Just passing through...BOO!!!!


I perceive my reality through my eyes, and the seeing eye dog can't be bothered doing the work for me anymore... so life is a perpetual joyful dance, in my reality...

PublicAnimal:



I appreciate your compliment of my person...

What is perceived as reality within one is real in it's affects.

I personally do not believe in heaven and hell. So, those who do have their right to believe as they choose, by using their choices at hand.



Di:

That beginning of that quote has been used by me many times in past...

Ahhh... the bow...

I so want to tie a pretty bow around it all which makes the ends truly meet, without covering over the package...

If I do... then great... if I do not... then great...

The picture of the omni-god created the Bible is obviously an up-close and personal self-portrait of individual human misunderstanding.

John Donne is worthwhile reading which displays the fear instilled into humans by this notion of the omnigod... Meditation XVII, I believe... Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee... Allow us all to live in fear... Nah... thanks anyway... It is too bad that such a brilliant writer had the personification of 'God' instilled in him...




Hiya Lee!!!!!

You shouldn't skeer me like that!!!

I have borrowed many sets of eyes... all of which have led to greater understandings...

My dearest Lee...

Creative soul who worte :
John Donne is worthwhile reading which displays the fear instilled into humans by this notion of the omnigod...

I think often though we may not live according to fear we still can have an understanding of its usefulness in a positive effect. I myself do not use fear to motivate myself except as in the matter of taxes and the doctrine of freewill speed limitations.

Often fear is used to get people from doing those things which they do not want to do. Yet often in the Bible fear is used as part of the apporach to holiness (now I am just saying what the Bible says just as an approach to growth). After having the promise of being sons and daughters of God , that we should not touch any unclean thing... therefore having these promises let us cleanse ourselves for all filthiness of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Also Peter says that we are to be holy as God is holy and that if we call Him Father who impartially judges each man according to his deals live your live in fear during your stay on earth. Even Solomon after concluding life is basically a chasing after the wind and that all our pursuits are vanities and a waste concludes that "the whole duty of man is to fear God and to keep His commandments". Still yet to love is a truer and more enduring cause of obeying God. As Christ said, "if you love me you will obey my commandment" Now this doesnt sound lvoing at all to some , yet His commandment was that if we love Him we would love each other.

Now I know that fear is not the highest motivator but we ourselves use in on children to keep them in mine thill they have a better understanding. Even many times we may exceed the speed limit but we apply the brakes as soon as we spot a police officer. Yet we fear the ticket that speed limit and enforecemnet is really for our own good and saftey. If we all obeyed the speed limit there would be no need to fear and no need for enforcement. Yet I do not think this deals with terror. Yet also the Bible talks about perfect love and that perfect love casts out all fear, because fear deals with punishment.

Yet fear is a poor motivator for as soon as we are clear of detection we resume our unsafe speed and put ourselves and others more at risk. Maybe it is only when love is allowed to take control of ourselves that we will do nothing in which we ought to fear. Or when our conscience is good and and our desire for respect and honor of others will keep us from doing harm and hurt to each other. Children who are such in this way have no need to fear their parent and possibly if all men walk in such a way before God we would find there is littel need to fear God, and more reason to love him and each other.

I would now like to address what different people believe it takes to change one's perception...

Is it an obviously ignored truth?

An undeniably truthful contradiction to what one once believed was truth?

What do you believe that it would take to change one's perception?

MindofChrist:



Who's defines 'unclean'? How does one arrive at the appropriate definition? Is a single definition all-inclusive?



Could you please elaborate on this understanding that you have?




Speed limits are placed out of the fear of what can happen without them outweighing what does happen with them.

I personally do not adhere to the speed limit out of fear. I adhere to it out of habit, regularly exceeding it by 5 to 7 miles per hour, everywhere I go. It is a necessary public safety measure, stemming from irresponsible individual drivers.



Conscience is determined by individual internalization. That which is accepted as truth within one, thus it's measure is inconsistent. The measure is determined by what one can live with. What would one do if one could do anything and 'get away with it'... suffer no repercussions, no negative affects...

