Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by marinik

Oh Wax I've missed you so much! Where have you been! Not manifesting us?! We have all been in limbo!!! Nobody to observe us into their reality and all of our particles just all over the place!

Better behave, or I'll turn you into a chair or maybe even a nude ballerina!

[thoughtfly]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Also, like the majority of human beings on this planet, I actually live in the east, not the west. Therefore while eastern mysticism may seem very mystical to John, it is quite ordinary and not very mystical to me.

I find quantum physics and Wiccan witchcraft much more mystifying, actually. All those insane white witches and quantum physicists from the West, I love them all! And we mustn't forget dear, unique Americans like Esther Hicks (who brought us Abraham) and Jane Roberts (who brought us Seth).

You're lucky. I was born in the West and spent half my life in the East, and all mysticism seems mystical to me.
But I like it too.

[torilink]

[QUOTE=John Freestone;288057]1. Well, of course, as we have been discussing earlier, the philosophy you have just expressed is just a judgement and perception of yours about life in general. How will you ever know if it is the correct one?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

2. I do not "have to realize" it. I "realised it" when I was 20, as the above explains, and then I realised that it was an unreasonable and unreal set of beliefs.

no you do not have to do anything. believe as you desire to believe, but why do you come here to argue your case?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

3. Your reply suggests that I could have posted any number of very different potted histories of my life, all of which are equally valid, all just perceptions. I wonder how far you would take that. Does it mean that it is pointless saying anything at all about who you are? Does it mean that I could just start again: "I am 23, and have received a Nobel prize for physics and one for peace. I have enjoyed my work with NASA and particularly my missions to explore the solar system, following my invention of warp drive technology. At the weekends I fly my own human-powered helicopter, which I designed and built myself after the breakthrough in aeronautical engineering that bears my name...."?

a snarky smart-ass or offhanded remark which isn't something you truly believe won't be real for you in any way. We can say or think a million things, all of which are meaningless, thoughts & words create nothing. They are merely a reaction to our perceptions.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Would you consider the following an equally relative view: "I am living in a tattered tent in the desert, with a couple of thousand others of my tribe, all of us slowly dying of starvation, as the relief is confiscated by the soldiers most of the time. I am very grateful to the nice Westerner who interviewed me, or my story would not even have a chance of being heard. Despite the high levels of disease, it is essential that I circumcise my daughter tomorrow, as it is our custom. If she is not circumcised, she is unlikely to have a husband, in the unlikely event that she survives the drought and the war..."?

likewise this is a judgment & perception of a personal reality.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Is there nothing of your own life that you are proud enough of to consider a fact, rather than just an arbitrary judgement? Is there anything you just accept as an unfortunate fact, or do you still feel you have failed to master the LoA enough yet to unmanifest anything you don't like?

there are plenty of experiences & situations I've perceived incorrectly. To the extent I allow those experiences & beliefs to create and define a personal identity for myself right now in this moment, is the extent they are truth or illusion.

[luckyluciano]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, that certainly appears to be your perspective!

What you might not be seeing is that we are, in fact, talking about advanced practices in the law of attraction.

For instance, boldly looking at who you're being that the world occurs for you the way it does, and making choices about your way of being that guide you towards what you want (that's what I was talking about earlier with the button-pushing). Great practice in LoA!

Also: ALG talking about inconsistency with ordinary reality. ALG can be supple about shifting his perspective, so he's not necessarily trapped by "consistency" -- he's not married to one point of view, so he's able to effectively use perspective to shift the way he feels, and to therefore manifest what he desires.

-- Also John, with his "my parents warned me that I would waste my life, and in many ways I have so far." Believing that thought actually builds the reality of his life -- his experience really is that in many ways he has wasted his life. John isn't deliberately *using* the LoA the way ALG is; nevertheless he is creating reality in a way that looks to him like The Truth.

See what I mean? It's all on topic. But by all means, start a new thread if you want to keep more strict tabs on the topic. Just state in your OP your "rules" and the moderators will help you if possible. (It sounds like a great way to generate being annoyed, but that might be just what you *need*! )

Yes...my pespective is that you do not understand my definition of Practice and my perspective is that you are avoiding what is my perspective because your perspective is that your practices are advanced. I say this because I see no examples of specific techniques in this thread which in my perspective are advanced.

