Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 10:20pm PT
|
I'll now let God sort me out
I doubt you'll have to wait for God. There are plenty of people on this thread who will be happy to do it for Him. LOL
My only quibble with your categories is the second one.
2.All religions that have not yet attested to Grace.
I'd argue based on my own experience that they all have received some form of Grace, maybe even Jesus in another form that Christians don't yet recognize.
To me the division is people who believe in something, those who believe in nothing, and those who just don't know.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2015 - 11:09pm PT
|
^^^lol yea I know
The type of grace I'm pointing at is directly proportional to the blood of Christ and the seven different ways He bled..
But I get'cha
Maybe one antidote. The mormons believe that in the three days when Jesus was locked in the tomb. He slipped over to south America and enlightened them.
As the world turns..
We are living in very exciting times!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Great post, BB. I like how you characterized the differences between the NT and OT. I hadn't thought of it before, but I think your take on the NT fits with higher order levels of Buddhism and forms of spiritualism . . . that everything in reality is already fixed. That there is nothing to make better. Everything is a done deal. In a manner of speaking, everyone is off the hook.
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
I doubt you'll have to wait for God. There are plenty of people on this thread who will be happy to do it for Him. LOL
^^^^^^
Thanks Jan, for that response to Blue. It gave me a pretty good chuckle...ha ha.
Whatever God, if there is one, better have an awesome sense of humor...no one could survive being associated with our stoopid species for any length of time without one.
It's one of the reasons I hang around here. Many of the most serious types here provide the rest of us with loads of amusement.
-bushman
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
DMT: . . . boundless imagination.
It’s funny you would write this to me. On a plane yesterday, I was reading a book on teaching methods meant to increase the improvisation skills for actors in the theater. I’m in a chapter on spontaneity, and the author is explaining how actors can foil one another’s effort in improvisation. This he refers to as “blocking” vs. “accepting.” I’m interested in improvisation as a view and guidance to being-in-the-moment.
The author writes:
———————————
“There are people who prefer to say ‘Yes,’ and there are people who prefer to say ‘No.’ Those who say ‘Yes’ are rewarded with the adventures they have, and those who say ’No’ are rewarded by the safety they attain.”
“The improviser has to understand that his first skill lies in releasing his partner’s imagination.”
“Good improvisers seem telepathic. Everything looks prearranged. This is because they accept all offers made—which is something no ‘normal’ person would do.”
“The actor who will accept anything that happens seem supernatural; it’s the most marvelous thing about improvisation: you are suddenly in contact with people who are unbounded, whose imagination seems to function without limit. By analyzing everything into blocks and acceptances, the students get insight into the forces that shapes scenes, and they understand why certain people seem difficult to work with.”
[I’d say “scenes” is an equal description of what we think is happening right in front of us at any point in time.]
“When the actor concentrates on making the thing he *gives* interesting, each actor seems in competition, and feels it. When they concentrate on making the gift they *receive* interesting, then they generate warmth between them.”
“Imagination is as effortless as perception, unless we think it might be ‘wrong,’ which is what our education encourages us to believe. then we experience ourselves as ‘imagining,’ as ‘thinking up an idea,’ but what we’re really doing is faking up the sort of imagination we think we ought to have.”
“We have an idea that art is self-expression—which historically is *weird.* An artist used to be seen as a medium through which something else operated. He was a servant of God. Maybe a mask-maker would have fasted and prayed for a week before he had a vision of the Mask he was to carve, because no one wanted to see *his* Mask, they wanted to see God’s. When Eskimos believed that each piece of bone only had one shape in it, then the artist didn’t have to ‘think up’ an idea. He had to wait until he knew what was in there—and this is crucial.”
“Schiller wrote of a ‘watcher at the gates of the mind,’ who examines ideas too closely. He said that in the case of the creative mind ‘the intellect has withdrawn its watcher from the gates, and the ideas rush in pell-mell, and only then does it review and inspect the multitude.’
“Most teachers want [students] to reject and discriminate, believing the best artist was the one who made the most elegant choices.” [The author thinks this is all wrong.]
————————
So, what is “boundless imagination?” I’d say boundless imagination is that which transcends what one thinks is normal, what one was taught, what one thinks is appropriate. Instead, the author of this book argues, listen or accept that which first comes to mind and go with it—rather than rely upon what you were taught or the norms of consensus reality. Consensus reality is anything but imaginative. True imagination is simply being fully in the moment, where everything is open, undefined, ambiguous, and possible. What is imaginative is not what the mental-rational mind “thinks” up, but what shows without thinking. Being who and what you cannot help but be.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
…”When I proposed the theory of relativity, very few understood me, and what I will reveal now to transmit to mankind will also collide with the misunderstanding and prejudice in the world.
I ask you to guard the letters as long as necessary, years, decades, until society is advanced enough to accept what I will explain below.
There is an extremely powerful force that, so far, science has not found a formal explanation to. It is a force that includes and governs all others, and is even behind any phenomenon operating in the universe and has not yet been identified by us.