All children learn what they live... all of them reflect what they have internalized as truth within themselves.

I believe that using fear-based spiritual explanations breeds irrational and irresponsible fear-based action. It lteaches one to jump to unwarranted and assumptive conclusions...

I have witnessed the difference... first-hand...

There is no reason good enough to belittle a child's emotional and mental functioning through a fear-based spiritual measure.

Tangible reality instills appropriate fears... after a hand is burnt by an oven, then the child is fearful of the pain that the oven's hot surface can cause... as a child should be. Ethical and moral measures which use a more physical and tangible explanation are understood more clearly as well. Give one something which can be witnessed without faith in the confusion principles of the omnigod.

This is the very thing about deceit and truth, there is no difference in its perception. That part that we are foolish enough to beleive is that if "I" beleive it therefore it is true and everyone else is wrong. We all wrongly place ourselves as the determiner of what is true. Our thoughts form the get go again biased and tainted. We may actually be on course of what is true yet the bases for our truth cannot be because it is what we believe. For what is truth to me is deciet to another and what is truth to them appears as deceit to me. I believe that to really find the tuth it is what we look for together and together we can extend each others perception. Perhaps though the truth be harmonious yet we all may have a different name for where this truth comes from.

Many times we enter into cahnging someone beliefs or perceptive in an attempt to be right. Again the thought of being right has nothing to do with truth, it has to do with our ego.. for I am right and you are wrong. And of course you would see it the other way around. It is only when we put such things aside, almost like in scientific theory. These methods can misfire on the supposed knowledge that we think we have and on our determination to be right.

Even our perception of God. By the laws of the universe there seems there ought to be a God of the original cause of the effect, or the effect of order from chaos. An example is that if we were walking along and see a watch on the ground we would not think that the metal and gears and inner workings of the watch just happen to fall into place, even if there were no manufacturer name upon it. There must be a probablitily of this accurring which would be more likely that just the mere function of our eye, or our ablitily to hear or smell or speak. Yet still our conclusion is based on the matter of the effect without indeed knowing what the sourse of the effect is. So we place upon this cause the word God, or maybe other would say "the force".

Any conclusion in our present form of existance in any form we remain inconclusive. That is were perhaps our spirit takes over from logic and where faith is then established... for faith is the reality of things not seen the evidence of things hoped for. Faith is where we enter into the solidness of faith, that our faith becomes the ground we walk on, the air that we breathe , the environment that surrounds us. This is often in many ways contrary to one's approach in a physical level. For I think people always find that what is physical does not satisfy that which is the spiritual part within us. Though many may never desire to develope this part of who they are, it reamins within them.

I think how one's perspective changes is not by proof or logic, but by speaking to one another according to the spiritual aspect within us. It is a language that cannot be processed throught the mind. In speaking through our speaking the essense of that which is spiritual is heard by the others spirit. There is something within us that is drawn to what rings true within us. I think you, and abracabra have this part in you. I would say that we need to learn to speak from our spirit, as we do from our mind and according to logic, and in the same way we ought to express those things within our heart according to that which it feels and the love that is within it. Spiritual things are understood by the spirit, and that which is understood by the spirit then can transform us to the renewing of our mind.

I am just presenting a positiion, trying to be see if fear does anything good. I am in no way saying this is the motivation which ought to be used, yet to many it has serves purpose. I do not mean to say that fear is the best motivator and that you yourself may not need fear to keep inside of certain perimeters you know that without restraint many would do much harm if there was no fear of punishment, fear often keeps some from that which they might think of otherwise. Because there are camera's, it may not stop all from stealing but many would fear the risk of being caught and what consequences that would bring to them personally. We no longer tote guns and just shot someone because we do not like them, though at times we wish we could. :) Some fear for even "some" who are good people help to keep them from doing that which they know is wrong.

