thinking vs. perceiving.
Pieter
one must stop thinking altogether.
According to the Course this must refer to
EGO-thinking, which in fact is not thinking at all:
". . . when you do not think LIKE God, you have
not really thought at all. Delusional ideas are NOT
thought, but you CAN think that you believe in them.
But you are wrong. The function of thought comes
FROM God and is IN God. As part of HIS thought,
you cannot think APART from Him." (T-5.V.6:12-16)
Thinking is even set against perceiving:
"Thoughts begin in the mind of the thinker,
from which they extend outward. This is
as true of God's Thinking as it is of yours.
Because your minds are split, you can
also perceive as well as think." (T-6.II.9:1-3)
So apparently according to the Course
thinking is NOT an attribute of the ego.
It only simulates it.
- Any comments on this?
expires
Hi Pieter :-)
Thoughts are forms made of forms.
If you don't like the word "form"
in relation to "thought", then use
"structure" instead of "form". So
ACIM's idea that my true, absolute
and timeless self is a thought of
God (FMPOV) negates that in absolute
timeless truth I am, and always am,
wholly independent of any structure.
What about the idea that what I
ALWAYS am is before and after any
structure/thought/form whatsoever?
If that isn't true, what I am isn't
something that can't be undone. And
anything that can be undone can also
absolutely cease to exist by merely
being forgotten. IOW, if basically
I am not wholly unconditional being, or
beingness if one prefers, then behind
all mind-games I would be, perhaps
am, nothing. That would mean that we
are all nothing, or nothingness if one
prefers, searching for ourselves in
ideas, thought, form. Or are we being,
or beingness if one prefers, searching
for our true self in form/structure, or
time/stories if one prefers? IOW, either
way, it's hilarious to see formlessness
seeking for itself in form/thought/etc.
What was the very first thought/form?
The very first illusion!(? LOL)
BTW, Pieter, how do you think one would
communicate, if one couldn't perceive
the thoughts of others in some way? And
how would you think that you think if
you couldn't perceive your own thoughts?
--expires
Pieter
"expires" <expires.20...@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:heeuf9$9tu$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
Where does your conviction come from
that "thoughts are forms made of forms" (or
that "thoughts are structures made of structures")?
Imo this cannot be said of God's Thoughts, since
God knows not form, and, in addition, is also said
that the function of thought comes from Him.
So now I am curious about the exact relationship
between thought and form. The following statement
can of course not be overlooked in this search:
"The truth is that there ARE no "idle thoughts".
ALL thinking produces form at some level."
It does not say thoughts themselves are forms,
yet it still indicates there is a close relationship
between them.
Imo thoughts can be communicated without
the detour via perception and the senses.
Ultimately the body is not necessary for
communication.
> --expires
expires
Ultimately a perceiver does not need a(n own)
body for perception, FMPOV. Your understanding
of form/perception fails to include abstract
forms and perceptions, IMO. You seem to believe
that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
to want to make it (seem) real.
--expires
ellie
wrote:
> On Wed Nov 25 2009 00:00:45 GMT+0100
>
>
>
> > "expires" <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> >news:heeuf9$9tu$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
> >> On Mon Nov 23 2009 16:21:40 GMT+0100
love this! The Course very carefully explains how the mind works.
At least, what you've said above is how I read the Course.
expires
ellie <miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> expires wrote:
>> Pieter wrote:
>>> expires wrote:
Hi Ellen, thanks for this and your other postings
within the last hour+. What puzzles me with ACIM,
respectively the effect ACIM seems to have on most
people I've observed posting in this newsgroup,
is the very strong tendency to identify self
with mind -- instead of identifying self with what
is aware of what's going on in mind(s). IOW, I'm
puzzled by identification with what is observed
instead of identifying self with what is observing.
What I'm trying to point to, to express, is the "am"
that always is, before and after, with or without
the "I" in "I am". Is that pure "am" the fundamental
self?
--expires
ellie
wrote:
There are a few of us that have been talking about this on here for
years.
The Course identifies the above as (s)elf and (S)elf.
There is no one and nothing *there* ... just awareness. The "am" as
you put it.
