# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  Synchromysticism

## Cyclic13

"A healthy mind allows the natural joy of consciousness"

"The more conspiracies I digest, the less paranoid I become."

'*Synchromysticism*', 
which is defined as "The art of finding meaningful coincidence in the seemingly mundane with mystical or esoteric significance." In essence, it is a 'six degrees of Kevin Bacon', applied to the world.



*Synchromysticism* appears to be a relatively new phenomenon within the outer fringes of the online Occult, Esoteric and Conspiracy circles. It involves taking a slew of movies, music lyrics, historical happenings and so-called "esoteric knowledge", and drawing connections between all elements usually to prove a general or specific point of the authors. The justification or the rationality for this type of activity usually involves a direct or indirect reference to the "collective unconscious mind", thus the "Synchro-" in "Synchromystical", refering to Synchronicity.

Thus the ability to (for example) draw paralells between the movie "Stargate" and its actor Kurt Russell, and that same actors role in Escape From New York where he lands a "glider" atop one of the worldtrade centers. The connection between the "Stargate" and a plane or plane-like object flying towards one of the Twin Towers is here made through an actor who was one of the main characters in both movies. They call these types of people or connectors "Resonators".




Here we have the 3 elements which normally seem to make up
*Synchromysticism*:

*Occult Knowledge* - often involving esoteric fraternities, cults and secret rituals.
*Politics* - almost always involves the "elite", the hidden masterminds which seem all-prevalent in conspiracy theories.
*Mass Media* - this is usually where the effects of the interaction between the previous two show up, either on purpose or as
a side-effect of synchronistic occurrence.

It may sound like nonsense at first, but when you start to notice the subtle beauty and nuances, it makes you question the nature of reality and our part in it’s creation….and it’s fun. It’s like putting a cosmic jigsaw together and trying to determine what the overall picture will be when it’s completed.  Sometimes the chain of synchronicities only ‘wows’ the Synchronaut himself, other times it resonates with others…but it’s always fascinating.

Here's one of the masters of it that I've found mirrors many of my realizations (like the ouroboros I independently put in my signature, fractals, cymatics, etc) being reached almost in the same instant, *Soundlessdawn*

The Holographic Universe


March 28, 2008 Pt. 1; Pt. 2; Pt. 3; Pt. 4; Pt. 5; Pt. 6

November 15, 2007 Pt. 1; Pt. 2; Pt. 3; Pt. 4; Pt. 5; Pt. 6







*Come on in, kick your shoes off, and dissolve all those superfluous walls and boundaries of ego as you become a synchronaut and share with us your synchromystical experiences...*

RECENT EXAMPLE of a synchromysticism post...

----------


## nina

Too bad most people won't be able to fully appreciate this thread.

----------


## Cyclic13

Hopefully, in time they can grow to open themselves up to appreciate it. If not, oh well... their loss  :wink2:

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Actually, I appreciate it (and many of your posts) a lot more, after the way you opened it up.

I've looked at a lot of the things you've said in the past with more than a bit of skepticism; mostly because of the way you present the things you say (regardless of how far-fetched they may or may not seem) with a real sense of confidence and resolve - as if you _know_ the things that you are saying are right, and representative of the actual workings of things. But, in opening the thread the way you did, I see more that much of the things you point out are simply enough to cause you to _wonder_, and attempt to look further into them (which, yes, is fun, and I do it too.  ::D: ).

So - good way to open up what I think has potential to be a very interesting thread, SolSkye.  ::cheers::

----------


## Cyclic13

Thanks!

And, you're exactly right. I take everything with a grain of salt. More so, the more and more I explore. The world is just a science-fiction movie with you as the director, producer, hero, villain, extras, and backdrop. Don't ever let someone else tell you where to stand, which way is up, which way is down, how it starts, or how it ends, or ever force you into playing a role you don't want. It's your movie and your physics. To me 3D and causality is too linear, it bores me... 

Launching off to hyperspace with you behind the wheel of creation on the other hand?  ::chuckle::

----------


## Xei

In my opinion we're all living on one of many fractals.

----------


## Cyclic13

For once, I honestly agree with you!  :wink2:   ::thumbup::

----------


## Xei

Thought you might.  :tongue2:

----------


## Xaqaria

> Too bad most people won't be able to fully appreciate this thread.



Actually, I prefer it much more when it is presented like this, for what it is, instead of being presented as real theories that then get dragged into loose chains of vague connections that always seem to end in either music or ouroboros.

I'm surprised you find any of this surprising Solskye, after seeing you have the realization that you 'find what you search for' on many many occasions. I mentioned the law of fives in the bee thread because you took a valid topic and then proceeded to lead it down your winding road of loose connections that invariably ends with things that you are deeply interested in but are completely irrelevant to the original topic. In that thread it was a jab, but in this thread I can explain myself more seriously. 

The law of fives is basically a commentary on the idea that that if you want to find a connection enough, you will be able to find one in anything. This is partly due to the complex and essentially chaotic nature of reality in which anything is connected to any other thing in _some way_ at the same time as being specifically completely disconnected from everything, and partly due to the intrinsic desire to find patterns that lies deep in the human psyche.

The reason why you often perceive me as having a desire to give you shit merely for the sake of it is precisely because you present these rambling chains of contrived connections as valid and meaningful instead of posing them as interesting and thought provoking as you should.

----------


## Cyclic13

*The Four Degrees of Synchromystic Awareness
2008 03 28


Crossing the Event Horizon


Grand Unified Field Theory: Nassim Haramein 
Pt. 1; Pt. 2; Pt. 3

Hyperdimensional Hexagon 
Pt. 1; Pt. 2; Pt. 3; Pt. 4
*

----------


## Cyclic13

Kanji is quite interesting. It's very easy to understand if you understand the radicals that make up the kanji... I think I just found my new favorite kanji.

*MEI* or "*Dark*", "*Another*"... 



It's also used in the kanji for the planet Pluto...

*Direct Translation: Planet of Another Dimension* 


Let's take a look at it's construction...


Quite fascinating, no? It gets much better... 
If you open the lid to your crowned sun (your third eye) as it is open in the kanji 'mei'... you get the number 6... if you close the lid... you get death...


Also, If you put an eye next to 'mei' and use imagination you are in...


Translation: I love another world/dimension

----------


## Cyclic13

*

Sacred Geometry 101A: 7 Pennies
Sacred Geometry 101B: The Vesica Piscis
Sacred Geometry 101D: Concentric Circles





1.618


Vortex Energy Part 1: Pyramid Energy and the Earth Grid
Vortex Energy Part 2: Vibration and the Secret of Healing
Vortex Energy Part 3: How the Human TACHION light field works
Vortex Energy Part 4: Medicine Wheel, Ley Lines and Obelisks
Vortex Energy Part 5: The Star Of David - Earth Grid

*

----------


## Cyclic13

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!

----------


## grasshoppa

> The law of fives is basically a commentary on the idea that that if you want to find a connection enough, you will be able to find one in anything.



"*The Law of Fives is one of the oldest Erisian Mysterees. It was first revealed to Good Lord Omar and is one of the great contributions to come from The Hidden Temple of The Happy Jesus.

POEE subscribes to the Law of Fives of Omar's sect. And POEE also recognizes the holy 23 (2+3=5) that is incorporated by Episkopos Dr. Mordecai Malignatus, KNS, into his Discordian sect, The Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria.

The Law of Fives states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5.

The Law of Fives is never wrong.

In the Erisian Archives is an old memo from Omar to Mal-2: "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look."*"

----------


## Cyclic13

*



The mayans who knew of the existence of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy long before science verified it, called it, 'The Black Sun', or 'Hu Nab Ku'.







To me, the Black Sun is the source which powers our physical and temporal reality.

Here is an excerpt from a website explaining a possible meaning behind the Black Sun : 

According to Peter Moon, in his book 'The Black Sun', the ultimate concept of Thule is well represented in the myth of it as the capital city or center of Hyperborea, a word which literally means 'beyond the poles'. As it is beyond the poles, Hyperborea is positioned as being outside of this dimension. Thule, being in the center, is positioned as the source of all life on Earth. In Greek mythology, Pythagoras was taught sacred geometry by Apollo, a god who was identified as a resident of Hyperborea. In Pythagorean teachings, the Earth itself geometrically unfolds from a void in the center. This void has been recognized by many ancient groups, including the Sumerians, as the Black Sun. In this sense, Thule is synonymous with this Black Sun. 




ATLANTIS THULE SOCIETY

Pt. 2; Pt. 3; Pt. 4; Pt. 5; Pt. 6; Pt. 7; Pt. 8






This is so you can hopefully see the truth of the Black Sun symbol. All over the world this symbol was used. Be educated on this. Don't let Hitler ruin one of the most sacred symbols in existence. 

The symbol of the 4-sided swastika is an archetype for the rotations of time and consciousness - moving clockwise and counterwise - in upward or downward spirals - allowing souls to experience many levels of reality simultaneously.

The word Swastika comes from the Sanskrit words su, meaning well, and asti, meaning to be.

The swastika is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles either clockwise or anticlockwise. It is traditionally oriented so that a main line is horizontal, though it is occasionally rotated at forty-five degrees, and the Hindu version often has a dot in each quadrant.

The swastika has not always been used as a symbol of Nazism and was in fact borrowed from Eastern cultures. 

There are actually two types of swastikas--the right-facing and the left-facing swastikas, which are mirror-images of each other. These two forms are said to represent the two forms of Lord Brahma, the creator: The right-facing swastika indicates the evolution of the universe (Pravritti) and the left-facing swastika symbolizes involution of the universe (Nivritti, the process that allows creation to happen).

I hope this has been illuminating.  
*

----------


## Cyclic13

That symbol, called a *Caduceus*, was carried by Hermes (The Greek god of commerce, invention, cunning, and theft, who also served as messenger, scribe, and herald for the other gods.) It was given to him (according to one legend) by Apollo. The Caduceus, is nearly universal, found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India, where it is always a symbol of harmony and balance. The symbol may have originally been a symbol of the sovereignity of the Goddess Tanit.

The symbol of two intertwined snakes appeared early in Babylonia and is related to other serpent symbols of fertility, wisdom, and healing, and of sun gods. This staff of Hermes was carried by Greek heralds and ambassadors and became a Roman symbol for truce, neutrality, and noncombatant status. By regulation, since 1902 it has been mistakingly utilized as the insignia of the medical branch of the U.S. army in the place of the wand of Asclepius (Asculapius). The caduceus is much used as a symbol of commerce, postal service, and ambassadorial positions. 

