06-18-2010, 12:00 AM
Tiff wrote:It seems to me you are focused on freedom in the American sense...democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to think as you wish, etc. Such freedoms are not the freedom I am talking about. And before you say no that is not the freedom you are focused on, just know that the freedom I refer to has nothing to do with any social arrangement. And what you discuss above is a social arrangement and also I feel you perceive it has energetic implications to your life personally.
What is the freedom to which you refer?
Tiff wrote:Energetic essence. So for you that is the end of the road? At the "bottom" of everything is energy? There is nothing "beyond" that? That's what I was saying earlier about form and energy being where most everyone gets stuck. They perceive that there is something beyond form...energy. And when they arrive at this comprehension they rest upon their conclusions. Still discontent but feeling the discontentment is not due to an erroneous assumption, but some other unchangeable factor of existence. And I'm saying it is changeable! There is more to see and experience beyond energy.
I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
Tiff wrote:Yet they are in complete contradiction of one another. Its much like evolution of species meets the garden of Eden creationism theory...everyone is just "ok" with the contradiction. Nothing wrong with being ok with it if one fully understands why one is ok with it, lol. But to be ok with it just because you can't see how to come to terms with it...that warrants more exploration, I think. Or maybe you think you've come to terms with it, but do not feel contentment upon that conclusion. That's another indication of needing more exploration.
I'm OK with the notion for the same reason I'm OK with various other theories concerning the purpose of human existence - they make sense to me. I find them to be reasonable theories.
In regard contentment, I once defined enlightenment as "genuine contentment".
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Tiff wrote:At what point do you perceive this "same stuff" was able to create energetic essences that were not all the same? If at the very base of reality is a sameness, such as you consider to be the case, how can a sameness know anything outside of being same? You see energy as the basic same component, so how can a basic unified component create anything outside of its unity?
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?
What is the freedom to which you refer?
Tiff wrote:Energetic essence. So for you that is the end of the road? At the "bottom" of everything is energy? There is nothing "beyond" that? That's what I was saying earlier about form and energy being where most everyone gets stuck. They perceive that there is something beyond form...energy. And when they arrive at this comprehension they rest upon their conclusions. Still discontent but feeling the discontentment is not due to an erroneous assumption, but some other unchangeable factor of existence. And I'm saying it is changeable! There is more to see and experience beyond energy.
I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
Tiff wrote:Yet they are in complete contradiction of one another. Its much like evolution of species meets the garden of Eden creationism theory...everyone is just "ok" with the contradiction. Nothing wrong with being ok with it if one fully understands why one is ok with it, lol. But to be ok with it just because you can't see how to come to terms with it...that warrants more exploration, I think. Or maybe you think you've come to terms with it, but do not feel contentment upon that conclusion. That's another indication of needing more exploration.
I'm OK with the notion for the same reason I'm OK with various other theories concerning the purpose of human existence - they make sense to me. I find them to be reasonable theories.
In regard contentment, I once defined enlightenment as "genuine contentment".
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Tiff wrote:At what point do you perceive this "same stuff" was able to create energetic essences that were not all the same? If at the very base of reality is a sameness, such as you consider to be the case, how can a sameness know anything outside of being same? You see energy as the basic same component, so how can a basic unified component create anything outside of its unity?
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?