately, it's a question of fundamental approach to life and reality. Some are interested in trying to gain an objective understanding, while some are not.

 

[truth seeker]

I have attempted to reach out in many ways and have not received any response so now I have returned here to hopefully be recognized. Possibly a contributing factor is that I post in different places under different names. On SOTT I post under the name Jean Michel and on SOTT Radio chat I am Michael Janes. I used to go under the name of Anarkissed on this forum but I have left that persona behind as I didn't feel it gave a very good first impression of me.

There are several reasons people change their moniker. Sometimes it's because the person has 'grown' out of it. Sometimes it's because they find themselves in a situation where aspects of the self are pointed out to them that they don't 'like'. It can be used as a form of impression management.

What impression did you think Anarkissed gave to others?

Personally, I do not feel that this digital environment is the most optimal way to make real connections with people. It is very easy to misrepresent yourself and/or others and it is nearly impossible to get a sense of a person's energy through a computer monitor. Even voice chat or telephone would be a better source for continued communication, in my opinion. At least then you can get a better sense of people's tones and attitudes. I think that these forums are a great place for connecting initially with people and for conveying information but I don't feel that you can make a true connection with a person through this medium. On that note, having to be at a minimum of 50 posts before you can edit is a really high number.

While it can be easy to misrepresent onesself online if it's in them to do, networking does often allow others to get a fairly good sense of who we are. The question then becomes is one willing to trust that others can see them better than they can.

Just so you know, the meetups don't take the place of the network. People are still expected to network even though they meet in person. We ask the same thing of everyone. Would it be fair to change a process that currently works for most because of one person? Isn't part of being sto doing what works best for the group at large?

Bear in mind that I do have a problem with self-esteem, I am one of those that feels better offering advice or asking for help if I feel that I am truly wanted. I know exactly why I feel this way and it is something that I am working through. If I have helped anyone in any way, I would really appreciate hearing about it. I cannot assume that this is the case, however.

Many people here struggle with self-esteem issues (myself included) and have come to the painful realization that it's really about self importance. Why do you think that you feel this way?

...

If I understand correctly, you seem to be asking to help lead a meetup group but don't currently trust the network enough to go through the same channels as everyone else. How do you think this would play out in real life if some situation occurred that needed to be brought here?

 

[Cosmos]

As far as how I determine truth, I see truth as being different for every individual, it is up to us to decide what we choose to be truth. I don't believe that we have the capability as STS oriented individuals to discern absolute truth, if it even exists. In my experience everything in this world is determined by perspective.

My method for determining personal truth is two fold.

First, the concept expressed needs to resonate within me. What I mean by resonate is that it needs to speak to that inner part of myself that is detached from my ego. A part of myself that I am constantly developing through meditation and self-reflection. If it is a concept that resonates particularly well, then I will meditate on it to make sure that it is not my ego responding.

Second, that concept should be something that will allow me to grow as an individual and also allow me to assist others. I will compare the given concept to the years of research that I have done on selfish desires and ponerization. If I am able to determine that the given concept benefits others as well as myself then it becomes truth for me. That is, until if or when it is proven false.

I'm very bummed that my original post was lost in cyber land, I feel that I expressed myself much better originally.

I disagree.

I think you expressed yourself much clearer in what you wrote above. It is a fundamental understanding in the work we do here (which is largely based on Gurdjieffs Fourth Way and the recent science developments, that confirm that he was right on the spot on the human mind and the human condition), that we can not think with the way we have thought all our lives. First one has to empty his cup (which can be quite filled) and truly understand that most, if not all, of what we think to be true, both about ourselves, as well as the external world, has nothing to do with reality whatsover.

