Thread: The Eternal Authority

I am also interested in that take, VVilliam. I look forward to learning about your system. Keep us posted!

Sivason and VVilliam- I think that your theories arent mutually exclusive. The entity can give everyone that interacts with it the same evidence, as VVilliam said, but it may depend on the attitude and open mindness of the receptor to perceive that evidence as Sivason pointed out. (therefore giving the receptor the power to decide, supporting my thought that each of us is, although mostly unconsciously, the entity)

Originally Posted by thel

Sivason and VVilliam- I think that your theories arent mutually exclusive.

I agree thel.

Originally Posted by thel

The entity can give everyone that interacts with it the same evidence, as VVilliam said, but it may depend on the attitude and open mindness of the receptor to perceive that evidence as Sivason pointed out. (therefore giving the receptor the power to decide, supporting my thought that each of us is, although mostly unconsciously, the entity)

My main focus is on the science and mathematics thel.

The mathematics are not open to interpretation but the messages can be.

The method I use, takes this into account and for the purpose of science, unless one actually does the science for oneself, one cannot replicate, and until one replicates, one cannot say whether the systems works or not.

Generated messages can indeed be interpreted differently but the point is not in the interpretation, but in the fact that coherent messages can be generated using numbers of different -apparently - random methods to do so, and being coherent, are at least understandably and can be taken at face value for that.

Interpretation is less-necessary for that, as well.

Originally Posted by VVilliam

I do not understand why you would think that if there is a cosmic mind and it could communicate with anyone, why it would not want to do so. Do you have inside information on that, or is it simply an opinion you have on the matter?

A: I have no idea if it is "a Cosmic Mind" as the things we can make contact with may be nothing more than "God-like." I am not claiming one may interact with the creator of the universe. Maybe, maybe not. One may communicate with very powerful disembodied entities that may as well be "God" from the tiny perspective I have on the universe. They/ it can definitely help one greatly in reaching enlightened awareness, but I think they may not have unlimited attention. I think it/ they has omniscient when it bothers to observe something. If that is the case you must be worthy of its attention. Even if it can pay omniscient attention to 50,000,000 things at once, it will have to pick and choose what to focus on. I can not speak for it, just theory from my own interactions.

B: "and it could communicate with anyone, why it would not want to do so?"
I certainly do not choose to communicate with just anyone. Girls in bars do not want to communicate with just anyone. Why assume a disembodied entity of God-like force would?

C: Yes. I do have inside information. Impossible to prove. Dangerous to the Ego to even speak that out loud. Don't have any interest in that line of discussion.

Originally Posted by Sivason

A: I have no idea if it is "a Cosmic Mind" as the things we can make contact with may be nothing more than "God-like." I am not claiming one may interact with the creator of the universe. Maybe, maybe not. One may communicate with very powerful disembodied entities that may as well be "God" from the tiny perspective I have on the universe. They/ it can definitely help one greatly in reaching enlightened awareness, but I think they may not have unlimited attention. I think it/ they has omniscient when it bothers to observe something. If that is the case you must be worthy of its attention. Even if it can pay omniscient attention to 50,000,000 things at once, it will have to pick and choose what to focus on. I can not speak for it, just theory from my own interactions.

B: "and it could communicate with anyone, why it would not want to do so?"
I certainly do not choose to communicate with just anyone. Girls in bars do not want to communicate with just anyone. Why assume a disembodied entity of God-like force would?

C: Yes. I do have inside information. Impossible to prove. Dangerous to the Ego to even speak that out loud. Don't have any interest in that line of discussion.

A: A cosmic mind could be the mind of a planet, a galaxy or the whole universe. IT is not important which is what in the regard. The idea of generating messages is not concerned with which entity one is communicating with, but rather what the entity has to say for itself in relation to the individual.
How are your own interactions undertaken?

B: I will always communicate with those who chose to communicate with me. I see no reason why this wouldn't be a standard thing re all conscious intelligence able to or given the opportunity to do so.

C: Without evidence to support your statement I cannot be expected to trust it is true.