In the Hermetic Tradition, the cadeceus is a symbol of spiritual awakening, and has been likened to the Kundalini serpents of Hindu mysticism.


"The Caduceus was originally a healing tool employed in the temples of Atlantis and Egypt. It had been brought into this realm by the Illumined Master, Thoth. The wings on the Caduceus are symbolic of the liberation of consciousness from the warp and weave of dual systems, once it moves up the staff between the serpents and further, beyond their reach. The Caduceus additionally represents the DNA helix, which contains the crystalline frequency of all morphogenetic fields.

Morphogenetic fields connect all living being through a constant exchange of knowledge in the Language of Light. There is also a deeper symbology to the Caduceus, and that is the Christed Consciousness of the mind, once it is fully illumined through the heart which is the true Seat of the Soul. The actual "Thoth Staff" or "Paradma" contained only the heads of the serpents. This allowed the staff itself to be handled more easily and to have sent within it more specifically placed, certain stones and power symbols. The "wings" on the original staff acted somewhat like a satellite dish, as receptors for the energies of the body that the Paradma was engaging."[SOURCE]





"The Sanskrit word *'Kundalini'*, is an energy in a form of 2 coiled caduceus serpents, that lies dormant at the base of the spine, until it is activated and lifted upwards, through the 7 chakras - 7 seals in your body; as related in the book of Apocalypse 5:2-5.

When the 2 allegorical caduceus serpents, the matter and antimatter are lifted upwards, thus criss + cross + for the final divine unification, the super genius consciousness bridge is formed between the pineal and pituitary glands.

When this transpires, the pineal and pituitary hormones criss + cross and unite together, and the RNA DNA Immune Hormone Substance IHS is transformed through the process of Xenogenesis spontaneous regeneration and transfiguration in the twinkling of an eye; in the immortal Christos, the Christ, the promised redeemer from death.

Man has now become the alchemist, the parent to his Christ. At that moment he is reunited with the divine creator; hence belongs to eternity. He has become matter and antimatter of crystal clear immaculate nuclear energy light, whereby he is now permitted to eat from the tree of life the milk and honey manna, the food of the gods."[SOURCE]

----------


## Sandform

I'm sorry your gonna have to explain this to me...Is this something like mathematically induced symbols or pictures?

Or is it about the idea of a single point being the entirety of reality?

----------


## Cyclic13

Which post are you talking about? The black sun?

If so, the black sun is supposed to be a macro-sized version of the godhead in us all... Beyond poles, beyond labels, beyond time...

The black hole of your pupil which disintegrates and interprets all parts of your interconnected self as that which you perceive as experiencing from without, which is actually an exact representation of that which resides within...



[edit: Upon some further thought, I suppose you are talking about the sacred geometry post. Yes, all of causality existence has to have a first point or first cause, even if it means the laws of causality have it looping back in on itself right back to the first cause with it's last effect. Afterall, every cause is it's own effect, and every effect is it's own cause. Like all my posts in this thread, Sacred Geometry just shows you one of many keyholes to peer through to begin to perceive what's always been on the other side of that door. To allow you to slowly bring into focus the path to experiencing the indescribable. Your true self]

----------


## Sandform

Hmm well this is intriguing information.

----------


## Cyclic13

*



It is through... 



that one can begin to  the gap enough to 

From there, one sees through the  of the 

from which all things are made, and thought of as the word of god...


It is from this vantage point...


outside of the duality... 


that we can step back from reality enough...


to be able to... 

"Exercer sa vue"
(Exercise our view) of it... 

Because then one would realize... Life truly is over in an...







Life, like the ambigram, can be viewed in more than one way depending on how you perceive it. 

Like life, the thing about this sort of image, in particular, is that it manages to convince you visually that you're looking at two completely contradictory views at the exact same time. You see the duality as either; up... or down... positive... or negative... real...or fake... me... or you... When the actual line between the two exists only in your mind, and in objective reality they are actually two sides of the same coin...



What does this tell you about our idea of perception, what we agree upon and consider reality, and the way our brain processes this conflicting stimuli? 

With your perception of your self and reality... Can you see them as the images, both simultaneously, or merely as one, then the other, alternating based on how you squint, tip your head, or blur your perception? 

Needless to say, I can see them as both, and I do.

I hope this has been... Illuminating...
 

*

----------


## Sandform

Devils and angels...or wait what was the previous book to the davinci code? heh.

That is what your last post reminded me of.

----------


## Carôusoul

These threads are always rather pretty, aren't they.

----------


## Cyclic13

Thanks guys, I hope to continue to surprise you with whatever I post...

*meow*

----------


## Cyclic13

This was quite odd... 

The very same week after I wrote the article in the initial 'Black Sun' post, I had seemingly and quite suddenly manifested all this Third Eye/Dark Sun imagery into my life... 

It's simply too weird to write off, and been bugging me for the past two weeks now, so here goes...

Let's start with two completely different manga that were going on that following week literally only two days after I wrote the article...

In the comic, "One Piece", an octopus character takes off his bandana for the first time to reveal a BLACK SUN on his forehead for his first close-up as he begins to guide them through the bubble world as they start their ascent up the 7 layers to the top... the crown chakra... the third eye...


If that's not weird enough in another comic in that very same weekly issue called, 'To Love' (Trouble), the characters stumble upon a sun pendant which teleports them to another world... Again, more third eye imagery...



And, when they get to this other world they come upon a castle of a witch who has the same SUN pendant on her forehead... her third eye...


And, just as I thought it couldn't possibly get any weirder than that, a student I had taught maybe 6 months ago randomly showed up that same week on saturday to say hello, and brought me a souvenir from their trip to the Philippines.... of what you ask? 

A BLACK SUN...  ::shock:: 
 

I've had synchronistic moments before but that was an unmistakingly big one... I must be on the right track...   ::o:

----------


## Sandform

No offense but you posted a lot of things.  Manga often have allusions to nature.  How many times have you read a manga where something nature related happened, and the trinket, well, the flag of the philippines has a sun on it..so its not surprising that he brought back a black sun happy face.

I wouldn't consider it a moment of synchronicity, since the likelihood that it would happen wasn't low.

First moment:  You posted more than just that.
Second moment:  Manga often use nature as a symbol.  The sun was black because it was a tattoo.  The second sun was only a sun.
Third moment:  He went to the philippines where the sun (along with the fact that the sun is the source of lots of mythology and intrigue in the world) is on the flags.  The odds of a trinket he brought back being a sun was again, not amazingly low.

I'm not saying its not weird.  Just not very odd.

----------


## O'nus

> Isn't my point obvious? I don't understand.



That it can't be propositioned.  I understand this.

My point from the beginning is that, if it can't be propositioned, you can't talk about it.

~

----------


## DeathCell

You miss understand my intentions.





> If you really believe me to be ignorant of this, then you are the presumptious one.. lol.



 Wasn't making an assumption just wasn't sure what you knew. I meet a lot of "ignorant" people, that really have no idea about anything.





> Uhm.. This is a bit of a confusing paragraph. Can you specifically define fact, theory, and hypothesis then? Because I get the impression from this paragraph that you might struggle.



I'll leave it to the official definitions.




> fact  (fkt)
> n.
> 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
> 2.
> a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
> b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
> c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
> 3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
> 4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.







> theory
> 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption :







> Hypothesis
> n., pl. -ses (-sēz').
> 
>    1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
>    2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
>    3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.



Since theories are very often proven at different points in time to be wrong.... I by no way consider theory a fact. It may be full of facts but that doesn't mean it's 100&#37; accurate.





> The point of science is to make it subjectively reproducible. In other words, so that others may have the same subjective experience that lead to your conclusion. Thus, making a personal experience of the incident. Do you not realize that you just argued for science..? This just demonstrates to me that you may not understand the foundations of scientific endeavour.
> 
> Can you define it as well...?



You seemed to miss my point that all things can't be subjectively reproducible person to person... Just like someone who never worked out would have a hard time lifting a 400 pound weight someone who's never concentrated on their "psychic" ability I wouldn't expect to be able to read the future.

But does that mean that.... It's impossible for a human being to lift a 400 pound weight? No... 
Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Yes sir I do understand the basics of science, I have taken many a science class and written many a hypothesis and done many experiments... 





> Actually, that is exactly what is called "imaginary". I believe I see a pink elephant, but I have no reproducible evidence for it. Am I rational..?



Depends how much acid did you take before you saw the pink elephant... Where you having a spiritual experience?




> i&#183;mag&#183;i&#183;nar&#183;y  (-mj-nr)
> adj.
> 1. Having existence only in the imagination; unreal.



That's the actual definition for imaginary, you have no proof everyone here speaking about what they experienced is such. What kind of proof do you have that we are all collectively imagining everything? And don't tell me science has no proof for these findings so it must be our imaginations.





> Can you demonstrate the rationality of subjective arguments in every discussion then please?



Thanks anyway do you check every argument you ever have for the rationality factory? ... Don't believe and live in the dark it doesn't really matter to us.





> You don't think doctors would be useful if it weren't for school? People are still sick regardless of academic institutions.. what are you talking about..? Even without educational institutions, there would still be people who try to experiment and work on the human anatomy, and people would seek their help.



I was alluding to the fact that doctor is nothing but a title given to people who spend enough time in a university/college to earn their doctorate.  

I obviously believe doctors need to spend time in schools to learn what their doing, you just don't understand the way this country could shift to a better education platform. But more specifically I'm talking about public schools not higher learning institutions... Though a major problem is price and affordability.  I'll explain why I mentioned Guilds in a moment.





> What's the difference..? Can you define the difference between the two? They both seem like institutions to facilitate learning.



The major difference is the biggest and best. Free. Guilds would take people in who want to work in their profession and train them. Schools especially for courses like surgeons/physicians cost thousands and thousands of dollars.

Guilds also worked like current day unions protecting their workers, just an added bonus.





> Of course. There are many ways to learn and some ways are better for others. Are you saying because there are alternatives, that we ought to just hand out licences to anyone who claims to have had taught themselves brain surgery? ie. Brian.



Never, I told you I'm a fan of the guild system. Sadly I highly doubt it's coming back anytime soon. Too much money being sucked out of peoples pockets by colleges. The only way to get a high paying job in this day and age.
Just because I support an alternate way to educate doesn't mean I want people "self-teaching" themselves how to cut people open, I'd want them taught by someone with experience in the subject.





> I can tell by what you are arguing for. You must be under the impression that anyone in university is a pompous person, so I am worried that I am arguing against a bias.