The lie is in the *I*.
Pieter
FMPOV "a perceiver" presupposes
something to be perceived and
something to perceive with.
> Your understanding
> of form/perception fails to include abstract
> forms and perceptions, IMO.
What are "abstract forms and perceptions"?
Could you give examples?
> You seem to believe
> that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
> whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
> effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
> form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
> to want to make it (seem) real.
What about this: that form
is only a pointer to content;
form in itself being nothing?
That it is only content which
makes any form meaningful?
> --expires
expires
Sure, minds not only create/project
thoughts/ideas, they also perceive
them. Otherwise thinking and communi-
cation could and would hardly happen.
>> Your understanding
>> of form/perception fails to include abstract
>> forms and perceptions, IMO.
>
> What are "abstract forms and perceptions"?
> Could you give examples?
"God" is a difficult but perhaps very
good example. Without attributes, for
example, "God" would be an empty and
meaningless idea. What is attributed
to "God" is the abstract form of "God".
Being aware of "God" is also perceiving
the abstract form of "God".
>> You seem to believe
>> that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
>> whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
>> effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
>> form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
>> to want to make it (seem) real.
>
> What about this: that form
> is only a pointer to content;
> form in itself being nothing?
> That it is only content which
> makes any form meaningful?
"God" without attributes would
be an empty and meaningless idea.
Not sure if I could/would call the
abstract form of "God" content...?
All I've said above is just my
opinion, of course ;-))
--expires
ellie
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in berichtnews:hehuud$s3k$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
>
>
>
> > On Wed Nov 25 2009 00:00:45 GMT+0100
> >> "expires" <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> >>news:heeuf9$9tu$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
> >>> On Mon Nov 23 2009 16:21:40 GMT+0100
It's only the belief that form has content that makes form seem
meaningful or gives it a reality.
To what purpose is form meaningful?
ellie
>
>
>
> > On Wed Nov 25 2009 00:00:45 GMT+0100
> >> "expires" <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> >>news:heeuf9$9tu$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
> >>> On Mon Nov 23 2009 16:21:40 GMT+0100
This leads to the question ... to what purpose?
Isn't assigning content to form the very thing that makes form seem
meaningful? ...
It's just more of what I call the computer mind processing every
awareness by, essentially, doing a referencing mind search to assign
content. And "wah lah" we've found something in our mental data base
that makes the form concrete. Mis-creating is that basic.
Pieter
So you think that for thinking and
communication perception is necessary.
>>> Your understanding
>>> of form/perception fails to include abstract
>>> forms and perceptions, IMO.
>>
>> What are "abstract forms and perceptions"?
>> Could you give examples?
>
> "God" is a difficult but perhaps very
> good example. Without attributes, for
> example, "God" would be an empty and
> meaningless idea. What is attributed
> to "God" is the abstract form of "God".
> Being aware of "God" is also perceiving
> the abstract form of "God".
To attribute to God does mean making an image
of Him; God can only be known by revelation.
You are right that if God is 'perceived', then what
is perceived is form, probably the best form to
represent God for the one perceiving Him.
>>> You seem to believe
>>> that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
>>> whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
>>> effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
>>> form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
>>> to want to make it (seem) real.
>>
>> What about this: that form
>> is only a pointer to content;
>> form in itself being nothing?
>> That it is only content which
>> makes any form meaningful?
>
> "God" without attributes would
> be an empty and meaningless idea.
IMO "Love", "Peace", "Eternity" are not forms in any
way; only the words pointing to their reality are.
Pieter
news:0bef0e47-a754-4c6e...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> It's only the belief that form has content that makes form seem
> meaningful or gives it a reality.
Agreed.
> To what purpose is form meaningful?
To the purpose of returning to our Source.
ellie
> "ellie" <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:0bef0e47-a754-4c6e...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's only the belief that form has content that makes form seem
> > meaningful or gives it a reality.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > To what purpose is form meaningful?
>
> To the purpose of returning to our Source.
If we never left out Source it seems to me that assigning content to
form or giving form meaning would serve the opposite purpose ...
thulananda
> "ellie" <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:0bef0e47-a754-4c6e...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's only the belief that form has content that makes form seem
> > meaningful or gives it a reality.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > To what purpose is form meaningful?