VVilliam-
Hehe, i see your point, and its a good one. The uninterpretability of the maths, method used to generate the messages, and focusing on that fact, that from maths you can get coherent messages, (as messages from the universe, if i didnt misinderstood) its a good approach to get to a seemingly undeniable truth as the method to "send" the messages is logically undeniable. Howeever
(Im stealing this from you, summerlander, sorry for that)
"If an observer of a genuinely scientific spirit were called upon to verify that a man's leg, after amputation, had suddenly grown again as before, whether in a miraculous pool or anywhere else, he would not cry: "Lo! a miracle." He would say this: "An observation, so far unique, points us to a presumption that under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganising themselves like a crab's or lobster's claws and a lizard's tail, but much more rapidly. Here we have a fact of nature in apparent contradiction with several other facts of the like sort. The contradiction arises from our ignorance, and clearly shows that the science of animal physiology must be reconstituted, or to speak more accurately, that it has never yet been properly constituted. It is little more than two hundred years since we first had any true conception of the circulation of the blood. It is barely a century since we learned what is implied in the act of breathing."

Yep, everything can be accepted or negated, even maths. We humans have the power to decide on our own beliefs, and maths can convince many people, but there are other paths to even stronger beliefs, which normally comes form oneself. To be believed, a method, or a truth, needs to be trusted The person needs to have faith in the method, and there are methods much better on that, at least on humans. Ask every person about giving away everything they love for a logical or mathematical truth that says they will be in a better place. Then ask the same, but assuring them that they will be on a better place, because they already know so. Without any argument. Many people have their own beliefs on a better place after death, and now you are targetting them, and each is non mathematical, as math cant prove anything after death, An undeniable mathemathical truth is only undeniable mathemathically, humans still have the final word, and the only one that matters, when believing something, after all

Originally Posted by Sivason

A: I have no idea if it is "a Cosmic Mind" as the things we can make contact with may be nothing more than "God-like." I am not claiming one may interact with the creator of the universe. Maybe, maybe not. One may communicate with very powerful disembodied entities that may as well be "God" from the tiny perspective I have on the universe. They/ it can definitely help one greatly in reaching enlightened awareness, but I think they may not have unlimited attention. I think it/ they has omniscient when it bothers to observe something. If that is the case you must be worthy of its attention. Even if it can pay omniscient attention to 50,000,000 things at once, it will have to pick and choose what to focus on. I can not speak for it, just theory from my own interactions.

B: "and it could communicate with anyone, why it would not want to do so?"
I certainly do not choose to communicate with just anyone. Girls in bars do not want to communicate with just anyone. Why assume a disembodied entity of God-like force would?

B - I think it does want to communicate with us. The problem is, we have to be receptive, and we have to be ready. It's waiting for us to let it in. Before that happens? Nothing will happen for us.

Think, too. If all of our answers were given during life, "life" wouldn't exist, or it would exist without feeling, as in, we wouldn't feel "alive". We would know it to be an illusion, not real, boring. We [our Higher Self] hides things from our Little Self, so that we may have the experience of "life". Life includes things that are not pleasant, like hardship, pain, loss, and a lack of understanding. Why would a higher power let us experience those things? Because, it's through experiencing these things that we are able to understand and truly appreciate their opposites: abundance, joy, love, and faith. And although life is short, I believe our Soul grows from experiences like that, and that sort of growth transcends any one lifetime. So there is purpose in not knowing or not understanding everything.

So, yes, I believe our Higher Self does not reveal itself automatically. It wants us to reach out first. It wants to be let it in, for us to learn to trust the universe, to have faith. And in learning this, our Soul grows.


-----

Also, I do believe in messages in the mundane, such as your word program William, or even the newspaper. You can turn on the radio, and often times the first or second song, you'll realize has some meaning to your life. You can pick up a book randomly, and that book? It will have something in it, that if you read, is just what you needed to know at that time. There is no such thing as coincidence.

Yeah!

Yes thel - we do hold onto beliefs as the precious things that they appear to be...

And it is true that some messages will challenge individual beliefs - if my own experience is anything to go by.

And in relation to the idea of a "message" this can be any experience we conscious individuals have.