My perspective of practice is a defined workshop, excercise, technique, process which is duplicatable and produces a desired end result which offers proof of the techniqes effectiveness much like the specific processes offered by Abraham in Ask....the processes.

My perspective is....How in the world are you going to Attract anything of consequence other than a thread on perspectives when you are quibling about one anothers perspectives? You should rename this thread "Perspectives" since you are so good at identifying them.

I use the word "perspective" because you seem to like this word alot.

Rock on with your perspective!

[Angela]

Uh-oh... you're not getting annoyed again, are you?

Originally Posted by luckyluciano

I say this because I see no examples of specific techniques in this thread which in my perspective are advanced.

I see. Yes, it does look like you have a hard time shifting your perspec...... I mean, seeing things unless they already fit your current ideas of reality, so I'll list those specific techniques again (ALG, I'm feelin' ya! ), this time in simple bullet form:

• Taking 100% responsibility -- boldly looking at what you are being.
• Being supple -- being willing to try on and let go of perspectives (d'oh! I said that word!)
• Deliberately noticing your beliefs and how they're shaping your reality

Are they easier to see now?

How in the world are you going to Attract anything of consequence other than a thread on perspectives when you are quibling about one anothers perspectives?

By the by, "quibbling" and "noticing" are two entirely different actions. "Noticing" is what I was doing about your perspective in my last post. "Quibbling" is what I'm doing now, about your use of the word "quibbling."

Rock on with your perspective!

Thank you.

[Acting Like Godot]

You know what he really wants, Angela.

He wants to talk about the breathing; the meditation; the 3D mental image; the "visualisation" of sounds; the progressive muscular relaxation; prayer; the Silva Method; the writing exercises; the pre-paving; the alpha state; the candle magick; the better-feeling thought; the "act as if" method; etc ....

[Angela]

Ah. The Beginner's stuff.

[Angela]

How in the world are you going to Attract anything of consequence other than a thread on perspectives when you are quibling about one anothers perspectives?

I just wanted to say one more thing...every thread here -- they're ALL threads on perspectives!

[marinik]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Better behave, or I'll turn you into a chair or maybe even a nude ballerina!

OK but please let me turn both ways so I can "unwind"!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by torilink

Unfortunately, or not as the case may be, you messed up the quotes there and didn't answer no.1. Not that you have to answer me of course. Just an observation.

no you do not have to do anything. believe as you desire to believe, but why do you come here to argue your case?

You seem to be suggesting that all I have done is change my mind, when I have told you that I learned. There is a difference. Why do I come here to argue my case? Because it's like I've struggled to finally get free of the forest of dreams, and as I emerge there's another bunch on their way in. It's not my fault if they take my arm-waving as indicating my indecision, lack of understanding of the principles of 'perspective' or just my arbitrary point of view.

a snarky smart-ass or offhanded remark which isn't something you truly believe won't be real for you in any way. We can say or think a million things, all of which are meaningless, thoughts & words create nothing. They are merely a reaction to our perceptions.

It wasn't snarky, smart-ass or offhand, and the fact that it wasn't real for me in any way was exactly my point. It was an alternative reality, presented to illustrate how "thoughts & words create nothing". You seem to have partly got the point, but have also said "we can say or think a million things, all of which are meaningless", and that, unfortunately, is misleading. There are some things we can say that are meaningful, and that match with reality. At least, certain things match better than others. I concede that words don't encapsulate reality perfectly, but that is quite a different matter from whether thought creates reality, which is the philosophy of LoA, and which you appear to have refuted. Good for you, by the way. Thoughts and words create nothing, you should put that as your sig.

likewise this is a judgment & perception of a personal reality.

This was your response to my hypothetical life-story of the starving refugee. See, this is where the LoA really pisses me off. "It's all perception!" --- "What about the war-torn, starving, diseased, crippled, raped, oppressed, the holocaust victims?" --- "Yeah, they just imagine all of that!" Sorry if my response is snarky, but it makes me wish you'd fall down a man-hole and break your legs. Ah, but you'd still think you intended to. If someone came into your life and...oh forget it. I've been through all this before, and you are right to ask why I'm bothering. It clearly doesn't make a scrap of difference. There was one guy once got in touch and thanked me for helping him get free of all the newage claptrap, but in a month he'd found the one true religion instead, which was RC, (remote controlled?). All shades of BS wait round every corner.

there are plenty of experiences & situations I've perceived incorrectly. To the extent I allow those experiences & beliefs to create and define a personal identity for myself right now in this moment, is the extent they are truth or illusion.