>
> To the purpose of returning to our Source.
The Source, being formless, can only be returned to in the
formlessness that the ego cannot understand.
Abstract thought still has form for it is needed to communicate the
highest thought level man is capable of.
Conflict is slaap en vrede ontwaken.
Conflict is sleep, and peace awakening.
What, to me, is absence of thought, or stillness, to which the
workbook guides me.
And what remains, is the experience of love, in a state of peace, with
happy smiles, appearing seemingly without a cause, yet indicating a
simple oneness with the Source and Its invisible helpers.
This higher level of thought is then the thought-realm of Christ, the
Son, and oneness is not by perception, nor by thought, but by
expereincing what cannot be thought of :-)
And in the extension of love, nothing need to be projected, nothing
needs to be created, for all is there already, and only happiness
follows on.
To me, what has been very helpful, is to learn distantiation betwen
the body level and the mind level, then the mind level and the Mind
level, where distantiation is always in following the higher values of
existence.
Is there such a thing as evolution of mind?
I would accept this for myself.
expires
No, Pieter. I wrote:
a) "*also* perceive", not "*only*".
b) "would *hardly*", not "*not*".
IOW, 99% is not the same as 100%.
>>>> Your understanding
>>>> of form/perception fails to include abstract
>>>> forms and perceptions, IMO.
>>> What are "abstract forms and perceptions"?
>>> Could you give examples?
>> "God" is a difficult but perhaps very
>> good example. Without attributes, for
>> example, "God" would be an empty and
>> meaningless idea. What is attributed
>> to "God" is the abstract form of "God".
>> Being aware of "God" is also perceiving
>> the abstract form of "God".
>
> To attribute to God does mean making an image
> of Him; God can only be known by revelation.
> You are right that if God is 'perceived', then what
> is perceived is form, probably the best form to
> represent God for the one perceiving Him.
Well, Pieter, below you do attribute
"Love", "Peace", "Eternity" to "God",
right?
>>>> You seem to believe
>>>> that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
>>>> whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
>>>> effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
>>>> form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
>>>> to want to make it (seem) real.
>>> What about this: that form
>>> is only a pointer to content;
>>> form in itself being nothing?
>>> That it is only content which
>>> makes any form meaningful?
>> "God" without attributes would
>> be an empty and meaningless idea.
>
> IMO "Love", "Peace", "Eternity" are not forms in any
> way; only the words pointing to their reality are.
And, Pieter? Did I anywhere say that
all/every'thing' is form? Attributing
OTOH IMO is form-projection.
--expires
expires
> Pieter wrote:
>> ellie wrote:
>>
>>> It's only the belief that form has content that makes form seem
>>> meaningful or gives it a reality.
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> To what purpose is form meaningful?
>> To the purpose of returning to our Source.
>
> The Source, being formless, can only be returned to in the
> formlessness that the ego cannot understand.
>
> Abstract thought still has form for it is needed to communicate the
> highest thought level man is capable of.
>
> Conflict is slaap en vrede ontwaken.
> Conflict is sleep, and peace awakening.
>
> What, to me, is absence of thought, or stillness, to which the
> workbook guides me.
>
> And what remains, is the experience of love, in a state of peace, with
> happy smiles, appearing seemingly without a cause, yet indicating a
> simple oneness with the Source and Its invisible helpers.
>
> This higher level of thought is then the thought-realm of Christ, the
> Son, and oneness is not by perception, nor by thought, but by
>
> And in the extension of love, nothing need to be projected, nothing
> needs to be created, for all is there already, and only happiness
> follows on.
>
> the body level and the mind level, then the mind level and the Mind
> level, where distantiation is always in following the higher values of
> existence.
>
> Is there such a thing as evolution of mind?
> I would accept this for myself.
Thanks :)
--expires
expires
> expires wrote:
Hmmm, yes, thanks, although, the term/
/judgment "lie" keeps irritating me.
