Here is an image for JB

I want to understand my own emotional content, therefore I think about it.

Nice picture Mirror.

Life is a game.

For a more 'tarot' type of interpretation, the chess pieces represent the game,
which is a game of war.
The water represents emotions.
The breaking clouds and rays of sunlight represent
a break in the storm... the dawning of the sun.

This break in the storm could represent
hope, or the promise of better times to come.

The chess pieces are part of the landscape
which means that is just the way of the world.
The game, the war etc.
Life goes on...

The dawning of the sun could be a spiritual
meaning like the return of God to the earth.

Now when I saw this picture, I felt all of that
but I did not think of all of that until I decided
to analyze it or interpret it. Now I understand
the feelings I got when I saw the picture.

That is understandable, but it's not 'automatic.' First you have a feeling, then you make the decision to analyze it.

Exactly.

And the far deeper question is, "Who is the I that wants to analyize it, or not?"

This is what I mean when I say that, for me, it's 'self-evident' that we cannot possibly be nothing more than just our brains.

From my point of view, if that were true, then there would be no 'awareness' at all. Or to put this another way, if having the ability to logically analyize things equates to 'awareness' then computers would also need to be aware by that criteria.

"Who is it that has the feelings and "wants" to analyize things, or not analyize them.

Everyone doesn't analyze their every emotion or mood. At least not continually all the time. I would totally reject the idea that this is an 'automatic' process. Most people probably don't analyze their emotions and mood unless they feel troubled by them or don't already "understand" their feelings on a deeper intuitive level that requires no analytical interpreting at all.

So from my point of view it's 'self-evident' to me that we are not our thinking brains. We are obviously something far deeper than this.

The idea that we are some sort of logically incomprehensible 'spiritual' beings that are just experiencing this physical world is not difficult at all for me to accept. As far as I'm concerned all evidence actually points to this conclusion.

Moreover, it not only points to this conclusion to explain human awareness, but we even see the physical sciences pointing to this same conclusion concerning the very essence of the so-called 'physical world' as well.

People who demand a physical explanation for everything are in a pretty hopeless situation because they haven't even succeeded in finding a physical explanation for the physical world in the first place.

Science has experimentally, and observationally, determined that the the entire physical world arises from totally illogical and non-physical quantum fields.

Fields that apparently cannot be physically detected at all. The only reason that we even believe that such fields "exist" is because physical "stuff" keeps popping out of them and disappearing back into them. But the quantum fields cannot be physically detected at all. Also the 'rules' that describe the properties of these fields defies 'logic' as we know it.

It's not that we aren't smart enough to figure out 'logical' explanations, it's already been determined that the behavior is indeed 'illogical' where 'logic' represents our normal experience with the physical world.

So scientifically we have already learned that we live in a universe that arrises from an illogical non-physical essence.

So we know that such an illogical non-physical essence "exists" somehow "outside" of the seemingly logical physical world we live in.

So in a very real sense, science has already discovered the existence of 'spirit'.

Therefore, to believe that our true essence is this illogical non-physical 'spirit' is an idea that is actually 'grounded' in science. At least in the sense of being a perfectly 'plausible' idea that is even very highly likely.

Trying to explain human awareness by restricting oneself only to explantions that assume some kind of Newtonian billard ball universe were brains are totally isolated from the quantum fields seems to me to be an outdated idea.

On the contrary if the brain uses the forces of nature to operate and it is ultimately made of the quantum field and is being constantly bathed by infinitely many quantum fluctuations that take place within every single atom of the brain, then it seems to me that the brain is interfaced to the quantum field so completely that it would be impossible to think of it as a 'seperate thing'.

So the idea that are true essence actually exists within and arises from this mysterious illogical and non-physical quantum field, is not only grounded in scientific knowledge, but it also seems to be 'self-evident' to me. Far more 'self-evident' than to think that we are just a physical biological computer. What would be 'aware' if that were the case? The atoms that make up the brain?

Seems to me that it makes far more sense to believe that what is actually aware is some illogical non-physical spirit who's true nature is beyond this physical universe and has a true essence more akin to the quantum field itself. Since this concept is both illogical and non-physical, why not just call it 'spirit' and accept that this is ultimately our true nature.

Just my thoughts.

James I think that is a very good idea to create tarot cards that represent peaceful elements as in comparison to violent representations.

Quills instead of Swords

Yet when I think how many wars started with a quill.

Some say a quill is more dangerous then a sword.

Yet I understand your point and agree that it would be alot better.

For example the death card usually shows a reaper or a bone skull or something.

Why does death have to be such a daunting representation at all?

The natives usually invited death and embraced its coming. The mind was set to know that death is just another experience to a better beginning.

So such a card could actually be differently illustrated also.

In the end I figure everyone has a different idealogy of what looks appropiated for their designs of images for cards.

To assume that the spirit world exists 'outside' of the logical
physical world we live in is a mistake.

It is the physical world that exists 'outsite.'

You must go within to find the source of all things.
But that journey will lead you back to the non-existence
from whence we arose, so you may not want to stay there.

This reality is our magnificent manifestation.


We like it because it is a lot better than 'nothing.'

Smiles:

You might be interested to know that my new design
for the death card is of a more positive nature.

My partner Darla informed me that she thought she should hold the
copyright to the tarot deck we have been working on together
for three years (simply because she was allowed to be the head
designer) and so I am redesigning my own deck.