Majored in Business in a 2 year school, going to a 4 year school actually next semester to finish up.
I'd just prefer to not have to pay out my ass for classes. As much money as you can make these days without going to school...





> Better that the developmentally challenged be in an education system then have no institution at all to go to. Are you suggesting that the challenged ought to not go to school at all and be home-schooled 100%..? This would circumvent the plethora of social skills that even the challenged ought to learn.



No I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting that they produce specific plans for every child. Those that are struggling are given extra help, to make them progress and those who are far ahead should be treated as such and taught continually more difficult subject matter. Sadly our tax money is spent instead of educating our children spent preventing drug use. As much good as that will and has never done, or how about funding of wars, or lining corporations pockets. Instead schools around the country are underpaying teachers, filling classrooms to the brim and wasting a lot of children's time. Just take a look at a Japanese school, they may be strict but damn sure every one of them will be unbelievably intelligent.

School isn't the place to first start learning social skills or anything, parents need to put more effort into their child at the really young ages. Is what I was trying to say.





> That's good.. this debate is a big tangent.. I'm going to try and simplify this now.
> School system:
> + Useful for facilitating learning.
> + Although flawed, is still better than not having it
> There. I think we can agree on those terms and continue on the main topic..? The alternatives to above is simply isolating everyone and eventually moving to a very segregated society. Right..? I think you're worried that I believe school to be the biblical plateau to enlightenment whereas I see it mostly as a facilitation and means to certify individuals for careers. For example; you would be much more relieved to know that a university certified Mike to do your brain surgery because he has had 10 years of practice under many other trained professionals and then certified by a counsel than Brian who has been completely self-taught.



I advocate a higher learning system that isn't based solely on income for higher learning. Yes you can take out loans or get scholarships. But not everyone is eligible, it should be easy for anyone to do what they want and learn what they want.

I also don't advocate everyone home-schooling, i advocate state/federal government giving half-a-shit about it's young people. Instead of talking out the side of their necks about how we must end drugs to save our children while ignoring the fact billions and billions of tax dollars used to curtail marijuana use could instead be dumped into our school systems.

I don't know but I didn't learn my social skills from school, I learned them from interacting with my family, my friends, my neighborhood.. I always interacted with people whether I was in School or not...

----------


## O'nus

DeathCell, there was obvious misunderstanding because I can tell we agree and all we're really doing is aggressively showing each other that we support the samething.  It's funny actually.

~

----------


## DeathCell

> DeathCell, there was obvious misunderstanding because I can tell we agree and all we're really doing is aggressively showing each other that we support the samething.  It's funny actually.
> 
> ~



That's what I was thinking.

----------


## Original Poster

Oh thank god.

----------


## mini0991

Synchromysticism? Wasn't that a song by The Police?

----------


## really

> That it can't be propositioned. I understand this.
> 
> My point from the beginning is that, if it can't be propositioned, you can't talk about it.
> 
> ~



Well firstly, "from the beggining" it doesn't take that much text to point that out.

I can talk _about_ it, but I cannot speak under common grounds because this is clearly illogical. Actually, it relates well to the infinite field of consciousness, which is now mentioned in another topic; "Defining Consciousness.".

On the other hand, I can say nothing. There's nothing for me to tell you; nothing to prove, and nothing to be proven. It's a matter of awareness and spiritual paradigm. It's like a mouth/larynx trying to prove it speaks, or a hand trying to grasp and snatch at air, trying to displace it. It could also be like trying to forget this thread.

Forget this thread.

----------


## Cyclic13

*Ordo ab Chao, Unraveling Odin's Knot, HAARP*

----------


## Man of Shred

whoa what is that scene with captain picard from?

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Ever thought about something while it happens at the same time/a little bit later?
Happens to me all the time...

What do you call someone who experiences synchronicities all the time?

----------


## Man of Shred

> What do you call someone who experiences synchronicities all the time?




well centered.

----------


## DeathCell

> well centered.



Some would say he is just really lucky lol

----------


## Man of Shred

> Some would say he is just really lucky lol



 luck has nothing to do with it. One simply has to pay attention to their surroundings and synchronicities will happen.

----------


## DeathCell

> luck has nothing to do with it. One simply has to pay attention to their surroundings and synchronicities will happen.



I know, but I can hear the science majors screaming luck already.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

What on earth does "well centered" mean lol?
Srry I'm not a native speaker.  :tongue2:

----------


## StonedApe

balanced
edit:mentally

----------


## freak

I didn't read through all of the thread, but I did look at the first two and the last two or three pages. Anyway, I believe in synchronicity because I did find answers through the messages. One question just lead to another, and I didn't give up my search, and I was rewarded. "The Matrix" being the start of it all for me, back when I was 12. It took a decade for me to get my understanding, and it was a tough road. I had to endure a lot of emotional suffering and hardship for it, but without it, I wouldn't be what I am today. There is much I can go on about on this subject (some can be seen in my dream journal), but I will only speak if asked about it; although, I will share a little bit of my information in just a moment. 

I see that Cyclic13, Omnius Deus, and really share similar views as myself. I also see that wendy and O'nus are just like the guy who I argue with just about every other week. It's funny to me, that the opposing side always uses the same arguments against those with the universial consciousness view. They always seek proof or want it explained to them in terms of math and science... but what they don't understand is that the latter is impossible. As for proof... why don't you look around you and see how many share these beliefs. More and more people are accepting it, and I remember only just a couple of years ago, it was rare to find anyone with them. But now, more people are willing to accept these concepts. Isn't that proof enough for you? You're on this board--a dreaming board--so you must be able to see what those three are speaking of or want to show you. 

Dreams are your subconsciousness' way of speaking to you. Dreams are our way to see into the other realities. Dreams are information about ourselves.

Our physical bodies follow laws... our thoughts and spirit do not. All three--Mental, Physical, and Spiritual--bodies are the Trinity, and each one serves its purpose. Like any system--all parts are required for the machine to function. The physical body is bound to this place and is used to experience the physical reality as a way for our essence (the spirit) to express. The mind acts as a link that connects both our spiritual and physical bodies. The spiritual body is our pure form. To tap into the spiritual body requires a lot of mental power and will. 

Think of it this way: You believe in thought and know it exists--yet it's invisible and cannot be seen by the human eye; the same goes for the spirit and everything else beyond the physical. Thought is our channel into the ethereal. Thought is that link that binds all the realities together; it is the proof that you seek of other realities, and beyond.  

What is so hard to understand about this? If you don't, that's fine, but why attempt to crush the beliefs of another? Why don't you just ask questions, rather than find ways to disprove them? To reach our understanding, you must "unlearn" certain things. You must look at everything objectively. You can still have your scientific laws and mathematical equations, but they serve no purpose beyond the physical. Numbers can never show you who _you_ are. Science and math explain _this_ reality... _not_ the ethereal. To reach the ethereal requires a little extra. It requires _you_ to push _your_ limits. Everyone is given a chance, but if not taken, then the doorway closes; and many have chose to walk through.

Duality also plays a large role in everything. One thing needs the other just as much as the other needs it. This creates balance, and balance is needed in order for anything to be. You can't have good without evil; you can't have something without nothing. Order needs chaos just as much as chaos needs order. Masculinity and femininity, etc., the list goes on. Contradictory contradiction. Rather than keep everything separated, bring everything together. Balance.

I am one of the best examples of self-discovery, and someone who understands themselves--not completely but enough to where I can write a book about it (and it is in the works). I understand what my true form is, I know what I am once I peel away the flesh, and I am almost a whole being. To attain that gives you strength, answers, wholeness, and freedom. And like many others, I wish to show others what it is I see. One can learn from the experience of another. I have, so that means others can as well. It is difficult, but all great things are meant to be so; otherwise, there would be no reward gained.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> I didn't read through all of the thread, but I did look at the first two and the last two or three pages. Anyway, I believe in synchronicity because I did find answers through the messages. One question just lead to another, and I didn't give up my search, and I was rewarded. "The Matrix" being the start of it all for me, back when I was 12. It took a decade for me to get my understanding, and it was a tough road. I had to endure a lot of emotional suffering and hardship for it, but without it, I wouldn't be what I am today. There is much I can go on about on this subject (some can be seen in my dream journal), but I will only speak if asked about it; although, I will share a little bit of my information in just a moment. 
> 
> I see that Cyclic13, Omnius Deus, and really share similar views as myself. I also see that wendy and O'nus are just like the guy who I argue with just about every other week. It's funny to me, that the opposing side always uses the same arguments against those with the universial consciousness view. They always seek proof or want it explained to them in terms of math and science... but what they don't understand is that the latter is impossible. As for proof... why don't you look around you and see how many share these beliefs. More and more people are accepting it, and I remember only just a couple of years ago, it was rare to find anyone with them. But now, more people are willing to accept these concepts. Isn't that proof enough for you? You're on this board--a dreaming board--so you must be able to see what those three are speaking of or want to show you. 
> 
> Dreams are your subconsciousness' way of speaking to you. Dreams are our way to see into the other realities. Dreams are information about ourselves.
> 
> Our physical bodies follow laws... our thoughts and spirit do not. All three--Mental, Physical, and Spiritual--bodies are the Trinity, and each one serves its purpose. Like any system--all parts are required for the machine to function. The physical body is bound to this place and is used to experience the physical reality as a way for our essence (the spirit) to express. The mind acts as a link that connects both our spiritual and physical bodies. The spiritual body is our pure form. To tap into the spiritual body requires a lot of mental power and will. 
> 
> Think of it this way: You believe in thought and know it exists--yet it's invisible and cannot be seen by the human eye; the same goes for the spirit and everything else beyond the physical. Thought is our channel into the ethereal. Thought is that link that binds all the realities together; it is the proof that you seek of other realities, and beyond.  
> ...



I don't believe in duality. Good and evil are human concepts, they wouldn't exist if there were no humans. Men need women because we need to reproduce. It's biology. Men and women are NOT opposites. Order and chaos are also human made concepts. I think you might be right about the spirit/mind/body thing, but imo the universe doesn't give a damn about good and evil. Actually I doubt it cares about ANYTHING.

"Why don't you just ask questions, rather than find ways to disprove them?" Because a theory is a good theory once you can prove it is wrong.

"If you don't, that's fine, but why attempt to crush the beliefs of another?" It's called debate. Wouldn't be much of a debate if everybody just agreed with you.

"As for proof... why don't you look around you and see how many share these beliefs. More and more people are accepting it, and I remember only just a couple of years ago, it was rare to find anyone with them. But now, more people are willing to accept these concepts. Isn't that proof enough for you?" - No. The amount of people who believe in something does not make that something true. Just like with religion. A lot of people believe in Jesus and God. Did/do they exists? Don't know about that...