I think even if we do punish a child we make sure it is not because of anger, it is not to belittle and is none with not shouting, no demeaning remarks, but as the consequences for an action that would cause harm to themself or to others or for the lack of respect and fair treatment of others. If a child continues to run out into a road, and does not fear cars because if has been been hit by one, then we must in one manner of another teach the child to fear running into to the road. Perhpas there is merit in having the chid learn to trust the judgment of the parent by understanding that the parent punishes only for the good of the child, to keep them from harm and to learn to trust in the parents warning of the dangers of the world, so that the child would not have to expeirence these things. If you see a child put his hand on top of the stove you can wait for him to eventually get burn or try to teach him that is not something he should do.

Just because you may not need to fear things to do what is right, fear helps those who lack respect of others and of the law to do that which is right. Perhaps even fear is a sfeguard for if I become weak or set aside my own guidelines. Perhaps many would kill themselves except that amny are taught they will go to hell if they do. I have thought of ending my own life at times, yet I think it is more because of the pain I would give to others by such an act rather than any fear of hell. Yet in some desparation I might get to that point and have to ask myself, do I really want to risk it.

I was saying that we can be guided by a "good" conscience that does no harm to self or others, that respects them and their property and their rights as a human. It is not according to what I can live with but rather that I live by what is right.

Sometime life is tiring and grows old and the ways of men hold little promise of anything different than what it is. I would give myself to change the world to show another way than the one we have taken. I often look for others who would desire this, yet it does not seem we want understanding who we could become if we were one together in purpose, resolve, and intent.

"I would now like to address what different people believe it takes to change one's perception...
Is it an obviously ignored truth?
An undeniably truthful contradiction to what one once believed was truth?
What do you believe that it would take to change one's perception?"

Perception, let me see if I can define it. Physically, perception is, everything we experience through our physical senses. Para-normally, perception is, everything 'believed' to affect or alter our thinking through psychic (para-normal) connection.

Actually, Creative, I think what you mean to question is a persons 'thinking' not their perceptions. We all actually percieve, physically, in the same manner, minus physiological differences (blind, deaf etc.). We can't really prove, scientifically, that para-normal perception exists, that's why it is a 'belief'. So we can't comment on the 'normal' in that respect.

How we 'interpret' the symbolic messages that are communicated through our perceptions is probably what you are asking. That being the case, there is only one answer that I can think of, and it involves three and ALL THREE things are REQUIRED.

First that a person, continues to seek new 'experiences', and second that they do so from the perpective of desire to learn and grow. This equates to being able to "change". but the finale, which makes change complete, requires that a person have the ability to 'reflect' on past expereinces and reconcile those past experiences, with their behaviors THEN, and why they would have behaved differently NOW.

In other words a person can not totally change their "perspective" (your word was perception) until s/he understands why and how s/he has changed, and is able to ACCEPT responsibility for their behavior.

The biggest problem with 'change' of this nature is that the EGO inhibits it. Some people can not change, because they no longer feel the need to grow because they belive their past is 'done'. They believe that they have 'arrived' and further reflection of that past will only come to the same conclusion; it WAS a path, that led to THIS destination. For these people there is no future save for reflecting on a past which remains static, without need for further change or analysis.

We can NOT change, if we have no basis of comparison for that change. If our PAST is static, (done) change can not be made.

STRICTLY MY OPINION, of course.

There must be a difference in the perception between truth and deceit to make the difference known within one. How the difference is made, what makes it no longer truth? What makes it deceit?




According to this, then we are all foolish? One's own personal truth is just that. One does determine their own truth, according to what they want to believe coming directly as a result of what they already believe. Whether or not it is deemed as foolish depends on an outside observation. The capacity for change lies within what has been previously internalized.



I am not sure that I follow this reason. The basis for our truth can only be as a result of that which we believe.





Personal truthes to one may be perceived as deceit to another. One establishes truth within themselves based on what they believe, and applies it to observation accordingly. Personal truth may or may not lead to an accurate observation of circumstance.




I wonder why you have used the term 'we'. For some may feel the need to be 'right', as well as some have no such motivation. In a topic in which there are different viewpoints, the differences in perception will be spoken. Again, 'right and wrong' are relative measures of one's personal internalizations.

