Consciousness is the illusion
Stephen Calder
-- Consciousness IS the illusion
Some of the research being done by cognitive scientists into the nature
of consciousness has fascinating parallels with what the Course says:
that the world and all we see in it is a vast illusion. Our senses are
deceiving us.
“How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true
now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no
effects. And that is all. Can this be hard to learn by anyone who WANTS
it to be true? Only unwillingness to learn it could make such an easy
lesson difficult. How hard is it to see that what is false can not be
true, and what is true can not be false? You can no longer say that you
perceive no differences in false and true. You have been told exactly
how to tell one from the other, and just what to do if you become
confused. Why, then, do you persist in learning not such simple things?”
(Start of Chapter 31, HLC). [The way to tell, of course, is to ask
whether it is eternal, since only the eternal is true].
“Have you not wondered what the world is REALLY like; how it would look
through HAPPY eyes? The world you see is but a judgment on yourself. It
is not there at all. Yet judgment lays a sentence on it, justifies it,
and makes it REAL. Such is the world you see; a judgment on yourself,
and made by YOU. This sickly picture of yourself is carefully preserved
by the ego, whose image it is and which it loves, and placed outside you
in the world. And to this world must you adjust, as long as you believe
this picture is outside, and has you at its mercy. This world IS
merciless, and were it outside you, you should indeed be fearful. Yet it
was you who MADE it merciless, and now if mercilessness seems to look
back at you, it can be CORRECTED.” (Chapter 20, Sin As An Adjustment, HLC).
“It is as needful that you recognize you made the world you see as that
you recognize that you did not create yourself. THEY ARE THE SAME
MISTAKE. Nothing created not by your Creator has any influence over you.
And if you think what you have made can tell you what you see and feel,
and place your faith in its ability to do so, you are denying your
Creator, and believing that you made yourself. For if you think the
world you made has power to make you what it wills, you ARE confusing
Son and Father; effect and Source.” (Chapter 21, The Responsibility for
Sight, HLC).
If you doubt that your senses are deceiving you, remember the
high-school experiment where you drew two dots on a sheet of cardboard
or paper, spaced about as far apart as the distance between your eyes
(around 5 inches or 13 cm). Now hold the cardboard up in front of you,
and close your left eye. Focus your right eye on the left dot, and
moving the cardboard back and forth until it reaches a distance where
the second dot disappears and all you see is the background (plain white
if you are using white cardboard). If you tried, you may want to know
why this happens. At the point where the optic nerve joins the retina,
there is a blind spot which, unless the brain filled it in, would look
like a black spot on your vision. The brain automatically fills in this
spot all the time, and because it is not near the focus of our vision
(that is, it is not in the centre of our vision field, but a little
below and to one side), we do not normally notice that it has been
filled in by the brain, which looks at the whole picture and
extrapolates what that section “must” look like. Obviously, the brain
does this at some level below the conscious threshold, since at the
conscious level we know that what the brain (eye) seems to be reporting
is not true.
How much else of what the brain or eye is reporting is not true?
Physicist Paul Davies, in his book About Time (Penguin 1995) tells of
the following experiment:
Psychologists have devised some ingenious ways to help unpack the human
“now”. Consider how we run those jerky movie frames together into a
smooth and continuous conscious stream. This is known as the “phi
phenomenon”. The essence of the phi phenomenon shows up in experiments
in a darkened room where two small spots are briefly lit in quick
succession in slightly separated locations. What the subjects report
seeing is not a succession of spots, but a *single* spot moving
continuously back and forth…
In a fascinating refinement of the experiment, the first spot is colored
red, the second green. This clearly presents the brain with a problem.
How will it join together the two discontinuous experiences—red spot,
green spot—smoothly? …In fact, subjects report seeing the spot change
color abruptly in the middle of the imagined trajectory, and are even
able to indicate exactly where using a pointer. This result leaves us
wondering how the subject can apparently experience the “correct” color
sensation *before* the green spot lights up. Is it a type of
precognition? Commenting on this eerie phenomenon, the philosopher
Nelson Goodman wrote suggestively: “The intervening motion is produced
retrospectively, built only after the second flash occurs and projected
backwards in time.” (pp 266-267)
And a little later in the same chapter, Davies quotes the Multiple
Drafts theory of consciousness proposed by philosopher Daniel Dennett,
which theorizes that consciousness is the sum total of all the streams
of data received by the brain, taken together:
In the Multiple Drafts theory, there is nothing so clear-cut as a
one-to-one matching of physical events with mental events. The subject
builds up a narrative about the world from a range of information
streams (drafts) which are continually subject to editing and even
retraction. Each stream may provide its own time line, to be placed
alongside the time line of objective events. It may often happen that an
informational time line “loops back” for a few milliseconds relative to
other informational time lines, or to “objective time”, thereby further
refining the editing process. The result is the compelling illusion of a
smooth and consistent meta-narrative being presented to an independent
spectator.
In other words, your brain is lying to you, and Lesson 7 of the Course
is literally true. “I see only the past.” Not only is egoic perception
limited, and edited to match, previous experience (so that the future is
a continual recreation of the past as same moment of fear is lived over
and over) but I literally delay my conscious experience of the world and
my body so that I can ensure discrepancies in the data flow can be
edited out. This may include anything that is at odds with my previous
worldview!
In other words, I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
feeding me is true.
According to the Course, none of it.
“I am upset because I see what is not there.”
Only when you are no longer upset can you see correctly, with Vision
rather than sight. Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset. Happy
eyes look out on a world filled with love, seeing past the form, or
through it, to the certainty of Oneness.
Stephen
Byron Bay, Australia
R1200C
Tomaso
~ Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out.
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
http://www.angelic-visions.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~miraclestudies
http://peacefulpath.home.att.net/
Stephen Calder
> Stephen "Consciousness IS the illusion"
>
>
> ~ Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out.
>
>
LOL! I love it.
--
Tomaso
I wrote "Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out."
Stephen "LOL! I love it."
~ Although your consciousness may be possessed by illusions, it is not
an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be purified
and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the ego's
offering.
JELLY
:
: -- Consciousness IS the illusion
<snip>
:
: In other words, I have no way of knowing how
Without your cute little mischievous brain
ACIM wouldn't exist for you either ;)))
: According to the Course, none of it.
:
: “I am upset because I see what is not there.”
Well, its obviously very upsetting not to see
what is there, and keep running into things.
: Only when you are no longer upset can you see
: correctly, with Vision rather than sight.
: Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset.
: Happy eyes look out on a world filled with
: love, seeing past the form, or through it,
: to the certainty of Oneness.
Yes Stephen, I still acknowledge that ACIM might
be a legitimate way for some (few?) people to
extend their realm of consciousness, and part of
that involves healing (over)indulgence and
investment in (petty) ego games.
My experience and observation is that ACIM is
more likely to worsen the problem of some people
with certain dispositions, especially by those
with a lack of maturity, stability and (natural?)
ability to handle abstraction intellectually.
BTW, do know the author Eckhart Tolle,
and if so, what do you think?
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Tomaso
more likely to worsen the problem of some people
with certain dispositions, especially by those
with a lack of maturity, stability and (natural?)
ability to handle abstraction intellectually."
~ Can you give an example from your experience and observation of
someone whose problem was worsened by ACIM? I'm especially interested
in what you consider the "problem" to have been, and how it was
worsened.
mr bill
:)
mr bill
:)
Tomaso
~ Who's to say? What was he like *before* all of his "ah-ha" moments?
JELLY
: Jelly "My experience and observation is that ACIM is
: more likely to worsen the problem of some people
: with certain dispositions, especially by those
: with a lack of maturity, stability and (natural?)
: ability to handle abstraction intellectually."
:
:
: ~ Can you give an example from your experience
: and observation of someone whose problem was
: worsened by ACIM? I'm especially interested
: in what you consider the "problem" to have
: been, and how it was worsened.
Quite simple, I am an example. Its nothing I
can prove, least of all here, because here things
get twisted and abused, more than anything else.
Good old friends (some intimate), and family ...
God knows ...
meaningless
why bother
to say goodbye
SJH
and downloads etc? Are there any others out there besides his and
acim.forplanetearth.com? I'm looking for the program that seems to be a
searchable version or Robert Perry's ACIM glossary.
Thanks,
SJH
Tomaso
the course and downloads etc? Are there any others out there besides
his and acim.forplanetearth.com? I'm looking for the program that
seems to be a searchable version or Robert Perry's ACIM glossary."
~ Dang. I can't find that link right now. I've got it around here
somewhere. Maybe later. Maybe somebody else has it handy.
Tomaso
worsened by ACIM? I'm especially interested
in what you consider the "problem" to have
been, and how it was worsened.
Jelly "Quite simple, I am an example. Its nothing I
can prove, least of all here, because here things
get twisted and abused, more than anything else.
Good old friends (some intimate), and family ...
God knows ...
meaningless
why bother
to say goodbye"
~ That's still a little vague to me, but I got it that you don't want
to talk about it. OK.
www.dr4baxs.com
~ Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out.
sv: lol
www.dr4baxs.com
an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be purified
and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the ego's
offering.
sv: yes
JELLY
: Can you give an example from your experience
: worsened by ACIM? I'm especially interested
: in what you consider the "problem" to have
: been, and how it was worsened.
Jelly:
: Quite simple, I am an example. Its nothing I
: can prove, least of all here, because here things
: get twisted and abused, more than anything else.
: Good old friends (some intimate), and family ...
: God knows ...
: meaningless
: why bother
: to say goodbye
Tomaso:
: ~ That's still a little vague to me,
: but I got it that you don't want
: to talk about it. OK.
Yes, I'm not a masochist, so its preferable
to keep the vultures away while I'm still alive.
People will try to climb mountains, for whatever
reasons, sometimes "spiritual mountains", where
ACIM can be seen as a map. The only real way
to find out if its valid or not is to climb.
This "mountain" is within, so its essentially
(at least for most of the way) a solitary climb.
No rope, no parachute, no mobile, no rescue,
just stuck, can't go back, can't go on. So there
it is. Choice is to freeze and fall, or jump.
Now that's not very specific, nor is it vague.
JELLY
Noggin
" www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041207124527...@mb-m12.aol.com...
How did you find this out?
Stephen Calder
> Stephen "Consciousness IS the illusion"
>
> I wrote "Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out."
>
> Stephen "LOL! I love it."
>
>
> ~ Although your consciousness may be possessed by illusions, it is not
> an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be purified
> and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the ego's
> offering.
>
I'll go along with that last statement.
But consciousness is the domain of the ego, huh? The ego can't be
purified and returned to communion.
But the mind of the son of God can be purified of its identification
with ego.
Does this mesh with your understanding?
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
> :
> : -- Consciousness IS the illusion
> <snip>
> :
> : In other words, I have no way of knowing how
> : much of what my brain is feeding me is true.
>
> Without your cute little mischievous brain
> ACIM wouldn't exist for you either ;)))
>
> : According to the Course, none of it.
> :
> : “I am upset because I see what is not there.”
>
> Well, its obviously very upsetting not to see
> what is there, and keep running into things.
LOL!
>
> : Only when you are no longer upset can you see
> : correctly, with Vision rather than sight.
> : Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset.
> : Happy eyes look out on a world filled with
> : love, seeing past the form, or through it,
> : to the certainty of Oneness.
>
> Yes Stephen, I still acknowledge that ACIM might
> be a legitimate way for some (few?) people to
> extend their realm of consciousness, and part of
> that involves healing (over)indulgence and
> investment in (petty) ego games.
Sure, but it may take a little time. The ego games have a long history.
From my point of view, I see that they are just kid's games but there
is no point in opposing them, any more than there would be in opposing a
kids' game of cops and robbers.
>
> My experience and observation is that ACIM is
> more likely to worsen the problem of some people
> with certain dispositions, especially by those
> with a lack of maturity, stability and (natural?)
> ability to handle abstraction intellectually.
I think there is a perfect plan of atonement that brings everybody home.
In spring cleaning, the house can look MORE chaotic temporarily as
everything is taken out of cupboards, the furniture moved, and the
drapes taken down. It looks like chaos is being caused, but the ultimate
purpose is the opposite.
>
> BTW, do know the author Eckhart Tolle,
> and if so, what do you think?
I read the Power of Now and I think it's a good expression. I didn't
find much that I thought was out of line with the Course.
--
Stephen Calder
> SJH "What is the address of Doug's site that has all the versions of
> the course and downloads etc? Are there any others out there besides
> his and acim.forplanetearth.com? I'm looking for the program that
> seems to be a searchable version or Robert Perry's ACIM glossary."
>
>
> ~ Dang. I can't find that link right now. I've got it around here
> somewhere. Maybe later. Maybe somebody else has it handy.
>
Here it is, but it only has the text, not the workbook or manual.
ACIM Files Distribution Centre and Library Project
http://ca.geocities.com/dthomp74ca/
--
Tomaso
is not an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be
purified and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the
ego's offering."
Stephen "But consciousness is the domain of the ego, huh? The ego
can't be purified and returned to communion."
~ A definition for "domain" - "A territory over which rule or control
is exercised." In short, consciousness is the part of mind over which
the ego belief system exercised control. Ego is not synonymous with
consciousness. Consciousness is the domain and ego is the ruler.
"The mind, if it elects to do so, becomes a medium by which the Soul
creates along the line of its own Creation. If it does not freely
elect to do so, it retains its creative POTENTIAL, but places itself
under tyrannous rather than genuinely authoritative control. As a
result it imprisons, because such are the dictates of tyrants. To
change your mind means to place it at the disposal of TRUE Authority."
~ Thus, to free your conscious mind from control by the ego belief
system frees to be of service to true authority.
Stephen "But the mind of the son of God can be purified of its
identification with ego."
~ The conscious mind "is the tiny part of yourself, the little thought
that seems split off and separate, which the Holy Spirit needs.
The rest is fully in God's keeping, and NEEDS no guide. Yet this wild
and delusional thought needs help because, in its delusions, it thinks
it is the Son of God, whole and omnipotent, sole ruler of the kingdom
it set apart to tyrannize by madness into obedience and slavery."
"This is the little part of you you think you stole from Heaven. Give
it back to Heaven."
bidhati
> continuously back and forth...
>
> In a fascinating refinement of the experiment, the first spot is
colored
> red, the second green. This clearly presents the brain with a
problem.
> How will it join together the two discontinuous experiences-red
spot,
> green spot-smoothly? ...In fact, subjects report seeing the spot
Stupid! You take a little bit of science, and who knows the credibilty
of the sources you draw from, and twist it to suit your insane beliefs.
You would loooove the Ramptha school, JZ spins all the real science
with the psuedo science and really presents some convincing ideas to
the gullible. They just accept it because they flunked out of science
and math or never went far enough in their studies to understand or
unravel complex ideas. And because they agree with her and get her
approval for accepting her illogical spin, they pride themselves in
being the smartest spiritual group on the planet. The special ones, and
of course, they are much more special than the ACIMites. Why? Because
they are fed that garbage and the little no nothing, never did nothing
emeciles get their 'specialness' feel good fix'. That is, they get the
fix until she chops them down again to let them know that no one is
smarter than Ramtha and the cycle starts all over again.
Stephen, you are right, everything that you are looking at is the
past because even what we receive via vision it takes a nanosecond to
reach us. It is simply about how light travels. The most fascinating
thing is that when we look into the night skies, we are seeing the
events of the past because the light from the stars has not reached us
yet.
The way the human brain, eyes, etc. perceives the universe or
reality is fascinating but not magicical just because it cannot be
explained. Because humans have not reached the point of being able to
explain every little detail of why and what everything happens, it
leaves plenty of loopholes for idiots to put their spin on the
mysteries.
Actually, it always amazes me to observe spiritual nit-wits who
think that they are smarter than scientists that have spent their
entire life in discovery, working with other scholars and scientists.
And their accomplishments speak for themself.
The pea brain spiritualists compile data from the proven and
unbelievable nonsense they choose to accept as fact without any
semblance of proof to support the ideas which cause a brain fart and
then they believe they have invented the wheel.
Believe we, I was into physics and I could talk this shit all
day. From black holes, holgraphic universes, worm holes, to XY
particum, tachyon, quarks, atoms, you name it. I impressed quite a few
people until I decided to talk to some real scientists and read the
facts instead of put my own spin on the brain fart I had. Really, ask
yourself why you are doing this. What purpose does it serve? You are
doing nothing more than trying to impress others and make yourself
think that you are smart.
bidhati
bidhati
> continuously back and forth...
>
> In a fascinating refinement of the experiment, the first spot is
colored
> red, the second green. This clearly presents the brain with a
problem.
> How will it join together the two discontinuous experiences-red
spot,
> green spot-smoothly? ...In fact, subjects report seeing the spot
Stupid! You take a little bit of science, and who knows the credibilty
bidhati
> continuously back and forth...
>
> In a fascinating refinement of the experiment, the first spot is
colored
> red, the second green. This clearly presents the brain with a
problem.
> How will it join together the two discontinuous experiences-red
spot,
> green spot-smoothly? ...In fact, subjects report seeing the spot
Stupid! You take a little bit of science, and who knows the credibilty
bidhati
Ok, Stephen here is a challenge for your newly evolving scientific
mind.
Solve the puzzle.
Consciousness is an Emergent Property.
Here's a little help.
http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife/emergence.html
Stephen Calder
Nothing wrong with science except that it's looking in the wrong place
for the truth. But even there, clues can be found.
No, you're right, I'm not very smart. I don't understand relativity or
quantum physics, mainly because I am not a mathematician. But Paul
Davies, whom I quote here, is recognised scientist with an impressive
record, especially in explaining that stuff to laymen, so I (cautiously)
assume he knows what he's talking about, at least within the confines of
the physical virtual reality.
Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
I think that follows logically, don't you?
--
Paul Michaels
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:harbr0hhc4v6nnvs9...@4ax.com...
In spite of it's intellectual bent,
or perhaps even because of it,
to accept ACIM is an act of
faith. And like all acts of faith
there comes that point in time
where either one leaps into the
abyss or one turns around and
walks away.
Paul
mr bill
:)
"Tomaso" <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote in message news:e5jbr0drs643etvg2...@4ax.com...
Deborah
wrote:
IMO, the course rests on a couple of assumed premises, which have to
be accepted on faith. They are:
1. Nothing real is threatened; and
2. Nothing unreal exists.
Because from our present perspective, there IS nothing real. I mean,
scientifically, how do you prove that something can't be threatened -
ever?
Deborah (BC)
Stephen Calder
I read that and found nothing new to me there.
"....Roger Penrose, claimed that the workings of the human brain cannot
be duplicated by a machine - even in principle. Also many still believe
that there is more to human thought than the mere firing of synapses."
Having read the Emperor's New Mind, I'm going with Penrose on this one.
Computers cannot, in principle, achieve consciousness.
Nevertheless, artifical life has been made and you're it.
Stephen Calder
I have no problem with any of this. Thanks for clarifying.
Paul Michaels
"Deborah" <deborah@invalid> wrote in message
news:rvddr0lro2u73kq3o...@4ax.com...
The truths you list above are
derivative of a greater truth
that is the cornerstone of the
Course. The Course never
comes right out and says, 'This
is the basis of all I assert as
true'. Nevertheless, it exists.
It is the acceptance of this logical
argument from which the
concepts of the Course flow
that is the act of faith. There
is also a non verbalized corollary
to the cornerstone. I have never
seen this corollary expressed by
anyone anywhere.
Course truth is subtle and simple.
Man likes to make things complex
overlooking the obvious and
dismissing it as inconsequential.
Science is a methodology. Observation
and validation is its tool and
its goal respectively. It can't
measure what it can't observe.
It can postulate and form
hypotheses. It cannot prove.
Paul
JELLY
+++ "Paul Michaels" <Sabs...@aol.com> wrote:
: In spite of it's intellectual bent,
: or perhaps even because of it,
: to accept ACIM is an act of
: faith. And like all acts of faith
: there comes that point in time
: where either one leaps into the
: abyss or one turns around and
: walks away.
:
: Paul
+++ "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
Yes, I can relate to the idea of "the leap of faith"
(not to be confused with suicide). ACIM seems to be
one of many paths of preparation to that moment, but
by no means the only one, nor necessarily the best,
except perhaps for people with a deep Christian
conditioning (and/or 'intellectual addiction' and/or
a lack of 'faith in natural intuition'). The reason
for the 'absolute' necessity of fearlessness, defense-
lessness, innocence, etc., is IMO that only such an
'empty' and 'open' mind and heart can cope with that
radical transition. Any residue of negativity would
probably turn it into a leap into hell, oblivion, or
simply another physical cycle on something like planet
Earth, without (or hardly) a trace of recollection ;)
JELLY
:
: "bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Ok, Stephen here is a challenge for your newly
: >
: > Solve the puzzle.
: >
: > Consciousness is an Emergent Property.
: >
: > Here's a little help.
: > http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife/emergence.html
:
: I read that and found nothing new to me there.
:
: "....Roger Penrose, claimed that the workings of the
: human brain cannot be duplicated by a machine - even
: in principle. Also many still believe that there is
: more to human thought than the mere firing of synapses."
:
: Having read the Emperor's New Mind, I'm going with
: Penrose on this one. Computers cannot, in principle,
: achieve consciousness.
:
: Nevertheless, artifical life has been made and you're it.
Ah :-))) yes, and its in great strain too ;)
( in another branch of this subject )
( news:31o7s6F...@individual.net )
Paul Michaels wrote:
"Course truth is subtle and simple.
Man likes to make things complex
overlooking the obvious and
dismissing it as inconsequential.
Science is a methodology. Observation
and validation is its tool and
its goal respectively. It can't
measure what it can't observe.
It can postulate and form
hypotheses. It cannot prove."
I've scanned the web-pages "bidhati" referred to, appears
quite good, with one fundamental drawback, a deep
indulgence into ever increasing details of physical
phenomena. A good path for those that believe that the
analysis of details about complexity (and chaos) is the
best way to 'understand/experience' the fundamental
meaning of what is. From my point of view this will
take ages at least, and in the meantime its in part
quite useful for practical/physical and philosophical
purposes. On those web-pages I found these statements:
Life is
about the fight against entropy.
a complex system.
a dynamic equilibrium.