I respect your views even though I don't really agree with them. I don't allow science to stop me from imagining either! There could be more to reality than what we know... Nothing is certain.

----------


## freak

> Good and evil are human concepts, they wouldn't exist if there were no humans. Men need women because we need to reproduce. It's biology. Men and women are NOT opposites. Order and chaos are also human made concepts.



I know they're human concepts, but I was just using that to give an example of duality. As for the men and women thing, I'm looking at it in a spiritual sense, not the biological sense. Masculinity and femininity have traits. Order and chaos exist in nature. I'm a believer in the big bang theory, and there are other theories that can support the order/chaos thing, but I'm not a science major. One of my science friends said it would have something to do with quantum physics... but getting it to work is the difficult part.





> "Why don't you just ask questions, rather than find ways to disprove them?" Because a theory is a good theory once you can prove it is wrong.



What they're trying to prove wrong is "subjective experience" as they say, but the fact that so many others experience it--though, each experience differs--shows that it's not as "bullshit" as they claim it to be.





> "If you don't, that's fine, but why attempt to crush the beliefs of another?" It's called debate. Wouldn't be much of a debate if everybody just agreed with you.



Yes, but unless it's destructive, there is no point trying to bash or crush the belief system of another. If we're out trying to kill people or anything else that seems "bizarre", then yeah, it's fine; but we aren't destructive. People should be more open and ask questions. Questions always yield answers to those willing and patient enough. Like I said--it took me 10 years to get my answers.





> "As for proof... why don't you look around you and see how many share these beliefs. More and more people are accepting it, and I remember only just a couple of years ago, it was rare to find anyone with them. But now, more people are willing to accept these concepts. Isn't that proof enough for you?" - No. The amount of people who believe in something does not make that something true. Just like with religion. A lot of people believe in Jesus and God. Did/do they exists? Don't know about that...



Well, I didn't really mean it to sound that way, but I kind of talked about the proof up there.





> I respect your views even though I don't really agree with them. I don't allow science to stop me from imagining either! There could be more to reality than what we know... Nothing is certain.



That's good, that means you're open-minded and have a balance.

The thing I have against overly scientific and mathematical people is that they lack imagination, and that keeps our evolution constant and nothing changes. Things stay the same and no improvements or advancements are made. Science also owes A LOT to imagination, but they are quick to forget that imagination created science. Before there was science, there was only ideas. People made all these ideas possible, and now that we've reached somewhat of a peak in the physical, our evolution is going up a level. Everything we say is just ideas, but all we need is someone to bring both physical and spiritual realities together to make it a truth. I believe it can and will be done... but maybe I'm just too optimistic.

And at Cyclic13: It's good to see I'm not alone in this. I'm usually surrounded by those against it, so when I find others like me, it's comforting lol.

----------


## Man of Shred

> Duality also plays a large role in everything. One thing needs the other just as much as the other needs it. This creates balance, and balance is needed in order for anything to be. You can't have good without evil; you can't have something without nothing. Order needs chaos just as much as chaos needs order. Masculinity and femininity, etc., the list goes on. Contradictory contradiction. Rather than keep everything separated, bring everything together. Balance.



 great! you just described the very nature of this symbol.



 And frankly i know synchronicity exists. I have had far to many profound ones to ignore it.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Masculinity and feminity have different traits, but they are not opposites.
Good and evil are subjective. 
Nothing and something proves how dumb many people are. Nothing IS something - it's a lack of something.
Duality is, in my opinion; nonsense.

----------


## DeathCell

> Masculinity and feminity have different traits, but they are not opposites.
> Good and evil are subjective. 
> Nothing and something proves how dumb many people are. Nothing IS something - it's a lack of something.
> Duality is, in my opinion; nonsense.



Good and evil are ideas but the concepts behind them are polarized...

Nothing is a lack of something.. just cause you can put the word nothing and something into a sentence describing it doesn't mean they aren't opposites anymore..

Masculine and Feminine traits are generally completely different.(But theirs parts of both within us... just like yin-yang would describe life)
Such as Estrogen and Testosterone would be I think opposites.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> Good and evil are ideas but the concepts behind them are polarized...
> 
> Nothing is a lack of something.. just cause you can put the word nothing and something into a sentence describing it doesn't mean they aren't opposites anymore..
> 
> Masculine and Feminine traits are generally completely different.(But theirs parts of both within us... just like yin-yang would describe life)
> Such as Estrogen and Testosterone would be I think opposites.



Different and opposite is not the same. White and black are not opposites.
In order to have opposites, you need someone to define what 'Normal' means. You can't count to ten if no one ever told you what zero was. No humankind - no normal - no opposites.
That's the way I see it anyway. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion ^^

----------


## freak

> great! you just described the very nature of this symbol.
> 
> 
> 
>  And frankly i know synchronicity exists. I have had far to many profound ones to ignore it.



Yeah, people tell me that lol, but I learned that through different means. I went from one extreme to the other, and I learned that neither is right and that you need to keep a balance with all things. You're able to help more people by doing so since you understand both sides of things, and it also makes you a creative person because you can describe both sides' feelings. I'm a male, physically, but I'm of no gender in the end, and my spirit chooses a female form. People tried to tell me it's just a biological thing and events from my childhood... but I was just a feminine male since the day I was born. I've had hormone tests and mine were what they should be for a 20 year old male... so that shows something else is at work. I knew things whenever I was a child already, and I always had people follow me around in my youth because I gave off a unique vibe. I'm a loner now, though, because I have a lot of trust issues with people, and it's a bit of a defense mechinism. 





> Masculinity and feminity have different traits, but they are not opposites.
> Good and evil are subjective. 
> Nothing and something proves how dumb many people are. Nothing IS something - it's a lack of something.
> Duality is, in my opinion; nonsense.



Those traits are opposites to each other, though. I have all the traits, but I'm more feminine than I am masculine so my masculine traits don't show much. Also, the "traits" I'm speaking of are personality traits. I know that everything is a label, but the concepts are still there.

----------


## DeathCell

> Different and opposite is not the same. White and black are not opposites.
> In order to have opposites, you need someone to define what 'Normal' means. You can't count to ten if no one ever told you what zero was. No humankind - no normal - no opposites.
> That's the way I see it anyway. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion ^^



I guess it's what your definition of opposite is.

White I thought was all the colors/light and Black was the lack of light and color.
My opinion would be they were opposites, but your entitled to your own opinion also  :tongue2: 


My definition of opposite would be the farthest thing from the thing you are referring to.

Lifes opposite to me would be death.
Nakeds opposite to me would be not-naked.

But to each his own.  :smiley:

----------


## drewmandan

What is death? (Hint: the question can't be answered)

----------


## Cyclic13

Death simply means a change or transition... 

The Universe is in constant change...

Every change brings with it the death of some form or shape to bring into form something more complex and novel...

Death is the apex of one curve of the snake Life... 

One should look at all opposites as necessary complements...



Death is the process that gently warms the orphic egg of Life during it's most sensitive phase before birth. If we were to look into the cauldron of the Art card, we would see that process bubbling away as the egg grows stronger through death by taking the Life of others and making it it's own...

In truth... Death is the first creative god... 



Death is something to be revered... not ever feared or rushed...

To fear or expedite death... is to misperceive or misunderstand life...

Look here as our vivacious and flexible version of death uses his scythe to stir up bubbles of new lives from out of the seemingly dead and decaying sediment.

----------


## drewmandan

What is change?

----------


## Cyclic13

In this sense... a transfer or shifting of energy

----------


## drewmandan

> In this sense... a transfer or shifting of energy



What is energy?

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Get him Drew!

----------


## Cyclic13

A vibration of subatomic particles which are currently undefined...

Some call it Higg's boson... some call it God... some call it Pi...

Does it matter?

Does matter really matter?

Ahh... Gotta love the mystery... The uncertainty... Bask in it...

----------


## Man of Shred

> Yeah, people tell me that lol, but I learned that through different means. I went from one extreme to the other,.



 
 

listen to the commentary.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> listen to the commentary.



That's....interesting? A white square.

----------


## really

lol, Ranma you need to fix your youtube code. I'm not sure what you did wrong.





> Ahh... Gotta love the mystery... The uncertainty... Bask in it...



lol, how ironic...  ::D:

----------


## Cyclic13

01010100011010000110010100100000011100110111010101  10001001101010011001010110001101110100001000000110  10010111001100100000011101000110100001100101001000  00011011110110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000111001101110101011000100110101001100101011000  11011101000110100101101111011011100010111000100000  01010100011010000110010100100000011011110110001001  10101001100101011000110111010000100000011010010111  00110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100  11011101010110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101  00011010010110111101101110001011100000110100001010  00001101000010100101011101101000011000010111010000  10000001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111  00100110010100100000011011000110111101101111011010  11011010010110111001100111001000000110011001101111  01110010001000000110100101110011001000000111011101  10100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010  00000110110001101111011011110110101101101001011011  100110011100101110

----------


## Timothy Paradox

I agree, but I'm not sure about 1001001001111001.




> 01010100011010000110010100100000011100110111010101  10001001101010011001010110001101110100001000000110  10010111001100100000011101000110100001100101001000  00011011110110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000111001101110101011000100110101001100101011000  11011101000110100101101111011011100010111000100000  01010100011010000110010100100000011011110110001001  10101001100101011000110111010000100000011010010111  00110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100  11011101010110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101  00011010010110111101101110001011100000110100001010  00001101000010100101011101101000011000010111010000  10000001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111  00100110010100100000011011000110111101101111011010  11011010010110111001100111001000000110011001101111  01110010001000000110100101110011001000000111011101  10100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010  00000110110001101111011011110110101101101001011011  100110011100101110

----------


## drewmandan

> A vibration of subatomic particles which are currently undefined...
> 
> Some call it Higg's boson... some call it God... some call it Pi...
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> Does matter really matter?
> 
> Ahh... Gotta love the mystery... The uncertainty... Bask in it...



What is Pi?

----------


## Cyclic13

More importantly...

What is the last digit of Pi?

 :wink2:

----------


## drewmandan

> More importantly...
> 
> What is the last digit of Pi?



What is importance?

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> What is importance?



What is what?

----------


## Man of Shred

fixed.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Let me try to explain how I see things:
(the following is an analogy - don't take this literally!)