The intent may be pure here when you speak of people putting things like differences aside. How realistic is that notion of one who completely believes that their entire life is controlled and affected by their religious belief to put it aside?


You said this:


Then went on to say this:


I am not sure how one rationalizes saying that any conclusion in our present form is inconclusive, only then to give a conclusion about faith. I personally believe no one has faith based on faith alone. All will tell why, will share their proof. There is a distinct difference between faith and belief.
Faith does not exist with proof. I do not believe that one can have both, faith and belief, about the same notion. Belief replaces faith with proof(internalization). The moment in which faith is reasoned it becomes belief.



I would have to completely disagree with this statement.

I agree with Creative




As I stated previously, we equate communication with symbols. The suggestion was that "spiritual" communication, side-steps symbols. This is not possible, becasue, without symbology, we would not be capable of knowing when or if communication occured, much less what that communication exemplified.

Yet people 'constantly' attempt to 'explain' such communication. If no symbols were communicated there would be no communication!

Hey Di:

Allow me to take the time to respond to you in a more conclusive way... it may take a moment, I am cooking...

Di:

Perception includes belief and thinking strategies... in the intuitive sense, as opposed to the physical perception concerning the mechanices of the eye and central nervous system.
The perceived truth is what I am talking about. One's perspective is formed through their perception of reality, is it not?



I absolutely agree with this notion as expressed...

Indeed, a personal desire to be responsible for understanding one's own previous actions is key, as well as the ability to take on a new and perhaps drastically different perspective.

Hi back to ya - sorry I forget about the amenities, I have to work at that, a lot! So whachya makin'? I threw a couple cans of "fat free" soups together with small cans of corn, peas, mushrooms, a large can of stewed tomatoes, and one cup of rice, in a pot and voila! three meals for under $5.00. No meat, no fat, and easy on the pay check! The problem is trying to fit it the frig, inbetween the last two weeks of (fast food) left-overs, compliments of my new room mates. ARGHH! Being a rentor in your own home has it's disadvantages.



No. Perseption is the stimulus, that provides the sympols. Reflection, of the past, gives meaning, or perspective,to the stimulus (symbols). Perception is the act of receiving outside stimulus. We require reflection to put that perception into perspective. Of course that perspective will be subjective, as the symbols are being interpreted on a previously 'personal' frame of reference.




Continuing from my last statement: If reality is what we perceive, than what we consider to be 'truth' is at best, a distortion of reality. Because we CAN NOT comprehend perceptions WITHOUT translation into symbols, and because the relative value applied to those symbols is subjective, 'truth' can not be perceived and reality can never be completely known or recognised.

It might be more proper to say; One's concieved truth,(conceived:being the subjective interpretation of his/her sybolic past) is based on erroneous symbolic interpretation of his/her perseptions of reality.

One can never be sure the reality, they perceive, is a faithful representation of what is sybolically interpreted by past association. This is why, those who comprehend this idea, even if only intuitively, are capable of change.

Where this gets confusing is when 'perception' has no frame of reference (personal past experience) from which to draw conclusions, OR WHEN a frame of reference has no verifiable perceptive qualities. When this happens NO REALITY has actually been perceived, however, 'Faith' & 'belief' can be substitued in these cases. Now the brain has some symbol in place from which to draw conclusions - thus no reflection (past analysis) is required.

So you see 'faith' & 'believe' when substituted for perception, will never allow a person to change.

Hey Di:
No worries...

I was cooking spaghetti with the kids.

Um... I so want to respond to yout last post but I must be off for a while... errands...

Be back later..

For thought though, stimulus does not perceive, does it?

Stimulus is whatever 'activates' the perception mechanism. That mechanism is any single or combination of our available and functioning senses. (a noise, perifial or direct vision, touch, scent, taste are the stimulation that activates perception.) We can not 'perceive' (due to our physical encumbrances)in any other "recognized and scientifically proven" manner. Simply put, we REQUIRE, sensory activation in order to 'perceive'.

