An Idea

[Profpat]

Thanks Mikal and Greg;

I enjoyed the ride. I'll have to forward it to my daughter.

Best,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

I mentioned before the atheist, in the form of Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed many more people than any organized religion.

Hi Profpat

Just look up 'Albigensian Crusade' on Wiki

regards
Felix

[melanie]

I always like your posts, Melanie, but I disagree with you because the I sees.

Thanks fredrick, i like your posts too, and i like your gentle and patient mannerism.
However, i do not always grasp the way you context your theory.
You probably feel that way about mine too.
What i am trying to convey to you, is the inner vision.
This inner vision is the I AM
I AM awareness ..Awareness... indivisible... neither 'subject' nor 'object'... yet both… One

So yes i agree with your statement where you say the I sees.
However, it is not the physical eyes of creation that see.
Awareness sees.

Is that what you are saying too? with your i-land idea?


Creation is in consciousness, consciousness is not in creation.
No conscious creature can see ... conscious creation is the ''Looked Upon''
Creation is the ''SEEN''

There is no 'thing' looking at some other separate 'thing'
How could colour be separate from the seeing?

We might say source sees colour, and there is an 'Uber I'
that sees Source seeing.
It's like Source is being 'observed'

However, though not separate from this seeing, whatever is seen, cannot see.

Though not separate from this knowing, whatever is the object of thought, is not this knowing

Whatever is observed... cannot itself observe

Whatever appears real... is not

Reality and unreality are One
How can two be One?

BTW, I like your i-land idea.
Because that is telling me that creation is the ''looked upon''
I don't know if you know what i mean Fredrick?
Let me know, because i do like conversing with you.
In fact i am fascinated by your unique expression and i want to understand you very much.
____________________

Dear Pat, i enjoy reading your thread, and like your ''AN IDEA'' Theory......so sorry if i am being off topic here.
I know i am a pesky mosquito ... lol
I understand your not wanting metaphysics to appear at this thread.
In mainstream society, we have been conditioned / educated to understand only the one side of the whole.
Hopefully that will change one day.

I will be happy to take this discussion to PM's with Fredrick instead of hi-jacking your thread here.

Respectfully....

[Profpat]

Hi Melanie:

I have no problems with metaphysics or religion on this thread. I use both in my An Idea. I try to keep it somewhat on the topic when it strays too far. So if it's in response or periodic no problem. If it's consistent than a new thread may be more appropriate.

Thank you for you concern.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Profpat
I mentioned before the atheist, in the form of Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed many more people than any organized religion.

Hi Profpat

Just look up 'Albigensian Crusade' on Wiki

regards
Felix

Hi Felix;

I did and I think that proves my point. I said the persecutions were mostly religious in nature not against the scienctist, AND THIS WAS A RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL PERSECUTION.

I said it was hundreds of years ago, THIS WAS 800 YEARS AGO.

I said many more died under the atheist in the form of HITLER ~ 42,000,000 deaths; STALIN ~7,000,000 - 49,000,000 deaths and MAO ~20,000,000 - 30,000,000 deaths ( all estimates per limited internet research)

The crusade you mentioned with your Wiki reference ~ 200,000 - 1,000,000 deaths.

I never meant this to justify the crusades, inquisition, or any other atrocities committed by any organized religion. I only meant that Austin when bringing up atrocities committed by organized religions, esp. the Catholics, should look to the Atheist, not the Theist, to get a real appreciation of atrocities.

And your point was?


Best,

Pat

P.S. Shame on anyone who would commit such acts.

P.P.S. I stand behind my quote you posted.

[Fredrick]

Thanks fredrick, i like your posts too, and i like your gentle and patient mannerism.
However, i do not always grasp the way you context your theory.
You probably feel that way about mine too.
What i am trying to convey to you, is the inner vision.
This inner vision is the I AM
I AM awareness ..Awareness... indivisible... neither 'subject' nor 'object'... yet both… One

So yes i agree with your statement where you say the I sees.
However, it is not the physical eyes of creation that see.
Awareness sees.

Is that what you are saying too? with your i-land idea?


Creation is in consciousness, consciousness is not in creation.
No conscious creature can see ... conscious creation is the ''Looked Upon''
Creation is the ''SEEN''

There is no 'thing' looking at some other separate 'thing'
How could colour be separate from the seeing?

We might say source sees colour, and there is an 'Uber I'
that sees Source seeing.
It's like Source is being 'observed'

However, though not separate from this seeing, whatever is seen, cannot see.

Though not separate from this knowing, whatever is the object of thought, is not this knowing

Whatever is observed... cannot itself observe

Whatever appears real... is not

Reality and unreality are One
How can two be One?

BTW, I like your i-land idea.
Because that is telling me that creation is the ''looked upon''
I don't know if you know what i mean Fredrick?
Let me know, because i do like conversing with you.
In fact i am fascinated by your unique expression and i want to understand you very much.

Melanie, you are so kind with your words (too kind? Is that possible?). And thank you for remaining curious about where I am coming from with my words.

I believe I am following you all the way up to the moment we talk about the whole. And then we say different things. The good news is therefore that we are a lot in agreement, but that overall perspective is the hurdle...

Siince you liked the i-land idea so much, I am going to take the risk to go out on a limb one step further, and continue with the word 'I' (and 'eye').

The French use two words: un oeil for an eye, and les yeux for a set of eyes. The individual eye is named differently than the set. The French write their sounds down differently, so let's just focus on the sound. I think it is quite peculiar that un oeil and an eye are so much the same in sound. The pronounciation of 'oeil' is somehwere between eye and ouye. And of course in English eye and I are even closer in pronounciation (identical or close to identical).