If you are capable of logical thought, I don't think you can hold both of those opinions concurrently. The latter may be one of the things you perceive incorrectly. The definition of truth is not the extent to which you invest in an opinion. You keep saying it, and then refuting it: "there are plenty of experiences I've perceived incorrectly". So how do you know whether you are perceiving the definition of reality correctly when you say it is whatever you allow your beliefs to create? It seems to me just like a long, convoluted way of saying "Whatever I believe is true". Do you believe that? If so, what of perceiving things incorrectly? What does that even mean? If you know that you perceived something incorrectly, it implies that you have compared it with a correct perception, and found it wanting.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

-- Also John, with his "my parents warned me that I would waste my life, and in many ways I have so far." Believing that thought actually builds the reality of his life -- his experience really is that in many ways he has wasted his life. John isn't deliberately *using* the LoA the way ALG is; nevertheless he is creating reality in a way that looks to him like The Truth.

Angela, you talk about being loving and compassionate a fair old bit. If you want a tip on the practice, as opposed to the rhetoric, one thing you can do is refrain from taking people's words and abusing their meaning. Of course, you're free to interpret reality however you wish, and I know how important it is to expand your freedom, and I don't intend to limit it. But a big part of loving (if you are interested it that) is listening to and understanding what other people say, even if you disagree with it.

The strange thing, to me, is that your side of things should uphold different perspectives, allow people their own meanings, especially when they are describing their own experiences, and yet there is this Borg-like assimilation of everything into relativity. There is, in the end, no point in anyone saying anything to you lot, since it has no substance of its own. It is irrelevant. It will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

It's like in the film, The Secret, they quote Winston Churchill: "You create your own universe as you go along". They are lying bastards. He was criticising that view, adding, "…These amusing mental acrobatics are all right to play with. They are perfectly harmless and perfectly useless. I warn my younger readers only to treat them as a game. The metaphysicians will have the last word and defy you to disprove their absurd propositions."

I think I'm realising that that is the fate of all logical thought here. It is irrelevant. It will be assimilated by the circular logic of makebelieve. A while ago, you, Angela, hailed ALG's inconsistency as a good thing. There is no point arguing. Consistency is the basis of argument and reason. Of course, some of you will think, "But that's inflexible. Flexibility is vital, surely...". Ah, logic. You gave up the right to it. Don't you remember? Before you were Borg?

[fellowtraveler]

So entertaining, like a movie with all the great characters. Bogie and Bacall, Tracy and Hepburn...now ALG and JF in their own Danse Macabre.

The Luciano guy in the bad suit, black shirt and white tie pops in halfway through with his tommy-gun and starts shootin' up the joint - he'll ask questions later, thanks. Lucky sweeps the room twice, but stops and looks at his weapon in puzzlement when ALG remainds standing, just staring with a cold, knowing smile at Lucky: he simply isn't a believer in hot lead.

Meanwhile, JF thinks Lucky's come to save him, but alas...Lucky's not true. JF had felt safe, as though he finally had an ally, when LL burst into the room...but it was not to be. LL turned out to be like all the others. Oh why, why could JF never make any of them see the error of their ways? Why could he not save them from a life of wanton self-delusion!!??? To JF, it almost seemed as though they all, all those he'd tried to help in the past, almost...had their own minds! Sometimes it nearly brought him to despair, to think that he might never be allowed to save even one poor soul. But deep inside he knew that what he was doing was enough for him...simply to prove himself right would make it all worthwhile.

The film editor must have still been hung over from the studio's New Year's party, because in the middle of the scene, Glenda the Good Witch (who everybody just loves, rest assured) wafts down from the ceiling, her flowing locks and radiant smile flooding the room with a glorious rainbow in technicolor. She waves her wand and glimmering fairy dust fills the air. Lucky just sneezes, but accidentally kills an extra with the gat, adding to the heaps of still-warm bodies littering the floor. Glenda winces at the gore, but shrugs - after all, it was their own fault for letting him push their buttons. Really.