This sounds very much like "Seek, but do not find.",
or in other words, seeking harmony through conflict.
"bidhati" claims and challenges with:
"Consciousness is an Emergent Property.
Solve the puzzle."
That is only a puzzle if one assumes that what one is
observing, what is observable, is all there is, and
that it functions wholly independent of enabling mind
dimensions. My equally undisprovable claim or theory is,
that the emergence of seemingly exclusively brain/matter
based consciousness and thinking are not the whole story,
but that brains (in particular) have a interface function
to nonphysical mind dimensions - parts (if not all) of a
brains higher functions are then no more than those of a
transceiver, a sender and receiver of thought and ideas.
On the receiver side a brain then is nothing more than a
television. And who would believe that what seems to be
happening on the screen is caused only by what's in the
television?
That's why IMO poking around in the brain to find out how
consciousness and thinking work might quite likely be
futile from a certain point onwards, because no matter how
long you analyse the function of a television, you will
never find the real source of the program in the television
(at best a clue where to seek the source). To damage a
television or brain does not prove that the program or
thoughts are no longer being sent, although observable
behavior make it appear so.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Stephen Calder
You're right. Good points.
Carrie
"bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102460456.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
What do you actually believe in and agree with?
Why aren't you busy living your life in THAT way, instead of trying to make
others who believe differently and agree with wrong. The term "shame" has
been used.
You (and Katie) are big on shaming people and trying to make them feel no
good about themselves and their lives.
Is this what you believe in and agree with and base your life on?
Making yourself feel better by continually trying to make others feel bad?
It's so overdone and obvious.
If you really had such a happy, fulfilling, wonderful, abundant life, you'd
be spending more time living it.
~ Carrie
Robin Evans
the time you both spend here you come out way way way ahead your story is
once again full of holes Carrie, was this another of your feeble attempts at
SHAMING bidhati? - and when it comes to the subject of shame I think what
you are noticing is that they (Katie & bidhati) are merely pointing out
where you and your cult like to use shame to manipulate each other - I do
not see either Katie or bidhati shaming anyone. Shame on you Carrie LOL :)
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Carrie" <star...@kingcon.com> wrote in message
news:cp78s7$u...@library1.airnews.net...
Steve
On 7-Dec-2004, "bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The way the human brain, eyes, etc. perceives the universe or
> reality is fascinating but not magicical just because it cannot be
> explained. Because humans have not reached the point of being able to
> explain every little detail of why and what everything happens, it
> leaves plenty of loopholes for idiots to put their spin on the
> mysteries.
You obviously never put these "magical" theories to the test. If you did you
would see that they work. Scientists are of the most blind people on this
planet. The Scientific Method is a merely system of denial sold to us as a
legitimate tool. It may be useful for those with simple or fearful minds,
but you can bet that anything that keeps you thinking, "inside the box"
comes straight from the ego.
I see your point but be careful not to confuse "gullible" with open
mindedness.
BTW, I do agree with you, JZ aka Ramtha is a major sociopath these days. She
lost it around 1982. Since then it's been down hill all the way.
--
All the best,
Steve
EXIT Realty Agents are Making Over 100%
See how at: www.over100percent.com
Steve
On 7-Dec-2004, Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
> Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
> required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
> could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
>
> I think that follows logically, don't you?
Problem is that Reality is not logical. That's why you want to label what's
not logical to you, i.e. "pain and suffering," as if it cannot be from God,
or is somehow excluded from perfection. I assure you, everything on planet
Earth is in perfect order.
Steve
On 7-Dec-2004, Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
> In other words, I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
> feeding me is true.
>
> According to the Course, none of it.
>
> “I am upset because I see what is not there.”
You are quoting from the early parts of the Workbook who's purpose is to
deprogram your mind. If I were you I would follow the Workbook's
instructions and not take anything in it literally. Especially one of
Wapnick's favorites, "the world was created as an attack on God."
SJH
and downloads etc? Are there any others out there besides his and
acim.forplanetearth.com? I'm looking for the program that seems to be a
searchable version or Robert Perry's ACIM glossary.
--
Warmest regards,
SJH
Robin Evans
It's fully searchable!
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"SJH" <reply_to_me@at_this_newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:VoHtd.49302$Ch2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Stephen Calder
> On 7-Dec-2004, Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
>>required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
>>could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
>>
>>I think that follows logically, don't you?
>
>
> Problem is that Reality is not logical. That's why you want to label what's
> not logical to you, i.e. "pain and suffering," as if it cannot be from God,
> or is somehow excluded from perfection. I assure you, everything on planet
> Earth is in perfect order.
>
Pain and suffering are not from God. Nothing is excluded from
perfection, but pain and suffering are nothing; they are sympttoms of an
insane mind simply getting the results of its erroneous thinking.
Nothing you see with the body's eyes is real. Perfect order on planet
Earth is impossible until your mind is in perfect order.
--
Stephen Calder
> On 7-Dec-2004, Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>In other words, I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
>>feeding me is true.
>>
>>According to the Course, none of it.
>>
>>“I am upset because I see what is not there.”
>
>
> You are quoting from the early parts of the Workbook who's purpose is to
> deprogram your mind. If I were you I would follow the Workbook's
> instructions and not take anything in it literally. Especially one of
> Wapnick's favorites, "the world was created as an attack on God."
>
The workbook contains no such instructions. On the contrary, it says "It
is their use [ie the ideas in the workbook] which will give them meaning
to you AND SHOW YOU THEY ARE TRUE." (My emphasis).
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b747de$0$17703$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b748ee$0$17704$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
bidhati
bidhati says:
Paul, you say you are not very smart concerning science and I
believe you. Most people aren't. That is why we have to sometimes rely
on the credentials of scholars and scientists.
Now you say you are not very smart and that is being honest but in
the preceding sentence you say there is nothing wrong with science
except that it is looking in the wrong place for truth. You have
contradicted yourself with a very vague baseless assertion. You assert
that science is wrong. You admittedly say you are not very smart so do
you think that you are qualified to say science is looking in the wrong
place for truth? Where do you think science should look? Are you
implying that scientist should look where you and others look for
truth, in ACIM and then try to bend their theories to support what you
believe is the truth?
Psuedo scientific theories that build on a hypothesis that there
is a God are on shaky ground to start with and only 'believers' would
even start with a such a shaky hypothesis. No respected scientist would
even start there. Fringe science is entertainment for New Agers and the
authors that sell books make a lot of money because people are not
smart enough to dispute their claims or theories. These types of
scientists are not well respected in the scientific community or by
academia.
Noted scientist usually get grants to further their research while
the authors of the new fringe science books have to gather a following
to buy books to support their ideas.
There is absolutely no proof that there is a God(yours or anyone
else's) so why would a scientist even start from that premise. God is a
concept that was created by man and there are so many versions of who
God is, what God wants etc.that a respectable scientist who be
committing professional. Did you know that when you get to the top
physicists of the world that 90% of them are atheists. Einstein and
Stephen Hawkins are included.
Paul wrote:
But Paul
Davies, whom I quote here, is recognised scientist with an impressive
record,
bidhati: What is his record? What has he done? I am not familar with
him and haven't read the post.
Paul wrote:
especially in explaining that stuff to laymen,
bidhati wrote:
That is not difficult for someone to do, explain to a layman, becasue
the layman is not smart enough to ask the right questions to debate
someone with a degree in science. What credentials does the person
have, there are many around who have really accomplished nothing and
the New Agers are like sitting ducks for them.
so I (cautiously)
assume he knows what he's talking about, at least within the confines
of
the physical virtual reality.
bidhati wrote: I would emphisize 'cautiously' if I were you. Great
scientists never sacrafice knowledge and proof on the altar of belief,
but that is all that culties and religious believers do. Wake up
Stephen, surely it is difficult to maintain this sort of ignorance.
Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
bidhat wrote:
No no proof is needed! Just belief is needed for the culties. That is
really a stupid statement. I am ashamed of you!
Stephen wrote:
I think that follows logically, don't you?
bidhati wrote:
No!
bidhati
bidhati
bidhati wrote:
It has been several years since I was up on all the latest theories,
loopy ones or legitimate ones so it would take quite a bit of review
for me to enter into a debate or conversation with you. And quite
frankly, I just do not have the time. This ng takes up a little bit
more time than I like giving.
But I will have to agree with you on one point. I cannot see how
computers can achieve a consciousness comparable to man's
consciousness(in our lifetime). But who knows? The evolving of
consciousness took a long time and these ideas do make for some great
movies that are very entertaining.
Stephen wrote:
Nevertheless, artifical life has been made and you're it.
I can see how that would be an acceptable belief to you because you
believe everything is an illusion therefore this is the same old clap
trap. I am in your mind, projection, etc. Sorry nice try Stephen, but
no cigar.
bidhati
Stephen if you see Ramtha as a sociopath, then I will cancel my post I
am composing to you in word. What you know is good enough to know to
stay away from that loon.
She really didn't lose it in 1982, she really never had it but the
story worked for a while.
There are countless stories of her manipulations and the endangering of
other people's lives. She has deep pockets so she even has the little
town of Yelm swayed to leave her be, with the generous donations she
gives.
The woman is a piece of work but as of late has resorted to really
shabby ideas and manipulations. She is drawing vast crowds from
overseas, from the gullible and superstitious. Many of the old timers
have left and if they haven't, some of them are nearly dead from
drinking and smoking rituals that she added several years ago. I have
been told that the old ones have just about lost everything and now
they are becoming physically ill from the drinking of alchohol, from
the so called wine ceremonies that are supposed to drop the veil. Yada,
yada, yada. Really sad, that she has destroyed the lives that she has.
bidhati
Noggin
Speaking for myself:
That there is such a thing as equitable, productive, mutually respectful communication, and that
ACIM is a Curse, so far.
>
> Why aren't you busy living your life in THAT way, instead of trying to make
> others who believe differently and agree with wrong. The term "shame" has
> been used.
It seems that we are, and it seems that it bugs you to see it. Take your zombie ass over to the
Ugly Clown garage for a tune-up. You're not supposed to be feeling anything but that bleep that
your programmers told you is "love".
>
> You (and Katie) are big on shaming people and trying to make them feel no
> good about themselves and their lives.
No, we suck at it, actually. If we were any good at it you would be ashamed of your useless self
and your useless life and you'd be taking care of your sick husband instead of shamefully
abandoning him to the care of strangers. You really do need to haul your zombie ass in for a
tune-up though. You're about to short circuit.
>
> Is this what you believe in and agree with and base your life on?
I don't know about bidhati, although she's pretty much spelled it out the same as I have. Yes,
absolutely I have felt and do feel shame and remorse for doing screwed up idiotic things in my
life. Some of mine is publicly available to read about on the Cosmic Fool board, remember?
You and your fellow zombies have certainly tried to use it as a weapon of shame against me enough
times. I guess that's one reason you wouldn't dare allow yourselves the same experience. You
think the same things hurt me that hurt you, but I'm not a short circuited zombie, there's the
rub, Robot.
What's that popping sound, Carrie? Be careful, you might ignite any second.
