What is limiting us?

[melanie]

TOE is infinitely eternal and absolute.

A theory of everything--- is a system of uncertain ideas, how can an uncertain 'idea' explain an idea of the absolute? seems a bit confusingly wobbly to me?

A truth of everything--- is also uncertain, arbitrary at best.
One cannot step into the same river twice.

While the universe changes immeasurably,

the unity or true Oneness of everything does not and never will.

common logic tells me that the universe is already the unity of oneness
so how can, ' as you imply '
a universe be changing immeasurably, and in the same breath you state that true oneness does not change.

And where does consciousness ever fit into your assumptions ?

MJA you don't have to answer this post, because i know how you don't like to hear any-one else's truth.


The point is ..... it is consciousness that is the uncertain principle isn't it?

We ignore it because we don't know what it is,
and yet it is quite simply, as plain and as self evident as the nose on y(our) face....

And where is the face?

Seems like an empty principle after all......not much comfort in that for some.

[SteveA]

What is limiting us ?

http://montalk.net/matrix/157/spiritless-humans

I just had to grab a few quotes from this article:

They lack individuality, independent thinking, and are strongly biased toward holding a herd mentality.

That is one of the most frustrating things and it seems quite true in politics - there are a few stereotypes that after you've heard a statements you can usually get most the rest, though it's not just politics.

But on the other hand I think this article borders on hypocracy because the person is complaining about traits such as "Their behavior tends toward being glib, shallow, egotistical, narcissistic, mundane, predatory, and materialistic." and yet the comments regarding others appears to possess much of these same characteristics:

1) Glib - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/glib

readily fluent, often thoughtlessly ...

The author of the article is fluent (the use of the word 'glib' itself points the way to that), yet is either intentionally or unintentionally insulting quite a large number of people. In either case, I don't think telling someone they're a borderline vegetable demonstrates the characteristics the author intends to condone such as being empathetic.

2) Shallow - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shallow

I assume this in in the context:

lacking depth; superficial: a mind that is not narrow but shallow.

The narrowness of a mind is a relative thing and subjective and it can be that the author is only looking at a small set of traits. There appears to be a recognition that there can still remain a diversity of other traits in someone perceived as being shallow.

If someones thoughts appear to be diffused and not concentrated or focused on a small set, consider that it may be that someone else is not able to follow their thoughts - if you can tell someone is highly focused then it's quite likely they're very narrow minded because you can understand their thoughts and follow them.

For example, a teacher might have two students - one pays attention and learns the material quickly and appears highly interactive to the teacher, the other day dreams and appears to have little focus and isn't able to follow the material in any depth - that student appears shallow, not empathetic or as socially interactive as the first, but this is from the perspective of the teacher with specific desires and specific focuses. This first student can be quite narrow minded in many respects as the information the student gains can be little more than the teacher provided and though the interaction between that student appears focused and active with the teacher, it's only because of the filter that the teacher has over observing the interactions - the daydreamer could be quite mentally active as well though in a manner relatively diffused and apparently shallow to that of the teacher. Ultimately having both can be best if we want a diversity (I don't think having everyone at any specific extreme, except maybe one that I can't think of, is ideal - I prefer a smorgasbord in many ways, though that's similarly my bias and someone who desires something more specific might appear shallow or narrow minded to me).

I admit there's a lot of hypocracy in statements I've made too, but I think there's also plenty of it in others as well and it's something that appears to obscure an absolute truth because the statements exclude the person making the statement, so it would only be something claimed true of others.

... egotistical, narcissistic, mundane, predatory, and materialistic

I won't go into great detail, but the author of the article appears to possess elements of most all these traits as well.

As a simple example, if someone is complaining about the mental abilities of someone else, then the person is being self absorbed regarding their comfort at the exposure to someone elses thoughts or lack of them. If someone was truly shallow and had few thoughts or displayed an almost child-like ignorance of others would that not deserve some empathy or is that a crime that condemns someone to being viewed as an unconscious vegetable?

Such a view is very egotistical, narcissistic and might even be used as an excuse for being predatory, in a sadly mundane manner.

I know you've already noticed a lot of this because I remember your previous signature ... I don't remember the exact words but it basically said that 'everything that bothers us about others is something we can learn about ourselves'. (and it's frustratingly true )

[labelwench]

We are seeking a theory that would explain 'everything'.

Yet we have difficulty in explaining the events of 'day to day'.

SOMETHING

NOTHING

EVERYWHERE

NOWHERE

INFINITY

.....are just words, in any language. We assign them meanings and yet, the meanings are just more words to which we assign further meaningless detail.

We seek the unknown in the indefineable and history records our efforts.