The power of networking (which is the fundamental way of how things work in this forum/network), shows us again and again, that the things that we imagine to be true ourselves, often do not correspond to the objective reality. In other words: It is quite clear that others can see and understand us much better, then we think we do ourselves (especially in a network like this one). So no amount of meditations will help us to better "realize things" and "resonate with reality" either, as long as we do not truly realize that we do not know ourselves and that we are essentially just chemical machines, in which everything just happens (as Gurdjieff explained) and we thus follow our "feel good" and "resonating" chemicals all the time, who trick us into believing, that when something "feels right or good", then it must be good or true. Not true at all, as long as we don't truly realize that we are machines. But to truly realize that, one has to understand that fact not just theoretically, but with the being as well. And that can only be achieved through "the work" and not by intellectual or meditative states alone.

So Mikha'el, from the responses you got so far, it is quite clear that you probably did not expect such answers and questions to your believes about yourself and what you do. Your exclamations that you "do not feel that you have explained yourself clear enough", make that quite clear. As said, others are most often better to see us, then we do ourselves. That should give you some pause, to ask yourself, if what you think to be true about yourself and what you do is really like that in reality.

As others explained before as well, your description of what truth is, does not correspond with how reality works. The idea of your "personal truth" is an idea of the New Age type and it is a pretty dangerous one at that, since there is in fact an objective reality and it is possible for us as a network to come closer to it. Any idea or philosophy that supports this believe in any kind of "your personal truth" is in fact creating the exact opposite of what we think we create with it. In other words: An believe "in your personal truth" is essentially a good feeding ground to expand the STS mentality.

As Laura said:

"There is no free lunch in the universe. And If you think there is, you are the lunch"

 

[Mikha'El]

(I had held off on posting this reply at the time because I was fearful of more negative responses. I really don't want to express myself poorly and the way that I treat posting in forums is very conducive to that. I tend to over edit and over analyze my posts.

But having come back to this post and rereading my original response that I had saved as a draft, I still feel the same way and I need this to be posted. Take it as you will.)

(POST ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON 29-10-2014):

@Pashalis:

Your reply resonated with me the most so I will answer that one first and get to the other questions later.

First off, the original post that I referred to was never submitted, there was an error with my phone. So a comparison cannot be made to that. It's totally understandable how a confusion could arise in the morass that this thread has become.

When I say that absolute truth does not exist, my opinion on that matter hasn't changed. Yes, there is an objective reality that a group can consider to be true and for all intents and purposes, it is. But can we truly say, without any shade of a doubt, that one truth is more viable, or more true, than any other?

I do not believe so. That would require being able to completely remove oneself from their personal ideologies to the point of being a non-entity. Meaning that one would have to have the capacity to view reality from a completely objective perspective. Being human, as I understand the state, prohibitively prevents that. There are exercises that we can practice that can reduce our own subjective views of reality but it never fully leaves us.

Truth is based on a choice, we choose to believe that something is true. We can do this individually or as a group. Does the individual's truth have more merit than the group's? Probably not. Is it important for the individual to compare and contrast their personal truths against the truth of the group? Absolutely.

All things that we experience are subject to our individual perspective. I cannot see the world through anyone else's eyes and no one can see the world through mine. So it always comes down to an individual decision to believe in one truth over another. How we come to that decision is truly what is important, in my opinion. What we choose to do once the decision has been made is even more important.

UPDATE TO THIS ORIGINAL POST (15-8-2016):

I still stand by this belief that 'truth' can only be subjective and that it is extremely limiting and short-sighted to believe that one 'truth' trumps all other truths. Isn't that the kind of attitude that radical, violent people adopt?

"Our truth is the only real truth and if you don't believe it then you are the enemy"

I feel that it is extremely limiting for any group to require a certain belief structure and that is what is being promoted here. Believe in what the group believes, otherwise you have nothing to contribute here.

Who says that an individual cannot come to ultimate truth on their own? I believe that is what happened with Siddhartha...

I do not believe that my 'truth' is more relevant, accurate or important than any other person's 'truth' and I am constantly changing and adapting what I believe to be 'true'.

Just because someone may not agree with my truth does not mean that I will immediately discount them and try to convert them to my way of thinking. To me that is the ultimate in STS mentality and is not what the Fellowship is all about.

I feel that it is important to invite contrary beliefs. We need to examine, absorb and redefine all the information that we can on a personal level. There is absolutely no other way that I am able to conceive of at this point.