Lucid dreams are messages.
OOBEs are messages.

A light breeze arriving and kissing my cheek at the same moment I am "thinking life is beautiful", is a message.

From my experience, the systems I use re generating messages have sometimes challenged my beliefs, and I know how hard that can be, and have even sulked on occasion and refused to commune for weeks afterward, until I calm down, through thinking about things and coming to better conclusion - being honest about my beliefs and letting go of those ones which are resistant to change or suppress my ability to move forward...

My observations based upon my experience of life as a human being - to date - re the subject of what happens when we die is largely based upon the study of the stories that folk who claim to have had NDEs and such type experiences bring to the table.

What I have noticed therein equates to a picture which informs me that the most likely thing which happens in what I refer to as The Next Level - is that we immediately start experiencing a reality which appears to be set up that way and we enter it, but what is actually occurring is that it is something we create for ourselves as the nature of The Next Phase is such that IT responds to each individual personalities belief systems, as well as their overall attitude, and even their deepest hidden things - things they know they have hidden, and things which are so deep, even they are unaware of said things.

This interaction - the nature of The Next Phase environment, and the overall consciousness of the individual [including those subconscious and unconscious realms] come into play, and - largely unknown to those experiencing this almost instantly manifesting reality the enter into - that it is they who are creating the very thing which they are experiencing.

In some ways, that is exactly what Lucid Dreaming helps an individual practice at - creating and maintaining their own realities to suit their beliefs - in preparation for 'The Main Event".

The Math I speak of is not how the messages are generated, but another system incorporating language [sound-based] by using the symbols which represent the sound of language, with symbols which represent numbers and thus, the simple code {A=6...Z=26} allows for one to create a growing data-base and cross-examine the results.


So I have two lists. One I call a "ComList", where I place words/word-strings as line entries:
Presently my ComList has 2657 line entries on 55 pages. [I use MSWord and the Time New Roman font @ size 12]

The other list [same font settings] I refer to as Name2Number and is currently 81 pages.

When generating a message, I usually have both documents open...

I will proceed now with example of how GMs are constructed...as the first post of a thread I will create for the purpose of examining said processes...and link this post to that one.
[Link to that Thread]

Cheers

W

Originally Posted by thel

(Im stealing this from you, summerlander, sorry for that) "If an observer of a genuinely scientific spirit were called upon to verify that a man's leg, after amputation, had suddenly grown again as before, whether in a miraculous pool or anywhere else, he would not cry: "Lo! a miracle." He would say this: "An observation, so far unique, points us to a presumption that under conditions still undetermined, the tissues of a human leg have the property of reorganising themselves like a crab's or lobster's claws and a lizard's tail, but much more rapidly. Here we have a fact of nature in apparent contradiction with several other facts of the like sort. The contradiction arises from our ignorance, and clearly shows that the science of animal physiology must be reconstituted, or to speak more accurately, that it has never yet been properly constituted. It is little more than two hundred years since we first had any true conception of the circulation of the blood. It is barely a century since we learned what is implied in the act of breathing."

Yep, everything can be accepted or negated, even maths. We humans have the power to decide on our own beliefs, and maths can convince many people, but there are other paths to even stronger beliefs, which normally comes form oneself. To be believed, a method, or a truth, needs to be trusted The person needs to have faith in the method, and there are methods much better on that, at least on humans. Ask every person about giving away everything they love for a logical or mathematical truth that says they will be in a better place. Then ask the same, but assuring them that they will be on a better place, because they already know so. Without any argument. Many people have their own beliefs on a better place after death, and now you are targetting them, and each is non mathematical, as math cant prove anything after death, An undeniable mathemathical truth is only undeniable mathemathically, humans still have the final word, and the only one that matters, when believing something, after all

It's alright, thel! I believe I got that from the philosopher David Hume.

The scenario is very useful in reminding us that we should never assume we can spot miracles, because, in order to do so, we need to be qualified to understand and describe all cosmic matters first and that is simply a level of comprehension that no human being has presently achieved.

VVilliam:

Intriguing mathematical wordplay and thanks for linking it to this thread! I'm just struggling to separate it from the misgivings one might have about pareidolia or even Bibliomancy. What is the difference between what can be derived from your system and how one might react to a 'library of Babel', as it were?

