LOA? & Wishful Thinking

About: abraham-hicks, esther hicks - the skeptic's dictionary - skepdic.com

A healthy skepticism with a clear, wide-awake consciousness bolstered by a scientific method & an open mind could be a better approach. Subject your thoughts & emotions to critical examination in the light of day. Notice also that roaches scatter when the light is turned on. (;-
...
There must be a rational, logical & clear waking consciousness way of testing such phenomena if they really exist. Even religion needs examination. This is not to say that all science is without the same criticism - especially when it gets mixed with politics & money. Even the mainstream media (M$M) is suspect. Economics is also influenced by a large amount of unconsciousness.

There is no substitute for consciousness
during these moments (or these days)
- M.R.

Comments

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-12-09 14:13:00 16956

mr 2013-12-09 12:37:28 16956

I tried hard to listen to some youtube of Abraham but was severly turned off by the fake-sounding voice similar to an gypsy palm reader of the medium (Esther?). The thingy about mediums is that they can't be verified in any way but presume super intelligence of some sort. Some should watch the Mentalist series on TV. I took a course with Tad James & a Dr of anesthesiology who used hypnosis. Tad said that the easiest trances of healing could be made where some kind of past life was blamed as the cause. Any story will do.

it's interesting to note that the same kind of language can be used to describe RS's spiritual world as well a PR's and TR's. that is a common characteristic of all worlds that are not shasperiential ... in this case substitute here the word "verifiable" if you have troubles with my one.

Actually NOT! PR claims no results except what you find on your own. He opens the methodology of contemplation & how to do that. It is up to you to grasp it or not. RS has both instructions on how to pursue enligtenment & then gives some of his results & TR is up front about hypnosis. Hypnosis is a verifiable tool. Again you have collapsed others' worlds into your own for some purpose of rightness. Abraham pretends to be communicating with someone who is dead. Try that on & see how it works.

Mark de LA says

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

Mark de LA says

mrU 2013-12-11 08:03:33 16956

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

Lots on free will & medium stuff & this quote:

source: ... We must therefore take our stand on the principle of following attentively what is brought forward, but not allowing it to be said that it is accepted among us out of belief in authority. Never should the phrase be heard that truths are accepted simply because I have voiced them! We should sin against the truth were we to say any such thing. One thing or another may be grounded on confidence; but that can never be made into a principle. Someone else may perhaps be better able to tread the path; but the rule to which every individual should adhere is this: not to accept things on authority, but to put them to the test.

...

Seth says

mrU 2013-12-11 09:35:58 16956

mrU 2013-12-11 08:03:33 16956

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

Lots on free will & medium stuff & this quote:

...

. obviously i totally agree with this. RS said it in a paragraph that made it sound like it applied to what had been said, mostly by others, about the 8th sphere. but it is good advise generally and does, me thinks, apply as well to his entire lecture. in a way, said inside a lecture full of unverifiable assertions, it strikes me as not just a little bit

ironic

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-12-12 04:11:33 16956

mrU 2013-12-11 08:03:33 16956

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

hmmm ... apply in what manner??

i could find no objective facts reported there ... it read to me like mythology ... or, er dogma. what did you get from it that could affect your experience today?

Well sir, it applies mostly to Nate's channelling of Abraham etc. He uses imagination to make his own little world. The 8th sphere (GW also spoke about in the Tai Shu commentaries) is a tangent off current Earth & human evolution & Nate views his LOA as such. Black holes may just be what RS refers to as extremely dense minerality. I view modern big bang theory & black holes as fiction also. We each have our own public & private mythologies as to how existence & the Universe came into being & how the Universe works. Steiner's is more interesting to me & rather consistent. Any more as regards to Seth would be speaking into a black hole. Read it or discard it - your choice.

Mark de LA says

GW & others (Peter Ralston) repeatedly say - don't believe me go do the work to experience things on your own - i.e. go for a direct experience.

Seth says

mrU 2013-12-12 09:10:20 16956

GW & others (Peter Ralston) repeatedly say - don't believe me go do the work to experience things on your own - i.e. go for a direct experience.

yep, everybody says that, even me ... i think we are in violent agreement there

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-12-12 08:57:46 16956

mrU 2013-12-12 07:20:54 16956

seth 2013-12-12 04:11:33 16956

mrU 2013-12-11 08:03:33 16956

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

hmmm ... apply in what manner??

i could find no objective facts reported there ... it read to me like mythology ... or, er dogma. what did you get from it that could affect your experience today?

yes i got that

. i think that both Abraham's world and RS's are created out of imagination. People will chose which one feels the best to them.

