Moonshoe said:

IF YOU CAN CONCIEVE IT YOU CAN BELIEVE IT

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, YOU CAN PERCIEVE IT

simple as that. Concieve, believe, percieve

thought+faith = reality

---

Wow, you must be dyslexic too.

Reality unfolds by its own accord. We directly perceive reality, and then we conceptualize in order to build a representation of reality with which we navigate reality. Belief isn't very effective in this process, either.

To propose that perception follows all of the abstract mental processes  in the order of operations deeply underscores the nature of a mind that is obscured from reality. To act in such a way is to decide what a movie is about and firmly believe that the movie is about what you have decided it to be before you have even watched the movie.

Any mind that functions in such a manner probably has difficulty in implementing their plans and goals, as they truly live in an illusory, imaginative world which does not reflect the true world, which is a sea full of riptides of cause and effect, presented as it is. If one does not directly perceive reality for what it is, then one will not be able to succesfully navigate the flows in the water, nor have a sense of "where one is at", or where anything else is, and will not be very capable of being "where one is at" or in getting there.

I'd propose opening your eyes first and keeping the thought and belief to an absolute, practical minimum.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

To act in such a way is to decide what a movie is about and firmly believe that the movie is about what you have decided it to be before you have even watched the movie.

---

MushroomTrip said:

That could be called anticipation.

---

Quote:

And you could be right or wrong... but this is another matter.

---

Quote:

Now you either weren't able to read between the lines (which I'm quite sure you didn't), or you just wanted to contradict Moonshoe... for some reason.

---

Perhaps I proposed an alternate viewpoint on the matter because, from my perspective, that of the primacy of existence, and that of the scientific analysis of how we collect sensory data from our sensory devices' interaction with reality, his statements were incorrect. "For some reason.."... the reason being that he was wrong.

And what of "reading between the lines"? Was I suspossed to exclaim "Groovy, man, I felt your vibrations! You were saying that we, like, change things, but in doing so, you completely misrepresented the way we perceive reality, but that's all right, because I can read between the lines!"?

Quote:

My conclusion after I read what he said there was that we can really change the world, which is not really such a novelty since we're doing that since...

---

Super. Great. Thanks for sharing. I, however, found reason to address other points implied by his post, to express thoughts and ideas that were different. This doesn't mean that I "read the post out of context". Discussion can exist on a variety of levels and can be directed towards a variety of related points. I didn't feel the need to state "oh, he is saying we can change things, I better simply affirm that and disregard the blatant misunderstanding that was expressed as well".

Quote:

And we also made our problems, possible dangers and so on. All these came from our minds, from our imagination.

---

Quote:

So yes, he is right...

---

Quote:

we can change everything, and he's not talking about a movie or some stupid ambition in which he can sustain that Everest, for example must be a beach.

---

Moonshoe said:

IF YOU CAN CONCIEVE IT YOU CAN BELIEVE IT

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT, YOU CAN PERCIEVE IT

simple as that. Concieve, believe, percieve

thought+faith = reality

---

fireworks_god said:

To propose that perception follows all of the abstract mental processes in the order of operations deeply underscores the nature of a mind that is obscured from reality. To act in such a way is to decide what a movie is about and firmly believe that the movie is about what you have decided it to be before you have even watched the movie.

---

I don't know how to make it any more clear for you. He clearly proposes that reality is created by us through our conceptions and our beliefs, that we perceive as a result of doing so. Uh, no, that isn't how it works. We directly perceive reality. We then interpret our sensory data obtained from reality and form a mental representation of it. We then take such into consideration, all the while continously, directly perceiving reality, and engage in behavior that influences the manner in which reality unfolds.

I've already raised my points on the issue. You have no ground upon which to question my points or to attempt to suggest that my points are "out of context". We are allowed to raise viewpoints that might even directly refute others viewpoints, and the purpose in doing so is for the benefit of all involved, not ".. for some reason". Engage in productive discussion, by all means, but don't sit on the sidelines and be all like "you read that wrong! out of context!"

Quote:

What you did is you got out of the context a piece of writing which can be interpreted in a million ways.