Let's say you have -5-4-3-2-1 0 1 2 3 4 5.
You would say that -3 and 3 are opposites.
Zero in this case if what I call the reference point.
But what if you move this point from zero to -4? People have different "points of view" so this DOES happen. Then you get   -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9.
-3 and +3 become 1 and 7... Not opposites.

I'm just trying to say that people are different, and not all people think black is evil, or killing = bad. It's depends on your point of view.
Everything is relative.

Just like softness and hardness from the video - who gets to decide what "balance" is? What is the "hardest"?
What is "biggest"? Ya the sun is big but look at the milky way!

----------


## drewmandan

The notion of "opposite" only just barely makes sense in a one-dimensional space, but life is of infinite dimension, so there are no opposites.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> The notion of "opposite" only just barely makes sense in a one-dimensional space, but life is of infinite dimension, so there are no opposites.



That sounds about right.

----------


## StonedApe

> The notion of "opposite" only just barely makes sense in a one-dimensional space, but life is of infinite dimension, so there are no opposites.



So you wouldn't consider yes and no or male and female opposites? I would agree that there are no objective or absolute opposites, but if you put things into a context (put limitations on things) then you allow for the possiblity of opposites.

It is also possible to take the same things that are opposites in one situation and put them into a different context and have them not be opposites.

Life is of infinite dimension, but there are common things that connect all humans. There are common circles we all run through.

----------


## drewmandan

Ok, so you can make things look like opposites given the correct context, which you must know ahead of time. So what's the use of all of this? As a philosophical pursuit, what knowledge or truths can you extract from a dualistic treatment of the universe?

----------


## StonedApe

It's helpful with finding balance(like mental balance). The better you are at balancing your own mind the more control over it you have. If your mind is not very balanced you will be more likely to jump to conclusions rather than carefully analyzing the situation.

You can also gain a better understanding of a given situation or experience when you look at the opposites in it.

----------


## drewmandan

> It's helpful with finding balance(like mental balance). The better you are at balancing your own mind the more control over it you have. If your mind is not very balanced you will be more likely to jump to conclusions rather than carefully analyzing the situation.
> 
> You can also gain a better understanding of a given situation or experience when you look at the opposites in it.



You missed my point. To see opposites, you must first assign context. But to assign context, you have to already understand the situation in its entirety, or in other words, you must already have the knowledge you want. This line of thinking can't give any new insight.

----------


## StonedApe

I disagree that you have to understand the situation in it's entirty in order to assign context. If you have a partial understanding you can look at the opposites and come away with a more complete understanding of the situation. Things are rarely understood entirely.

I think your trying to say "What good is it to know what opposites are". If so then I say again balance. How would you find balance(middle) without understanding what the opposites(sides) are?

----------


## drewmandan

Give one specific, concrete example of the dualistic view alone giving insight into some field of study.

----------


## really

Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:

Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.

Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:

(Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)

Context>Content
Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

You might see that, referring to these contexts, their seeming dualities disappear.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:
> 
> Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.
> 
> Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:
> 
> (Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)
> 
> Context>Content
> ...



Hahaha love and ignorace opposites? Sigh...

----------


## DeathCell

> 01010100011010000110010100100000011100110111010101  10001001101010011001010110001101110100001000000110  10010111001100100000011101000110100001100101001000  00011011110110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000111001101110101011000100110101001100101011000  11011101000110100101101111011011100010111000100000  01010100011010000110010100100000011011110110001001  10101001100101011000110111010000100000011010010111  00110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100  11011101010110001001101010011001010110001101110100  00100000011011110110011000100000011010010111010000  10011101110011001000000110111101110111011011100010  00000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101  00011010010110111101101110001011100000110100001010  00001101000010100101011101101000011000010111010000  10000001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111  00100110010100100000011011000110111101101111011010  11011010010110111001100111001000000110011001101111  01110010001000000110100101110011001000000111011101  10100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010  00000110110001101111011011110110101101101001011011  100110011100101110



01001100011010010110101101100101001000000110000100  10000001100010011000010110010000100000011000110110  00010111001101100101001000000110111101100110001000  00011100110111010001100001011011000110101101100101  0111001001110011001000000011101000101001

----------


## drewmandan

> Two people are discussing an event that had just taken place. There is duality, because:
> 
> Within the infinite Reality, there are people dividing eternity into pairs (e.g. past/future, referring to present) in order to discuss something specific. This is dualistic. Encompassing the context of the discussion is the absolute, non-dualistic Reality. Within only the context of the discussion however, there is duality. That is because discussion is also dualistic itself; has divisions (me and you/them). The discussed is also dualistic, because it is separated from everything else in subject.
> 
> Below is not a list of opposites, but a list of relationships: Relating to the absolute non-dualistic context, you might end up with this:
> 
> (Where ">" indicates "greater than", "prior to", "beyond" etc.)
> 
> Context>Content
> ...



This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.

----------


## ♥Mark

> This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.



That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!

----------


## drewmandan

> That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!



No, it's because the poster made no effort to translate their raw, unfiltered thoughts into a form that can be read by someone else.

----------


## really

> Hahaha love and ignorace opposites? Sigh...



I did mention that they were not opposites, but certain contexts - absolutes and their content.

Without Love, for example, nothing would exist. If you are unconscious to this, it does not mean existence is not existing, but rather there is ignorance of what Is. At the same time, it is in the context of Love, so essentially it is not ignorance. Very hard to explain.  ::D: 





> This entire post is nonsense. I don't mean nonsense like I don't agree with something. I mean nonsense like I can't fucking make heads or tails of all this jibberish.



I underlined the top part of the list for the main example. Context is prior to content, yes?

Following on, Absolute must exist prior to relativity. Stillness must exist prior to movement (how can you see movement?); Locality is essentially in the middle of nowhere (omnipresence) without drawing imaginary relationships, etc.





> That's because you're thinking in heads and tails and not seeing the coin!



That's an interesting comment.  :wink2:

----------


## drewmandan

> Following on, Absolute must exist prior to relativity. Stillness must exist prior to movement (how can you see movement?); Locality is essentially in the middle of nowhere (omnipresence) without drawing imaginary relationships, etc.



Gibberish. I won't respect you or take this crap seriously until you make some visible effort to make it readable.

----------


## really

> Gibberish. I won't respect you or take this crap seriously until you make some visible effort to make it readable.



So you can't ask a specific question? No specific answer...

----------


## drewmandan

> So you can't ask a specific question? No specific answer...



Specifically, take that crap you posted and translate it to something someone else can read and comprehend. But of course you can't do that, because you would realize that you said nothing at all.

----------


## StonedApe

Here's what he said "context>content".

I think he was also saying that dualities apply to content, however not to context (which is what I was saying earlier with dualities are not objective).

To Really: Are dualities just pairs of related items which are not neccisarily opposites? Are they only opposites at times because it often creates a balance? I only began really looking at duality in the past 3 months so I don't have too deep an understanding.

----------


## drewmandan

> Here's what he said "context>content".
> 
> I think he was also saying that dualities apply to content, however not to context (which is what I was saying earlier with dualities are not objective).
> .



"context>content" makes no sense. What the fuck is a greater-than sign doing in a discussion not involving, uh, numbers? This may be below or above what you think your level of understanding is, but I honestly would just like someone to speak in plain English and common sense instead of what I've seen thus far, which I would call "word vomit". Please, _make some sense_.

Do you understand what I'm asking? Here's an analogy: Suppose I was trying to explain how a field effect transistor works to a bunch of laymen. Would the following help them understand anything at all?:

"transistor>calculations
magnetic field>electric field
large>small
electron>hole
silicon>phosphorus"

Do you now understand what I mean?

----------


## StonedApe

Context is greater than (means it has more meaning) content. Like expression has more meaning than that which is used to express it.

Like if I play you a sad song, the sadness(context) of the song is more important(greater than) the notes and rythms(content) which make up the song.

And, yes drew I have understood for a while now that you have no intention of understanding what I'm saying. I just like explaining it to you because it helps me to understand it better.

----------


## drewmandan

> Context is greater than (means it has more meaning) content. Like expression has more meaning than that which is used to express it.
> 
> Like if I play you a sad song, the sadness(context) of the song is more important(greater than) the notes and rythms(content) which make up the song.



First you say meaning, then you say importance. Be specific. 





> And, yes drew I have understood for a while now that you have no intention of understanding what I'm saying. I just like explaining it to you because it helps me to understand it better.



Intention has nothing to do with it. If something is well-written, I should have no choice but to understand it once I've read it.

----------


## StonedApe

emotions are more meaningful than notes, which are m

If you go into a discussion with the mindset that the other person is wrong(which you do in every religious discussion I 've seen you have on this website) you are going to be less likely to understand what they are trying to say. Whenever I make a point you either change the line of questioning or say that it makes no sense, along with the occasional spaghetti monster reference. Can you honestly say your trying to understand what I'm saying? I'm sorry if you are, I just find some of this to be quite obvious. Things like emotions and patterns.

*Context(emotion of sadness) has meaning, thus it is more important than content(the notes) wich by themselves(whithout you attaching some kind of meaning based on your personal experiences) have no meaning(other than maybe numeric).* 

The context of any situation is created by you placing it's content in comparison with your past experiences. Becasuse we are all human, we all have at least some common experiences. Things like love, hate, pleasure, suffering. These things are common to us all.

----------


## drewmandan

Ok. You've now explained the meaning of the arcane notation "context>content". Now please explain the rest of them, namely:

Infinite>Finite
Absolute>Relative
Essence>Appearance/Seeming
Heart (Mind)>mind
Love>Ignorance
Non-local>Local
Witnessed>Experienced
Reality>Hypothetical/Illusion/reality
Understanding>Mis-understanding
Being>Thinking
Stillness>Movement
Non-verbal (or no words)>Verbal
Ineffable>Describable
Silence>Noise
Peace>Suffering
Nonlinear>Linear
Timeless>Time
Everlasting>Temporal
Oneness>Separation
Non-dualistic>Dualistic
Power>Force
Potential>Actual
Unfoldement>Cause
Knowledge>Information
Self>self

----------


## StonedApe

I could, but I really don't feel like. It would take a long time and besides, it would be much more beneficial for you to take some time and hink about the concepts in the post and how the relate to one another(I know, you can't do this because it would show how duality is useful, thus proving you wrong). 

Life can often be viewed as circles which fit within other circles. Thats what I think the greater than thing is about.  All the things on the right side of the equation can only exist within(or are dependent on) the things on the left side.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

None of the things on that list are dualistic or opposites.
Something, and the lack thereof; are not opposites.
That's like saying 0 and 5 are opposites. ::roll:: 
I personally think no one can claim to know the truth about anything, that includes people who claim that everthing is dualistic. 
(Don't get me wrong I also dislike people who think they find "absolute truth" by using science)

----------


## StonedApe

Are you sure your not just being to lazy to learn the truth about your Self? I useually am so I probably shouldn't be criticizing but....