What comes next? Will ALG forget to visualize this thread? Will JF ever find happiness by trying to deny it to others? Will LL run off with Daffy Duck and evade the copyright lawyers from Warner Brothers? Will Glenda campaign to become this forum's moderator for some dark purpose known only to herself? Come back next Saturday morning, kids, and find out! Popcorn half price, Milk Duds are fresh (mostly), and the Jujubes'll pull every filling. Ouch.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Angela, you talk about being loving and compassionate a fair old bit. If you want a tip on the practice, as opposed to the rhetoric, one thing you can do is refrain from taking people's words and abusing their meaning. Of course, you're free to interpret reality however you wish, and I know how important it is to expand your freedom, and I don't intend to limit it. But a big part of loving (if you are interested it that) is listening to and understanding what other people say, even if you disagree with it.

First of all, I rarely talk about being loving and compassionate. You must be thinking of someone else.

But I don't see how my remark abused your meaning. You stated that your parents told you that you wasted your life and that in may ways they were right -- that's a belief. I didn't editorialize about the content of your belief. There is nothing personal about what I said about your belief -- it applies to everybody's beliefs. When you believe your thoughts, your experience of them is REAL. When you believe something about yourself, it creates your reality of who you are. I did NOT say what that reality is -- maybe that's what you are reading in to what I did say?

If you believe "I wasted my life," that belief will very powerfully the choices you make right now in this moment. Same would be true if you believed, "I have no regrets" or "Life is hard." Yours was just one example out of many; it doesn't mean anything about YOU.

But as I mentioned, if your buttons are pushed because of this, it is an opportunity for breakthrough! And if you feel neutral about it, then you'll allow it to pass into the past.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

But a big part of loving (if you are interested it that) is listening to and understanding what other people say, even if you disagree with it.

Looks to me like here is the kernel of your opportunity, by the way.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

First of all, I rarely talk about being loving and compassionate. You must be thinking of someone else.

Well obviously. It was one of the people you were a moment ago.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I just wanted to say one more thing...every thread here -- they're ALL threads on perspectives!

Is that an absolute truth in an objective reality?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

A while ago, you, Angela, hailed ALG's inconsistency as a good thing. There is no point arguing. Consistency is the basis of argument and reason. Of course, some of you will think, "But that's inflexible. Flexibility is vital, surely...". Ah, logic. You gave up the right to it. Don't you remember? Before you were Borg?

ahhh... just one more thing (that was said in Peter Falk's accent).

Once again, you see things that aren't there in what I say. Boy, you do that a lot! I never "hailed ALG's inconsistency as a good thing" -- I didn't judge it and I never referred to it at all in terms of logic or argument.

What I did do was list as a technique in using the LoA ALG's ability to shift his perspective: to take on and let go of perspectives. You may call this inconsistency if you like; I don't mind.

If there is no point in arguing, and if there is no point in saying anything at all to us lot, why do you keep at it? And with such fervor, too. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* keep at it, mind you. Just wondering why you exert yourself, when you believe there is no point.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

Once again, you see things that aren't there in what I say. Boy, you do that a lot!

Ironically, John says the same about you.

You don't understand me.
It's because you don't understand me!
I would understand you if you understood me!
But that won't happen until you understand me!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Is that an absolute truth in an objective reality?

Probably more like a relative truth in a subjective reality.

You don't understand me.
It's because you don't understand me!
I would understand you if you understood me!
But that won't happen until you understand me!

Daffy, I think you're onto something. I think you may be hearing some old pain. You're good!

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

Probably more like a relative truth in a subjective reality.

Darn. Wait, is that an absolute truth in an objective reality?

You're good!

Girl, I'm ****ing fabulous!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Darn. Wait, is that an absolute truth in an objective reality?

No, I think you could safely assume that everything I say is a relative truth in a subjective reality.

Including that.

And that.

I feel like one of those little Russian stacking dolls.

Girl, I'm ****ing fabulous!

Don't I know it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Well obviously. It was one of the people you were a moment ago.

You mean like earlier in this thread when I said that you are a loving person?

[Acting Like Godot]

I sense confusion here. I shall explain.

Contrary to what John suggests, the LOA is fully compatible with logic. The problem here is that John does not understand what logic is.