This universal force is LOVE.
When scientists looked for a unified theory of the universe they forgot the most powerful unseen force.
Love is Light, that enlightens those who give and receive it.
Love is gravity, because it makes some people feel attracted to others.
Love is power, because it multiplies the best we have, and allows humanity not to be extinguished in their blind selfishness. Love unfolds and reveals.
For love we live and die.
Love is God and God is Love.
This force explains everything and gives meaning to life. This is the variable that we have ignored for too long, maybe because we are afraid of love because it is the only energy in the universe that man has not learned to drive at will.
To give visibility to love, I made a simple substitution in my most famous equation.
If instead of E = mc2, we accept that the energy to heal the world can be obtained through love multiplied by the speed of light squared, we arrive at the conclusion that love is the most powerful force there is, because it has no limits.
After the failure of humanity in the use and control of the other forces of the universe that have turned against us, it is urgent that we nourish ourselves with another kind of energy…
If we want our species to survive, if we are to find meaning in life, if we want to save the world and every sentient being that inhabits it, love is the one and only answer.
Perhaps we are not yet ready to make a bomb of love, a device powerful enough to entirely destroy the hate, selfishness and greed that devastate the planet.
However, each individual carries within them a small but powerful generator of love whose energy is waiting to be released.
When we learn to give and receive this universal energy, dear Lieserl, we will have affirmed that love conquers all, is able to transcend everything and anything, because love is the quintessence of life.
I deeply regret not having been able to express what is in my heart, which has quietly beaten for you all my life. Maybe it’s too late to apologize, but as time is relative, I need to tell you that I love you and thanks to you I have reached the ultimate answer! “.
Your father Albert Einstein" (end of quote)
I'm sorry to have to do this cut and paste but I thought some of you might enjoy this quote I just read. I'm not even sure if it is really from A. Einstein, but if it is it says volumes.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Largo, you have fallen in love with particle physics because some of it fits your pre-conceived notions. In science, this is fraught with danger, because if you fall in love with your idea and then ferret through everything that agrees with your pet idea, you can step on your dick, which it appears that you are doing.
Nice rant, BASE, but this is not the process whatsoever by which I have arrived at what I toss out there. The ride share folks I mention are all into Vapassana or "Insight" meditation and bring to our conversation the things and subjects from their day job in scientific research that are interesting to us in light of the experiential adventures. What "pre-conceived" notion are you referring to, specifically? An interesting whopper on your behalf since Zen - or Vapassana - has no content in the end. It does bring one to a clear view that what you think is real and whole and soild is in fact no-thing, transient, ephemeral, and not even there in the way our sense organs and physical bodies swear to us it is. This brings us to the next part of the riddle:
BASE wrote: A photon is not "nothing." Just because the photon has a zero rest mass and is dimensionless, something is very clearly there.
You have, of course, conflated no-thng with nothing, which are not at all the same. Nothing has no footprint or effect in the phyysical world. No-thing has no body, mass, form, or stuff, and is known ONLY by it's effect. So aside from the luminious effect we all know that photons have on our eyes, WHAT, is exactly, IS that "something" that you mention is so clearly "there." Again, we are NOT talking about the effect the photon has on our eyes etc., but what that "somethng" you claim that the photon IS.
Of course it's a trick question. The photon is no-thing.
The reason this does not compute to the discursive mind is that discursive reasoning hinges on all effects being sourced by a physically tangible "thing," or stuff. But a photon, itself, is not physically tangible. Only the effect the photon has on external physical reality.
And the idea that I am ferriting out "proof" to back up anything is also a howler. But not so much as the "pet idea" angle. You keep pulling this stuff out of your ass and attributing it to me, BASE, instead of, for example, looking at the link my friends provided on massless, dimensionless no-things and rendering your opinion on that. If fact, what is clear is that you have a pet belief that the effects of a photon are proof that the photon ITSELF is "something" that is clearly there.
All we are asking is: What is that something that the photon IS which is NOT an effect? the effect that a photo so clearly has is sourced by WHAT, exactly?
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
All we are asking is: What is that something that the photon IS which is NOT an effect? the effect that a photo so clearly has is sourced by WHAT, exactly?
All you are doing is fooling around, JL.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
All we are asking is: What is that something that the photon IS which is NOT an effect? The effect that a photo so clearly has is sourced by WHAT, exactly?
All you are doing is fooling around, JL.