Originally Posted by Summerlander

It's alright, thel! I believe I got that from the philosopher David Hume.

The scenario is very useful in reminding us that we should never assume we can spot miracles, because, in order to do so, we need to be qualified to understand and describe all cosmic matters first and that is simply a level of comprehension that no human being has presently achieved.

Just because something has a scientific explanation doesn't mean it isn't a miracle. I believe we do not have be qualified for anything to call a something a miracle. Miracle, just like any other word in the human language, is subjective and based on our perception. What is a miracle to me, may not be to you, and that is OK. We are each allowed to decide for ourselves what constitutes a miracle.

Life is a miracle.

I completely understand where you are coming from, MoonageDaydream. I've just been watching a documentary about Colin Pitchfork and how he was caught—it was the first criminal case where DNA printing was used for the first time. The police needed a 'miracle' and lo and behold, there was a scientific breakthrough not too far away from where the unsolved murders had taken place which would help to bring justice to the victims' families.

Jung also spoke of synchronicity and how we can find coincidences meaningful. That is absolutely true regardless of the fact that events are open to a multitude of interpretations.

I only spoke in the Humean context as the philosopher wrestled with claims about what's possible and what's not from the pious in his lifetime. Their definition of miracle was something that is necessarily impossible to occur in nature. But in order to declare an impossibility an event that has taken place, one has to be absolutely sure that the laws of physics would not permit it. At the time, pressure to get naturalists to prematurely conclude that certain phenomena were miraculous was a common tall order.

I completely get, however, the feasibility of a higher power camouflaging its deeds with explicable series of mundane cause-and-effect. I don't think we are in disagreement here. What I'm offering here is not absolutist in any sense and I apologise if I've given that impression.

I'm just struggling to separate it from the misgivings one might have about pareidolia or even Bibliomancy.

That's alright - one has to do the science and find repeatability therein - is any is to be found Such subjects are part of the mainstream thought and I have both on my ComList as line entries. Such is relevant if such proves itself true to the individual subjective experience.
The science is in the data, and the way the data is organized by an apparently random process.
Remember, that system is designed around the opposing claims that {A} the unfolding universe is the product a mindless random event and that {B} the universe is the product of a mindful purpose.

The thing being, that such synchronicities which organize themselves, are less likely to be what one would expect from {A} and more likely what one would expect from {B}

What is the difference between what can be derived from your system and how one might react to a 'library of Babel', as it were?

Not sure what you are referring to here, but the story of Babel from the Bible has to do with the human language and how it was used and the interference with that process by Elohim;

"let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7

How one reacts to a "The Library of Babel" is to organize it into a library of orderliness and sensibility. One of the useful things I have found along these lines in using the Message Generating System is how words are uncommonly used together, which creates a neural reaction as it helps one to think about things differently from how one has been taught to think about things, through common language use.

In essence, the individual human life - as with all individuate consciousnesses - is a subjective experience and rather than make claims such as from {A} or {B} positions, one is wiser to simply do the science and find out for one self, and publish the system and results for others to replicate if they choose to do so.

My ComList is a type of shorthand Journaling and is a living document for that.

Any reservations one has with the system should be addressed through said system, which means that the individual has to apply the system in order to see for themselves its validity.

No amount of toing and froing between you and I will help anyone's reservations - and if you have any, then these need to be counted as possible bias on your part for not wanting to do the science for yourself.

"The Science" in this case is to create your own ComList with a decent amount of line-entries similar in number to my own ComList and find if there is repeatability involved regarding the use of apparently random ways in which to select entry lines and generate coherent messages.

Not to do so, means one forfeits the right to make statements which draw presumed conclusions as to what is taking place re the process...

@thel:

Anatole France! That's who I got it from, thel. Not Hume—though he had also expressed strong scepticism about such matters.