I wouldn't say that no truth can be known, but maybe that objective truth cannot be known(or at least not expressed with words, I think it is possible to experience This though I'm not sure). But It is possible to gain subjective understanding or understanding of the Self(or Oneness or the I(Eye) in I or God whatever you wanna call it because most people how talk of God seem to know little of it).

Also something and nothing may or may not be opposites, but they are a duality. Which is what makes me think this question which will certainly be burried before seen so I'm gonna post it again here. To Really: Are dualities just pairs of related items which are not neccisarily opposites? Are they only opposites at times because it often creates a balance?

In some context, 0 and 5 are a duality as 0 represents nothing 5 represents something. When Examining a duality in order to make sense of it you must look at meaning(context) rather than symbols(content).

----------


## drewmandan

Why should I think about a list of random words spouted by someone on the internet? You have to convince me first that it isn't nonsense.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

What happened to the fancy artwork in this thread? I want more vids and colorful yet meaningless drawings!

----------


## StonedApe

> Why should I think about a list of random words spouted by someone on the internet? You have to convince me first that it isn't nonsense.



You are the one who asked for the meaning or why for an explanation on how the list isn't nonsense. I already said the list is just examples of dualities. 

The main point was that context>content. This principle is a duality. This principle is useful in making sense of things in that it divides something that expresses meaning(any experience) into two parts(duality of context and content). I showed you how this priciple can give one insight in a specific study(music). This was the question you asked was it not?

Until you accept that the idea context>content is true and shows how dualities can be useful, you aren't going to be able to make sense of the rest of that post as that is what the rest of the post is in part trying to show(though I think only some of the examples show how context>content).

But I guess everything is nonsense until you experience it.

----------


## drewmandan

I asked for a concrete example of dualistic treatment giving new information. Your music example wasn't anything new. 

Let me give you an example in math. Just recently in my real analysis class we proved a theorem called the "Contraction Mapping Principle", which is a very general statement relating to metric spaces. And most importantly, the proof of this theorem requires only a basic knowledge of analysis. However, this theorem can be applied to give a criterion for when a differential equation has an explicit solution, which would otherwise be difficult or impossible. 

This is an example of a very general idea giving new information about a seemingly unrelated field of study. Note that to prove the theorem requires no requisite knowledge of differential equation theory, yet the theorem gives mathematicians an extremely powerful tool to use when solving differential equations. 

Now you're claiming that viewing the world in a dualistic frame can give new information, or in other words, new insights that don't require having that knowledge in the first place. In light of my example, could you perhaps give a similar example of how the philosophy of dualism gives new information?

----------


## StonedApe

Alright, if that examples not good enough I'll give you a more specific one when I get out of class at 9, but I don't have time right now.

As far as new info , no, I never said it was useful at gathering new information, I said it was useful in understanding current information know. At making sense of things. This is why I recomend it to you so strongly, you seem to be having quite a difficult time making sense of this. It is a way of organizing one's thoughts to better understand the underlying meaning expressed(or the experience of life). 

I am of the thought that science is used to gather information and philosophy is used to make sense(*understand?*) of that info.

By the way information can only be gained through experience, and not in any way through thinking. "New information" gained through thought would have to have already been obtained, only not understood. It would not be any new pattern, but rather the combination or organization of previous patterns.

----------


## drewmandan

> Alright, if that examples not good enough I'll give you a more specific one when I get out of class at 9, but I don't have time right now.
> 
> As far as new info , no, I never said it was useful at gathering new information, I said it was useful in understanding current information know. At making sense of things. This is why I recomend it to you so strongly, you seem to be having quite a difficult time making sense of this. It is a way of organizing one's thoughts to better understand the underlying meaning expressed(or the experience of life).



In that case, I still object to it, but for an entirely different reason. The world is a very complicated place, and it can't always be divided into duals. In fact, there should theoretically exist situations that can only be reasonably divided into p opposing objects, where p is a prime number, not always 2. For example, the trinity has 3 parts, some flowers have 5 petals, etc. 





> By the way information can only be gained through experience, and not in any way through thinking. "New information" gained through thought would have to have already been obtained, only not understood. It would not be any new pattern, but rather the combination or organization of previous patterns.



Not true, see my previous example. Or in a more general sense, all of mathematics exists outside of reality, and was thus born entirely out of philosophy and logic. Would you say that math contains no information?

----------


## StonedApe

Thought is no more than organization of previous thoughts and experiences. All thought originates from experience. Was all mathematics done in your head, made up of imaginary components, or does 99&#37; of mathematics have some kind of application to life(therefore involving some kind of experience or I like to call life). Math is made up of symbols, this is true, however these symbols are only useful as long as they have some kind of meaning or value attached to them. 

Also what is this math that exists outside of reality? I've always thought the only thing that exists outside of reality is the God of fundamentalist christians.

I also never said duality is any kind of ultimate solution. You have to know more than just duality in order understand anything. But that is true of any philosophy or concept. How can you look at anything in the future without comparing it to the past? 

Can you show me an example of a thought that is completely unrelated to any kind of experience or sensation?

Your first objection also makes no sense. Just because trinities exist does not mean that dualities do not exist. You may be able to imply that you need to understand more than just duality in order to be intelligent, but I've already agreed to that.

State what it is you don't get. My statement that duality, while not being objective, can still be used to gather a greater understanding(wisdom, not knowledge) of a known situation(or experience, or emotion, or even behavior). I have explained clearly how this can be done by looking at the context of a situation rather than the content(which is a duality, thus I say using a duality to better understand a subject).

Now I could further say that you could go on to gain understanding of objective Truth(oneness), But I think we should stick with the original discussion and establish the fact the duality is useful first.

----------


## really

> Here's what he said "context>content".
> 
> I think he was also saying that dualities apply to content, however not to context (which is what I was saying earlier with dualities are not objective).



Yes, dualities are within non-duality, however non-duality is not subject to duality. Say the Universe is whole. Within the universe, things appear to be separate. If we refer to the non-dualistic, we are whole and one with everything; we are a drop of the sea. If I think with a dualistic mind, I create suffering because I think I am separate and sustained by everything "outside of me"; which then may lead to endless dualities of the animal. For one thing "I" do not think; that would imply a thinker, and the "thinked", etc.





> To Really: Are dualities just pairs of related items which are not neccisarily opposites? Are they only opposites at times because it often creates a balance? I only began really looking at duality in the past 3 months so I don't have too deep an understanding.



The duality of opposites are illusions created by the ego/mind, which draws lines and assumes pairs. For example, "I exist, therefore I fear that I might not exist." It's an illusion, because in Reality, existence can only exist - it cannot stop existing. Likewise, non-existence cannot exist. "I" exists, thus "I cannot exist, I might not exist" - are both illusions. At death, the body does not cease to exist, neither does the "I" of consciousness, which animates another body if necessary. The mind has just taken the witnessing of life, and created an assumed opposite. This is done to survive, applied to a great multitude of objects and situations. The ego/mind is incapable of determining truth from falsehood, I.e. that which exists from that which is not true to existing (falsity).

As for balance, it is more of an awareness of what is required or necessary than how it is expressed. It really depends on the situation, e.g. you need duality in maths and science, because they are dualistic areas. You need to make all sorts of measuring and comparisons. 

In spiritual work, you try to weaken the dualities of the ego, which are formed by positionalities. E.g. "that person is bad". According to them, "they are good". Everybody does what they deem to be good (Socrates); there is no intrinsic "bad" way to be. That's what forgiveness is for, forgive them if you have condemned them (that's also dualistic).





> Context is greater than (means it has more meaning) content. Like expression has more meaning than that which is used to express it.



No that's not what I meant. I mean, you can't have content without a context; you can't have football players playing football without a field. Football Field>Football Players/Ball. If you take something out of context, it is hypothetical.





> Like if I play you a sad song, the sadness(context) of the song is more important(greater than) the notes and rythms(content) which make up the song.



I would say that the context is the intention and motivation for the song; what is being expressed, whereas the content is what is put into the song; sound, structure and how it was made etc. That is why if you understand the song, you enjoy the song; you understand its context. Take something out of context, and you may become frustrated.





> I wouldn't say that no truth can be known, but maybe that objective truth cannot be known(or at least not expressed with words, I think it is possible to experience This though I'm not sure). But It is possible to gain subjective understanding or understanding of the Self(or Oneness or the I(Eye) in I or God whatever you wanna call it because most people how talk of God seem to know little of it).



Yes, there is no objective truth, because truth is subjective. So when you are in peace, harmony and understanding, that is that, that's the truth. However, it is one thing to be pathologically delusional, and another to be aware that you truly know.





> When Examining a duality in order to make sense of it you must look at meaning(context) rather than symbols(content).



This is the Essence>Appearance part. Can also be written as Formless>Form. The intellect can only understand logical symbols and processes form. The subjective meaning and understanding which is beyond form is quite difficult to express, though that depends.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> Yes, there is no objective truth, because *truth is subjective.*







> So when you are in peace, harmony and understanding, that is that, *that's the truth.*



.

----------


## DeathCell

If I'm not mistaken

This plain of existence we live in is full of dualitys while plains above may involve trinity as drewdaman used it as an example.

----------


## really

> .



Thanks for the emphasis.  ::goodjob2:: 





> If I'm not mistaken
> 
> This plain of existence we live in is full of dualitys while plains above may involve trinity as drewdaman used it as an example.



I don't really see the point, they are two different contexts. One is a redundant form of perception, the other is a religious concept.

----------


## drewmandan

I won't bother to continue arguing against people's misunderstandings of my posts.

----------


## StonedApe

So do you still feel duality is completely useless? Either way I enjoyed talking to you about it. It helped me to understand it a lot better.

----------


## really

> So do you still feel duality is completely useless? Either way I enjoyed talking to you about it. It helped me to understand it a lot better.



_Do I_ feel it is completely useless?

It is, spiritually. I have no interest in the dualistic ego on the spiritual path. Duality is useful while intellectualizing and working in the world, but it will not bring everlasting happiness or knowledge of Spirit.

----------


## SmoothGroove

> _Do I_ feel it is completely useless?
> 
> It is, spiritually. I have no interest in the dualistic ego on the spiritual path. Duality is useful while intellectualizing and working in the world, but it will not bring everlasting happiness or knowledge of Spirit.