Talking about these things esoterically amongst a group of strongly interacting people, in private as it were ... as opposed to talking about them publicly, er "exoterically", ... is what makes all the difference here .... and that was the subject of RS's paragraph from which you quoted.

Just a minor correction - RS's quote was about authority & not your privacy bug-a-boo! Use the tools & test things out.

Mark de LA says

RS in almost all of his written lecture notes published as books says:

source: ...

The following lectures were given by Rudolf Steiner to audiences familiar with the general background of his anthroposophical teachings. He constantly emphasised the distinction between his written works and reports of lectures which were given as oral communications and were not originally intended for print. It should be remembered that certain premises were taken for granted when the words were spoken. “These premises”, Rudolf Steiner writes in his autobiography, “include at the very least the anthroposophical knowledge of Man and of the Cosmos in its spiritual essence; also of what may be called ‘anthroposophical history’, told as an outcome of research into the spiritual world.”

...

The lecture cited was # 5 in a series of 10 lectures. Like I said before it depends upon where you draw the line around what context IT is within. Context going back as far as RS is talking about goes long before there was a science & sometimes before materiality. Modern science can only see materiality & imply that all other effects such as mind etc are mere electrons & chemistry circulating within the low-priced meat computer networks.

Mark de LA says

seth 2013-12-12 09:38:57 16956

mrU 2013-12-12 09:06:36 16956

seth 2013-12-12 08:57:46 16956

mrU 2013-12-12 07:20:54 16956

seth 2013-12-12 04:11:33 16956

mrU 2013-12-11 08:03:33 16956

There is a fascinating Rudolf Steiner lecture on the 8th Sphere that may apply - here.

hmmm ... apply in what manner??

i could find no objective facts reported there ... it read to me like mythology ... or, er dogma. what did you get from it that could affect your experience today?

yes i got that

Just a minor correction - RS's quote was about authority & not your privacy bug-a-boo! Use the tools & test things out.

i am taking the whole paragraph in context of the entire lecture. i think a clear headed reading of it will yield the aspect of it i highlighted ... though perhaps not a bug-a-boo as seen through tinted glasses ... it makes a difference who you are talking to ... esoteric, or exoteric ... i'm just so very glad that RS said it and not me

. and of course RS's language assumes his story is the true one ... as "must" Abraham's.

Wonderful!

... missed the point again. I give yet the same point as to d'A

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

― Mark Twain

Mark de LA says
OK – no answer here – am moving along. Response sounds negative & upstream hunting suggested.

Seth says

Mark 2016-01-17 07:45:28 [item 16956#42363]

Maybe Jesus attracted his crucifixion

why would he do that & not some other way since he healed the sick, resurrected the dead & fed a lot of people with loaves of bread & fishes.

dA 2016-01-17 08:02:12 [item 16956#42367]

Dark ages dude. So that we could have them. They were a collectively desired experience.

Mark 2016-01-17 08:17:15 [item 16956#42375]

I doubt that his disciples were part of that desire. Smacks of collective punishment.

seth 2016-01-17 09:06:00 [item 16956#42393]

i wonder how far this new meme, “you are experience something because you wanted to” can go? Also whether it is true or not. So far it is going klunk here. But i am game … try it … see how far it flys.

dA 2016-01-17 09:07:53 [item 16956#42394]

There is no such thing as “collective punishment” … that cannot exist … it would defy the one and only law in the multiverse.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:11:44 [item 16956#42397]

for sure, you don’t believe in punishment – do you?

apparently punishement … or even one person leading another by training … is not something in d’A new universe.

Seth says

Mark 2016-01-17 07:45:28 [item 16956#42363]

Maybe Jesus attracted his crucifixion

why would he do that & not some other way since he healed the sick, resurrected the dead & fed a lot of people with loaves of bread & fishes.

dA 2016-01-17 08:02:12 [item 16956#42367]

Dark ages dude. So that we could have them. They were a collectively desired experience.