So, then the sound of the word yeux needs to be captured in English lettering. It is somewhere between you and yeu. You can then notice how close in sound the eye and set of eyes in French are like the I and you in English.

I know I am asking you to take this step with me and to see I and you in these two French words. But I would not have done that if I hadn't found something interesting in German that (of a similar strength) seems to support what I see as end result. 'The eye' in German is das Auge. That is very similar to the German word auch, which translates into: also, too.

So, I end up with a word like I for one eye, and the word 'too' for the other eye; a doubling of the I-s (or Eyes). Within a single entity (the human being), that instrument that sees is not a singular instrument, but a doubled instrument.

Naturally, the view is singular, because of how our eyes and brain work together. But other than the view, there is nothing singular about how that we look. And that fits my overall idea about the whole.

What I like about the English word you is that it can be used for singular and plural. In French, tu is only singular. In German, Du is only singular. In Dutch, the word je or jij used to fit both the singular and the plural, but a new word was created for the plural: jullie, which in translation is something like yuall or you folks.

Clearly, the ancient folks who started to communicate with each other used words that expressed understandable ideas to them (even though we may consider those ideas weird). Only after agreement would a word be used, since language is a two-way street. It appears therefore that they struggled quite a bit with the singular and the plural, with identity and common outcome(s).

Disclaimer: I know that suggesting a certain origin to a word is always contentious; there is not much science behind it, though etymologists work hard making their efforts as acceptable as possible. I am trying to deliver a picture, a way to present something of a complex nature; this is not the same as presenting a fact.

[melanie]

So, I end up with a word like I for one eye, and the word 'too' for the other eye; a doubling of the I-s (or Eyes).
Within a single entity (the human being), that instrument that sees is not a singular instrument, but a doubled instrument.

Are you talking about consciousness and awareness
relative and absolute?

Naturally, the view is singular, because of how our eyes and brain work together.
But other than the view, there is nothing singular about how that we look. And that fits my overall idea about the whole.

Is your overall idea about the whole similar to say a group of about 6 artists out in the country side painting some picturesque landscape,
in which all of the artists paint the scene according to their own unique perception of how they view the scene.
The landscape is the same unchanging set, whereas the artists vision of the set will differ,
in that each of the 6 artists have painted a completely different view of the same landscape?
Is that what you mean?

[Mikal]

Originally Posted by Profpat
I mentioned before the atheist, in the form of Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed many more people than any organized religion.



Hi Felix;

I did and I think that proves my point. I said the persecutions were mostly religious in nature not against the scienctist, AND THIS WAS A RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL PERSECUTION.

I said it was hundreds of years ago, THIS WAS 800 YEARS AGO.

I said many more died under the atheist in the form of HITLER ~ 42,000,000 deaths; STALIN ~7,000,000 - 49,000,000 deaths and MAO ~20,000,000 - 30,000,000 deaths ( all estimates per limited internet research)

The crusade you mentioned with your Wiki reference ~ 200,000 - 1,000,000 deaths.

I never meant this to justify the crusades, inquisition, or any other atrocities committed by any organized religion. I only meant that Austin when bringing up atrocities committed by organized religions, esp. the Catholics, should look to the Atheist, not the Theist, to get a real appreciation of atrocities.

And your point was?


Best,

Pat

P.S. Shame on anyone who would commit such acts.

P.P.S. I stand behind my quote you posted.

Surely one of our greatest human failings is to seek for power without understanding that power is an energy and drive within us.
It is simply mind boggling to me that it is rare for anyone to talk to us as we are growing up about the drive for power and how to understand power asymetries which exist between ourselves and others...
I have made it a point to find a way to help my grandchildren understand power asymetries...

Would we have Hitlers and dictators if we understood the complexity of the human drive for power??


Mikal

[Fredrick]

Are you talking about consciousness and awareness
relative and absolute?

Is your overall idea about the whole similar to say a group of about 6 artists out in the country side painting some picturesque landscape,
in which all of the artists paint the scene according to their own unique perception of how they view the scene.
The landscape is the same unchanging set, whereas the artists vision of the set will differ,
in that each of the 6 artists have painted a completely different view of the same landscape?
Is that what you mean?

Yes, that is what I mean, Melanie. The overall delivery needs to incorporate both the individual and the combination of all individuals. Though the individual is strongest for all of us (after all, I am with me all my life, and you are with you all your life), the outcome is a plural state.

To jump from the plural situation to a singular overall delivery is quite a step. I know it can be done, because many are doing it. Yet in the world of vision only the view is singular. The view is not part of the individual (and I think that is what you are saying). The end result is therefore the large variety of views we all have and experience.

If we bump this up to the religious level, then something else comes into play as well: the absence of the exact view. Now the last and largest view is actually a blank, and we can fill it in any way we want. It is only with our invisible third eye that we can see this view. Problem though is that once you see this view, communication about the largest of views (and subsequently agreeing on that view) is mighty difficult.

You are probably aware that there are no measuring tools to any view (one has to walk into the view to measure anything), so there is plenty of opportunity to disagree about how that overall view measures up. And this thread and ToeQuest are an excellent example of how this final view is of that quality of measuring.

So, the final view must incorporate the fact that the measuring tools are not available. And, yes, I state that non-singularity about the final view as a fact (with my mathematical evidence in hand). It is one view, but it contains all views of all I-s. All views can get categorized in a set of positions like a pyramid.

[Profpat]

Hi Mikal;

You're right absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This was not only true for the church and dictators but also with the CEO's of todays corporations especially the oil and gas industry and the bankers.

They may not slaughter the people as the aforementioned, there method is more torturous by death with a 1,000 cuts. Gas $4.00 a gallon, forclosures, changing interest rates on mortgages and credit cards. Where is the guillotine?

Best,

Pat