@VVilliam:

The thing being, that such synchronicities which organize themselves, are less likely to be what one would expect from {A} and more likely what one would expect from {B}

From my perspective, I lean more towards the case being the other way around. To me randomness is not really a thing in itself as much as it is an anthropic notion—a word to indicate how things appear to us when we can't detect any patterns or derive a sense of orderliness. And it is also demonstrable that people's idea of what constitutes randomness normally doesn't match what is produced by random number generators—I know this from having worked as a bookmaker for years; punters simply could crack the machines which, having programs that worked to obliterate patterns and prevent predictability, occasionally produced obvious numerical sequences or repetitions that taunted the gamblers.

Which brings me to my next point: One would reasonably expect synchronicities or coincidences to occur in both scenarios A and B. If no coincidences ever occurred in a godless universe then that would certainly be mighty strange. What I'm saying is that someone has to win the lottery, so to speak. In a similar vein, in gazillions of dreams that are experienced every night, some are bound to impress in seeming to be precognitive after the fact in a world that arose from 'random' quantum fluctuations. I know you wouldn't deny this because you also spoke in likelihoods. Not to mention our human tendency to mention and record those 'significant' dreams whilst largely neglecting those that don't speak to us enough and practically miss the point if brought up during interesting discourses.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but the story of Babel from the Bible has to do with the human language and how it was used and the interference with that process by Elohim;

"let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Genesis 11:7

I wasn't referring to the Bible there. As I mentioned to thel in a previous post, I was talking about ...

'... a marvellous and intriguing story by Jorge Luis Borges (a giant literary luminary once admired and visited by the great Christopher Hitchens in Argentina) entitled The Library of Babel. To me the story serves as a philosophical analogy for human beings living in a bewildering cosmos in search for truth and meaning and often seeing what they want to see, a kind of pareidolia, if you will. It certainly expresses an element of a myriad possibilities coming to fruition and certainly pertinent to the spellbinding powers of language. Notice that the library is sufficiently vast (not infinite) to incite meaningful stirrings in the fallible humans, who, had they been immortal and eternal, would have been at a loss to find purpose and novelty; as Kafka once said, "The meaning of life is that it ends."

'The story is about a mystical library containing a vast number of interlinked hexagonal rooms, each lined with books. Each of these books contains 410 pages and together they bear every possible random permutation of alphabet characters and basic punctuation. Thus, the library contains, of course, mainly nonsense, but the inhabitants of the library are convinced that there is mysterious meaning in those pages, especially when they come across phrases or words that have arbitrarily fallen into place amongst the random combinations of letters. Imagine having housed there every possible sequence of characters! Every book ever written and every book that could ever be written will be included there somewhere! Which means that your autobiography will be found on the shelves, along with the book that correctly predicts how you will die (as well as the book that tells you the steps to take to avoid that particular death). This causes cults to spring up, and throughout history, sections of the library are destroyed by groups such as the "Purifiers" who which to rid the library of what they deem to be nonsense. You begin to see the genius of Borges. Others believe that a book must exist somewhere on the shelves that contains the key to understanding the collection's contents, and they search for the messianic "Man of the Book" who will have read it and can unlock the library's secrets.

'The Library of Babel contains a nihilistic premise which isn't considered by the groups who believe the library must contain some kind of profound meaning and significant truth to be found; purpose is derived in the search to unlock "secrets" while the real truth is that the library might as well be empty, something humans are reluctant to contemplate precisely because it ostensibly threatens to render their existence and chosen ventures pointless and ultimately fruitless—as though a cosmic voice taunts us with the statement, "You think you're special? Think again ..." Nihilism is anathema to the majority of people, thus many appeal for consoling religious narratives in an attempt to avoid a dispiriting concept about the world. With this in mind, here's a profound quote from someone who carefully observed human expression as we progress into a post-Enlightenment world and try to do away with superstition:

"We think we can congratulate ourselves on having already reached such a pinnacle of clarity, imagining that we have left all these phantasmal gods far behind. But what we have left behind are only verbal spectres, not the psychic facts that were responsible for the birth of the gods."~Carl Jung'

More to the point, the meaning that is derived is purely subjective and often the result of confirmation bias—a bias with psychological origins that, according to Jung, go back aeons, possibly predating our species in evolution. Donald Hoffman has also made the point that we most likely evolved an inaccurate perspective of the world that enables us to survive, instead of one that is accurate but which would have overwhelmed us early in our history to the point of driving us to extinction.