This is the design I will be using for my deck:




This was our previous design,
I will not be using this one in my deck,
although it is very well liked.
Darla will use this in her deck.

State of mind is automatic.






I would'n be a nothin
with my head all full o stuffin
And my heart all full o pain

With what do you back up this assertion or what grounds do you have
for this opinion?

Are you saying that you have no control over your own state of mind?

Think about it.

Why don't you just answer my question?

I disagree that state of mind is 'automatic.'

If you can't state your grounds for this assertion,
then you have no grounds.

It is not self evident to me that state of mind
is automatic.

Unless you understand "state of mind" differently than I do.

What is your definition of 'state of mind?"

What is your premise?

People seem to love drama.

I'm in agreement with you.

The death card of Tarot, for me, could simply be a flowerbed with leaves as mulch. The leaves represent the 'death' of on facet of lifeforce and the flowers represent the rebirth.

Another image too could be a two-faced head. One face appears as a skull, the other face is the face of a newborn baby.

Death is just a transformation into new life. In fact, this is what the card actually represent in Tarot. I can represnet the 'death' of one phase of life and the 'birth' of the next phase (like possibly a change in career, for example) The death of one career, and the birth of a new one.

Of course the card can represent the death of an actual person, animal, or whatever, because real death is also the same kind of transformation.

I have thought about it.

And just like JB, I disagree with your starting assumptions.

Why do always feel that everyone should 'automatically' come to the same conclusions that you draw?

You haven't learned a single thing from that huge thread that everyone wants to die but keeps posting to.

You're premises, assumptions, and conclusion are not absolute!

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but everyone isn't stuck in your rut.

Why do you continue to state you opinions as if they are undeniable assertions?

Do you not understand the concept of unprovable 'premises'?

Things that you believe to be 'self-evident' are simply not 'self-evident' to other people.

For example your statement:



This implies that you have absolutely no control over your state of mind at all, because you claim that it's 'automatic'.

I don't believe that at all. That's not my experience.

My experience is that I can change my state of mind any time I so choose. Therefore from my point of view state of mind itself is a "choice".

To me this is 'self-evident'.

It you disagree, that's perfectly fine with me. But clearly there are more ways to "think about this" than you seem to realize.

Creative,

Make your premise known. State the grounds for your assertions.
This is what you wanted for the rules of this forum,
so you must also make the effort to do the same.

I am making an effort to follow these rules so why don't you?

Everyone knows my basic premise is that I am consciousness
and that all rises from that which I am.

I am not my brain or my mind.

I can change my state of mind if I so choose and if I am conscious
enough to do so. I don't identify with my mind or my brain.

Therefore your statement is not true or logical according to my premise.

If your premise is different, then we simply disagree. To argue would
be an exercise in futility.

My premise is self evident to me.

Exactly.

My 'grounds' for rejecting the idea that state of mind is automatic is simply because it is my experience that I can change my state of mind at will anytime I choose.

Therefore, for me, it is 'self-evident' based on my experience that state of mind is not automatic.

There. I've stated my 'grounds' to support my premise of why I do not accept the idea that state of mind is automatic.

Can you state your 'grounds' for your position Creative?

Or are you just going to say, "Think about it".

Like as if people should just accept your idea of what you think should be 'self-evident'?

I gave my reason why I think it's not 'self-evident'

I have the free will to change my state of mind any time I have the whim to change it. Therefore, for me, it is not 'self-evident' that state of mind is automatic.

Just the contrary. It's 'self-evident', to me, that state of mind is a matter of free will choice. This is my experience.

You were demanding that asssertions or 'claims' be 'grounded'.

Well, you seem to be claiming or asserting that state of mind is automatic.

What is your 'grounds' for that?

Don't just say "Think about it".

That doesn't say anything about what your 'grounds' for holding that view might be. We have no clue.

Live up to your own rule and state your 'grounds' for your premises.

I've stated mine. It's my experience that I can freely chose my state of mind at any moment. Therefore, for me, it is not 'automatic' as you seem to be demanding.

I like yours better absolutely! It is certainly much more positive.

When I look at hers, I feel like crying like the lady on the ground. Not positive that is for sure.

Beautiful work you do

I wasn't thinking of 'outside' of the physical universe in a 'geometric' sense.

I was using the term 'metaphorically'.

"outside" of physical manifestation, could indeed be thought of as "within" in a spiritual sense.

What I meant by 'outside' is outside of the concept of physicality. I didn't mean to imply an idea of being physically outside of the physical universe. That notion itself would just imply yet another physical location that exists 'elsewhere' to the universe.

I meant it metaphorically, not geometrically.

Yes I figured that... it is an old habit to think of the spirit
worlds as being "up there" or "out there" or "elsewhere" in our
physical universe because that is how the realists see and think of
the universe.

But once you grasp and hold onto the idea that everything proceeds
from consciousness within,
you realize that this universe is on the leading edge of creation and manifestation which arises from inner consciousness.

We identify with this physical reality because we have chosen to focus
our attention here on what we have manifested. This is our reality.
Behind us is where we came from which is without form.

We like the form. That is better than the no-thing from whence we came.

The form makes our existence known and felt.

We want to exist.

We are here at the edge of creation, expanding the universe with our very thoughts.

We are at the end of the road, building and manifesting the path before us.

There is nothing in our "future: or in the universe that we are not manifesting now.

Jeannie's knowledge flows like poetry doesn't it. I love it