Becasue I have been writing "my opinions" about this topic, I feel the need to explain, at least a small part, of the information that leads me to my opinion.

(note: the following theory is currently in dispute, as some scientists believe that brain stimulus, can be received through synapsis or instructions from internal cells via DNA instructions) However, it is not known if that would be sufficient stimulus for continued bodily functions.

Currently, the suggested theory is: If born without any functioning senses, our brain would cease to function and we would not survive. Why? Because our brain REQUIRES sensory stimulation in order for its electrical system (neurons)to continue to function. If that electrical system ceases (beyond a specific point) there is brain death, and the death of the body would follow.

Alright Di, now you know that I always re-define things like terms. So, in this case I am not clear if it is you or I who are re-defining this one...

I follow your thought and do agree with the general notion.

But there are some things I want to respond to...




I would not disagree with the sensory input's importance here.

However, ones ability to use the senses to grasp an understanding of this world is just the beginning of perception.
I feel as though mental understanding, moreover the ability to grasp a concept is also perception, although it is in an intuitive sense. A fine example would be for someone to say... if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. The object is perceived as a duck through the perspective of the one who makes the claim.

This too is one's perception of reality, or at least what has been accepted as truth within one. One's truth is one's reality.
Therefore one's perception is their truth according to their reality.

I believe that one's perception of truth is a direct reflection of one's own internalizations. A reflection of their personal understanding.

If you do not accept this attempt at my clarification, could you use my example to help me to better understand this notion from your perspective?

Does our faith control the reality of which we have faith in. Do we each have a truth based on our own experiences and conclusion. Certainly what you beleive you beleive to be truth yet what I beleive I beleive is also true, yet they are not the same yet should I question what you believe because it is not what I beleive. Is what you beleive not true because I do not believe it, or is what I believe not true because you believe it. I still say it is foolish for me to think that all others are deceived if they do not agree with what I belive to be true.

I know a person like yourself has thught things out, researched your information, and have establish your faith based on the the conclusions you have arrived at. Is it right or even true that I think you are wrong because you do not beleive as I do. I think we then would be forever trying to prove that our indiviual faith is true and the others false. Do we determine what is true. I would say that I still think not. I dont even think that is the point. What I think is more important is that each one lives by the faith that is in them. I think also that our beliefs and faith do not have to be in conflict with each other, that our perspective do not have to change, but that we encourage each other to live according to the faith in which they believe.

Isn't it more important to accept one another and their differences, rather than think they must become like us. All we not all searching for the truth. My way is only good for those who see it and want to cling to the same faith and lifestyle I hope to live. Should I place this on others. I don't think so. A man is changed from within, if we try to make someone conform that outside changes yet the inside remins in conflict with what this man does.

You cannot make someone see. maybe none of this makes any sense to you. It doesnt need to. I do not write things here for you to agree with that I may know that I am right. I think communication and understanding is that we hear what each other is saying with the understanding of what they are communicating. I can understand something and respect a persons position and then choose not to follow after it for it is not in tune with my faith or it does not seem to stir life within me. Yet I can understand you, your prespective. In understanding you I can know you better and live in peace with you. In spite of all of each person's differences, many do as well as they can with the understanding and faith that they have.

One perceives: hears, sees, tastes, smells, feels touch(heat,cold). That information means nothing unless it can first be 'compared' to a previously determined symbolic meaning. If no meaning has ever been attributed via a symbolic recognition, it will be created for future reference. (example: fire is new we want to explore we touch it - we determine, anything that burns is now symbolic of fire. Have we related heat to the burning? No, we only know that if something burns it is equated to the previous experience of the "symbolic" fire. That is not Perception, that is reflection of a previous experience. The 'CAHNGE'that occurs is that anything that feels 'warm' as we get close, triggers a symbolic reference to fire and burn.)