Logic is correct reasoning, based on a given set of assumptions/premises. For example, suppose that our premises are:

1. John is an ex-hippie on drugs
2. Ex-hippies on drugs should not be trusted

then it is logically correct to say:

"John should not be trusted." This statement is completely logical. However, it is by no means necessarily true. This is because the premises are open to questioning.

For example, it is possible that some ex-hippies on drugs can be trusted. It is is possible that all ex-hippies on drugs can be trusted, depending on the subject matter. It is possible that the trustworthiness of ex-hippies depend on the nature of drugs they have consumed. Etc etc.

BUT if we agree on Premise 1 and 2, THEN the statement is "John should not be trusted" is fully logical.

The question that everyone needs to consider here is how you select your premises and assumptions. Next you will see that all your premises and assumptions are based on other premises and assumptions which in turn are based on premises and assumptions, and so on.

Taken far enough, the statement "John is an ex-hippie on drugs" will, for example, lead to questions like "What is John?", "What is a drug?" and eventually further reduce to "John is subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence". Which may then lead us to some further ideas which have already been discussed at some length, earlier in this thread.

Readers will be reminded of my earlier post about how everything is a concept, and concepts arise in your own mind. And therefore how reality is ultimately arising from your own mind.

HOWEVER, for practical purposes, at some point, we normally stop reducing our premises and assumptions any further. And that point usually falls far short of the subatomic particles stage.

For example, without delving any further, we may just decide to use the following as our premises:

1. John is an ex-hippie on drugs
2. Ex-hippies on drugs should not be trusted

and therefore logically conclude: "John should not be trusted."

So in my next post, I will address the question of "suppleness" and "inconsistency" of reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

"Suppleness of perspective" (as used in this thread), is not to be confused with "inconsistency" (as used in this thread). I can agree that I am supple with my perspective. I do not agree that I am inconsistent.

As a matter of fact, I am highly consistent in this discussion. My highly consistent position may be neatly summarised in five words:

"Your thoughts create your reality."

I challenge anyone to demonstrate that I have been inconsistent about the above. Inconsistency in fact is highly disadvantageous if you seek to manifest a certain desired goal. If you keep changing your mind, you get nowhere.

"Suppleness of perspective" is an entirely different matter. It is about mindfulness. It is about conscious choice. It is about deliberately selecting the perspectives that work best for you.

It is most certainly not self-delusion. Consider a simple illustration.

Take two sane people, X and Y, and place them in an identical situation (eg the same kind of job). Both X and Y may have similar backgrounds (in terms of prior work experience, educational qualifications etc).

Now, it is entirely possible that X and Y will express very different opinions about their similar jobs. For example:

1. X says: "The work here is really complicated. I love it! It's so challenging and I'll get to grow and learn a lot."

2. Y says: "The work here is really complicated. I hate it! It's so challenging and I'm going to be very stressed & unhappy working here."

In either case, you can see that the person is not delusional. X has an opinion, and justifiable reasons for it. Y has a very different opinion, and he also has justifiable reasons for it.

However, their reasons are exactly the same - that their work is complicated and challenging. In other words, the exact same situation supports a variety of different possible and justifiable perspectives.

Now, let us say a 3rd person, Z, is now placed in the same position as X and Y. Z has the same work experience, qualifications etc as X and Y. Also, Z happens to be a LOA practitioner.

Now, if X is not delusional, then clearly it would not be delusional for Z to adopt the same perspective as X.

Similarly, if Y is not delusional, then clearly it would not be delusional for Z to adopt the same perspective as Y.

Z, being a LOA practitioner, and possessing adequate suppleness of perspective, considers his situation, is mindful of his thoughts, and consciously opts to adopt the same perspective as X.

Well done, Z! Now you've created a job for yourself, that you really love, and is complicated and challenging that you'll get to grow and learn a lot!

Now, if you really must say that anyone is delusional, then I say that the prime candidate is Y. (And it's the kind of delusion that Eckhart Tolle discusses at length in his books). Y mistakes the running commentary in his own mind, as "objective" reality (which, of course, doesn't really exist) - in other words, he believes that his job is really "objectively" awful, when in fact all its awfulness exists in his own mind.