So, again, my question is something along these lines: How can you be sure that your ComList is not just another Borgesian library scenario?

So, again, my question is something along these lines: How can you be sure that your ComList is not just another Borgesian library scenario?

I have been using this method of communion for over 20 years. I developed it from another method I was using, so that I could use a computer to sped up the process.
It is of course, designed for subjective use because we cannot escape that position, for reasons already mentioned.
It is also quite obviously a device in which assists the individual with deeper introspection, as it provides confirmation.

One must of course be aware of ones bias but also remember that bias built upon results is not to be frowned upon.

I have asked others, and received no answer to my questioning the belief that the universe developed from a mindless process.

At least this method shows me that there really isn't such a thing as pure or true randomness. So other explanations have to be examined, such as "The Library of Babel" ...the best I can do with this is to add "The Library of Babel" to my ComList and see if and when it gets a mention, as to what the context is and what the "Cosmic Mind" has to say about it.

What I can do immediately is place the phrase through the word-value algorithm;

"The Library of Babel" = 161

And check it re other word-strings under that same number...and immediately I have a 'hit' as it were, with the word-string;

"Universal Mind" = 161

Which one can only agree is quiet the coincidence re what we are discussing here and now...

And that is the other thing which requires explanation. How is it that sound [which is what human language is] can be codified and shown correlate with the symbols of language and mathematics.

The obvious answer is that the universe is an intelligent creation...obvious to me at least.

I am open to other explanations.

By the fact itself = 161
And that’s not all = 161
Body Intelligence = 161

Thanks for you questions and interest. I will link these discussions in the Message Generating thread as they are relevant to that topic.

That might have been enough to convince you but not me, I'm afraid. But I can see how some people might find it compelling ...

You immediately made a profoundly meaningful association, akin to a message or revelation from an overmind beyond our world, as if to say that the proverbial Library of Babel—which can be anthropically interpreted in a number of ways—IS the very universal mind according to your numerical system and that is too much coincidence.

But I could break that spell for you by stating that the result you came up with isn't remotely pertinent to the library itself by pointing out that there is a great semantic chasm between what is, in essence, a locale (for a story's events) and the concept of a mind. The library, with its many symbols, isn't a mind, and the library I referred to in particular is only fictitious. I could also play word games to further shatter the illusion of profound association by pointing out that the different interpretations the library begets are divisive—which defies the notion of universal (one version). And if I feel like being pendantic, I'll point out that we were talking about a 'cosmic mind'. All of a sudden 'Library of Babel' and 'Universal Mind' seem light-years apart with my input ...

I think one ought to be careful with apophenia even though it is a byproduct of a brain trying to make sense of the world and sometimes seeing meaning where there is none. I don't mean to be a spoilsport but I don't think we'll see eye to eye here. But that's fine. I am not asserting that nihilism is true beyond all reasonable doubt, but I am sure you can appreciate why there are those of us who have developed a thick sceptical skin over the years. I think it is very healthy when there are some many knaves spinning yarns ...

In 1848 in New York, Kate and Margaret Fox convinced their family and neighbours that the spirits of dead people could produce 'rappings' in their abode, the site of the first informal séances in the country. By the time they admitted the hoax—where they cracked their toe joints to create the noise—spiritualism had swept across America and Victorian England, and their confessions were ignored. Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of Sherlock Holmes) had become an outspoken advocate of what was at the time a novel pseudoscience.

Language isn't just sounds—otherwise we wouldn't have sign language. It also comes in written format. Our minds can codify just about anything. We can even make observations about an impressive mathematical world and come up with the language of mathematics, with numbers for symbols to map it out. And reality is somewhat understandable using our brains but none of this is compelling evidence for the universe being intelligently designed. There are so many 'mistakes' that nature has made in the course of evolution that strongly suggest otherwise. Just about anyone on the planet, in fact, can imagine better world's than this—hence inventions and technological progress to improve our lives. If we suffer with myopias, what do we do? We create spectacles and contact lenses to remedy that. We make up for our frailties by being imaginative and inventive because we see how nature fails us.