The ironic thing is,I am not nor are my scientific buddies making claims about what no-things ARE. Others like Dingus and BASE keep insisting that a photon and other massless no-things are "something." What's more, when we normally ask about what something IS, which is a universal question in all languages, we are not asking about what effect the thing in question has on the external word, rather what are the quantification of the thing itself. If we ask, What is a human body? We have all kinds of systems to describe and physical parameters that are common to all bodies like 98.6 temp and blood pressure and nervous system function and so forth. These are a few of many facts about the body itself, and when we task ourselves to answer them honestly, no sane person would accuse us of "fooling around." However when a staunch (fundamentalist) materialist is asked the same about no-things like photons etc., we are suddenly "fooling around." This is where people are in fact being totally dishonest in an attempt to cling desperately to the materialist doctrine that all phenomenon is sourced by a measurable, physical thing that exists in time and space. In this sense the old school take on the "particle" is the alter on which these people worship. But the man said:
"Thing, stuff, matter, material and particle are, in the wrong hands, all the same phenomenon. It is high time to give up the use of the word ‘photon,’ in the sense that a photon is a thing like a lion is a thing. A bad concept which will shortly be a century old. Radiation does not consist of particles and the classical, i.e., non-quantum limit of QTR is described by Maxwell’s Equations for the EM fields, which do not involve particles, things or stuff. Let those old concepts go. They are not part of reality."
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Nassim Haramein; looks like good science on the surface...
Dig a little deeper;
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein
Some, not so scientific stuff in his work IMHO.
Bushman's ten rules to live by or;
My list of how you should live your life, how I think you should think, and what I think you should do, because I'm right about everything and you're just plain wrong.
1. Never take anything anyone tells you as absolute truth.
2. It's not nessesary to inform them that you don't believe them about everything.
3. Research as many sources of information about a person, subject, or theory as possible.
4. If it smells fishy, it probably is.
5. Skepticism isn't always a bad thing.
6. Create your own vision of the world and reality, regardless of peer pressure, early indoctrination, or family.
7. Understand that you are the one in seven+ billion percent.
8. Be willing to laugh at yourself, it can be refreshing.
9. If those with a faith have faith then it's not necessary for them to prove to you that they have a faith by trying to convince you that their faith is the correct faith.
10. If you want to live dangerously and are too busted up to climb, bull fight, or drive race cars then try being irreverent to those of faith, duck your head, and watch the fireworks.
Look for my next lists coming here soon;
How to get over it
And
Top ten regrets you can forget and repeat
Alien Visitation or Crop Circles with My 9N?
You decide...
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Metaphysics is philosophy, it's not science, and it's not Physics.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Did anyone else notice that everyone was particularly sharp and that dialog was really great throughout this last month of April?
Maybe jus me but you'all really seemed to hit your high points on the mark!
Thank You, I really appreciate everyone's time invested :-)
BB
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Top ten regrets I can forget and repeat That whole post was one of them. I'm going to leave it up so I can remember what an ass I can be.
Kick me.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Wayno,
Sorry to pop your ballon, but Snopes, who tries to keep up with internet claims has the following to say about your Einstein quote (its not good).
Here it is:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/einstein/universalforce.asp
People have this capacity to WANT to believe. Certainly when it reinforces a sentiment that they have, but larger things as well. So no big deal.
That is the subjective in full flower, leading you directly to a falsehood, but I wager a million others fell for it.
You should read about Einstein's somewhat complicated family history in the explanation that follows.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Well the letter was written. And there doesn't seem to be a debate that AE wrote it. The only mystery is to who he wrote it to.
Would it be a let down for you if you found out Albert thought Love was more powerful than gravity?
VVV guess you didn't read the link:-(
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
That's cool Base, I didn't expect it to be authentic as I stated in my post but it is an interesting attempt someone has made to push these two fields together as opposed to the title of this thread. It doesn't necessarily represent my views on the issue but I thought it might be of interest. So no, I didn't fall for it and thanks for clarifying that .
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
OK, John. Have your buddies explain the photoelectric effect, if you think that photons are nothing. I would ask you to do it, but we aren't really talking to you anymore. We are talking to you, your car pool, and lord knows who else.
Do they read this thread? Do any of them post here?
BTW, when you totally lost me was when you pulled "Hilbert Space" out of your ass, in an attempt to frustrate Ed. I doubt you came up with it yourself. Gill has jabbed you quite a few times about that.
You were messing with Ed, who was as sincere as they come. I'm not surprised that he left. It just goes on and on.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Bushman: Metaphysics is philosophy, it's not science, and it's not Physics.
Of course it isn’t. There is no physics without various philosophies underneath it. Without philosophy, there is no basis for “facts.” Physics without a number of assumptions would be simply, “method.” And it could be any method.
Unearth your assumptions. Tease out your most implicit beliefs. Get them out on the table explicitly.
Then get rid of all of them, and begin from scratch.
Where would you be?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
I really doubt if Ed was frustrated here that the reason he left? Besides he was getting way more dissed on other threads.
Doesn't seem like when people are in the right they choose such extreme measures. If their motivation is in invested in spreading the truth anyway. I see more people get butthurt cause the truth hurts..
BtW, have your fracking buddies owned up to causing the earthquakes in Oklahoma yet? Or poisoning the drinking water??
I guess the denial of truth is OK when ur making a billion dollars a day?
What was that pop term of yours, "----------" Ignorance?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!