For instance, if Y takes thoughts like these far enough:

"The work here is really complicated. I hate it! It's so challenging and I'm going to be very stressed & unhappy working here."

.... then Y will grow tired, he will grow depressed, he might turn to alcohol, he may even kill himself.

But did "objective" reality truly cause him to kill himself? Or was it his own thoughts, and the reality that his thoughts ultimately created for him? Go ponder.

Now is Z, the LOA practitioner, insane to deliberately choose his thoughts? Is he self-delusional to consciously exercise suppleness in selecting his perspective?

That is what John will tell you.

However, I see Z as simply being wise. What say you?

"A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering." - Gautama Buddha

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Once again, you see things that aren't there in what I say. Boy, you do that a lot! I never "hailed ALG's inconsistency as a good thing" -- I didn't judge it and I never referred to it at all in terms of logic or argument.

What I did do was list as a technique in using the LoA ALG's ability to shift his perspective: to take on and let go of perspectives. You may call this inconsistency if you like; I don't mind.

Well I do and it is. You have even demonstrated in the above your own inconsistency by requiring that there is an absolute reality about what you did or did not say, and I have got it wrong. You prefer another, the relative, viewpoint, when the same is pointed out about your interpretation of my sentences. Then there is no absolute reality, and you're free to construe whatever you want.

Slipping from one perspective to another is inconsistency. To be consistent in one's logical flow, the same perspective must be maintained; those are not my rules, they are the rules of logic. One can, of course, start again from a different perspective and work things out again. It's called taking axioms and then constructing arguments, or seeing what those axioms imply. We could say that the LoA is a perspective, and my view, the objective-reality view, is another perspective. Each has axioms. I am on record here as saying that ultimately we cannot know which view is absolutely correct, and indeed I do not pretend to know the truth about the world. I work with hypotheses, perspectives, and see what they imply. However, there is a beauty to this position: it is the reasonable position. By its own definition, it will gladly submit to a superior view if one can be found that is rational. It is itself a hypothesis, and that view of itself is consistent with its axioms.

Now, in a sense, LoA or subjective reality, is self-sustaining: if you just keep asserting that it could be true and we can't detect otherwise, then that is perfectly logical and an end to the matter. That is the observation that Churchill made above, that the metaphysician will have the last word. However, it is a paradoxical last word, meaning that it is internally inconsistent in a most glaring way to anyone who bothers to examine the belief rationally.

Now, what I have tried to do is explore some of the internal inconsistencies, the irrationalities, the paradoxes, of LoA. If the believer can't see them when they are pointed out, that may be for various reasons, one of which is the fear of criticising or temporarily stepping out of one's own current belief system (a ubiquitous feature of human thinking including my own). One might then say that to remain faithful to the LoA system, or indeed mine, is 'consistency', but of the unhelpful kind, inflexibility.

The 'logic' of LoA leads to paradoxes. How can "thoughts create reality" fit together with "there are subatomic particles", or "there are truthful articles about these things that I can link to on the internet"? How can we use as evidence-that-we-create-our-reality the very evidence that we must be creating for the philosophy to be true? That method of demonstration is no more than pointing. Of course, there is a place to be that is just about faith, not evidence. That is the only rational position I can see for LoA to exist, at least in its stronger forms: I create reality with my thoughts is what I've chosen to believe, and I ain't budging. That's fair at least. That doesn't insult reason, it just ignores it.

We've been there, and we don't agree, and it probably is time for me to move on. I recognise that ultimately this space is for the believers, and I could be thought of as trespassing.

When I came to this forum, I was still a believer in mysticism, but I have since become an atheist and materialist. The interesting thing is that virtually all of the knowledge of this scientific viewpoint supports all other parts, i.e. it all fits together coherently and consistently. There are, of course, limits. An interesting thing about it - often misrepresented here badly - is that science is not a dogmatic single explanation, where everyone has to think and say the same thing. It is incredibly multifarious, since it is just constructed of hypotheses. People test these and continually assess which make more sense, and the whole of science is therefore a healthy and vigorous debate, and - often, if not always - a tentative and humble search for more understanding, rather than a belief that we have found the right answers. There are also paradoxes and great unknowns, but three requirements are that it is rational, consistent and demonstrable. A hypothesis isn't even allowed by definition if it isn't thought to be testable, since any hypothesis must be susceptible to disproof. Once again, from that perspective, we see a problem with the subjective reality worldview - it can't be disproved, so isn't a valid hypothesis. This is seen again and again when someone submits their psi abilities to scientific testing and then claims that it didn't work because their minds were disturbed by bad vibes, or the scientist-sceptic minds made it go wrong, or it was an off day, etc.