'Very few people find a better partner without the pain of breaking up with a previous one. We don't change our career without first letting our current job get us down. We don't start anything new without the pain of ending the old or the frustration of enduring it.
~Derren Brown

I think you totally missed the point, but that is okay.

Maybe I did and if you can come up with another elaborate way to sway me to your point of view feel free to add to this thread. I see that your links are now working on your Messages Generating thread so I will be exploring your ComList further as I still find it interesting and I thank you for sharing that. By the way, when using it, do we always have to start with the date? Let me come up with a word and see if you can coach me on your thread. Keep an eye on it, VVillem ...

Originally Posted by Summerlander

Maybe I did and if you can come up with another elaborate way to sway me to your point of view feel free to add to this thread. I see that your links are now working on your Messages Generating thread so I will be exploring your ComList further as I still find it interesting and I thank you for sharing that. By the way, when using it, do we always have to start with the date? Let me come up with a word and see if you can coach me on your thread. Keep an eye on it, VVillem ...

It is not my intent to sway anyone but to simply reveal what it is I have found, and if folk want to repeat the method, they are free to do so and even better if they do and report their own findings.

The date [and time] are simply part of the science - for the purpose of keeping record.

I have added "Developed a thick sceptical skin" and "Apophenia" to my ComList.

Developed a thick sceptical skin = 281
Apophenia = 85

Search "Apophenia"
Apophenia, or patternicity, is characterized by seeing patterns in unrelated things. Anyone can experience this, but if you live with schizophrenia, it may be part of a delusion.

Apophenia, also known as patternicity, means seeing patterns in random events.

[The ideas that there is actually such a thing as 'random events' or that things can actually be unrelated, have not yet been shown to be true.]


Please do join me in my thread. I welcome peer review.

Cheers
W

I agree with you about random events not being objective and randomness itself merely being a notion wholly tied to a subjective impression. But I also see the notion of patterns being tied to human perception as a necessity required to apprehend opposite concepts such as entropy (where human brains cannot detect any kind of order and therefore lack the power to make predictions about future events). Meanwhile, the unfolding universe can be viewed as a single causal pattern of events (conveying a 'domino effect') or a single quantum wave with a meaningless structure.

I think I will join your thread with these ideas purely because this thread is in the religious section and yours is scientific/mathematical (both both are certainly linked).
Despite our differing worldviews, at least we have a starting point where we both agree: randomness is not actually a thing in itself.

Hey VVilliam, i have some things im curious about, i wanted to ask you before but i was very busy this week. I tend, and i think you too, to value methods of knowledge for their capacity to be trusted/believed, as its a requirement for the person to become more conscious/wiser/better person, etc. (tell me if you disagree)
So, as your method is different from everything else, i need to ask you about it as the creator of it! How much convinced you are on the method? How did it improve yourself after the years? Do you think that a personal evolution based on the method has some limits, or in other words, the method itself has a limited amount of personal improvement? If so, do you think there are better ones? And, what are your current objectives regarding it?

I know it may be a bunch of questions and im sorry about thatFeel free to skip some or taking your time.

Originally Posted by thel

Hey VVilliam, i have some things im curious about, i wanted to ask you before but i was very busy this week. I tend, and i think you too, to value methods of knowledge for their capacity to be trusted/believed, as its a requirement for the person to become more conscious/wiser/better person, etc. (tell me if you disagree)
So, as your method is different from everything else, i need to ask you about it as the creator of it! How much convinced you are on the method? How did it improve yourself after the years? Do you think that a personal evolution based on the method has some limits, or in other words, the method itself has a limited amount of personal improvement? If so, do you think there are better ones? And, what are your current objectives regarding it?

I know it may be a bunch of questions and im sorry about thatFeel free to skip some or taking your time.

Hi thel

I placed my answers to your questions in the Message Generating thread {LINK}

I still think the story of Job is telling us something there which alludes to something profoundly psychological and human about how we come to view the world after much heartache—a recurring parable that manifests mundanely in our lives as opposed to a real supernatural occurrence. What I'm contending is that the narrative is more of a Jungian maturation and not, as it tends to be believed, an instance where an objective deity reprimands a mere mortal for daring to ask questions about the course of events in his world.