What DOES bring everlasting happiness and knowledge of spirit?

Boy, oh boy I'd love an answer to that question.

----------


## really

> What DOES bring everlasting happiness and knowledge of spirit?
> 
> Boy, oh boy I'd love an answer to that question.



Practice Love and forgiveness, surrender the ego-positions to God. Give up the ego's vanities. Happiness and Love can "become" a way of Being in the world, provided deep humility and spiritual devotion.

Eventually, this Timeless Moment will reveal itself, and with the Love of All Being, the source of Reality itself.

Essentially, nothing "brings it" because it Is All already here. We are simply inherently blind, innately ignorant, however, we can still move our awareness to higher states with consistent intention (of practice).

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> Practice Love and forgiveness, surrender the ego-positions to God. Give up the ego's vanities. Happiness and Love can "become" a way of Being in the world, provided deep humility and spiritual devotion.
> 
> Eventually, this Timeless Moment will reveal itself, and with the Love of All Being, the source of Reality itself.
> 
> Essentially, nothing "brings it" because it Is All already here. We are simply inherently blind, innately ignorant, however, we can still move our awareness to higher states with consistent intention (of practice).



Surrendering the ego is impossible. The only way to do that is by comitting suicide.

----------


## really

> Surrendering the ego is impossible. The only way to do that is by comitting suicide.



It' not impossible, though in common society it would be extremely difficult. The ego can be weakened radically, over some time, and eventually it will drop of its own accord.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> It' not impossible, though in common society it would be extremely difficult. The ego can be weakened radically, over some time, and eventually it will drop of its own accord.



Why on earth would you want to become an empty shell without a personality? What's wrong with you people? have some self respect ffs.

----------


## really

> Why on earth would you want to become an empty shell without a personality? What's wrong with you people? have some self respect ffs.



It is not the personality itself, but its assumed identifications and dualistic beliefs. It is quite rare to transcend the ego, though while one identifies with it, and is attached to its payoffs, does the peace and light of awareness be blocked out. Suffering arises from the belief that we are our personalities.

----------


## DeathCell

> _Do I_ feel it is completely useless?
> 
> It is, spiritually. I have no interest in the dualistic ego on the spiritual path. Duality is useful while intellectualizing and working in the world, but it will not bring everlasting happiness or knowledge of Spirit.



Duality is just one truth on the spiritual path IMO, an opener.


And to the people who say surrendering the ego is impossible... That's what yogis attain for on a daily basis, and many do lose their ego.. Whether you want to believe it or not.

----------


## Scatterbrain

> And to the people who say surrendering the ego is impossible... That's what yogis attain for on a daily basis, and many do lose their ego.. Whether you want to believe it or not.



Screenshot or it didn't happen.

----------


## DeathCell

> Screenshot or it didn't happen.



Good luck getting a screenshot or a picture of an ego-death  :smiley:

----------


## Timothy Paradox

> That's what yogis attain for on a daily basis, and many do lose their ego.. Whether you want to believe it or not.



That's sick. They are zombies, who can't show emotion anymore. I'd NEVER want to be like that. I am human, I have emotions, instincts and certain personality traits. I'd NEVER give them up. That's just denying that you're human.

----------


## DeathCell

> That's sick. They are zombies, who can't show emotion anymore. I'd NEVER want to be like that. I am human, I have emotions, instincts and certain personality traits. I'd NEVER give them up. That's just denying that you're human.



Being at peace, they still have emotions instincts and personality traits...

If you think of them as zombies sure, I think of something else...

----------


## Scatterbrain

Why was Timothy banned?

----------


## drewmandan

Yeah, poor kid didn't deserve that. Bring him back.

----------


## Grod

oh lawdy lawd b& list

----------


## no-Name

he openly admited having alternate accounts, that might be why....




> I do.
> I have 2 more accounts on DV. Top secret of course.

----------


## Grod

SPECULATION

----------


## drewmandan

> he openly admited having alternate accounts, that might be why....



He was clearly joking, and that's not a reason to ban.

----------


## Grod

He was probably joking yeah, but it is a reason to ban. It's a rule here.

----------


## Xaqaria

> Duality is just one truth on the spiritual path IMO, an opener.
> 
> 
> And to the people who say surrendering the ego is impossible... That's what yogis attain for on a daily basis, and many do lose their ego.. Whether you want to believe it or not.



My issue is; what is exactly do you mean by 'surrendering the ego', 'ego death', etc.? Do you think yogis would agree with your description of what they are doing? For that matter, how do you define the ego in the first place? 

Are you refering to the Freudian ego, ones sense of self, or just the knowledge of a being that can express a feeling of 'I'? Does one lose the knowledge of what an individual is when one surrenders one's own individuality? Is nirvana the ultimate "ignorance is bliss"? 

'Surrendering the ego' is not a very good way to describe my perception of what is being reached for when one seeks enlightenment, although maybe you'll say thats because I am not enlightened; and maybe thats true. To me though, To recognize that an individual is a place and not a discrete thing is not the same as giving up the perception of the self as that place, which is how I translate "surrendering the ego."

How this relates to the synchromysticism business; there is a definite and practical line between recognizing connections, and recognizing the connections that do tangible work (i.e. the ones that have meaning, or create a patterned and repeatable outcome) especially in the context of a system in which everything is connected to everything else _in some way_. Many of these connections are inert and bare no more signifigance than calling the correct side on a flipped coin.

----------


## ClouD

this is the ego, this is the buddha.

----------


## Xaqaria

> this is the ego, this is the buddha.



You really do need to learn how to express yourself better. What are you refering to with the word 'this'? Do you think you are expressing Brahman or Atman, or neither? Do you even know what it is you are trying to express?

----------


## Scatterbrain

Alright, let's form an angry mob and head towards the meta-forum.

----------


## ClouD

> You really do need to learn how to express yourself better. What are you refering to with the word 'this'? Do you think you are expressing Brahman or Atman, or neither? Do you even know what it is you are trying to express?



This. Everything, nothing, whatsoever. This.

All inclusively, this is the ego; this is the Buddha.

----------


## DeathCell

> My issue is; what is exactly do you mean by 'surrendering the ego', 'ego death', etc.? Do you think yogis would agree with your description of what they are doing? For that matter, how do you define the ego in the first place? 
> 
> Are you refering to the Freudian ego, ones sense of self, or just the knowledge of a being that can express a feeling of 'I'? Does one lose the knowledge of what an individual is when one surrenders one's own individuality? Is nirvana the ultimate "ignorance is bliss"? 
> 
> 'Surrendering the ego' is not a very good way to describe my perception of what is being reached for when one seeks enlightenment, although maybe you'll say thats because I am not enlightened; and maybe thats true. To me though, To recognize that an individual is a place and not a discrete thing is not the same as giving up the perception of the self as that place, which is how I translate "surrendering the ego."
> 
> How this relates to the synchromysticism business; there is a definite and practical line between recognizing connections, and recognizing the connections that do tangible work (i.e. the ones that have meaning, or create a patterned and repeatable outcome) especially in the context of a system in which everything is connected to everything else _in some way_. Many of these connections are inert and bare no more signifigance than calling the correct side on a flipped coin.



I think the loss of ego means a loss of feeling you are the most important thing in the world and realize that you are just one person in the whole.

----------


## really

> My issue is; what is exactly do you mean by 'surrendering the ego', 'ego death', etc.? Do you think yogis would agree with your description of what they are doing? For that matter, how do you define the ego in the first place?



Yeah, the yogis, forms of yoga, all related somewhat. Surrendering the ego means to be willing to give up the pay-offs and attachments to your ego (lower self) in order to reveal what you really are (higher Self). Popular analogies include that the higher Self is the Sun, shining effortlessly, whereas the ego and its obstructions to spiritual truth are much like the clouds that block the light of your awareness. Remove/surrender the clouds, and the Sun is revealed.

At Post #24 on the following page (link), I apparently started a discussion with O'nus about the ego, if it helps:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...t=65223&page=2

A nice ego link; great website: http://theendofseeking.net/EG%20-%20The%27me%27.html





> Are you refering to the Freudian ego, ones sense of self, or just the knowledge of a being that can express a feeling of 'I'?



The "I" of the real Self is clouded by the ego, which presumes "I am that", e.g. "I am the body" - the presumed "causal agent" of ones life story.





> Does one lose the knowledge of what an individual is when one surrenders one's own individuality? Is nirvana the ultimate "ignorance is bliss"?



The knowledge of the individual self supposedly becomes replaced with real knowledge of the Self upon returning home "once enlightened", and merges with the universal source; as a drop back into the ocean. It is said that the individuality is merged into the Real identity, which is Omnipresent. Over "periods" of infinite bliss, the awareness might suddenly notice there is a body, but it is not identified as the individual self (become peripheral). This is because the real Self is essentially in complete and total unity and eternal Oneness with everything.

I think the "ignorance is bliss" as Nirvana is far out of context. For one thing, bliss is briefly the eternal freedom from all suffering. Suffering is the result of ignorance - ignorance of ones true existence; ones true Self. Bliss is actually what arises from radiant awareness, never from ignorance. (If you compare the state of Nirvana to that phrase, that "ignorant bliss" is effectively nothing).





> *To recognize that an individual is a place and not a discrete thing* is not the same as giving up the perception of the self as that place, which is how I translate "surrendering the ego."



What do you mean by this?





> This. Everything, nothing, whatsoever. This.
> 
>  All inclusively, this is the ego; this is the Buddha.



 ClouD, _come on..._  ::D: 





> I think the loss of ego means a loss of feeling you are the most important thing in the world and realize that you are just one person in the whole.



You can still be narcissistic while knowing that you one part of the world. Narcissism is the low animal realm of the ego - where its demands are strongly dominant. There usually is consistent pain caused by anger, arrogance, pride, apathy, negativity and violence, etc. There is no integrity with this awareness. People with this consciousness who follow religion usually follow it for wrong reasons, I.e. "justify" killing, believing in a "divine supporter" of ones own self-importance; promote "free speech" in the form of explicit and offensive behavior. It is a major distortion; there is incredible irony in their religious beliefs as they are expressed from the person as the exact opposite of their founding truths.

With increasing conscious awareness, one is more self-controlled. Emotions in the brain are physiologically not the primary motivator for behavior, I.e. rationality comes in first. Rationality and logical conceptualization is a very good sign of awareness. Intellectuals are more spiritually aware than they think. Yet, the intellect is a great barrier to higher awareness...

----------


## ClouD

Everything is of the mind.

----------


## Xaqaria

> What do you mean by this?