Given the opportunity, anyone can contribute positively. Even your worst enemy can provide you with insight.

 

[Michal]

Hi Mikha'el

You said

Truth is based on a choice, we choose to believe that something is true.

You may choose everything. Not all things however are good. Or are they?

Let's imagine that we meet. We see door. We feel it, we touch it, it is very concrete door. We define this object as a door. When we have experience of rectangular thing which may swivel on hinges and has normally a knob to open it or shut it and it appears in context of some human related shelter, building, house, shed or similar then we call this thing door. But beyond a name there is the real thing. So we may experience it together and describe all the features of that object using our senses, touch, sight, we can hear while it is moving, we may smell it, even taste it :).

We may come to some similar conclusions. At least starting from very beginning we may acknowledge that: here THIS exists!
Then we may use our empirical skills and describe what is this appearing to our senses. We may use, going further, some standard measures, like meter, CMYK scale of colours, weight it, and make model out of it. But first we know by ourselves, by our being, without any words and thoughts about the object that it exists.
How this object exists is then a matter of our further scrutiny but still we are able to know something about reality of this other being - door. At least that it does exist.

I think that You are right. We may believe in everything.
Have You thought about criterion of credibility thou?
Why reality is real? When is our belief right and when it isn't? Are all beliefs equal? Is that possible that we choose opposing, contradictory beliefs? What if we choose at the same time to belief that computer in front of me exists and does not exist?

Have fun

 

[Alada]

(I had held off on posting this reply at the time because I was fearful of more negative responses. I really don't want to express myself poorly and the way that I treat posting in forums is very conducive to that. I tend to over edit and over analyze my posts.

But having come back to this post and rereading my original response that I had saved as a draft, I still feel the same way and I need this to be posted. Take it as you will.)

(POST ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON 29-10-2014):

[snip]

Well, setting aside the rest of your post, what stands out above all else is the sense of your having harboured this resentment toward the forum for almost two years. And that after all this time, your thinking and the emotions driving it are unchanged, that you still feel the need to post it. You show that you remain as you were.

Did you read 'Strangers to Ourselves' as Obyvatel suggested? It would be a excellent book to pick up for anyone sincerely interested in the aims of the forum.

 

[Mikha'El]

Hi Mikha'el

You said

Truth is based on a choice, we choose to believe that something is true.

You may choose everything. Not all things however are good. Or are they?

Let's imagine that we meet. We see door. We feel it, we touch it, it is very concrete door. We define this object as a door. When we have experience of rectangular thing which may swivel on hinges and has normally a knob to open it or shut it and it appears in context of some human related shelter, building, house, shed or similar then we call this thing door. But beyond a name there is the real thing. So we may experience it together and describe all the features of that object using our senses, touch, sight, we can hear while it is moving, we may smell it, even taste it :).

We may come to some similar conclusions. At least starting from very beginning we may acknowledge that: here THIS exists!
Then we may use our empirical skills and describe what is this appearing to our senses. We may use, going further, some standard measures, like meter, CMYK scale of colours, weight it, and make model out of it. But first we know by ourselves, by our being, without any words and thoughts about the object that it exists.
How this object exists is then a matter of our further scrutiny but still we are able to know something about reality of this other being - door. At least that it does exist.

I think that You are right. We may believe in everything.
Have You thought about criterion of credibility thou?
Why reality is real? When is our belief right and when it isn't? Are all beliefs equal? Is that possible that we choose opposing, contradictory beliefs? What if we choose at the same time to belief that computer in front of me exists and does not exist?

Have fun

Totally makes sense, what you are talking about here is shared reality.

But bear in mind that, in that process, we are still making the choice at some point to agree that what we are experiencing is a door.

What about a person who wouldn't agree that it is a door? The normal response is to decide that person is somehow dysfunctional.

But what if the reality is that person is able to perceive things that the two first people cannot? Those first two people would discount that third man as being crazy and they may possibly be denying themselves from learning the possibly more enlightened perspective that the door doesn't exist at all. Or that it exists in a completely different way than originally perceived.