We can do experiments and demonstrate the properties of atoms. We cannot do experiments and demonstrate that they don't exist if we don't look, or that to exist God must be watching over them. There are an infinite number of fantasies we can have, and scientists choose to subjugate all of those to things that can be empirically tested and verified through repetition and peer review.

If there is no point in arguing, and if there is no point in saying anything at all to us lot, why do you keep at it? And with such fervor, too. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* keep at it, mind you. Just wondering why you exert yourself, when you believe there is no point.

I express different feelings at different times. I'm human. If someone is angry with you and says "There's no point talking to you!", do you actually expect that they will never talk to you again? Or is this just another time when meanings have suddenly become absolute for you? I'll tell you my hypothesis: it is a way of suggesting that my motives are skewed; that way, it is easier to also continue to believe that my reasoning is.

I think I will be gone from here soon. I don't want this to be a parting shot and if there are loose ends, I'm happy to discuss them, but I don't feel that I want to continue discussing our various philosophies here, where it seems there is one correct philosophy - LoA - and therefore those who come bearing other gifts, thought experiments and reasoning are less than welcome. I wish you all the best for the future, absolutely sincerely, and hope you think critically. Critical thinking is our best human attribute, perhaps our only human attribute. It led to our abilities to be arguing about it over these electrical connections we call the internet, which really really does exist, honest, it's not just something you imagined.

[Daffy Duck]

Actually John, I don't think the Internet exists. I'm sure it exists for you, though.

[torilink]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Unfortunately, or not as the case may be, you messed up the quotes there and didn't answer no.1. Not that you have to answer me of course. Just an observation.

yes i messed up the quotes there. I had intended to just ignore the first question.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You seem to be suggesting that all I have done is change my mind, when I have told you that I learned. There is a difference. Why do I come here to argue my case? Because it's like I've struggled to finally get free of the forest of dreams, and as I emerge there's another bunch on their way in. It's not my fault if they take my arm-waving as indicating my indecision, lack of understanding of the principles of 'perspective' or just my arbitrary point of view.

The belief you've learned something is itself subjective and merely a perception.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

It wasn't snarky, smart-ass or offhand, and the fact that it wasn't real for me in any way was exactly my point. It was an alternative reality, presented to illustrate how "thoughts & words create nothing". You seem to have partly got the point, but have also said "we can say or think a million things, all of which are meaningless", and that, unfortunately, is misleading. There are some things we can say that are meaningful, and that match with reality. At least, certain things match better than others. I concede that words don't encapsulate reality perfectly, but that is quite a different matter from whether thought creates reality, which is the philosophy of LoA, and which you appear to have refuted. Good for you, by the way. Thoughts and words create nothing, you should put that as your sig.

I wasn't really saying you were being snarky, simply stating that a offhand comment and a belief are two entirely different animals when it comes to intentionally manifesting/perception.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

This was your response to my hypothetical life-story of the starving refugee. See, this is where the LoA really pisses me off. "It's all perception!" --- "What about the war-torn, starving, diseased, crippled, raped, oppressed, the holocaust victims?" --- "Yeah, they just imagine all of that!" Sorry if my response is snarky, but it makes me wish you'd fall down a man-hole and break your legs. Ah, but you'd still think you intended to. If someone came into your life and...oh forget it. I've been through all this before, and you are right to ask why I'm bothering. It clearly doesn't make a scrap of difference. There was one guy once got in touch and thanked me for helping him get free of all the newage claptrap, but in a month he'd found the one true religion instead, which was RC, (remote controlled?). All shades of BS wait round every corner.