It is not 'perception' that equates the "object" as a duck, it is reflection of a previous experience in which the symbol for 'duck' was given meaning. If I said to you - if it walks like a thingamajig and looks like a thingamiajig and sounds like a thingamajig, then it is a thingamajig. Then I showed a real live (something) would you know if it was a thingamajig?
If you had never seen or heard a any representation of a duck and I showed you a duck and said that is a thingamajig, would you know what a duck was? There is nothing intuitive about perception. It is merely a mechanism that 'feeds' data into the brain. That data needs to be interpreted in order for it to have meaning. It is the meaning we give to the symbols of our perceptions that allow us to form concepts about them. Your scenarion would make no sense if one did not have a previous sensual experience that allowed to understand the meaning of the words(symbols) you spoke. EVERY WORD IS A SYMBOL, communication is a transferrence of symbols between people. The problem with any 'perception' is that the meaning assigned to any given symbol, or group of symbols, is 'evaluated' (not perceived) but evaluated according to reflection of past experience, and how that experience defined the symbols for each person.



One may perceive reality, but no truth can be assigned to that perception unless there is previous symbolic meaning to the symbols perceived. So one's truth is not derived from perception, it is derived from past experience and meaning that was assigned to the symbols of that experience.



This is where we are tripping up - one can not 'perceive' truth. It is a complex concept that requires some previous, symbolic, frame of reference. Truth and belief are often equated,symbolicly, simply because the 'idea' that is related to that truth or belief has been "internalized"(making it part of the persons nature). The idea being that ones' belief, or ones' truth has a basis in reality. But the basis is actually a concept, it was never 'perceived' it was however, internalized.

This was not a reflection of personal understanding, it was not a reflection at all. It is the adoption or assimilation of a 'concept' as it was internalized. Once internalized (becoming a part of that persons charachter or nature)it becomes the point of reference by which all other reflection is compared. No longer does a person analyse personal past experience for reference or accptance, s/he only makes comparisons to the 'concept' they have 'adopted' or 'assimilated' as their truth/belief.

Example: Abra is an excellent example. How often is there any conversation where personal reflection does not find its abiding 'truth' in his pantheistic view? (without judging, but simply based on our communications here) It seems that every past reflection has an ending point in that one view.

Or the fundamentalist Christian. When faced with the dilemma of contradicting views where is their point of reference? It is not in the symbols of their past, it is in the 'truth' they have assimilated, not in their perceptions, but in the concept of an idea they have internalized.

Truth, faith, belief, can not be perceived, they can, however, be internalized but that is not a persons 'reality' it is a persons 'assumed' or 'adopted' charachter. Their reality is still 'perceived', it is the basis used to interpret (and compare)that reality that has changed.

Maybe faith is our best guess. Most of these things we will only know sure sure when we die, even if that is emptiness, dark darkness and all that we are ceases to exist. Even though many do not believe this, it is none the less a possibility.

For me again, I say faith is more a matter of what results in our life, how we live. It is more about the renewing of our inner man, that we grow, we progress, we walk down a path that leads us further into enightenment, and leads us futher into peace, acceptance, and love.

Hi Mind,

I missed your last post, we may have over posted. I was not not making judgments, I was simply attempting to answer the question that Creative set forth, about "how can people change?"

It's just my hypothesis, or opinion. I've spent a lifetime trying to understand people. To me, understanding is the best way to acceptance. What I can't accept, I have to try to "explain". Like attributing an 'excuse' for a behavior that seems to be unwarranted.

Faith is a belief in something for which there is not proof. Proof for a human can only be experienced through our perceptions. So (my hypothesis here) people create this proof, in the words that are passed through generations. The 'ideas' presented in the verbal and written communications of that 'faith' are internalized, becomeing a part of that persons nature. Once internalized, that faith, is believed to be based in reality, because it can be 'perceived' by the written and verbal communcations that exist. This is when and how faith becomes representative of the 'truth' to that person.

As you have said, that opinion does not make their truth less than 'real', for them. Unfortunately, the way I view the side effect, is that such 'truth' can limit ones adaptablity by virtue of its one sided nature. Truth, as a concept, can not be changed. Once an idea is internalized, as truth, it is the only basis from which reflection has validity.