>
> Making yourself feel better by continually trying to make others feel bad?
Zombies aren't supposed to be able to feel bad. Get that tune-up quick.
>
> If you really had such a happy, fulfilling, wonderful, abundant life, you'd
> be spending more time living it.
I don't recall either bidhati or myself making any such claims, but despite what your blips and
bleeps are labeled, you really have no clue what we do with our lives, nor do I or I suspect
bidhati feel any big urge to clue you in. I don't speak in blips and bleeps. But you do have
the choice to make whatever you like out of all and everthing according to your blips and bleeps,
so if you're not making out things that keep your engine running smoothly, go get a tune-up and
quick, I'm smelling smoke.
Noggin
"Robin Evans" <mirac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:31oo9rF...@individual.net...
> LOL I don't think bidhati needs me to defend her however if we were to pole the time you both
> spend here you come out way way way ahead your story is once again full of holes Carrie, was
> this another of your feeble attempts at SHAMING bidhati? - and when it comes to the subject of
> shame I think what you are noticing is that they (Katie & bidhati) are merely pointing out
> where you and your cult like to use shame to manipulate each other - I do not see either Katie
> or bidhati shaming anyone. Shame on you Carrie LOL :)
Here's the problem with the shame issue from where I sit, Robin. As with all emotions and
responses, it can be a useful and healing experience, or a destructive and damaging one. It
depends on what we're feeling ashamed of. If it's something to be ashamed of, it's a damned
healthy response that opens the door for healing and change. If it's false shame, shame that was
heaped on us by another, shame at the fact of our own existance, shame that we can't address or
deal with through any valid process of change, it's deadly and deadening.
If Carrie, for example, feels shame when reading someone else repeating what she's already told
us about her abandonment of her sick husband minus the bogus exuses, manipulations, and
qualifiers, that could serve to inspire her to make a change and heal the situation. Her shame
is her own response to her own words, decisions and actions. She has the choice about what to do
about that, just like you had the choice about how to handle all the deadly shame that the Ugly
clown is trying to heap on you. You chose to hand the bag of shit right back to the original
owner whose name was written all over it. Carrie can't hand back the bag, because it's her bag,
her name on it, in her own handwriting, and no one had to hand her anything, it was already
sitting there stinking up the place. There's the difference.
What she chooses, what all these shamed shamers choose to do is to lash out and try to be a
better and badder shamer then all the other shamers, instead of just owning their own shame,
dealing with it and returning the shit bags to their appropriate owners.
Emotions are raw events that happen to all of us, and that no one is responsible for what we do
with or about them but ourselves because no one else is feeling them but ourselves. You can tell
when someone else's bag of shit when it's loaded with someone else's assertions about what you
are feeling and why. It's that person whose signature is on that bag, not your own. Simple. Hand
it back and be quick about it. Shit stinks, and it's toxic.
Emotions are like thermometers, they just report the facts. Throwing a thermometer in the trash
won't change the temperature any more than denying or demonizing our own emotions or those of
others will change what is being felt. If the thermometer reads 101 degrees, it wouldn't make
much sense to blame our sweat on the thermometer, would it? But it would make sense to notice
if it's summer, and therefore the heat is to be expected, or if it's the dead of winter and there
is the smell of smoke and the crackle of fire outside our door.
All this is too complex for the simple minded zombie. That's why when they get too hot they
smash another thermometer and then feel so proud of themselves that they show up sweating
bullets, soaked to the bone, parched and panting, and telling everyone about their new divinely
inspired air conditioning technique and see if they can get someone to bleep and blip back at
them the same blips and bleeps that are labeled "love" on their zombie control panel. They don't
really want to be cool, they just want someone to tell them they "love" them for saying they're
cool.
(Don't tell them, it's a secret, but the programmers switched all the labels, just to amuse
themselves watching the zombies go to war against each other.)
Tomaso
Robin. As with all emotions and responses, it can be a useful and
healing experience, or a destructive and damaging one. It depends on
what we're feeling ashamed of. If it's something to be ashamed of,
it's a damned healthy response that opens the door for healing and
change. If it's false shame, shame that was heaped on us by another,
shame at the fact of our own existance, shame that we can't address or
deal with through any valid process of change, it's deadly and
deadening."
"You yourself always told your patients that the real difference
between neurotic and ‘healthy’ guilt feelings was that neurotic guilt
feelings DO NOT HELP ANYONE. This distinction was very wise, though
incomplete. Let us make the distinction a little sharper now. Neurotic
guilt feelings are a device of the ego for “atoning” without sharing,
and for asking for pardon without change. The ego NEVER calls for real
atonement, and cannot tolerate real forgiveness, which IS change.
Your concept of “healthy guilt feelings” has great merit, but without
the concept of the Atonement it lacked the healing potential it held.
YOU make the distinction in terms of feelings which led to a decision
not to repeat the error, which is only PART of healing. Your concept
therefore lacked the idea of UNDOING it. What you were really
advocating, then, was adopting a policy of sharing without a real
FOUNDATION." - ACIM urtext
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
http://www.angelic-visions.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~miraclestudies
http://peacefulpath.home.att.net/
Noggin
"Steve" <st...@over100percent.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Htd.49298$Ch2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> On 7-Dec-2004, "bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The way the human brain, eyes, etc. perceives the universe or
>> reality is fascinating but not magicical just because it cannot be
>> explained. Because humans have not reached the point of being able to
>> explain every little detail of why and what everything happens, it
>> leaves plenty of loopholes for idiots to put their spin on the
>> mysteries.
>
> You obviously never put these "magical" theories to the test. If you did you
> would see that they work.
What do you mean by "work"? I practiced those "magical" theories for years actually, and have
been asking for evidence that they "work" for even longer. So far, all I keep hearing about is
what's wrong with me for not believing they "work" and why they don't "work for me because I
don't believe they "work". No one will ever explain what they mean by "work" though. It's your
turn. What's the answer?
>Scientists are of the most blind people on this
> planet.
Yep, we should shitcan them all in default to all you magicians who know it works. Now all we
need to know is what you mean by that, huh? I mean, it would be nice to have a clue before we
toss the nice toys those dumb dumb scientists have foisted off on us, huh? Just in case, I mean.
The Scientific Method is a merely system of denial sold to us as a
> legitimate tool. It may be useful for those with simple or fearful minds,
> but you can bet that anything that keeps you thinking, "inside the box"
> comes straight from the ego.
Ok, but what toys do you have on offer? Let's cut to the chase here. The Scientists are our
innocent brothers too, after all, huh?
>
> I see your point but be careful not to confuse "gullible" with open
> mindedness.
My mind is very open. Show me the toys, please, I've been wanting to see them for years.
>
> BTW, I do agree with you, JZ aka Ramtha is a major sociopath these days. She
> lost it around 1982. Since then it's been down hill all the way.
Even though she doesn't like those bad Scientists either? I'm confused. She's working very
hard to get your message out there.
JELLY
: > Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
: > required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
: > could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
: >
: > I think that follows logically, don't you?
"Steve" <st...@over100percent.com> wrote:
: Problem is that Reality is not logical. That's why you want to label what's
: not logical to you, i.e. "pain and suffering," as if it cannot be from God,
: or is somehow excluded from perfection. I assure you, everything on planet
: Earth is in perfect order.
If, as you say
"Reality is not logical",
how do you come to the conclusion/assertion
"everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"
???
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%lKtd.19120$8S5.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Pieter Douwes
news:41b597cd$0$17701$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
> feeding me is true.
>
> According to the Course, none of it.
You do not need the Course to know
that you cannot 'see' or 'hear' the truth,
let alone smell, taste or feel. In short:
the truth has nothing to do with the physical
senses. The but convey physical forms.
> “I am upset because I see what is not there.”
Imo this means that what I see does not upset me:
my <interpretation> of what I see, which I mistakenly
take for the thing itself, upsets me.
That is why is said in W-6.3: "Again, if you resist
applying the idea to some upsetting thoughts more
than others, remind yourself of the two cautions
stated in the previous lessons:……….".
So the so-called upsetting <things> represent
upsetting <thoughts>, which are not there to see.
What I see as upsetting me are but <projections>
of upsetting thoughts.
> Only when you are no longer upset can you see correctly, with Vision
> rather than sight. Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset. Happy
> eyes look out on a world filled with love, seeing past the form, or
> through it, to the certainty of Oneness.
Upsetting thoughts block seeing past the form.
> Stephen
> Byron Bay, Australia
> R1200C
>
>
Pieter Douwes
> Nevertheless, artifical life has been made and you're it.
Imho the whole Course is about
teaching us that we are <NOT> what
we <think> we are: a body or an ego.
And now you equate your brother to "artifical life".
As you see your brother, so you see yourself.
<You> are artificial? My answer is: you apparently
mistakenly identify with artificiality. But you <are>,
believe it or not, a holy Son of God.(W-pII.14).
> --
Stephen Calder
>Nothing wrong with science except that it's looking in the wrong place
>for the truth. But even there, clues can be found.
>
>No, you're right, I'm not very smart. I don't understand relativity or
>quantum physics, mainly because I am not a mathematician.
>
>bidhati says:
>Paul, you say you are not very smart concerning science and I
>believe you. Most people aren't. That is why we have to sometimes rely
>on the credentials of scholars and scientists.
>
>
This is Stephen, not Paul. I think you're confused.
>Now you say you are not very smart and that is being honest but in
>the preceding sentence you say there is nothing wrong with science
>except that it is looking in the wrong place for truth. You have
>contradicted yourself with a very vague baseless assertion. You assert
>that science is wrong. You admittedly say you are not very smart so do
>you think that you are qualified to say science is looking in the wrong
>place for truth? Where do you think science should look? Are you
>implying that scientist should look where you and others look for
>truth, in ACIM and then try to bend their theories to support what you
>believe is the truth?
>
>
The scientists should do whatever they're doing. It's just not going to
lead to truth or peace.
>Psuedo scientific theories that build on a hypothesis that there
>is a God are on shaky ground to start with and only 'believers' would
>even start with a such a shaky hypothesis. No respected scientist would
>even start there. Fringe science is entertainment for New Agers and the
>authors that sell books make a lot of money because people are not
>smart enough to dispute their claims or theories. These types of
>scientists are not well respected in the scientific community or by
>academia.
>
>
Yep, most scientists try to keep God out of it because that's the ego's
basic strategy to stay in control. It works pretty well most of the time.
>Noted scientist usually get grants to further their research while
>the authors of the new fringe science books have to gather a following
>to buy books to support their ideas.
>
>
Rupert Sheldrake seems to have done okay for a fringe dweller.
But this is beside the point.
>There is absolutely no proof that there is a God(yours or anyone
>else's) so why would a scientist even start from that premise. God is a
>concept that was created by man and there are so many versions of who
>God is, what God wants etc.that a respectable scientist who be
>committing professional. Did you know that when you get to the top
>physicists of the world that 90% of them are atheists. Einstein and
>Stephen Hawkins are included.
>
>
Yep. That definitely proves God doesn't exist. All the scientists agree.
I'm convinced.
Clearly you haven't read Hawking.