The story might teach us something about when we, as human beings, face difficulties in the real world and find certain events unjust. We may ask 'Why?' or even 'Why me?' only to realise, through the pure consciousness of the fact that things happen willy-nilly, that the universe does not care whether or not we have a problem with it and that it is our responsibility to find a way to deal with what happens in our heads. Ultimately, we have to manage our emotions and attempt to conquer ourselves and this can only take place when we pay attention to the way we really are. Sometimes we have to be malleable because, if we remain rigid, we are liable to break.

Job's question is met with a cryptic reply from God, like a father saying to a son who happens to be unhappy with the circumstances at home and throws a tantrum that he has no right to complain because the rules under the paternal roof have long been established prior to his birth. It's like the adult saying to the child (although not precisely using these words), 'Where were you when I bought this house?' or 'Where were you when I built this abode and can you even comprehend my reasons for it?' 'Are you mature and sophisticated enough to truly grasp my plans which go beyond your feelings of inconvenience?'

Indeed, the reasons for the way the house is could be to reinforce shelter or to even start a business that will bring in more revenue which will ultimately benefit the man's wayward progeny. The father, then, begins to teach the son about patience—that things won't always go his way—that effort is sometimes required, and that we must, at some point, face our feelings and emotions as well as becoming responsible for our actions. If we are going to survive, we must adapt to our environments and make changes for the better if we can help it. What follows is a bit of faith that we can overcome things even if it feels overwhelming. We have to find out if we can surmount trouble and carry the 'cross' as far as we can. That's where the brave son comes in, the hero emulation ... Christ.

So, if the universe fathered humankind but also manifested a myriad things prior to the existence of life on Earth, we must realise that we are here only as a consequence and there is nothing to blame because the universe is driven by blind forces. How to deal with the impersonal cosmos by working on ourselves then becomes a practical recipe for life. We are responsible for what we make of our lives including giving it meaning. As Sartre put it when he meant 'purpose' by using the word 'essence': for the kitchen utensil essence precedes its existence, but for a human being, existence precedes essence. We must find our calling and decide how we are going to be useful and lead a meaningful life lest we waste it—which is always a possibility. The question is, What are you going to do with your life? and if things come at you or s**t happens, well, What are you going to do about it?

Originally Posted by Summerlander

The story might teach us something about when we, as human beings, face difficulties in the real world and find certain events unjust. We may ask 'Why?' or even 'Why me?' only to realise, through the pure consciousness of the fact that things happen willy-nilly, that the universe does not care whether or not we have a problem with it and that it is our responsibility to find a way to deal with what happens in our heads. Ultimately, we have to manage our emotions and attempt to conquer ourselves and this can only take place when we pay attention to the way we really are. Sometimes we have to be malleable because, if we remain rigid, we are liable to break.

...

How to deal with the impersonal cosmos by working on ourselves then becomes a practical recipe for life. We are responsible for what we make of our lives including giving it meaning. As Sartre put it when he meant 'purpose' by using the word 'essence': for the kitchen utensil essence precedes its existence, but for a human being, existence precedes essence. We must find our calling and decide how we are going to be useful and lead a meaningful life lest we waste it—which is always a possibility. The question is, What are you going to do with your life? and if things come at you or s**t happens, well, What are you going to do about it?

Doesn't care? I'm not sure I agree. Trying to teach a lesson, more like. When bad things happen to us, I think there's usually a reason. And, I believe, the universe does care. Source is love, after all. Love wants the best for others (and our Self). However, we don't always see that what happens to us may be the best for us in the long run. We may need to learn some very important lessons, and the only way to learn them is through hardship. This is not uncaring. It's tough love.

Don't forget, death is not the end. So, when you back up and view things from bird's eye, the things we consider "unjust" may just be small fries.

Edit: I think came off insensitive. I think sometimes things happen that are not fated or anything, and they can very bad. However, there is always something to be learned, or almost always something.