Thread: The Law Of Attraction

Originally Posted by really

It is my point, and so yes, all rocks can be used to make arrowheads. I'm saying that science is just another way to view the world, another experience.

Well, you're wrong. I've said it clearly before - science is a process. It's not a 'way to view the world', dingit.

Science uses experiences because there's no other way to gather data - you have to 'experience' reading the thermometer, or whatever it may be. However, not all experiences are a part of a scientific inquiry.

Originally Posted by really

You're right, but how about this - how can science exist without experience?



Hey, you know I am genuinely interested in on of your posts, and I asked you a question about it.

Sorry, must've missed it. What was the question again?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, you're wrong. I've said it clearly before - science is a process. It's not a 'way to view the world', dingit.

Science is a way to process the world and hence develops a way to view the world. That's what we do.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Science uses experiences because there's no other way to gather data - you have to 'experience' reading the thermometer, or whatever it may be. However, not all experiences are a part of a scientific inquiry.

Yes, there is no other way "to gather data", that we know of. But ones experience of reading a thermometer can be different to another's - so who is right? I'm saying that scientific knowledge is another way to view the world because one person could say the sun is a golden fireball while another could say it's a star fusing hydrogen nuclei, yet neither are absolutely sure, otherwise we would know everything.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

science as I am using the term is the basic process by which that knowledge is acquired.

This is what I am saying: that personal experience is another way to gain knowledge - for yourself your own knowledge is already acquired.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Sorry, must've missed it. What was the question again?

Here it is, Post #180, how could you miss it?

Originally Posted by really

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I'm curious about this. But there is something subtle which I still don't understand. Solskye, how can this image (above) and its meaning, in front of me, not be confused with another object from the Additive - The Realm of Reaction?

As much as I wish I could, the inexplicable and personal nature of the subtractive prevents me or anyone else from being able to really share it with another in additive inert words.

It's like walking down a path that eventually narrows itself to the width of your persona. Leaving you the only one that can cross over that threshold. Making it an entirely personal experience, and unable to be expressed with others. For it is your additive self-awareness, and nothing else, that you are experiencing.

What that picture was describing was the direction the path goes. Once you head down that path and find it narrowing you'll know you are going the right direction. By association, you'll never reach a complete standstill or absolution but you can get a great sense of oneness and connection to all passing through the Nile of the subtractive.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What that picture was describing was the direction the path goes. Once you head down that path and find it narrowing you'll know you are going the right direction. By association, you'll never reach a complete standstill or absolution but you can get a great sense of oneness and connection to all passing through the Nile of the subtractive.

Ok. But how can you tell the difference between additive and subtractive - how can looking inward as subtractive not be perceived as growing awareness as additive? After all, the paradox lies where I ignore the image because it lies in the additive world.

When one's mind is still enough, it's self-evident which path was taken. If you strip away outer perceptions to reach your realization, then it's not an additive. Since the outer wasn't touched in any way to get there, it can only lead you to believe an inner subtractive route was taken.

Originally Posted by really

Science is a way to process the world and hence develops a way to view the world. That's what we do.

Even if you can take knowledge from scientific inquiry and use it to found a view of the world, that doesn't make science itself a way of viewing the world. There is a distinction there, that's all.

Originally Posted by really

This is what I am saying: that personal experience is another way to gain knowledge - for yourself your own knowledge is already acquired.

That's what I disagree with. Experience cannot result in true knowledge, unless it was part of some sort of scientific inquiry (and I consider changing the batteries in a flashlight a scientific inquiry, mind you). For example, if I see a ghost, that does not imbue me with the knowledge that ghosts do exist - only the knowledge that I think I saw a ghost. You have to be really careful not to draw inferences from your experiences - another example is the one you used - just because the sun looks like a giant fireball to you doesn't mean that it IS one. You don't have knowledge that it is one just by looking at it and making the connection between a sphere and a campfire.

Originally Posted by really

Ok. But how can you tell the difference between additive and subtractive - how can looking inward as subtractive not be perceived as growing awareness as additive? After all, the paradox lies where I ignore the image because it lies in the additive world.