>Paul wrote:
>But Paul
>Davies, whom I quote here, is recognised scientist with an impressive
>record,
>
>bidhati: What is his record? What has he done? I am not familar with
>him and haven't read the post.
>
>
Now you're making me work. Google found this:
Paul Davies was born in London in 1946, and obtained a doctorate from
University College London in 1970. He held academic appointments at
Cambridge and London Universities until, at the age of 34, he was
appointed Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of
Newcastle upon Tyne. From 1990 until 1996 he was Professor of
Mathematical Physics, and later Natural Philosophy, at The University of
Adelaide. He currently holds the positions of Visiting Professor of
Physics at Imperial College London, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the
University of Queensland and Adjunct Professor of Natural Philosophy in
the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University, Sydney.
Professor Davies has published over 100 research papers in specialist
journals, in the fields of cosmology, gravitation, and quantum field
theory, with particular emphasis on black holes and the origin of the
universe. His monograph /Quantum Fields in Curved Space/, co-authored
with former student Nicholas Birrell, remains a seminal text in the
field of quantum gravity. Davies is also interested in the nature of
time, high-energy particle physics, the foundations of quantum
mechanics, the origin of life and the nature of consciousness. He was
nominated as one of Australia's ten most creative people by /The
Bulletin/ in December 1996.
In addition to his research, Professor Davies is well known as an
author, broadcaster and public lecturer. He has written over twenty-five
books, both popular and specialist works. They have been translated into
more than twenty languages. Among his better-known works are /God and
the New Physics, The Cosmic Blueprint, The Mind of God, The Last Three
Minutes, About Time, Are We Alone?/ and /The Fifth Miracle: the search
for the origin of life/. His latest book is /How to Build a Time
Machine/. In recognition of his work as an author, he was elected as
Fellow of The Royal Society of Literature in 1999.
Davies was once described by the /Washington Times/ as "the best science
writer on either side of the Atlantic". His books explain advanced
scientific concepts in simple terms, and explore the philosophical
consequences of the latest ideas at the forefront of research. He likes
to focus on the deep questions of existence, such as how the universe
came into existence and how it will end, the nature of human
consciousness, the possibility of time travel, the relationship between
physics and biology, the status of the laws of physics and the interface
of science and religion. He has also written a science fiction novel
called /Fireball/. Davies writes regularly for newspapers, journals and
magazines in several countries, both about science and the political and
social aspects of science and technology. He was a longstanding
contributor to /The Economist/, and is a familiar columnist in/ The
Guardian/. In recent years he has also written extensively for other
major publications, including /The Times, The New York Times, The Wall
Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, Time Magazine, The Australian, The
Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Bulletin, New Scientist, PM
/(Germany) and /Conocer/ (Spain). He was for two years a weekly opinion
columnist for the Adelaide Advertiser. He is a Fellow of the World
Economic Forum, and his ideas on a range of policy issues are often
sought by politicians, public servants and businesses in Australia, the
UK and elsewhere.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/morebigquestions/davies.htm
>Paul wrote:
>especially in explaining that stuff to laymen,
>
>bidhati wrote:
>That is not difficult for someone to do, explain to a layman, becasue
>the layman is not smart enough to ask the right questions to debate
>someone with a degree in science. What credentials does the person
>have, there are many around who have really accomplished nothing and
>the New Agers are like sitting ducks for them.
>
>
I think it's possible for a laymen to study a scientists' credentials
and decide whether he in a position to know what he's talking about
within the confines of the physical world.
>so I (cautiously)
>assume he knows what he's talking about, at least within the confines
>of
>the physical virtual reality.
>
>bidhati wrote: I would emphisize 'cautiously' if I were you. Great
>scientists never sacrafice knowledge and proof on the altar of belief,
>but that is all that culties and religious believers do. Wake up
>Stephen, surely it is difficult to maintain this sort of ignorance.
>
>
Well, scientists themselves don't agree with each other, How old is the
universe? They don't know. How does the brain work? They don't know.
What is consciousness? They don't know. You can call that ignorance if
you like.
>Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and cosmology is not
>required to see that if God exists, and creates only perfectly, then he
>could not have created a world of pain and suffering.
>
>bidhat wrote:
>No no proof is needed! Just belief is needed for the culties. That is
>really a stupid statement. I am ashamed of you!
>
>
This from the one who posts everything 2 or 3 times, can't work out how
to quote others or trim posts, and can't tell a logical proposition from
a statement of fact.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
IF God exists and creates only perfectly, then he could not have created
a world of pain and suffering. The logic is independent of the truth of
the statements.
>Stephen wrote:
>I think that follows logically, don't you?
>
>bidhati wrote:
>
>No!
>
>
>
Then you haven't studied logic.
Stephen Calder
I don't know anything about Ramtha. Check who wrote that post.
I'm very interested in your views.
JELLY
"bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stephen Calder wrote:
: >
: > Nothing wrong with science except that it's
: > looking in the wrong placefor the truth. But
: > even there, clues can be found.
: >
: > No, you're right, I'm not very smart. I don't
: > understand relativity or quantum physics,
: > mainly because I am not a mathematician. But
: > Paul Davies, whom I quote here, is recognised
: > scientist with an impressive record, especially
: > in explaining that stuff to laymen, so I
: > (cautiously) assume he knows what he's talking
: > about, at least within the confines of the
: > physical virtual reality.
: >
: > Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum
: > physics and cosmology is not required to see
: > that if God exists, and creates only perfectly,
: > then he could not have created a world of pain
: > and suffering.
: >
: > I think that follows logically, don't you?
: >
: > Stephen
Stephen Calder wrote:
: Nothing wrong with science except that it's
: looking in the wrong place for the truth. But
: even there, clues can be found. No, you're
: right, I'm not very smart. I don't understand
: relativity or quantum physics, mainly because
: I am not a mathematician.
"bidhati"
: bidhati says:
: Paul, you say you are not very smart concerning ...
JELLY:
"Paul"??? You mean "Stephen" I assume.
"bidhati":
: ... science and I believe you. Most people aren't.
: That is why we have to sometimes rely on the
: credentials of scholars and scientists. Now you
: say you are not very smart and that is being honest
: but in the preceding sentence you say there is
: nothing wrong with science except that it is
: looking in the wrong place for truth. You have
: contradicted yourself with a very vague baseless
: assertion. You assert that science is wrong.
JELLY:
No, Stephen is saying that science is "looking in the
wrong place for truth" is in no way saying what you,
Bidhati, make of it "You assert that science is wrong."
"bidhati":
: You admittedly say you are not very smart so do
: you think that you are qualified to say science
: is looking in the wrong place for truth?
JELLY:
Well, quite simple, Stephen and ACIM are concerned
about fundamental Truth behind physically observable
phenomena, which you call reality or truth. Your
"truth" isn't really true either, because it is known
to be very incomplete, thus probably only max 5%
of "truth" about the physically observable. Science
is studying the work of Art, one might say, without
a clue about where and what the artist is. Stephen
and ACIM are about communication and mind joining
with the artist directly through oneself (and others),
without the slightest need for any technical stuff.
"bidhati":
: Where do you think science should look? Are you
: implying that scientist should look where you and
: others look for truth, in ACIM ...
JELLY:
Where do you expect to find the artist? In the work
of art? Do you think you could communicate with Van
Gogh through his paintings?
"bidhati":
: ... and then try to bend their theories to support
: what you believe is the truth?
JELLY:
No, there is Truth about and with the artist, and
there is observable truth about the dynamic work of
Art. Who is trying to bend something here Bidhati?
"bidhati":
: Psuedo scientific theories that build on a
: hypothesis that there is a God are on shaky ground
: to start with and only 'believers' would even start
: with a such a shaky hypothesis.
JELLY:
Well, everyone is doing their best to grasp an amazing
mystery. Can you tell me how one can approach the
unknown without some hypothesis? Are you saying that's
not scientific standard procedure?
"bidhati":
: No respected scientist would even start there. Fringe
: science is entertainment for New Agers and the authors
: that sell books make a lot of money because people are
: not smart enough to dispute their claims or theories.
JELLY:
So what?
Do you reject entertainment fundamentally?
What kinds of entertainment would you allow/vorbid?
"bidhati":
: These types of scientists are not well respected in
: the scientific community or by academia.
JELLY:
Now whose problem is that?
"bidhati":
: Noted scientist usually get grants to further their
: research while the authors of the new fringe science
: books have to gather a following to buy books to
: support their ideas.
JELLY:
Sometimes "New Age" books and films are financed in
advance. Its all business to some extent. What is
your problem?
"bidhati":
: There is absolutely no proof that there is a God
: (yours or anyone else's) so why would a scientist
: even start from that premise.
JELLY:
There is no proof that scientists are not going to
(directly or indirectly) seriously damage our planet
or the life on it.
Why do we allow them to continue?
"bidhati":
: God is a concept that was created by man and there
: are so many versions of who God is, what God wants
: etc. that a respectable scientist who be committing
: professional.
JELLY:
??? What ???
"bidhati":
: Did you know that when you get to the top
: physicists of the world that 90% of them are
: atheists. Einstein and Stephen Hawkins are included.
JELLY:
1) So what?
2) Einstein: "God does not play dice."
<snip>< *yawn* >
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Hadbiti
> in message <1102533081.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
> "bidhati" <bid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "bidhati":
> : Noted scientist usually get grants to further their
> : research while the authors of the new fringe science
> : books have to gather a following to buy books to
> : support their ideas.
>
> JELLY:
> Sometimes "New Age" books and films are financed in
> advance. Its all business to some extent. What is
> your problem?
His/her/it's problem is that Katie has her
hand inserted way up his/her/it's cyber ass,
flapping his/her/it's cyberlips, and it hurts.
eluq
Consciousness is the realm of the ego. Consciousness is the limitation
imposed on Self at separation. This has been my little soapbox I've been
jumping up & down on for some time. Recognition that consciousness is
inherently false allows room for forgiveness.
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b597cd$0$17701$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> -- Consciousness IS the illusion
>
> Some of the research being done by cognitive scientists into the nature of
> consciousness has fascinating parallels with what the Course says: that
> the world and all we see in it is a vast illusion. Our senses are
> deceiving us.
>
> “How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true
> now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no
> effects. And that is all. Can this be hard to learn by anyone who WANTS it
> to be true? Only unwillingness to learn it could make such an easy lesson
> separated locations. What the subjects report seeing is not a succession
> of spots, but a *single* spot moving continuously back and forth…
>
> In a fascinating refinement of the experiment, the first spot is colored
> red, the second green. This clearly presents the brain with a problem. How
> will it join together the two discontinuous experiences—red spot, green
> spot—smoothly? …In fact, subjects report seeing the spot change color
> In other words, I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
> feeding me is true.
>
> According to the Course, none of it.
>
> “I am upset because I see what is not there.”
>
> Only when you are no longer upset can you see correctly, with Vision
> rather than sight. Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset. Happy
> eyes look out on a world filled with love, seeing past the form, or
> through it, to the certainty of Oneness.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen
> Byron Bay, Australia
> R1200C
>
>
eluq
"Tomaso" <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote in message
news:p0fbr01scrc2jvj22...@4ax.com...