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. Empirical truth does not exist. Only our agreement to classify something makes it 'real'.

On a quantum level, everything is changing constantly dependent on the Observer's opinion of what is being observed. We create our reality through our belief.

What that means to me is that there is no truth, there is no lie. Everything is relevant and nothing is important. We decide what is meaningful to us and we decide that which is frivolous. The Universe both decrees what is and is a slave to our perceptions.

It is the ultimate contradiction that is the binary system of materialism.

 

[Mikha'El]

(I had held off on posting this reply at the time because I was fearful of more negative responses. I really don't want to express myself poorly and the way that I treat posting in forums is very conducive to that. I tend to over edit and over analyze my posts.

But having come back to this post and rereading my original response that I had saved as a draft, I still feel the same way and I need this to be posted. Take it as you will.)

(POST ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON 29-10-2014):

[snip]

Well, setting aside the rest of your post, what stands out above all else is the sense of your having harbored this resentment toward the forum for almost two years. And that after all this time, your thinking and the emotions driving it are unchanged, that you still feel the need to post it. You show that you remain as you were.

Did you read 'Strangers to Ourselves' as Obyvatel suggested? It would be a excellent book to pick up for anyone sincerely interested in the aims of the forum.

Well, I'm chagrined once again to have my post cherry picked. Why would you disregard the rest of my post to dissect one little portion of it? I'm saddened that my words have so little meaning to you. Do you have nothing to say about the content that I posted?

You know, most healthy minded people tend to take the wheat and leave the chaff. I understand, though, that a good portion of the people on this site do not agree with that mentality. In fact the opposite seems to be more true.

That is more the reason why I waited two years to post that reply.

If the truth is to be told, I forgot that I had written it and recently found it in my drafts. Having read through it, I realized that it is still relevant and pertinent to me.

You are correct that I have some negative feelings towards my experiences with this board. Resentment would not be the correct term, in my opinion, however. More like disappointment. Disappointment in responses that are more inclined to attack the poster than discuss the content posted.

I definitely don't expect, or want, everyone to agree with me and/or my beliefs. However, in a forum that contains mostly 'enlightened' people, I have received what I perceiveto be a lot of negativity. Much more than I would have expected. (My perception could most definitely be skewed, however.)

The fact that my ideals and conceptions have not changed over the years, regardless of countless hours of soul searching and introspection, tells me that I am still firm in my reasoning. I have yet to find a significant flaw in the way that I see the reality that we are in.

But I am always open to suggestion and good, honest debate. I welcome the opportunity to better define my perceptions.

I would ask you, Alada, why it was so important for you to point out my weakness as you perceive it? Why did you take the time out of your day to write a, mostly, negative response to my post? What is it in your makeup that caused you to focus solely on the parts of my post that offend you?

I have always followed the practice of 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'. Isn't that the higher road, the better, more ideal way to behave in an enlightened environment?

It is your decision as to how you will behave, I have absolutely no control over that. In fact, I would never try to control that. I am not a fascist. I invite any and all discussions. I would just hope that we could move the focus off of me as a person and towards the content of my posts. The Universe knows that I am not perfect. I have many aspects to my personality that could be perceived as negative or harmful. Who doesn't? There are many aspects to my personality that could also be considered enlightened and beneficial. Again, that is pretty much the same as every other person on this planet. If we but take the time to see it.

To discount good information because we don't like a particular aspect of the deliverer's personality is an exercise in stupidity and bigotry, in my opinion. Even the most 'evil' person can be a vehicle for truth. Just as the most 'good' person can be a vehicle for lies.

In fact, I have learned way more about myself and how I perceive things in my dealings with people that I don't agree with. Dissension breeds discourse which leads to deeper understanding.

I have not had the chance to read 'Strangers to Ourselves' yet, but I will add it to my schedule if you feel that it may present me with more information about how this forum truly operates.

It seems a bit contradictory, though, that a forum that is supposed to be dedicated to revealing truths has to be deciphered in this manner.