--expires
ellie
A lie is just a lie. It doesn't need a judgment placed upon it. :)
expires
Really? IMO a lie is conscious/intentional
untruth expressed by a liar. I don't think
that dreams/illusions/misconceptions are
(mostly) conscious/intentional untruth.
--expires
ellie
I guess we just have different definitions for the word lie. To me a
lie is anything that is untrue.
But as to the rest of your post ... I am reminded that the Course does
say the son remembered not to laugh. So it very well could have been
intentional. Anyway, who wouldn't want to usurp the power of God if
they thought they had a shot at it. lol
expires
Was it "remembered not to laugh" or
was it "forgot to laugh" or do both
mean about the same, and my compre-
hension of English is too foreign?
"to usurp the power of God" is not
something I recall ever wanting. Nor
do I recall wanting to be created ;)
Recently I've come to often think
that ONLY THE WHOLE TRUTH IS TRUE,
and that's something that can't be
found/expressed in words/books/etc.
--expires
ellie
>
> "to usurp the power of God" is not
> something I recall ever wanting. Nor
> do I recall wanting to be created ;)
>
> Recently I've come to often think
> that ONLY THE WHOLE TRUTH IS TRUE,
> and that's something that can't be
> found/expressed in words/books/etc.
>
> --expires
:)
Pieter
Cute! ;-)
>>>>> Your understanding
>>>>> of form/perception fails to include abstract
>>>>> forms and perceptions, IMO.
>>>> What are "abstract forms and perceptions"?
>>>> Could you give examples?
>>> "God" is a difficult but perhaps very
>>> good example. Without attributes, for
>>> example, "God" would be an empty and
>>> meaningless idea. What is attributed
>>> to "God" is the abstract form of "God".
>>> Being aware of "God" is also perceiving
>>> the abstract form of "God".
>>
>> To attribute to God does mean making an image
>> of Him; God can only be known by revelation.
>> You are right that if God is 'perceived', then what
>> is perceived is form, probably the best form to
>> represent God for the one perceiving Him.
>
> Well, Pieter, below you do attribute
> "Love", "Peace", "Eternity" to "God",
> right?
- I do not attribute them to God;
for me they are revealed qualities.
>>>>> You seem to believe
>>>>> that an unmanifested thought/idea is not form,
>>>>> whereas FMPOV manifested form is merely an
>>>>> effect/result of abstract form, when the abstract
>>>>> form was found to be seductive/desirable enough
>>>>> to want to make it (seem) real.
>>>> What about this: that form
>>>> is only a pointer to content;
>>>> form in itself being nothing?
>>>> That it is only content which
>>>> makes any form meaningful?
>>> "God" without attributes would
>>> be an empty and meaningless idea.
>>
>> IMO "Love", "Peace", "Eternity" are not forms in any
>> way; only the words pointing to their reality are.
>
> And, Pieter? Did I anywhere say that
> all/every'thing' is form?
That is not my point.
You apparently speak of *the concept* "God";
while I speak of God Himself Who revealed
His "Love", "Peace", "Eternity".
>Attributing
> OTOH IMO is form-projection.
See above.
>
> --expires
>
Pieter
The ego gives meaning in order to affirm the separation;
Spirit uses everything which is in our world of experience
as a means to lead us back to unity; to the truth.
Carrie
Untrue according to who?
Like if one person believes something one way, and another, another.
Each person honestly believes their way is true.
Truth is in the mind of the one believing it.
ellie
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wasn't speaking of relative truth.
expires
In the context of eternal/timeless/absolute truth
the beliefs and relative reality of any person(s)
are effectively irrelevant, don't you think? Or do
you think anything like eternal/timeless/absolute
person(s) exist? Did, for example, Jesus already
exist 2500 years ago? IOW, will what wasn't before
time began still be when time is no longer? Don't
forget, according to ACIM time doesn't really
exist. Must then what is born in time not be
unreal/untrue in timelessness?
--expires
Carrie
Is there any truth that isn't?