> Stephen "Consciousness IS the illusion"
>
> I wrote "Then, the solution is simple. Knock yourself out."
>
> Stephen "LOL! I love it."
>
>
> ~ Although your consciousness may be possessed by illusions, it is not
> an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be purified
> and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the ego's
> offering.
>
>
>
> Be of Good Cheer,
>
> Fox ;
Might be nit-picky but I think awareness and consciousness are different.
Awareness is no illusion but consciousness is a limitation that allows
judgment and duality.
Tomaso
different. Awareness is no illusion but consciousness is a limitation
that allows judgment and duality."
~ Maybe. Maybe not.
"The Soul KNOWS that the consciousness of all its brothers is included
in its own, as IT is included in God. The power of the whole Sonship
AND of its Creator is therefore the Soul’s own fullness, rendering its
creations equally whole and equal in perfection. The ego cannot
prevail against a totality which includes God, and any totality MUST
include God."
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
Stephen Calder
An artificial life form in a virtual reality is exactly what I am if I
see myself as a body in a world. And yes, I made the same mistake of
constructing myself.
So I agree I am not what I thought I was.
Love to you my holy brother.
eluq
"Tomaso" <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote in message
>I wrote "Although your consciousness may be possessed by illusions, it
> is not an illusion itself. It is the part of your mind that must be
> purified and returned to communion with your soul. Oblivion is the
> ego's offering."
>
> can't be purified and returned to communion."
>
> ~ A definition for "domain" - "A territory over which rule or control
> is exercised." In short, consciousness is the part of mind over which
> the ego belief system exercised control. Ego is not synonymous with
> consciousness. Consciousness is the domain and ego is the ruler.
>
> "The mind, if it elects to do so, becomes a medium by which the Soul
> creates along the line of its own Creation. If it does not freely
> elect to do so, it retains its creative POTENTIAL, but places itself
> under tyrannous rather than genuinely authoritative control. As a
> result it imprisons, because such are the dictates of tyrants. To
> change your mind means to place it at the disposal of TRUE Authority."
>
> ~ Thus, to free your conscious mind from control by the ego belief
> system frees to be of service to true authority.
>
> Stephen "But the mind of the son of God can be purified of its
> identification with ego."
>
> ~ The conscious mind "is the tiny part of yourself, the little thought
> that seems split off and separate, which the Holy Spirit needs.
> The rest is fully in God's keeping, and NEEDS no guide. Yet this wild
> and delusional thought needs help because, in its delusions, it thinks
> it is the Son of God, whole and omnipotent, sole ruler of the kingdom
> it set apart to tyrannize by madness into obedience and slavery."
>
> "This is the little part of you you think you stole from Heaven. Give
> it back to Heaven."
>
>
>
> Be of Good Cheer,
>
> Fox ;o)
Good stuff!
Wow, you're using my favorite C quote. I think it is the most succinct
summation of self and Self in a 100 words or less in the C. But for this
quote to be significant imo it has to be speaking to Self or the Son through
the self via what is mentioned in the next sentence "Within its barricades
is still a tiny segment of the Son of God, complete and holy, serene and
unaware of what you think surrounds it."
I think the tiny part that seems split off is the seeming "us" seemingly
"here". "We" are the projection of the split. I like the way you describe
the mind being subject to Soul or Spirit. Been trying to clarify the
relationship between Spirit and mind/Mind. Is mind/Mind independent of
Spirit? Or can it be?
Tomaso
~ I'll follow up on this tomorrow. I'm going to watch "Lost" now.
Good stuff!
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
http://www.angelic-visions.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~miraclestudies
http://peacefulpath.home.att.net/
Stephen Calder
>Yep!
>
>Consciousness is the realm of the ego. Consciousness is the limitation
>imposed on Self at separation. This has been my little soapbox I've been
>jumping up & down on for some time. Recognition that consciousness is
>inherently false allows room for forgiveness.
>
>
>
>
Yes. Thank you.
--
Stephen Calder
Thanks, well put.
Stephen Calder
I would have used awareness rather than consciousness in this context. I
believe that's the sense intended.
Otherwise it could not be said that consciousness is the domain of the ego.
Pieter Douwes
> Pieter Douwes wrote:
>
> >"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> schreef in bericht
>
>news:41b6c11a$0$3054$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.c
om.au...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Nevertheless, artifical life has been made and you're it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Imho the whole Course is about
> >teaching us that we are <NOT> what
> >we <think> we are: a body or an ego.
> >And now you equate your brother to "artifical life".
> >As you see your brother, so you see yourself.
> ><You> are artificial? My answer is: you apparently
> >mistakenly identify with artificiality. But you <are>,
> >believe it or not, a holy Son of God.(W-pII.14).
> >
> >
> >
> >>--
> >>Stephen
> >>Byron Bay, Australia
> >>R1200C
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> An artificial life form in a virtual reality is exactly what I am if I
> see myself as a body in a world.
Even when you see yourself in a body,
you yet are <not> a body.
How you (mistakenly) perceive yourself
does not change how God created you.
You still are as God created you.
> And yes, I made the same mistake of
> constructing myself.
What do you mean here exactly
with "the same mistake"?
> So I agree I am not what I thought I was.
>
> Love to you my holy brother.
An artificial life form
in a virtual reality is
not a holy brother.
Stephen Calder
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Stephen
>>>>Byron Bay, Australia
>>>>R1200C
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>An artificial life form in a virtual reality is exactly what I am if I
>>see myself as a body in a world.
>>
>>
>
>
>Even when you see yourself in a body,
>you yet are <not> a body.
>How you (mistakenly) perceive yourself
>does not change how God created you.
>You still are as God created you.
>
>
We're going in circles. The ego IS the artificial life form and no you
are not that, holy brother.
>
>
>>And yes, I made the same mistake of
>>constructing myself.
>>
>>
>
>What do you mean here exactly
>with "the same mistake"?
>
>
Of believing in separation and constructing an artificial reality based
on fear, which has now been seen through.
>
>
>>So I agree I am not what I thought I was.
>>
>>Love to you my holy brother.
>>
>>
>
>An artificial life form
>in a virtual reality is
>not a holy brother.
>
>
>
You're saying an ego is not a holy brother. Correct.
I hope you don't think we disagree.
Steve
On 8-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
> What do you mean by "work"? I practiced those "magical" theories for years
> actually, and have
> been asking for evidence that they "work" for even longer. So far, all I
> keep hearing about is
> what's wrong with me for not believing they "work" and why they don't
> "work for me because I
> don't believe they "work". No one will ever explain what they mean by
> "work" though. It's your
> turn. What's the answer?
When I say "work" I mean that I was satisfied with the results.
--
All the best,
Steve
EXIT Realty Agents are Making Over 100%
See how at: www.over100percent.com
Steve
On 8-Dec-2004, JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
> If, as you say
> "Reality is not logical",
> how do you come to the conclusion/assertion
> "everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"
> ???
>
> ThankYou:)
> JELLY
I can't logically explain in words how I know. I just do. If that sounds
illogical to you, then good! I must be on the right track. :)
JELLY
: Fortunately, a deep knowledge of quantum physics and
: cosmology is not required to see that if God exists,
: and creates only perfectly, then he could not have
: created a world of pain and suffering.
: I think that follows logically, don't you?
"Steve" <st...@over100percent.com> wrote:
: Problem is that Reality is not logical. That's why
: you want to label what's not logical to you, i.e.
: "pain and suffering," as if it cannot be from God,
: or is somehow excluded from perfection. I assure
JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
: If, as you say
: "Reality is not logical",
: how do you come to the conclusion/assertion
: "everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"
: ???
"Steve" <st...@over100percent.com> wrote:
: I can't logically explain in words how I know.
: I just do. If that sounds illogical to you, then good!
: I must be on the right track. :)
JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
(BTW, I also know of the perfect order on planet Earth).
So, tsk, sorry, I wasn't asking for logic, I didn't say
that was not logical to me. My question was HOW did you
come to the conclusion (you now call it knowledge) that
"everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"? I'll
emphasize again, HOW did you get there (logical or not)?
Tomaso
succinct summation of self and Self in a 100 words or less in the C.
But for this quote to be significant imo it has to be speaking to
Self or the Son through the self via what is mentioned in the next
sentence 'Within its barricades is still a tiny segment of the Son of
God, complete and holy, serene and unaware of what you think
~ I don't rightly see how "this wild and delusional thought needs
help" and "a tiny segment of the Son of God, complete and holy, serene
and unaware of what you think surrounds it," can be referring to the
same idea. "[W]ild and delusional" does not seem compatible with
"holy, serene and unaware of what you think."
eluq "I think the tiny part that seems split off is the seeming "us"
seemingly "here". "We" are the projection of the split. I like the
way you describe the mind being subject to Soul or Spirit. Been
trying to clarify the relationship between Spirit and mind/Mind. Is
mind/Mind independent of Spirit? Or can it be?"
~ I recommend the pre-publication HLC version of the Text. It make
this much more clear. If you don't have a copy, I'll be glad to give
you the file.
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
http://www.angelic-visions.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~miraclestudies
http://peacefulpath.home.att.net/
Noggin
>
> On 8-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "work"? I practiced those "magical" theories for years
>> actually, and have
>> been asking for evidence that they "work" for even longer. So far, all I
>> keep hearing about is
>> what's wrong with me for not believing they "work" and why they don't
>> "work for me because I
>> don't believe they "work". No one will ever explain what they mean by
>> "work" though. It's your
>> turn. What's the answer?
>
> When I say "work" I mean that I was satisfied with the results.
Ok, more vaguaries. Do you think that if you're making claims about things that might influence
other people that it would be a good thing to be willing to offer up some specific details?
What are you standards for satisfaction?
The promise of "quantum physics" or "reality creation" is that we can utilize certain prescribed
techniques to consciously cause precise events to occur. Is that correct?
If so, could you outline for us the outcomes that you've consciously caused to occur?
Thank you.
Noggin
>
> On 8-Dec-2004, JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
>
>> If, as you say
>> "Reality is not logical",
>> how do you come to the conclusion/assertion
>> "everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"
>
> I can't logically explain in words how I know. I just do. If that sounds
> illogical to you, then good! I must be on the right track. :)
As I am familiar with the process of "reality creation" as accomplished through an understanding
of quantum physics, I am also aware that it is a conscious process of which one must be aware in
order to accomplish the end goal.
There is no "right track" you have either consciously created desired events or you have not.
It's like saying you're "a little pregnant".
Before you endorse a product, do you feel any obligation to have put it to any kind of test at
all, or is it good enough for you to just say you like it, but can't quite explain why?
Tomaso
accomplished through an understanding of quantum physics, I am also
aware that it is a conscious process of which one must be aware in
order to accomplish the end goal."
~ Can you offer up some specific details regarding your claim to
understanding this "conscious process of which one must be aware in
order to accomplish the end goal," and explain how, if at all, this
relates to "A Course in Miracles"?
