Posts by Douglas Brown4

Karen Sanchez19 said:make up your mind😁>

I am not the master of God. God has His own (that is just a figure of speech). I have my own (again, a figure of speech).

Richard Murphy6 said:Maybe you've actually convinced me now.
To me, this feels like Douglas Brown4's situation, while the Self is just sitting on the sidelines.
Well, at least I know what kind of "Self-seeker" you are!👍

😁
Enjoy it!!
Where's your better half? Mrs. Q😍
If I can't win with logic, I might as well go for the personal shots!

No. I am looking for windows in the steel walls of this material existence.
Once I find them, then I will fashion a file.

😁
Enjoy!!
Your better half is Mrs. Q.😍

Mrs. Q is not my better half. Neither he, nor Lucy, nor his Dianas, Mirtas, or anyone similar to them.

If I lack an argument, I can at least resort to an ad hominem attack!

One should keep that in mind. You know, I don't mind if someone calls me a pansy. Why? Because I have nothing against them. It is roughly the same as calling me a makeup artist. Sure, it's not that I love them, but they aren't exactly a catastrophe either.

Daniel Chavez14 said:I thought I’d throw a little more material into the mix for us to chew on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_th...Do_We_Know!%3F
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/what_the__do_we_know/
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2...he_bleep_.html
http://www.einsteinyear.org/bleep
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/bleep/

I don't want to act like a know-it-all or clog up the board, so I guess I'll just wait until things really heat up here. 🙂

Jesse Wright24 said:Finally, someone who actually admits when they are talking nonsense, even if they are having a grand old time doing it. You have my utmost respect...

Not really. I just respond to nonsense in kind. These debates supposedly cover metaphysical topics, but it's mostly just mental speculation. It isn't that I mind everyone having their own perspective; it's just funny to watch how intensely people approach things they can't possibly grasp, convincing themselves of whatever they happened to read without ever connecting it to reality.

Daniel Chavez14 said:That’s not the only way. If you click the button in the top right corner, you can find more details, including the movie synopsis.

They’re marketing this as a SPIRITUAL film, claiming it’ll be the first of its kind.

I like the movie, at least based on the synopsis. It follows the Lynn McTaggart principle, I guess.
Still, I really ought to watch it.
Daily experience is certainly different from what we see in quantum physics regarding field scales and fundamental particles like leptons and quarks.
However, anyone who has actually studied these things knows that this underlying reality is what actually drives our perceived reality. All those spiritual New Age upgrades can be interpreted however people want, often reducing everything to something vague and murky.

When I first started writing about this, nobody seemed interested.

Richard Murphy6 said:Hmm.
So you think you're the self, but you're still somehow separate from it? Even if you reached this state of pure being—which, based on what you wrote, you haven't quite hit yet—you'd still be disconnected from God, who is the self of the whole universe.
According to your logic, all selves stay separated, even when they reach total immortality and purity.
That sounds like MULTI-SPLITTING to me!🤣
It's like a massive, infinite fragmentation of the "infiniteUm."

I am the master. And I am not separate from him.

Even if you were to achieve pure selfhood—which, based on your writing, I don't think you have yet—you would still be disconnected from God, who is the very essence of the universe.

Separate, yes, but in connection with him.

I guess you believe that even in their immortality and purity, senses remain severed.
That basically means MULTIIZAM.🤣
The multi-layered fragmentation of "infinutuUm."

That’s right.

Daniel Chavez14 said:That’s fine, but it’s not really what this thread is about.

How is it not? The film was rejected by festivals in Cannes and Berlin...
And people actually want to see it.
That's basically all it says there.

boldsailor2 said:Terminology might fail, but there is such a thing as precise description. We aren't in New York City!

Terminology might fail, but there is such a thing as precise description. We aren't in New York City!
Well, I don't— 😳
that's why I say people just breeze past Western philosophers and their whole interpretation thing 🤣
... I want to hear what *you* think—forget about them. 😉
Well, I don't— 😳
that's why I say people just breeze past Western philosophers and their whole interpretation thing 🤣
... I want to hear what *you* think—forget about them. 😉

I have expectations, but maybe not desperate ones.

Daniel Chavez14 said:I hear what you're saying, but I was actually looking for a specific argument tied directly to that link, rather than just a general observation.
Are you critiquing the movie itself, or are you taking aim at the people who criticized it?

I haven't seen the film.
I am criticizing festivals, the film industry as a whole, and people involved in cinema and art in general. It is all Decadent.

boldsailor2 said:Honestly, don't even bother... you can only really interpret anything if you're actually practicing it and looking inward—anything else is just useless intellectual gymnastics that leads people astray...

That’s where language fails us... because when I say "the present," I mean pure existence—totally outside of time and space.😉

But how can you be sure I don't have that insight? 😁

then the terminology failed... when I say "the present," I mean pure existence, outside of time and space 😉

Terminology might fail, but there is such a thing as precise description. We aren't in New York City!

Karen Sanchez19 said:Yeah, sure... but you haven't even begun to grasp the reality of it yet.

Imagine, if you can, the sheer audacity of "existing"—truly existing—in a state of total detachment from everything. A complete lack of attachment to any outcome, any object, any ego. Picture a reality where everything unfolds exactly as it always has, following its own internal logic, entirely indifferent to whether or not you finally "realize" it. The gears turn, the seasons shift, the chaos continues, all regardless of your little moment of enlightenment. It just happens. Just like it always did.😁

Of course I am not. Just like you aren't. Neither of us actually has any proof. I suppose that is why this discussion isn't going anywhere.

imagine if it were possible to "exist"—to live in a state of complete detachment from everything—while everything just keeps happening on its own, exactly the same way it did before you ever had that "realization."😁

Everything happens regardless of me anyway. Except for whatever I choose to focus on. When I do that, things unfold how I want them to, within certain degrees of freedom, I guess.