Mark 2016-01-17 08:17:15 [item 16956#42375]

I doubt that his disciples were part of that desire. Smacks of collective punishment.

seth 2016-01-17 09:06:00 [item 16956#42393]

dA 2016-01-17 09:07:53 [item 16956#42394]

There is no such thing as “collective punishment” … that cannot exist … it would defy the one and only law in the multiverse.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:11:44 [item 16956#42397]

for sure, you don’t believe in punishment – do you?

nathan 2016-01-17 09:16:07 [item 16956#42401]

Nope. No such thing actually exists. We can of course construct a belief framework in which we can experience anything, including the experience of punishment. But that is a local experience and requires our beliefs to support it to be experienced. God, the multiverse, what have you, does not punish … and entities cannot punish each other without mutually cooperating belief structures.

seth 2016-01-17 09:21:38 [item 16956#42406]

yep, d’A has seriously rationalized a justification for blame the victim

nathan 2016-01-17 09:26:37 [item 16956#42409]

Nope. I don’t endorse any form of RWG. I don’t blame either. Blame is not required to have experiences. It’s just a game. Experiences are what they are.

you never did get the thrust of my [title blame the victim] thought. hint, it is not about blame ... that is a diversion. when a person affects another, they are the cause of the consequences … not the person they are affecting. your belief structure has conveniently assumed the opposite. it has “conveniently” eliminated otherness. sorry, not my thing.

Mark de LA says

Mark 2016-01-17 07:45:28 [item 16956#42363]

Maybe Jesus attracted his crucifixion

why would he do that & not some other way since he healed the sick, resurrected the dead & fed a lot of people with loaves of bread & fishes.

dA 2016-01-17 08:02:12 [item 16956#42367]

Dark ages dude. So that we could have them. They were a collectively desired experience.

Mark 2016-01-17 08:17:15 [item 16956#42375]

I doubt that his disciples were part of that desire. Smacks of collective punishment.

seth 2016-01-17 09:06:00 [item 16956#42393]

dA 2016-01-17 09:07:53 [item 16956#42394]

There is no such thing as “collective punishment” … that cannot exist … it would defy the one and only law in the multiverse.

seth 2016-01-17 09:12:22 [item 16956#42398]

did you ever hear of google genocide ?

Mark 2016-01-17 09:40:39 [item 16956#42417]

Collective punishment is also against the Geneva Convention

nathan 2016-01-17 09:46:17 [item 16956#42418]

Do you practice the religion of the Geneva Convention? You will probably want to say it is not a religion, but it is. It is a belief system created by man. That’s a religion.

As is LOA & Abraham

Mark de LA says

Mark 2016-01-17 07:45:28 [item 16956#42363]

Maybe Jesus attracted his crucifixion

why would he do that & not some other way since he healed the sick, resurrected the dead & fed a lot of people with loaves of bread & fishes.

dA 2016-01-17 08:02:12 [item 16956#42367]

Dark ages dude. So that we could have them. They were a collectively desired experience.

Mark 2016-01-17 08:17:15 [item 16956#42375]

I doubt that his disciples were part of that desire. Smacks of collective punishment.

seth 2016-01-17 09:06:00 [item 16956#42393]

dA 2016-01-17 09:07:53 [item 16956#42394]

There is no such thing as “collective punishment” … that cannot exist … it would defy the one and only law in the multiverse.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:11:44 [item 16956#42397]

for sure, you don’t believe in punishment – do you?

nathan 2016-01-17 09:16:07 [item 16956#42401]

seth 2016-01-17 09:21:38 [item 16956#42406]

yep, d’A has seriously rationalized a justification for blame the victim

Mark 2016-01-17 09:26:30 [item 16956#42408]

Maybe, maybe-not! RS explains it a lot better – nothing to do with the Dark Ages. Here or you could look it up .

nathan 2016-01-17 09:30:31 [item 16956#42411]

There are many references in that text to what the Dark Ages did for us and why we needed them. Here is just one small quote … but most paragraphs contain one.

To us the conception of Christ as the Healer is no longer living. But we must find our way to it again, for only when we can feel His presence once more as the Cosmic Physician, shall we also realise His true place in the Universe.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:36:19 [item 16956#42414]

Hmmm… no dark ages in that – but, GW created the above in ming [see also: mingchar jesus christ]

nathan 2016-01-17 09:39:35 [item 16956#42416]

There are few literal scriptures. RS’s scripture is no more literal than the bible.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:48:29 [item 16956#42421]

Of course, RS spoke in German. He had clairvoyant consciousness & could research in the Akashick records.

nathan 2016-01-17 09:49:07 [item 16956#42423]

Yes. Lots and lots of people do that.

