Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler  And think about it man, you are never IN YOUR dream, your watching the dream. |
that is a great point to reiterate - that consciousness isn't *within* physical reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler Just another thing someone here said that I must not get SR because if I did I would know that what you have created cant be uncreated, thats stupid, you create a belief, destroy it and make up a new one. |
yeah, I think that person had it wrong, or didn't quite mean it that way. Things change, things disappear all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTyler Another thing, look at actors,they play a COMPLETELY other person for weeks, but it doesnt change them, their still the same person PLAYING a character.They dnt BECOME The character as SR would claim. |
SR does not, in any way, claim that. And I think you mean to talk about Law of Attraction / Intention-Manifestation here, because SR's main point is that there's only one consciousness, not how things are created in it. Steve actually thought of SR as a way to *explain* LoA, so it came after that.
And LoA/IM doesn't say that either.
The actors are quite aware that they are playing. They do not firmly believe that they will 'morph' into those characters and lose themself. They know what they are doing. LoA does not negate the seperate existence of imagination.
And remember that SR states that consciousness is not contained within the physical body, so those brain and skull-crushed arguments don't get you anywhere.
You haven't got a hold on this, Dave. Or you're assuming everyone else doesn't, like everyone who believes in SR is trying to think their ego is god, and that doesn't get us anywhere. You don't need to defend that point - it's already in Steve's posts that the ego isn't god, that consciousness isn't contained within the ego.
And everything would go a lot smoother if you'd argue one thing at a time, instead of mixing SR and LoA.
... May I find something better to do...