---

Is that what I did? To me, "which can be interpreted in a million ways" signifies that the piece of writing was perhaps broad, vauge, ambigious. Obviously, if something can be interpreted in a million ways, then there isn't exactly much of a context that one could get it out of, eh?

I'd recommend saving the analysis of "what I did" for yo' momma.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

Whatever term you wish to refer to it in order to please you

---

fireworks_god said:

Super. Great. Thanks for sharing

---

fireworks_god said:

Of course, naturally. We utilize our minds. Great.

---

MushroomTrip said:

OMG you REALLY need to be right.

---

Quote:

Yes, maybe the guy was swept away by the idea and went too far with some affirmations, but I don't really see why you pointed it out so agressive, deniyng the entire post.

---

First and foremost, I didn't deny an entire post. Second off, I never implied an aggressive tone. Being thorough, direct, and engaged in expressing serious thought on a matter is not aggressive, nor is it evident of an overwhelming need to feel right on a matter. I duly apologize for not being so casual in discussion here, but it is what I come here for, and I enjoy the manner in which I participate in dicussion.

Quote:

butmore then half of what you said containde words like....Well you see what I mean.

---

Quote:

I think you got a little nervous that somedy 
"dared" to contradict you... which you could very well explain calm and to the subject.

---

Honestly, I do not concern myself with such, as I see the pursuit of such to be unfufilling and trivial. I think that you might contemplate giving up on your attempts to analyze other posters' personal character, as doing so is not exactly aligned with the purposes and intents of this forum, as expressed in the rules and guidelines of this forum.

Quote:

And also think you got too absorbed by the idea of being roght that well, I faind your post far beyond exagerated.

---

Quote:

I usually like your post and I find them inteligent, but dude, you made a too big deal out of what happened here. Lol

---

If that is your opinion, then so be it, but it is to be noted that I am not the one who made a deal out of what I had to contribute to this thread in the first place.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

As I have already stated, I enjoy the pursuit of such discussion, and I implore that you might consider joining the discussion at hand, instead of creating an off-topic discussion about me.

---

MushroomTrip said:

you clearly gave me the impression tahe your first rely ti what I said was somehow irritated.

---

You may have intrepreted it as such, but I do not believe that I was irritated. If anything, I was enjoying the oppurtunity to get into some old fashioned debate.


Peace.

Moonshoe said:

What it is is what you make it. In this case, you have chosen to interperet my post in a way that is completely unique to you, and almost completely divorced from my original meaning.

---

Quote:

everything you have said in reply to my post is in fact simply talking to yourself, responding to interpretations that you have fabricated.

---

With such logic, it applies to everyone. Everyone perceives reality, forms interpretations of reality, and acts based upon the representations of reality that they have formed. Using such as a point agansit me doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm afraid. Everything you have expressed, referring to me and my posts, is simply you responding to your own interpretations that you have fabricated. See? It goes both ways. I'd suggest taking more responsibility for one's position than that.

Quote:

You have missed my meaning. That is fine. My words are spoken, and it is for each reader to decide what, if anything, they get from them.

---

It is remarkable that you are so dedicated to open discussion with others. It must be that egotistical thing again.... "God has spoken, do with it what you will!".

I responded to specific points in order to offer clarification and a bit of reason for the benefit of others who might not take your sermon with a grain of salt. They'll read it and say "If I firmly believe reality is this, then it is, because I create it!", and they will miss out on any oppurtunity to discover spirituality, which implies bringing awareness into the present moment, directly perceiving reality first and foremost, and keeping the mind and its abstractions from obstructing such perception.

Once again, this forum is the place for engaged discussion, even if others wish to "miss the meaning" (which probably means stating "you are right, " and directly address matters that they feel need to be discussed, even if the viewpoints they propose differ from the ones presented.

Its simple, you stated perception occcurs after conception and belief, and I maintain that we perceive reality prior to any mental processing of the sensory data that results from such perception. You present that we create reality, and I maintain that we exist as an aspect of reality, directly perceiving reality, and then influencing the manner in which reality unfolds.