It seems to me that things have gotten too complicated around here. How is a movement supposed to take hold if it can't be described easily and succinctly in a few paragraphs? People have the attention spans of gnats these days. (Please be aware that I have been a member here for many years as well as at SOTT and FOTCM)

As a side note, I have to laugh at the image of me that you might have painted in your mind. An image of some lonely dude sitting at a computer for two years stewing over some posts made in some forum. Trust me, I have many more important things to get worked up about.

Peace.

pp: I Googled the term 'resentment' to make sure that I had the proper understanding of it. I found this snippet on Wiki: As the surprise of injustice becomes less frequent, so too does anger and fear fade -leaving disappointment as the predominant emotion. So, to the extent perceived disgust and sadness remain, so too does the level of disappointment remain.

So, your use of that term was in fact correct. I do have a form of resentment towards some of the users on this forum. But it is the tired type of resentment which leaves basically disappointment.

ja ne

 

[lainey]

The fact that my ideals and conceptions have not changed over the years, regardless of countless hours of soul searching and introspection, tells me that I am still firm in my reasoning. I have yet to find a significant flaw in the way that I see the reality that we are in.

It would appear to me that your cup is full with regards to how you view the world and by extension yourself.

I have always followed the practice of 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'. Isn't that the higher road, the better, more ideal way to behave in an enlightened environment?

It seems to me that things have gotten too complicated around here. How is a movement supposed to take hold if it can't be described easily and succinctly in a few paragraphs? People have the attention spans of gnats these days. (Please be aware that I have been a member here for many years as well as at SOTT and FOTCM)

You say that you have read the Wave series yet the things you write lead me to believe that you haven't fully grasped the concepts within.

To discount good information because we don't like a particular aspect of the deliverer's personality is an exercise in stupidity and bigotry, in my opinion. Even the most 'evil' person can be a vehicle for truth. Just as the most 'good' person can be a vehicle for lies.

I find your thinly veiled insults towards Alada quite distasteful.

 

[Mikha'El]

The fact that my ideals and conceptions have not changed over the years, regardless of countless hours of soul searching and introspection, tells me that I am still firm in my reasoning. I have yet to find a significant flaw in the way that I see the reality that we are in.

It would appear to me that your cup is full with regards to how you view the world and by extension yourself.

I have always followed the practice of 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'. Isn't that the higher road, the better, more ideal way to behave in an enlightened environment?

It seems to me that things have gotten too complicated around here. How is a movement supposed to take hold if it can't be described easily and succinctly in a few paragraphs? People have the attention spans of gnats these days. (Please be aware that I have been a member here for many years as well as at SOTT and FOTCM)

You say that you have read the Wave series yet the things you write lead me to believe that you haven't fully grasped the concepts within.

To discount good information because we don't like a particular aspect of the deliverer's personality is an exercise in stupidity and bigotry, in my opinion. Even the most 'evil' person can be a vehicle for truth. Just as the most 'good' person can be a vehicle for lies.

I find your thinly veiled insults towards Alada quite distasteful.

Thank you for your reply, lainey.

Please clarify some things for me, if you wouldn't mind.

Your first statement left me scratching my head. I really don't know what you mean there or what your intention is in stating that. Please elucidate.

The second statement is entirely fair. I would ask only for more clarification as to what, exactly, you mean there. It's very easy to make a statement like that. If it is not backed up with evidence and clarification how exactly am I supposed to learn?

The third statement is entirely fair as well, but it should be clarified that that is your opinion of what I wrote, I did not aim that at any one person in particular. In fact, if it was taken as insulting to any particular person let me take the time here to state that was not my intention. It was simply a statement of my opinion and the fact that you took it out of the original context of my post is what bothers me the most about forums like this.

That statement lacks the original intent when not read in the context of the entire post.

If you perceive that Alada may fall into that category, well that says more about you and your perceptions than it does about me.

My intention in posting here is not to create dissension, but that seems to be what happens. I guess that I present challenges that people are not prepared to deal with? Maybe I am just totally bat-sh*t crazy and I have no conception of how bad things have gotten.