The whole 'universal mind' theory. Everything is one and all that. If we are really just all the same thing, our individuality still boils down to a place marker in that thing.

----------


## SmoothGroove

I've experienced ego-death, though it was through use of psychadelics. And it scared me when I came to, I think due to the fact that I am still so attached to my ego-in-waking.
Ego-death is when you can look at yourself (and indeed your ego), look at the world without being blinded, side-tracked, confused by emotions. 
Psychadelics were a tool for me, that showed me many things about the world and myself.

But they are just a tool, everyone should remember that.

I stole the keys to the skies, but they weren't rightfully mine.

----------


## ClouD

> I've experienced ego-death, though it was through use of psychadelics. And it scared me when I came to, I think due to the fact that I am still so attached to my ego-in-waking.
> Ego-death is when you can look at yourself (and indeed your ego), look at the world without being blinded, side-tracked, confused by emotions. 
> Psychadelics were a tool for me, that showed me many things about the world and myself.
> 
> But they are just a tool, everyone should remember that.
> 
> I stole the keys to the skies, but they weren't rightfully mine.



laugh out loud

----------


## SmoothGroove

> laugh out loud



Glad I could make you laugh  :wink2:

----------


## ClouD

> Glad I could make you laugh



how decisive  ::lol::

----------


## Timothy Paradox

I think I'll just accept who I am (my flaws and better traits) and die, eventually. No ego death for me, thank you.
I don't get why those "wise men" want to lose their sense of self so badly. You'll lose it when you're dead, isn't that good enough? I think those Yogis have no respect for life.

----------


## Cyclic13



----------


## Timothy Paradox

Guess what cyclic... that was your 2012th post.

----------


## Specialis Sapientia

Haha, grats  :smiley:

----------


## Bonsay

> I think I'll just accept who I am (my flaws and better traits) and die, eventually. No ego death for me, thank you.
> I don't get why those "wise men" want to lose their sense of self so badly. You'll lose it when you're dead, isn't that good enough? I think those Yogis have no respect for life.



What do you mean? What does it mean to have respect for life?

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Nevermind. You just want to tell me to believe in what you believe so further discussion is pointless.

----------


## Bonsay

Actually I "want" to remind you of how relative subjectivity is. Respect is a pretty clear concept, but the way you worded your statement shows how you favour your world view over another. So do I and everybody else, but where is the logic in it? For example you talked about self respect of the people who "want" ego death, in regards of how low it must be or why somebody would like to become an empty shell. Why would your philosophy of attachment to this world have more truthfulness than any other? Why is being a normal human respectful, but not when you want to experience the universe in another way. All I'm saying is that assuming a different standpoint is most practical when trying to understand somebody. You linked your view of life and attached the path of a yogi and the folks who want "ego death", which obviously don't add up. Just as I can't comprehend why somebody would want to go to heaven. But I understand it. Sorry for preaching... but don't worry, I don't even know how to believe, what I think I believe.

----------


## really

> Actually I "want" to remind you of how relative subjectivity is. Respect is a pretty clear concept, but the way you worded your statement shows how you favour your world view over another. So do I and everybody else, but where is the logic in it? For example you talked about self respect of the people who "want" ego death, in regards of how low it must be or why somebody would like to become an empty shell. Why would your philosophy of attachment to this world have more truthfulness than any other? Why is being a normal human respectful, but not when you want to experience the universe in another way. All I'm saying is that assuming a different standpoint is most practical when trying to understand somebody. You linked your view of life and attached the path of a yogi and the folks who want "ego death", which obviously don't add up. Just as I can't comprehend why somebody would want to go to heaven. But I understand it. Sorry for preaching... but don't worry, I don't even know how to believe, what I think I believe.



Subjectivity is not a belief system, nor is it the mind. Subjectivity essentially contextualizes all possible Reality and knowledge. This is what all beings share; subjectivity - awareness, consciousness. 

The content of mind; the belief systems, are irrelevant. You cannot imagine anothers system, simply by paradigm. You can only gather the facts, factors and influences of another system and hopefully build your own picture, but even then it is subject to perception.

----------


## juroara

> I think I'll just accept who I am (my flaws and better traits) and die, eventually. No ego death for me, thank you.
> I don't get why those "wise men" want to lose their sense of self so badly. You'll lose it when you're dead, isn't that good enough? I think those Yogis have no respect for life.




The ego isn't who you are

What the ego is, is the culmination of everything you *think* we are. Tt's composed of ideas, beliefs, thoughts, emotions and memories. 

The ego tells us _"This is who you are"_. Knowing who we are makes us happy. Makes us feel safe. Problem is, the ego is lying. 

The ego says "you are those beliefs, ideas and memories. If anything should threaten those beliefs, ideas and memories - then your individuality is threatened." But this isn't true. We are not an idea, we are not a belief, and we are not our memories. 

This is why the ego is a problem.

For example

Lets look at the fundamentalist. The fundamentalist says _"I am a fundamentalist. This is what I believe in. What I believe in defines me as an individual. So I know who I am._ 

_I am a fundamentalist"_

What happens if you shake a fundamentalists beliefs? They get very angry. Why do you think that is? You aren't just threatening their belief system, but their self identity.

If suddenly one day they wake up atheist, their entire mental world would fall apart. Suddenly they know nothing about the world anymore. And they would be completely unsure about their self. Even their own memories. _"Did I always have absolute faith? Or was I lying to myself?"_ The change would be so dramatic, they might not be able to relate to other fundamentalists they used to know.

*We all go through mini ego-deaths throughout our lives*. It's necessary. It's important. It's part of growing up.

Those 'yogis' you are talking about it take the process of ego death much further. That's because they want it completely gone.

It's important to understand this doesn't mean its wrong to have beliefs, ideas, emotions, or memories.

Westerners always want the cookie cutter answers to philosophy and spiritual ideas. But it doesn't work. The understanding of ego death is in the subtlety. 

What you need to understand is your ideas, your beliefs, your emotions, your memories, even your thoughts - none of those things are who you are. However, they serve a unique purpose of creating an experience. Experiencing isn't wrong. It's what life is! Experiencing!

Since all your beliefs, emotions, ideas are simply an experience, none of them are the absolute truth. Since they are not the absolute truth, they are the maya, or illusion.

Now many spiritual people are trying to escape the maya, to reach God, or the only true reality. This would 'appear' that these spiritual folk don't care about living life.

The path they are walking isn't easy. The problem becomes a matter of balance, as always. What they are balancing is experiencing life, while recognizing they are not any of those illusions. This process becomes the practice of non-attachment. Balancing is difficult. So many choose to live simple lives to make non-attachment easier. However, having abundance does not go against non-attachment.

Here is an example of how our emotions feed our ego. And how non-attachment detaches our self from our emotions.

We have the tendency to say _"I am angry!"_. Why is saying _"I am angry!"_ wrong? 

When we say "I am angry!" we are creating in our heads that the only thing we can feel right now...is anger. Anger and only anger. Believing that we are in fact angry....makes us angrier! The ego feeds itself. And becomes a circular trap.

If we change the mental statement "I am experiencing anger." (the non-attachment statement)

Then we are recognizing that anger is an emotion, and its a temporary experience. And more importantly, it's not what we are. Realizing it's a temporary experience that is not who we are, we can let go of the anger easier. Our emotional self becomes empty. Nature abhors a vacuum. That now empty emotional self needs to be filled with a new emotion. Hopefully, peace of mind........but more than often its regret.

This is a tiny example of what happens when your ego dies. That vacuum is filled. The yogis, and other spiritual peeps are hoping their empty minds will be filled with the true reality. However, for a moment in time there will be a vacuum. The vacuum can be really frightening if you aren't ready! 

The death of the ego doesn't mean you stop being an individual. It never was your individuality to begin with! 

Your individuality can't accurately be expressed in words. The best we can describe it in the english language is, I AM. It is however expressed in that which you have chosen to experience. So your ego is an expression of your individuality. Just don't confuse the art for the painter, or even the paintbrush for the painter.

We all carry so many subtle lies about ourselves. So many subtle lies about the world. You can go your entire life time and never realize you had these false ideas. Everyone who practices the Law of Attraction will tell you, they discovered so many false ideas about themselves, they never knew they had!

Our egos are very very sneaky  ::D:

----------


## Kuhnada29

Cyclic13, is that picture supposed to symbolize chaos? No order without chaos, no chaos with order...it has to balance out.

I know what your saying about dualism, it's everywhere..but the point is to observe both sides and not just observe from one side. Someone said something about observing the coin and not just making heads or tails of it..that was brilliant lol.

Which makes total sense, if the NWO were to take over the world, chaos would ensue...but their has to be order for it to balance out..it can never stay on one side for too long, hence what i think 2012 is all about. Maybe that's the cycles the mayans talked about? 

The beginning of this thread is brilliant, Cyclic, i love the pictures and the videos. And i can see why some people on here can't appreciate it. 

Hot and cold, good and bad, slow and fast, male and female. Observe duality from OUTSIDE of the duality framework. I'm just not so clear on WHY they need each other........

because they both exist as one? With them both working together, when one needs the other it creates change..everything needs to change....everything needs to be dynamic...steadily moving.....ergo fractal theory, the fractals/patterns always need to change. Life needs death, because there needs to be change, and vice versa. 



Ego death. I've read about this a lot, specifically in trip reports from salvia. This is why I don't want to be spiritually enlightened YET. I feel like once I am, i will lose my interests and things that I like/dislike like anime, video games, sex, etc, cars, and be on a straight path down towards loving everyone unconditionally

I know my desires are all illusions, but i like them, and i want to continue to like them until my desire for them are satisfied

I feel what you are saying that the REAL ME is the conscious observer, aside from the likes and dislikes, I think this is what defines us though. Our experiences, memories, desires...without that, it's like we just walk around mindlessly and observe everything. Those experiences and memories are what makes us happy, sad, emotional or whatever. I mean after a certain period, we might get tired of them...but i just don't want to be spiritually enlightened and have all that stripped away from me.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

That explanation by Juroara makes more sense, yet none of it is very scientific, now is it...
Trying to get rid of your own nature (being a human being who's confined to being a human being - flat fact, undeniable.) is in my humble opinion impossible. I feel emotions and live life (as far as it is possible for me) but always remain in an observant state, analysing everything I see, even myself. I don't need to reach "God", as I am not a zombie and do not wish to become one. I am, at times, ruled by instinct and accept that I am.

But anyway, I'm experiencing the feeling that we're getting off topic.

----------


## DeathCell

Hard, you don't have to give up everything..

----------