Paul Michaels
>
> "Steve" <st...@over100percent.com> wrote in message
> news:CFYtd.50626$Ch2...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> On 8-Dec-2004, JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> If, as you say
>>> "Reality is not logical",
>>> how do you come to the conclusion/assertion
>>> "everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"
>
>>
>> I can't logically explain in words how I know. I just do. If that sounds
>> illogical to you, then good! I must be on the right track. :)
>
> As I am familiar with the process of "reality creation" as accomplished
> through an understanding of quantum physics,
1. This is highly doubtful.
2. You are saying that an understanding
of quantum physics results in the
ability to create reality.
3. Conversely, one who
does not understand
quantum physics would not be able
to create reality.
4. Therefore, you do not understand
quantum physics.
I am also aware that it is a conscious process of which one must be aware
in
> order to accomplish the end goal.
So, in order to arrive at the correct answer
to any question one must know what the
answer is going to be before the process
is even begun. Good thinking.
>
> There is no "right track" you have either consciously created desired
> events or you have not. It's like saying you're "a little pregnant".
By your thought process listed above
it seems that being "a little pregnant"
is a viable 'reality creation'.
>
> Before you endorse a product, do you feel any obligation to have put it to
> any kind of test at all, or is it good enough for you to just say you like
> it, but can't quite explain why?
Such as being pregnant only
on odd numbered days?
Paul
Pieter Douwes
> Pieter Douwes wrote:
> >>>>--
> >>>>Stephen
> >>>>Byron Bay, Australia
> >>>>R1200C
> >>>
> >>An artificial life form in a virtual reality is exactly what I am if I
> >>see myself as a body in a world.
> >>
> >
> >Even when you see yourself in a body,
> >you yet are <not> a body.
> >How you (mistakenly) perceive yourself
> >does not change how God created you.
> >You still are as God created you.
> >
> >
>
> We're going in circles. The ego IS the artificial life form and no you
> are not that, holy brother.
Your statement above is acceptable
when you add the word "think":
"An artificial life form in a virtual
reality is exactly what I <think> am if...."
It is acceptable too with the addition
"in my own experience":
"An artificial life form in a virtual reality is
exactly what I am <in my own experience> if...."
But without such an addition it is flatly wrong.
Maybe you tacitly suppose one of the additions.
> >>And yes, I made the same mistake of
> >>constructing myself.
> >>
> >
> >What do you mean here exactly
> >with "the same mistake"?
> >
>
> Of believing in separation and constructing an artificial reality based
> on fear, which has now been seen through.
>
> >
> >>So I agree I am not what I thought I was.
> >>
> >>Love to you my holy brother.
> >>
> >
> >An artificial life form
> >in a virtual reality is
> >not a holy brother.
> >
> >
> You're saying an ego is not a holy brother. Correct.
>
> I hope you don't think we disagree.
No, I think we don't.
I just very much appreciate
formulating correctly.
(I will not protest when you state, as a
commonly agreed upon manner of speaking:
"the sun rose at ... in the morning." :-) )
Btw: I am very interested what you think of
what I wrote in the following post to you:
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:41b597cd$0$17701$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
> feeding me is true.
>
> According to the Course, none of it.
You do not need the Course to know
that you cannot 'see' or 'hear' the truth,
let alone smell, taste or feel. In short:
the truth has nothing to do with the physical
senses. The but convey physical forms.
> "I am upset because I see what is not there."
Imo this means that what I see does not upset me:
my <interpretation> of what I see, which I mistakenly
take for the thing itself, upsets me.
That is why is said in W-6.3: "Again, if you resist
applying the idea to some upsetting thoughts more
than others, remind yourself of the two cautions
stated in the previous lessons:....".
So the so-called upsetting <things> represent
upsetting <thoughts>, which are not there to see.
What I see as upsetting me are but <projections>
of upsetting thoughts (or: of my state of mind).
> Only when you are no longer upset can you see correctly, with Vision
> rather than sight. Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset. Happy
> eyes look out on a world filled with love, seeing past the form, or
> through it, to the certainty of Oneness.
Upsetting thoughts block seeing past the form.
> Stephen
> Byron Bay, Australia
> R1200C
>
>
Steve
On 9-Dec-2004, JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
> JELLY <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
> (BTW, I also know of the perfect order on planet Earth).
> So, tsk, sorry, I wasn't asking for logic, I didn't say
> that was not logical to me. My question was HOW did you
> come to the conclusion (you now call it knowledge) that
> "everything on planet Earth is in perfect order"? I'll
> emphasize again, HOW did you get there (logical or not)?
OK I'll try to explain it logically even though I might come off sounding
like an idiot... Even through my senses, everything in the world I see
repeats itself. Everything goes in cycles and adheres to patterns. I've yet
to find something "new under the sun." Sure there was a time when things
seemed disordered, but that was back when I only saw what was going on in my
own little world. I've since expanded my outlook to take into consideration
a bigger picture than I did. I mean that I've decided to make the effort to
see through and understand the perspectives of other beings. Now everything
that happens is predictable, understandable and sure to repeat itself again
and again. Wars, the stock market, the economy, illness, George Bush. They
all come and go as sure as the tides. One man gathers what the other one
spills. Nothing's lost. It's all a laughable game which is as fun or
horrible as you choose. Just perfect circles in time. Don't get me wrong, I
still don't make the most comfortable choices for myself, but at least now
I'm going in with eyes wide open and I also know what the outcome will be.
What I still can't figure out is why, knowing what I know, that I still make
choices that bring discomfort. But still, I wouldn't have it any other way.
I've also found that the more patient I can remain, the quicker my
prescriptions are filled.
Steve
On 9-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
> The promise of "quantum physics" or "reality creation" is that we can
> utilize certain prescribed
> techniques to consciously cause precise events to occur. Is that correct?
I've yet to see any technique work "precisely." It never will because we
have a consciousness that's split into several levels. For example
consciously we all say we want to be rich, but subconsciously many fear even
wealth. So to create your own reality, a phrase BTW that for some reason
turns my stomach, your desires on all levels of mind must be congruent.
Unfortunately the mind rarely is. When it is, the techniques work perfectly.
When it's not, a sort of compromise in made. That's why I said I'm
"satisfied." I know my mind is in conflict. These techniques IMO is merely a
way to influence the more crystallized, stubborn, albeit more powerful part
of my mind. The subconscious.
The idea of Magick, or "reality creation," if you will, is to increase the
odds in your favor. IMO that's all you can home for without stepping on
someone else's free will.
>Ok, more vaguaries. Do you think that if you're making claims about
>things that might influence
>other people that it would be a good thing to be willing to offer up some
>specific details?
Back around 1990 I became tired of driving crappy cars. I went to a car show
and saw the Cadillac Allante'. This car blew me away. I loved it. Although I
was broke, I had to have that car. So I sat in it for about ten minutes and
mentally took possession of it. Within a few months I inherited enough to
buy it. I did the same with my next car, a Dodge Viper. Same thing happened.
Everything fell into place and that car was mine.
The same with my relationship. I became tired of settling for second best. I
asked in earnest for a solution. In a short period of time a friend asked me
to team up with her to do a class at the community college. The class we
worked up we called "Find Your Soulmate Through the Stars and Hypnosis." She
was the astrologer and I am a hypnotherapist. Like the course say's, "you
learn what you teach," the class worked for me (and many others) like a
charm. Within a week I met my soulmate. It's been 8 years and I couldn't be
happier. It also turned out she was "programming" to find her soulmate as
well using techniques she was taught in what is called the Silva Mind
Method. She even has the days she "programmed" (Silva jargon) written on her
calendar which we still have.
But it really isn't important to me if you or others believe it helps.
Everyone has to learn at their own speed. There's a saying from Kabbalah,
"do not explore what is mysterious to you." To me this stuff is undocumented
science and is in no way mysterious or spooky. Like the course says, "if a
miracle DOESN'T occur. Something's gone wrong."
Steve
On 9-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
> There is no "right track" you have either consciously created desired
> events or you have not.
> It's like saying you're "a little pregnant".
Like I said in my previous post, if I'm satisfied that's all that counts. If
I wasn't satisfied I would have quit using these techniques long ago.
> Before you endorse a product, do you feel any obligation to have put it to
> any kind of test at
> all, or is it good enough for you to just say you like it, but can't quite
> explain why?
If it gets me the results, that's good enough for me. I don't need to know
why. Even if I'm fooling myself and it's all been one big coincidence it
hasn't been a waste.
JELLY
Thank you very much :)
T-5.VI.12.1 "Now you must learn that only
infinite patience produces immediate effects."
"infinite patience": T-5.VI.11, T-7.VII.7.
IMO the main (perhaps only) function of "pain and suffering"
is its power to convince, like if it hurts it must me real.
Like when people say, "pinch me, I must be dreaming".
That might (partly) explain the making of "choices that
bring discomfort".
JELLY;)
Stephen Calder
>"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> schreef in bericht
>
>
>>
>>I hope you don't think we disagree.
>>
>>
>
>No, I think we don't.
>I just very much appreciate
>formulating correctly.
> (I will not protest when you state, as a
>commonly agreed upon manner of speaking:
>"the sun rose at ... in the morning." :-) )
>
>
Thank you for your clarification.
>Btw: I am very interested what you think of
>what I wrote in the following post to you:
>
>"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> schreef in bericht
>news:41b597cd$0$17701$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>
>
>>I have no way of knowing how much of what my brain is
>>feeding me is true.
>>
>>According to the Course, none of it.
>>
>>
>
>You do not need the Course to know
>that you cannot 'see' or 'hear' the truth,
>let alone smell, taste or feel. In short:
>the truth has nothing to do with the physical
>senses. The but convey physical forms.
>
>
I did not know this before finding the Course. But yes, I think it's
possible to discover it independently of the Course.
>
>
>>"I am upset because I see what is not there."
>>
>>
>
>Imo this means that what I see does not upset me:
>my <interpretation> of what I see, which I mistakenly
>take for the thing itself, upsets me.
>That is why is said in W-6.3: "Again, if you resist
>applying the idea to some upsetting thoughts more
>than others, remind yourself of the two cautions
>stated in the previous lessons:....".
>So the so-called upsetting <things> represent
>upsetting <thoughts>, which are not there to see.
>What I see as upsetting me are but <projections>
>of upsetting thoughts (or: of my state of mind).
>
>
What I'm saying is that "the thing itself" is not there, but is no more
than an idea in your (my) mind. And if consciousness is the domain of
the ego, then all of the dream, the whole physical world of trees and
war and human bodies, is not only in my mind, but can be seen
differently when its real meaning is written upon it afresh by Spirit.
Because if it has any meaning as an artifice, it must be the "real"
meaning God has given it for me. In this sense, and this sense only, God
creates the world anew for us. Another way to say this is that Holy
Spirit reinterprets it. Then it is still seen as an artifice, but now
one that leads us out of artificial reality into Being (direct awareness
without perception, or what I call the constant peak experience).
If, as so many others do, you like to think of "things" as "actually
there", creations of God which we misinterpret, so that only our
thoughts about them are wrong, and the things themselves are okay, that
is fine with me as long as it allows you to be at peace about all the
things.
But consider this: "My thoughts are IMAGES I have made." (My emphasis).
>
>
>
>>Only when you are no longer upset can you see correctly, with Vision
>>rather than sight. Forgiveness is the key to giving up all upset. Happy
>>eyes look out on a world filled with love, seeing past the form, or
>>through it, to the certainty of Oneness.