An incredibly twisted concept, which frustrates some and delights others.....I love it!

Regards,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

Time Steven is measure, and life without measure is simply equal or One. TOE, you or me.
TOE is infinitely eternal and absolute.
While the universe changes immeasurably,
the unity or true Oneness of everything does not and never will.
Mathematically = is the equation that unites us All.
Einstein was close.

=
MJA

It could also be that it's an inequality that unites everything (I think that was the American ideal - a common love of freedom, independence and individuality and not a desire to be the same or a slave to being someone elses clone, unless that's what you want to be). "Nothing is the same" and all things are entirely distinct and unique.

And we could similarly rule out the "Nothing is the same" by recognizing that Nothing could simply appear to be equal to itself, when in reality it's just because it contains so many inequalities (distinct and unique things) that it's incomprehensibly large. No the statement that nothing is the same, is not using an "is" that's the same as an identity or equality. It's just an appearance of is-ness, when in reality it never was anything specific.

If we said there was no equality, then an object could not even be equal to itself ... so it would have to view itself as different - the appearance of time and change - an every changing "you" or "me"?

Notice that an inequality also defines things in relationship to other things - if you have more than one of something, they're unequal and distinct or distinguishable from each other, but if there was only one thing or no-thing or the zero thing, then there would appear to be no inequality unless the thing itself was the inequality.

Consider that if there appears to a diversity of distinct things, how could you derive this from just using equalities? We'd have to add something different, like time and change to have anything else, whereas if we began with a single thing and it was implicitly a property of difference or change, then it's not specifically anything, it not specifically limited though it can be limited and it's not specifically nothing, though it could at least appear as nothing or at least it not remain nothing and ultimately it could encompass everything or less than everything etc.

I've even run into some mathematics with logic that using this not/negation/nor/compliment/inversion concept as well and found a lot of correlations with oscillations as wave packets, the golden mean, fractals and rational and irrational numbers (an irrational number like pi is actually, by definition, never equal to anything we could numerically compute - that's effectively an entrophy that says to keep creating more).

Then again, it could be that from other perspective there's just as much sense to say that everything is equal, but that it appears to contain distinct inequalities from another perspective (but I think if there are two different views, then that biases things toward there fundamentally being inequalities instead of equalities - it's just the compexities that make it easier to treat things as if they were identical, when they never were identical).

[melanie]

They lack individuality, independent thinking, and are strongly biased toward holding a herd mentality.

SteveA


That is one of the most frustrating things and it seems quite true in politics - there are a few stereotypes that after you've heard a statements you can usually get most the rest, though it's not just politics.

But on the other hand I think this article borders on hypocracy because the person is complaining about traits such as "Their behavior tends toward being glib, shallow, egotistical, narcissistic, mundane, predatory, and materialistic." and yet the comments regarding others appears to possess much of these same characteristics:

Tis all but a story told by a fool full of noise and fury signifying nothing.

That's the point i was trying to make.....nevermind.

Didn't expect an in-depth patronizing lecture on political correctness gone absolutely OTT madly insane.
A sign of the times.


Personally i thought the author was dead-straight accurate in his analysis of the human spirit.

[melanie]

All there is is Consciousness Spirit.
Consciousness is the Ultimate Subject.

All so-called objects appear in- to- and from 'The Ultimate Subject'

which cannot be made into an 'Object'

and therefore is indeed 'something' that is 'no-thing' to the mind.

This 'Ultimate Subject' prior to all coming and going
may be pointed to with concepts such as Consciousness, Awareness, The Void, Tao or no-thing-ness

and from 'this' all arises, just like in a dream.

No 'matter' how we call it, there is this undeniable Presence
A mystery of mysteries- even though it is clear that nothing can come from nothing-- Here It Is.

Absolute pure nothingness arising as everything.


Not understanding this simple truth is what limits us. IMHO

[melanie]

While the universe changes immeasurably,

the unity or true Oneness of everything does not and never will.

So what do you mean MJA

Do you mean that '' true oneness of everything'' is really conscious awareness that is ever unchanging

and that the universe that is in consciousness is ever changing

or what ?


maybe i am not reading you correctly?

[MJA]

So what do you mean MJA

Do you mean that '' true oneness of everything'' is really conscious awareness that is ever unchanging

and that the universe that is in consciousness is ever changing

or what ?


maybe i am not reading you correctly?

You and I as is the sun and moon and everything else is united by the infinite eternal universe. You and I and all the other parts of the universe may change or is changing, but the true unity or Oneness that connects us all, never will.
The single universal truth is Oneness and is infinitely eternal.
TOE.

=
MJA