As the view shifts to the subtractive(according to the diagram) one begins to lose the sense of "I" and "me".

The more one travels in that direction of the subtractive the less there is of the concept of oneself, or at least concept of onself apart from what is in ones view.

If one reaches the goal of "enlightenment" or the end of the subtractive(which is also actually the beginning of it all) the one who was doing the looking is no longer left to attain the enlightenment. Such a concept of ego self vanishes, as all in ones view is percieved as oneSelf.

"Your non-dualism is beautiful.

The dualism in linguistics, is amazing.

'I' gain(?)/lose something each time 'i' read a post of 'yours' ND.

Something that is unexplainable, and which pulls me almost instantly towards the non-existant path of this 'subtractiveness'."

I don't.

What in god's name is that diagram on about?

"Awareness is a mirror" is one part of the triangle, and "the hall of mirrors" is another?!?!

Could you explain, in one brief sentence, exactly what that is supposed to be a diagram of? I don't mean to discount it, I'm just completely at a loss and if you could give me a leg up I could study it more carefully.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

When one's mind is still enough, it's self-evident which path was taken. If you strip away outer perceptions to reach your realization, then it's not an additive. Since the outer wasn't touched in any way to get there, it can only lead you to believe an inner subtractive route was taken.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

As the view shifts to the subtractive(according to the diagram) one begins to lose the sense of "I" and "me".

The more one travels in that direction of the subtractive the less there is of the concept of oneself, or at least concept of onself apart from what is in ones view.

If one reaches the goal of "enlightenment" or the end of the subtractive(which is also actually the beginning of it all) the one who was doing the looking is no longer left to attain the enlightenment. Such a concept of ego self vanishes, as all in ones view is percieved as oneSelf.

Ok. So practically, how is this managed - the path of subtraction?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Even if you can take knowledge from scientific inquiry and use it to found a view of the world, that doesn't make science itself a way of viewing the world. There is a distinction there, that's all.

Ok, sure. But the outcome is what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

That's what I disagree with. Experience cannot result in true knowledge, unless it was part of some sort of scientific inquiry (and I consider changing the batteries in a flashlight a scientific inquiry, mind you). For example, if I see a ghost, that does not imbue me with the knowledge that ghosts do exist - only the knowledge that I think I saw a ghost.

I think that is good enough, it's just of different nature.

Take psychics for example. Do they know anything for sure, or do they think they do? If they are right, why would you try to proove doubly with science that they are?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You have to be really careful not to draw inferences from your experiences - another example is the one you used - just because the sun looks like a giant fireball to you doesn't mean that it IS one.

Do you know what a metaphor is? They're inevitable.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You don't have knowledge that it is one just by looking at it and making the connection between a sphere and a campfire.

Yes, but my point is that it is valid anyhow. A Campfire might be mistaken for a fire that is outside but not in a camp. You can still call it one. It depends on who you are as a person.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What in god's name is that diagram on about?

"Awareness is a mirror" is one part of the triangle, and "the hall of mirrors" is another?!?!

Could you explain, in one brief sentence, exactly what that is supposed to be a diagram of? I don't mean to discount it, I'm just completely at a loss and if you could give me a leg up I could study it more carefully.

Here's my stab at a one sentence explanation before I go to bed...

Once you get to the point of understanding where you can consciously strip away the self-imposed barriers of the ego between you and the other objects here, you start to see everyone and everything as a simple reflection of a never-ending series of randomized dualistic expressions of your true self.

The best analogy I can use is it's like being in a house of mirrors with no one other than yourself there to enjoy it-- by looking at the other mirrors, or external perceptual forces, you can appreciate seeing the different variations of your self image mirrored back to you and learn something from them. One moment they may seem widened or stretched out to an unbelievable degree of the spectrum, and in the next moment you look a different direction and immediately that image is narrowed or stretched inward to the other end. Those observations helps you to further gray the duality of self, and gain better understanding and insight into the non-dualistic nature of your true self. It teaches you tolerance and acceptance, among other things.