>>
>>
>
>Upsetting thoughts block seeing past the form.
>
>
Yes.
Stephen Calder
Good stuff, mate, very honest and clear.
Noggin
>
> On 9-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The promise of "quantum physics" or "reality creation" is that we can
>> utilize certain prescribed
>> techniques to consciously cause precise events to occur. Is that correct?
>
> I've yet to see any technique work "precisely."
You don't have electricity in your house then? How do you access the internet?
>It never will because we
> have a consciousness that's split into several levels.
Where do you live? Do they have schools there? Maybe not, since there's no electricity. Can
you observe the weather out of that cave you appear to be living in? Did you ever hear of
Stonehenge?
For example
> consciously we all say we want to be rich, but subconsciously many fear even
> wealth.
Yes, I know. Donald Trump is rich because he has no fear of wealth. It has nothing to do with
his business acumen or marketing instinct.
But if we can create anything with quantum physics, how come we can't create ourselves to have no
fear?
So to create your own reality, a phrase BTW that for some reason
> turns my stomach,
Maybe it's too precise.
>your desires on all levels of mind must be congruent.
Yes, I know. The impossible dream. If the Donald can do it, how come you can't do it?
> Unfortunately the mind rarely is.
Whatever it's supposed to mean. What does it mean?
>When it is, the techniques work perfectly.
How do you know that? You could also say that when baloney becomes chocolate cake there will be
peace on earth. That would sound good to some people too.
> When it's not, a sort of compromise in made. That's why I said I'm
> "satisfied." I know my mind is in conflict. These techniques IMO is merely a
> way to influence the more crystallized, stubborn, albeit more powerful part
> of my mind. The subconscious.
Yes, I know, you're not good enough yet. You just need to do another technique. I know, I know.
>
> The idea of Magick, or "reality creation," if you will, is to increase the
> odds in your favor. IMO that's all you can home for without stepping on
> someone else's free will.
Yes that's the idea, I know. People have been doing that for years. It's called "common sense".
Do you think your odds increase or decrease by studying quantum physics? I own the statistical
data, so think before you answer.
>
>
>>Ok, more vaguaries. Do you think that if you're making claims about
>>things that might influence
>>other people that it would be a good thing to be willing to offer up some
>>specific details?
>
> Back around 1990 I became tired of driving crappy cars. I went to a car show
> and saw the Cadillac Allante'. This car blew me away. I loved it. Although I
> was broke, I had to have that car. So I sat in it for about ten minutes and
> mentally took possession of it. Within a few months I inherited enough to
> buy it. I did the same with my next car, a Dodge Viper. Same thing happened.
> Everything fell into place and that car was mine.
Yep, I know, I know. But what went wrong all those times you didn't get what you wanted?
>
> The same with my relationship. I became tired of settling for second best. I
> asked in earnest for a solution. In a short period of time a friend asked me
> to team up with her to do a class at the community college. The class we
> worked up we called "Find Your Soulmate Through the Stars and Hypnosis." She
> was the astrologer and I am a hypnotherapist. Like the course say's, "you
> learn what you teach," the class worked for me (and many others) like a
> charm. Within a week I met my soulmate. It's been 8 years and I couldn't be
> happier. It also turned out she was "programming" to find her soulmate as
> well using techniques she was taught in what is called the Silva Mind
> Method. She even has the days she "programmed" (Silva jargon) written on her
> calendar which we still have.
Wow!! Who ever heard of anyone suddenly meeting their "soulmate"? You were studying quantum
physics 6 years ago?
>
> But it really isn't important to me if you or others believe it helps.
That's why you come posting hysterical vaguaries in public newsgroups, huh?
> Everyone has to learn at their own speed.
Yep. The 8 year relationship information threw me. I thought you were about 16.
>There's a saying from Kabbalah,
> "do not explore what is mysterious to you."
There is a saying from Rodney Dangerfield, "Oh, my wife can spend money. I mean, who tips at a
tollbooth? Now she tells me she wants plastic surgery. She got plastic surgery - I cut up her
credit cards."
>To me this stuff is undocumented
> science and is in no way mysterious or spooky.
Hmmm.....your studies will eventually reveal to you that transparent rationalizations aren't good
science.
Like the course says, "if a
> miracle DOESN'T occur. Something's gone wrong."
Yep, something's definitely gone wrong!!
Noggin
>
> On 9-Dec-2004, "Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no "right track" you have either consciously created desired
>> events or you have not.
>> It's like saying you're "a little pregnant".
>
> Like I said in my previous post, if I'm satisfied that's all that counts.
Yes, that's the national anthem of child molesters too.
If
> I wasn't satisfied I would have quit using these techniques long ago.
That's why kids keep getting molested too.
>
>
>> Before you endorse a product, do you feel any obligation to have put it to
>> any kind of test at
>> all, or is it good enough for you to just say you like it, but can't quite
>> explain why?
>
> If it gets me the results, that's good enough for me.
I asked you if it was good enough for you to endorse to others. If it's only you you're concerned
about keep it to yourself, or be responsible for the claims you make. That's good science.
I don't need to know
> why. Even if I'm fooling myself and it's all been one big coincidence it
> hasn't been a waste.
Ok, there's one reader we can count on for Spineless's
soon-to-be-published-blockbuster-besteller-"speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeritchual
book".
There is nothing left but to figure out how to get some cash out of you.
Sheesh!!! You have no clue how disgusting your selfishness and irresponsibility are, it seems.
eluq
have a copy of the Urtext but if there is additional material I'd love to
see it.
I have interpreted that section like this -- the Son thought a thought that
was impossible and it conflicted the mind. This thought made the realm of
consciousness and all post separation seemingness with bodies that think
they are cause. This belief is the wild delusional thought, however this
thought even though impossible and delusional still was thought by the Son
so the essence of even an aberrant thought is still "a tiny segment of the
Son of God, . . . ."
To now I don't see any inconsistencies in this and it answers some of the
more perplexing Course puzzlers in a way that is satisfactory, e.g., who the
C is addressing, who is responsible for what they see etc., why it seems
like these animated bodies can think and are cause --- it is because the
wild delusional idea (the body thing) thinks it is the Son of God. And this
wild delusional thought can really do nothing, other than recognize it's
falsity which imo is what forgiveness is.
If there is another way to interpret this that doesn't conflict with itself
I'd love to read/hear.
"Tomaso" <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote in message
news:keqgr0d8g9rsasi01...@4ax.com...
Amminadab
>
>
> I have interpreted that section like this -- the Son thought a
> thought that was impossible and it conflicted the mind. This thought
> made the realm of consciousness and all post separation seemingness
> with bodies that think they are cause. This belief is the wild
> delusional thought, however this thought even though impossible and
> delusional still was thought by the Son so the essence of even an
> aberrant thought is still "a tiny segment of the Son of God, . . . ."
You might find more satisfaction in taking it the other way.
What was the Son doing the moment BEFORE this?
Amminadab
--
Amminadab's Lantern
http://amminadab.com
Pieter Douwes
As long as we experience ourselves as
living in a physical body, we should not be
guilty of "a particularly unworthy form of denial".
Physical bodies and forms are just <neutral>,
temporary, learning aids. Time, space and matter
are <effects>; the Course is about <cause>.
It aims at curing us from our insanity of having
inverted cause and effect, and bringing us back
to real Cause. (There is no cause in matter).
I deny that physical matter is in our mind(s);
only images of it - which we think are "thoughts".
(This is my view on "My thoughts are images I have made.").
Physical matter is but present and 'real' for our sleeping minds.
I do <not> "think of "things" as "actually
there", creations of God which we misinterpret".
Yet I do not deny their temporary reality for us,
and that they have to serve us as learning aids.
JELLY
- Individuality (separation) is absolutely bad.
- Physical life is absolutely EVERYWHERE and in EVERY form bad.
Just because a lot of things in our world are not working too well, here &
now, is no (eternal) proof that this is ALWAYS so EVERYWHERE, in ALL WORLDS.
If Jesus/ACIM is what it claims to be, I find it highly remarkable that
nothing is said about other life forms on other planets, in other galaxies,
in other physical universes, or other dimensions and mind-worlds. This imo
allows one to assume, that Jesus/ACIM didn't really have access to anything
like absolute knowledge, which would be worthy of being called such.
Well, anyway, although imo ACIM has some not quite trivial flaws,
I don't think its all bad.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"eluq" <el...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
:
: Thanks, I'd appreciate any input or insight, wherever it might come from. I
: have a copy of the Urtext but if there is additional material I'd love to
: see it.
:
: I have interpreted that section like this -- the Son thought a thought that
: was impossible and it conflicted the mind. This thought made the realm of
: consciousness and all post separation seemingness with bodies that think
: they are cause. This belief is the wild delusional thought, however this
: thought even though impossible and delusional still was thought by the Son
: so the essence of even an aberrant thought is still "a tiny segment of the
: Son of God, . . . ."
:
: To now I don't see any inconsistencies in this and it answers some of the
: more perplexing Course puzzlers in a way that is satisfactory, e.g., who the
: C is addressing, who is responsible for what they see etc., why it seems
: like these animated bodies can think and are cause --- it is because the
: wild delusional idea (the body thing) thinks it is the Son of God. And this
: wild delusional thought can really do nothing, other than recognize it's
: falsity which imo is what forgiveness is.
:
: If there is another way to interpret this that doesn't conflict with itself
: I'd love to read/hear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tomaso" <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote:
: > eluq "Wow, you're using my favorite C quote. I think it is the most
Noggin
"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message news:31t0ftF...@individual.net...
Awwwh, how cute!! Sharing wanking techniques!!
Stephen Calder
This is my understanding too. Thank you.
Stephen Calder
>The fundamental inconsistency is the assumptions ACIM is built on.
>
> - Individuality (separation) is absolutely bad.
> - Physical life is absolutely EVERYWHERE and in EVERY form bad.
>
>
This is not what the Course is saying. It's saying that anything fearful
cannot be real, and that the world of suffering is a dream built on
fear. It emphasises that all living things are one with you.
>Just because a lot of things in our world are not working too well, here &
>now, is no (eternal) proof that this is ALWAYS so EVERYWHERE, in ALL WORLDS.
>
>
That's exactly right, but the only place things work perfectly is in the
eternal, which is outside of spacetime.
>If Jesus/ACIM is what it claims to be, I find it highly remarkable that
>nothing is said about other life forms on other planets, in other galaxies,
>in other physical universes, or other dimensions and mind-worlds. This imo
>allows one to assume, that Jesus/ACIM didn't really have access to anything
>like absolute knowledge, which would be worthy of being called such.
>
>
He's talking to you here and now. The whole purpose of the Course is to
take you to a new dimension in your mind, which is where everything
happens. He wants you to look within, not without, for the truth.
>Well, anyway, although imo ACIM has some not quite trivial flaws,
>I don't think its all bad.
>
>
I see no more than trivial flaws. Mainly to do with the transcribing and
editing.
Paul Michaels
Paul
Amminadab
>>
>> What was the Son doing the moment BEFORE this?
>>
>>
>
>
Remembering not to laugh.