Perception is filtered by belief, so by holding beliefs in separation, lack, degree's, good & evil, and countless others I will perceive a world where these things exist.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If you are capable of logical thought, I don't think you can hold both of those opinions concurrently. The latter may be one of the things you perceive incorrectly. The definition of truth is not the extent to which you invest in an opinion. You keep saying it, and then refuting it: "there are plenty of experiences I've perceived incorrectly". So how do you know whether you are perceiving the definition of reality correctly when you say it is whatever you allow your beliefs to create? It seems to me just like a long, convoluted way of saying "Whatever I believe is true". Do you believe that? If so, what of perceiving things incorrectly? What does that even mean? If you know that you perceived something incorrectly, it implies that you have compared it with a correct perception, and found it wanting.

Awww, you believe they are in opposition. Logic & truth are not necessarily congruent. The truth is true 100% of the time and in all situations, or it wouldn't be true. Perception is malleable as is logic - highly subjective. We can perceive correctly or incorrectly and this will determine if we see truth or illusion. Most of what we experience is incorrectly perceived as it can change (starving children can be fed, wars can end). Truth cannot be known through logic.... it can only be experienced. Most perception is illusion.... through intentional manifestation we simply choose to perceive and experience better things, they may or may not be truth.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Well I do and it is. You have even demonstrated in the above your own inconsistency by requiring that there is an absolute reality about what you did or did not say, and I have got it wrong. You prefer another, the relative, viewpoint, when the same is pointed out about your interpretation of my sentences. Then there is no absolute reality, and you're free to construe whatever you want.

Slipping from one perspective to another is inconsistency.

Maybe you missed ALG's posts about 1) relative truth and 2) suppleness vs. inconsistency? He explained these concepts so well! Perhaps they'll help you understand what I'm trying to say -- if you are at all interested in understanding me, that is!

I don't believe my thoughts are The Truth, but linguistic convention calls for me to express them as if they were. I pepper my posts with phrases like "I believe" and "I think" but it would be terribly tedious and not as much fun to read if I was always adding, "..but that's not The Absolute, Objective Truth."

I express different feelings at different times. I'm human. If someone is angry with you and says "There's no point talking to you!", do you actually expect that they will never talk to you again?

If someone tells me that there is no point in talking to me, I will not expect them to never talk to me again, because in fact, they would be talking to me in the present moment, when they said, "there's no point in talking to you, Angela!" Since you are still talking to me, it looks like there is indeed a point to talking to me. Do you know what that point is?

Were you angry with me? Doesn't it strike you as an opportunity to learn something about yourself that you find yourself getting angry or exasperated or upset because I don't think the way you want me to think? It doesn't mean anything about me if you feel angry; you can't change me, but you can change your thoughts.

So you're not always logically consistent in conversation, huh? Sometimes you're just emotionally expressive.

I think I will be gone from here soon. I don't want this to be a parting shot and if there are loose ends, I'm happy to discuss them, but I don't feel that I want to continue discussing our various philosophies here, where it seems there is one correct philosophy - LoA - and therefore those who come bearing other gifts, thought experiments and reasoning are less than welcome. I wish you all the best for the future, absolutely sincerely, and hope you think critically.

Okay, thanks. I wonder if "loose ends" will ever be tied up for you, though? It seems like there's always some point on which you'll want to have the last word.

I also wish you all the best for the future, and I hope you think exactly as you choose to think!

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Angela

I don't believe my thoughts are The Truth, but linguistic convention calls for me to express them as if they were. I pepper my posts with phrases like "I believe" and "I think" but it would be terribly tedious and not as much fun to read if I was always adding, "..but that's not The Absolute, Objective Truth."

So is there such a thing as Absolute/Objective Truth or not? I seem to get mixed messages from those who believe in subjective reality.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

So is there such a thing as Absolute/Objective Truth or not? I seem to get mixed messages from those who believe in subjective reality.

Maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. I have looked and looked, and I can't find one thing that is objectively/absolutely The Truth. I even started a thread awhile back, asking if anyone knew of anything that was The Truth. A lot of people offered suggestions, and I believe that their truth was very real to them, but I wasn't convinced that any of the suggestions was objectively, absolutely True.

It's not hard for me to see *reality* through the perspective of someone who believes in absolute, objective, hardcore truth, and I often play my game in that perspective. Maybe that's where the mixed messages come in? It's like Bewitched. She had all these powers, but she played the Human Game for fun.

(p.s... the Bewitched thing is a light-hearted analogy, not meant to be taken any further, for you hard-core objective realists out there who are looking for something to argue with me about. )