I dunno, perhaps if you are not too interested in discussing your ideas with others and you do not feel compelled to interact with others to convey your meaning ("my words are spoken, and it is their decision what they may take from them"), then you might consider posting in another, similar forum? I'm simply trying to grasp the point of preaching to a group that engages in discussion, when one doesn't wish to do likewise.


Peace.

Quote:

One doesn't create reality, and to think that reality lies contingent upon oneself is rather egotistical.

---

Quote:

One doesn't create reality, and to think that reality lies contingent upon oneself is rather egotistical.

---

Quote:

One doesn't create reality, and to think that reality lies contingent upon oneself is rather egotistical.

---

Quote:

Fireworks_god said: If one does not directly perceive reality for what it is, then one will not be able to succesfully navigate the flows in the water, nor have a sense of "where one is at", or where anything else is, and will not be very capable of being "where one is at" or in getting there.

---

Quote:

fireworksgod said: Reality unfolds by its own accord. We directly perceive reality, and then we conceptualize in order to build a representation of reality with which we navigate reality. Belief isn't very effective in this process, either.

---

This thread kinda confuses me, I like that. I dont fully understand your views, on what reality is fwg. This statement seems rather subjective to me. I dont think I see a difference between conceptualization and beleif.

Again Im not synching with much of this atm.

Peace.

Quote:

then we conceptualize in order to build a representation of reality

---

Same as saying

"then we form a belief in order to create a reality of it to experience"

Veritas cleared up the only technical error of the word Action not being added to the formula, which would be the only debatable thing.

We all know how this stuff works. Get an idea, from reality or the imagination, come up with a valid reason and way to make it doable, believe it's doable, then take action to make it for real.

Even a change of perspective can be a form of taking action. Physical action is not always required to create a different reality landscape to experience though. Often, just a simple change of perspective can take you from hells kitchen to heavens warm embrace.

I think that is the sort of action moon was mostly focusing on, actively changing ones perspective to create that reality to experience.

I think that part gets left out a lot, like in moons formula , because people don't think of shifting perspective as an active mental state and therefore, a form of taking positive action to create experiential change without leaving your chair.

gettinjiggywithit said:

FG, you sound like you are talking about observing neutrally objective reality and moon was talking about creating both subjective and objective reality, realizing they are the same thing to the creator, and perceiver of them.

---

Quote:

How can you say with a straight face that humans do not create the direct reality you perceive as the observer?

---

Quote:

If anyone here has misunderstood you, can you please elaborate what you meant by this statement.-

One doesn't create reality, and to think that reality lies contingent upon oneself is rather egotistical.

---

My statement is that human beings do not create reality. Humans do not cause reality to exist, and human beings, with their beliefs and conceptions, do not produce reality.

If anything, reality is produced through them. "Reality" is ultimate, and in every single moment, we directly perceive reality (regardless of how aware we are of such perception). We perceive reality, and we process the information. We then engage in behavior that further unfolds reality.

Nothing I have expressed implies that we are not capable of initiating action, or behaving in manners that produce change within reality. We, essentially, are reality, but we are not responsible for creating reality.

I stated that it is egotistical to think that the creation of reality lies contingent upon us because it is a viewpoint that assumes that we precede reality, that we are responsible for reality. We certainly have a responsibility to further reality, as reality, but we are not responsible for reality.

Perhaps you have preconceptions that limit your ability to understand exactly what it is that I am saying, or maybe my elaboration on the matter will better clarify my point to you. As most of your post was in response to the notion that I am proposing a "silent observer mode" and something about giving up one's power to change things, I must assume that you weren't entirely aware of what exactly I was expressing. Where do we stand now on that?


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

If anything, reality is produced through them. "Reality" is ultimate, and in every single moment, we directly perceive reality (regardless of how aware we are of such perception). We perceive reality, and we process the information. We then engage in behavior that further unfolds reality.

---

So what you're implying is that we really have no power to decide something, that all of our actions and thoughts are transmitted to us, and we just "execute" like some kind of puppets. Which implies that even your statement is not what you think, but something that it's been... transmitted to you ???
This doesn't really leaves much space to freedom, free will and personality. And by that you're denying even our responsibilities for our actions.