If you knew everything you externally perceived was just a warped image of your true self, how could you do anything other than wonder, ponder, and enjoy that image of yourself being reflected back to you?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

If you knew everything you externally perceived was just a warped image of your true self, how could you do anything other than wonder, ponder, and enjoy that image of yourself being reflected back to you?

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'reflections of yourself'.

Are you assuming that humans are more than just physical beings here? If we assume that humans are purely physical beings, which all evidence currently points to, external objects are clearly not a part of ourselves, right?

Here's a free report: Why "The Secret" Might Not Be Working For You

http://www.mindpowernews.com/3Secrets.htm

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Here's my stab at a one sentence explanation before I go to bed...

Once you get to the point of understanding where you can consciously strip away the self-imposed barriers of the ego between you and the other objects here, you start to see everyone and everything as a simple reflection of a never-ending series of randomized dualistic expressions of your true self.

The best analogy I can use is it's like being in a house of mirrors with no one other than yourself there to enjoy it-- by looking at the other mirrors, or external perceptual forces, you can appreciate seeing the different variations of your self image mirrored back to you and learn something from them. One moment they may seem widened or stretched out to an unbelievable degree of the spectrum, and in the next moment you look a different direction and immediately that image is narrowed or stretched inward to the other end. Those observations helps you to further gray the duality of self, and gain better understanding and insight into the non-dualistic nature of your true self. It teaches you tolerance and acceptance, among other things.

If you knew everything you externally perceived was just a warped image of your true self, how could you do anything other than wonder, ponder, and enjoy that image of yourself being reflected back to you?

If that's a one-sentence explanation, I'm Hayao Miyazaki.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't quite understand what you mean by 'reflections of yourself'.

Are you assuming that humans are more than just physical beings here? If we assume that humans are purely physical beings, which all evidence currently points to, external objects are clearly not a part of ourselves, right?

I'm not assuming. Once you get to that point of understanding you don't have to assume, you know. Obviously, you aren't there yet. Just because you haven't gotten to that point of understanding don't assume that people who have are flat-out wrong or simply assuming.

Nobel peace prize winning scientists, and the like, all eventually humble themselves to realize and reach the same conclusion of there being something unexplainably more to the physical.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." -Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

If that's a one-sentence explanation, I'm Hayao Miyazaki.

Once you get to the point of understanding where you can consciously strip away the self-imposed barriers of the ego between you and the other objects here, you start to see everyone and everything as a simple reflection of a never-ending series of randomized dualistic expressions of your true self.

That's not one sentence?

Grow up.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Once you get to the point of understanding where you can consciously strip away the self-imposed barriers of the ego between you and the other objects here, you start to see everyone and everything as a simple reflection of a never-ending series of randomized dualistic expressions of your true self.

That's not one sentence?

Grow up.

Yup. That's one sentence.

This however, isn't:



"Once you get to the point of understanding where you can consciously strip away the self-imposed barriers of the ego between you and the other objects here, you start to see everyone and everything as a simple reflection of a never-ending series of randomized dualistic expressions of your true self.

The best analogy I can use is it's like being in a house of mirrors with no one other than yourself there to enjoy it-- by looking at the other mirrors, or external perceptual forces, you can appreciate seeing the different variations of your self image mirrored back to you and learn something from them. One moment they may seem widened or stretched out to an unbelievable degree of the spectrum, and in the next moment you look a different direction and immediately that image is narrowed or stretched inward to the other end. Those observations helps you to further gray the duality of self, and gain better understanding and insight into the non-dualistic nature of your true self. It teaches you tolerance and acceptance, among other things.

If you knew everything you externally perceived was just a warped image of your true self, how could you do anything other than wonder, ponder, and enjoy that image of yourself being reflected back to you?"




Deflate your ego; ever so slightly. Plz?

The second part was merely an elaboration on the explanation. Quit being difficult, I thought you had learned from the last time I schooled you.

Also, Didn't I mention the ego being stripped away during all of this? Actually, it is you who is thinking with the ego, hence your continued trouble in accepting and understanding all this. Generally, the ego runs wild and exists strongest during one's adolescence. That's why young adults and teens tend to have an uncontrolled affinity to question the establishment and have all these problems with the world around them. One can only hope that time humbles you.