Daniel Chavez14 said:Can someone provide an actual argument here?

Art and film critics seem to rely heavily on templates and stereotypes.
Beyond that, they’ve become rather rigid and slow to adapt. I suppose you could say the industry itself—film, design, marketing—is seeing fewer intellectuals involved, while being increasingly dominated by fools.

Daniel Chavez14 said:http://www.kojikuopceznamo.net/

What are your thoughts on this?

I suppose we could say film criticism, and honestly the entire movie industry, is just Decadent.

Karen Sanchez19 said:It’s because you are nothing more than your own individuality, a mere "product of mechanisms." Everything that occurs simply happens on its own; your free will is nothing but an illusion.
Thoughts, regardless of their nature, just manifest spontaneously.😉

I don't think I am a product of some mechanism.

All thoughts, whatever they may be, just happen on their own.😉

Well, maybe not quite.

Richard Murphy6 said:Do you really think that if we finally cracked the code on how our brain structure works, we’d suddenly "know" everything about the universe? Or what? Also, when you talk about the Self, are you talking about your own Ego, or your core identity? Or do you think they're totally separate things? And just to be clear—are you using "Self" as a synonym for God? I'm a little lost here!

The Self is me. Eternal and incorporeal. I don't believe it is some byproduct of my brain's neural networks, nor is it an illusion born from focusing on a collective consciousness.
Simply put, the Self is who I am and why I exist.
God is the Self of the entire Universe.

boldsailor2 said:You really think I'm that simple—?
"Getting rid of desire"... that’s just impossible. You have to learn how to channel it instead—and stop obsessing over the end result.

"You need to get out of here"... that's just wrong—the location doesn't actually matter at all.

"You’ve gotta let go"... but that "part" is already free—it’s just grasping—and you shouldn't be identifying with the "unfree" side—the ego, the mental modifications and all that.

"I don't even want to escape the suffering." ... me neither—I just keep wondering who exactly is doing the suffering, like, is it really ME or just some other part of me?

It’s honestly silly—inspiration always seems to hit right when you're finally alone with your own thoughts and actually present in the moment...

That’s just impossible... I mean, there's only the present moment—that's pretty easy to wrap your head around. Your logic makes it sound like you're identifying too much with the ego—you know, the "um"—since you think it "lives" through all three time periods.

You really think you can figure out my whole vibe after just a few sentences—? 😵

I’m just adding my two cents regarding how Westerners tend to interpret Eastern philosophy.

It’s foolish, really. Inspiration always seems to strike right when you finally find some peace and become truly present in the moment.

I find that inspiration hits me best when I’m hovering above the present moment. It’s that feeling of being detached—sort of stepping outside of both space and time.

That's just impossible... there is only the present moment, after all. That part should be easy enough to grasp. I guess your line of reasoning suggests you're identifying yourself too closely with the Mana, since you claim "it lives" across all three time periods.

That’s right. I agree.
The present is nothing more than an illusion; I guess it only truly exists within a specific point in time.

You think you can figure out my style after just a few sentences? Maybe. I guess. 😵

No.

boldsailor2 said:the issue is you're assuming you know exactly what I mean...

and if you want to believe I'm getting worked up, fine—keep thinking that... you're just projecting your own biases at this point, and honestly, I don't even feel like explaining myself anymore... 😉

That’s probably your problem. If I misunderstood, then maybe you didn't explain it very well. I believe I understand your point.

Quincy:

and if you want to think I've gotten attached, then go ahead... you're just projecting your own biases again... and honestly, I don't really feel like explaining myself further in that spirit 😉

Fine. It's your choice.

boldsailor2 said:"We" again? 🤣
If you think you actually know what "my" teachings are, then you're still just as lost as before... 😵

btw I'm not getting worked up, you're just being tedious 😉

The issue is that you seem to be taking this far too personally.
Just relax. It's only a discussion.

boldsailor2 said:Look, I said "I," not "we"—not everyone’s living life with their cup running over, you know? My post wasn't even directed at you... you clearly already have all the answers you need. The point is honestly too simple and blunt for me to sit here and explain—you completely missed the mark. I’ll just let the people who think they know better than me keep thinking that way... anyway, that's most people for you. You're just part of the herd. 😉

Cheers!

Don't get worked up. You haven't said anything we don't already know. Unfortunately, your line of thinking is exactly what the New York City herd tries to push on us.

Richard Murphy6 said:It seems to be a crisis of the human condition. We exist as autonomous individuals, shaped by the history of our structural shifts. We possess self-awareness and an awareness of our own unique identity—yet, curiously, when we attempt to locate that individual self within the experiential world, it remains elusive.

Maybe we can't find it because we simply don't understand how neural structures actually function. Perhaps the self isn't from this world at all. It might arrive from the outside into any system complex and well-designed enough to receive it. A neural structure isn't a mechanism that generates the self; rather, it acts as a house that the eternal self moves into. When Fritjof and others discuss this, I wonder: why couldn't I just create a self inside a computer? It doesn't seem reproducible.
The issue, I suspect, lies in the ignorance of those writing these theories. Those who claim the self is the root of frustration and suffering are free to believe that. Personally, I maintain that I am myself, not some illusion of interconnectedness. My suffering doesn't stem from my sense of self, but rather from the egoism of the people around me. That is something that can be resolved.