Actually, we have more than gone over this before (on this newgroup) and
a lot didn't like the idea I believe everyone has their own perception,
interpreation (version) of truth... and reality. Which is the conclusion I
have come to after years of trying to figure out and track down THE TRUTH. I
also thought it was the most peaceful way to believe, like live and let
live. Till the topic came up here and was far from peaceful(LOL)
Carrie
It says something like everything we think happened, is happening and
will happen is happening "now".
expires
> example, ever anything other than a possible idea/
> /story of a person? IOW, will what wasn't before
> time began still be when time is no longer? Don't
> forget, according to ACIM time doesn't really
> exist. Must then what is born in time not be
> unreal/untrue in timelessness?
> --expires
In my previous response I've replaced
" Did, for example, Jesus already
" exist 2500 years ago?
with
" Is, in timelessness, Jesus for
" example, ever anything other than
" a possible idea/story of a person?
--expires
expires
>> example, ever anything other than a possible idea/
>> time began still be when time is no longer? Don't
>> forget, according to ACIM time doesn't really
>> exist. Must then what is born in time not be
>> unreal/untrue in timelessness?
>> --expires
>
> It says something like everything we think happened, is happening and
> will happen is happening "now".
In my previous response I've replaced
" Did, for example, Jesus already
" exist 2500 years ago?
with
" Is, in timelessness, Jesus for
" example, ever anything other than
" a possible idea/story of a person?
And now to what you've just written:
" [...] everything we think happened,
" is happening and will happen is
" happening "now".
Maybe ACIM says that. I currently tend
to 'see': <start 'see'>
Everything we think happened, is
happening and will happen already
ALWAYS WAS/IS AS A POSSIBLE IDEA,
an idea that can be perceived,
perceived as an idea, as story,
a story 'seen' either from outside
of the story/idea, or experienced
as a story/idea inside the story.
Only inside the story/idea can
the story/idea really seem to be
real. Outside of the story/idea
all stories/ideas are just nothing
other than stories/ideas/images.
What one experiences as 'moving'
trough time/experience in a body
is the 'movement' of one's (tiny)
'ray' of awareness along a path
'inside' interdependent multi-
dimensional possibility-'space'.
What one experiences as 'now' is
what one's awareness focuses on.
Where it becomes interesting is
what determines: If and where one
goes into, the path through, and
eventually out of possibility-
'space'. Also highly interesting
is what determines the 'width' and
'depth' of one's awareness 'ray'.
Examples: A person is relatively
narrow/shallow, humanity would be
wider/deeper, and much wider/deeper
would be planet, solar system...
It's the mostly unconscious convic-
tions, desires, fears, attachments
and etc that are the determinators,
and due to them being mostly if not
wholly unconscious, often contradic-
tory, one seems to have little if
not no control over the path of
(what is) experience(d) and how
sane, deep and happy experience is.
To have control over and/or to be
liberated from determinators of
experience one must first make
them conscious, resolve contradic-
tions within them, and eventually let
go of some determinators, if not all.
Unconscious determinators, I suppose,
are commonly called karma, destiny,
fate, coincidence, God's mysterious
plan(s)/ways, causality, etc...
<end 'see':>
Probably just more or less nonsense which I
share here as a glimpse into my metaphysical
philosophy-construction-site ;-))
Like I'm aware that I'm confused about the
difference between the words "awareness" and
"consciousness". For a few minutes I've just
considered to delete all I've just written
instead of posting it,... :)
--expires
Carrie
>
> In my previous response I've replaced
> " Did, for example, Jesus already
> " exist 2500 years ago?
> with
> " Is, in timelessness, Jesus for
> " example, ever anything other than
> " a possible idea/story of a person?
> --expires
Jesus could be the manifestation of minds joining in belief in what he
taught. Like ACIM, and other books. They come from evolving beliefs, brought
into "form". As minds believe and grow and expand?
It's really something that makes sense to me, even if I can't quite
explain it, or comprehend it.
expires
> Jesus could be the manifestation of minds joining in belief in what he
> taught. Like ACIM, and other books. They come from evolving beliefs, brought
> into "form". As minds believe and grow and expand?
> It's really something that makes sense to me, even if I can't quite
> explain it, or comprehend it.
I doubt I'm a body, a mind, a this or that :)
Perhaps *mind* is always about what is not ;)
--expires
Carrie
That's something to ponder on...
A metaphor.