Originally Posted by really

Ok. So practically, how is this managed - the path of subtraction?

You live it , you dont manage it. It is a simple representation of "what is".

You cant "see" the subtractive if you are still stuck in the frame of mind that you are the physical body you see in the mirror everyday.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I'm not assuming. Once you get to that point of understanding you don't have to assume, you know.

You can't just 'know' something. We never actually know anything for sure despite all of our careful science, as it is. If you claim to just 'know', then that's an assumption, by definition.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Obviously, you aren't there yet. Just because you haven't gotten to that point of understanding don't assume that people who have are flat-out wrong or simply assuming.

And what makes you so sure that I am behind and you ahead?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Nobel peace prize winning scientists, and the like, all eventually humble themselves to realize and reach the same conclusion of there being something unexplainably more to the physical.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." -Albert Einstein

Appeals to authority mean nothing. I also don't understand how it's 'humbling' to 'admit' that you are going to live forever and are more special than other organisms/objects. It actually seems quite the contrary to me.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You can't just 'know' something. We never actually know anything for sure despite all of our careful science, as it is. If you claim to just 'know', then that's an assumption, by definition.



And what makes you so sure that I am behind and you ahead?



Appeals to authority mean nothing. I also don't understand how it's 'humbling' to 'admit' that you are going to live forever and are more special than other organisms/objects. It actually seems quite the contrary to me.

Ummmmm Gnome, Are you sure it was me that said what you are atrributing those two quotes in the post above there to? ..... because I dont really recall writing those.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

And what makes you so sure that I am behind and you ahead?



Appeals to authority mean nothing. I also don't understand how it's 'humbling' to 'admit' that you are going to live forever and are more special than other organisms/objects. It actually seems quite the contrary to me.

I didn't use the terms behind and ahead, nor did I say I was more special. Also, for you to assume the universe which you are undoubtedly a part of doesn't exist forever takes an extreme leap of faith in the opposite direction. You need to go back and re-read what I wrote because you are clearly putting words in my mouth. And, it's unfortunate that appeals to authority mean nothing to you. You could learn a lot from them if you had an open mind enough to internalize and listen, instead of simply choosing to argue all the time. That explanation of mine wasn't meant to be a subject of debate. You either; take it, or leave it... understand it, or don't. And, just because you can't or don't grasp something doesn't make it wrong.

Either way, I'm not trying to change your mind and I've got nothing to prove to you. So... do what you like, man.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Ummmmm Gnome, Are you sure it was me that said what you are atrributing those two quotes in the post above there to? ..... because I dont really recall writing those.

Sorry, I mis-pasted
Those were all solskye.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I didn't use the terms behind and ahead

Yes, you did.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Obviously, you aren't there yet.

That is a clear implication that you are 'ahead' of me.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

nor did I say I was more special. Also, for you to assume the universe which you are undoubtedly a part of doesn't exist forever takes an extreme leap of faith in the opposite direction.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that you were claiming to be special, I was commenting about those who you say 'admit' that they are more than physical beings. This admittance, to me, seems like more of an empowering thing than a humbling one.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote because you are clearly putting words in my mouth.

Where?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

And, it's unfortunate that appeals to authority mean nothing to you. You could learn a lot from them if you had an open mind enough to internalize and listen, instead of simply choosing to argue all the time.

I wouldn't argue if I didn't disagree with you. It's clear that appeals to authority add nothing to an argument - I can just as well say that 'many scientists never entertain the notion of a non-physical component to anything'. See what I mean?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You either; take it, or leave it... understand it, or don't. And, just because you can't or don't grasp something doesn't make it wrong. Either way, I'm not trying to change your mind and I've got nothing to prove to you. So... do what you like, man.

It's really irritating when someone posts something and then refuses to support or discuss it further when it's challenged. I'm really not arguing just for the hell of it here - I don't agree with what you're saying, and I'm trying to see if we can reach some sort of middlegrounds/conclusion. If you're not willing to discuss your theory or respond to challenges, why post it?