& lots and lots pretend to do so.

Mark de LA says

nathan 2016-01-17 09:51:16 [item 16956#42425]

Seriously Mark, the LOA is a principal. If you can’t tell the difference, you are way out of your league talking about this stuff. Go back to whatever bible you use.

Mark 2016-01-17 10:16:56 [item 16956#42432]

Ad hominem upstream comment, dA!
Via Peter Ralston on Pursuing Consciousness:

13: 2 Considering what we’ve discussed so far regarding belief and the Absolute, it should be apparent that no religion is expressing the Truth, or is even true. This statement may rankle some readers, even when it’s acknowledged that a fundamental principle common to virtually every religion is a call for faith. In fact “faith” is often used as another term for “religion.” And why is faith needed? Because the foundation of most religions is not Truth, but belief. This dynamic isn’t limited to formal religions; it occurs in all organized spiritual belief systems.

Ralston, Peter (2015-03-10). Pursuing Consciousness: The Book of Enlightenment and Transformation (Kindle Locations 4207-4211). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.
13: 3 By definition, a belief is not a direct-experience or a consciousness of what’s true. It is an idea that something is true. Granted, it might be a genuinely heartfelt idea, and have a hopeful and altruistic basis; it may even point knowingly in the direction of the “Unknowable,” but a religion is still essentially a series of rites and customs organized around some claim or conclusion usually purported to be the “one truth.”

God has no religion. —Mahatma Gandhi

13: 4 In reality, the Truth remains unknown for almost everyone. Grasping that fact is merely to acknowledge what’s already so; holding onto it and abiding in a state of not-knowing is a useful starting point for any venture, be it spiritual, scientific, artistic, or otherwise. But religion in general holds that your capacity to become directly-conscious for yourself is invalid— not your beliefs, mind you, but your capability, and even your responsibility. It demands that you refrain from questioning and investigating, and be content to simply believe what you are told. Within the confines of religious dogma, when someone entertains doubts, it is not equated with “a state that precedes all insight” but is instead called something like a “crisis of faith.” To the detriment of consciousness work, religion obliges followers to turn away from the universal fact of humanity’s inherent ignorance regarding existence.

Ralston, Peter (2015-03-10). Pursuing Consciousness: The Book of Enlightenment and Transformation (Kindle Locations 4212-4224). North Atlantic Books. Kindle Edition.
P.S. I like Peter because he says try it out, do it yourself don’t believe me or some religion etc. (So does RS & GW)

dA 2016-01-17 10:22:07 [item 16956#42435]

Abraham only says “try it out” and “do it yourself”. I have been saying that to you for years now. You simply don’t try … and everything in Peter’s comment here is in exact harmony with all of Abraham’s teachings. If you like Peter, it’s a wonder you have so much antipathy for Abraham. They say all the same stuff. I thing you just have a thing with Ester … and arrogant me (as you would characterize me), that’s all.

talk about youself !

– less upstream comments.

Seth says

Mark 2016-01-12 10:39:26 [item 16956#41685]

A strange thought showed up this morning.

Where do negative thoughts come from?

What causes the state of “out of alignment?” . In a positive only universe, (non-Tao) there should be no negatives or their representations. What gives?

Mark 2016-01-12 10:40:41 [item 16956#41686]

Some say for “expansion” , but who/what designed a positive Universe with negatives for expansion?

dA 2016-01-12 10:53:42 [item 16956#41687]

It is a common question. There are lots and lots of Abraham answers, Bashar answers, Bentintinio answers, etc on that, from nearly any perspective you wish. If I told you the right perspective (mine), you would simply mismatch it. Better you listen for your own … then you can be right too!

Mark 2016-01-17 08:05:43 [item 16956#42369]

Hmmm… Google doesn’t know the name Bentintinio & didn’t even suggest an alternate spelling. I got back this item when I tried.

dA 2016-01-17 08:08:41 [item 16956#42371]

Yea so? I am not a good speller. Everyone knows that.

Mark 2016-01-17 08:12:32 [item 16956#42373]

wasn’t really about your spelling – tried to find out what he is – do you have a link to something of his? or a reference.

dA 2016-01-17 08:18:31 [item 16956#42376]

http://www.bentinhomassaro.com/

seth 2016-01-17 08:59:09 [item 16956#42390]

tagging scores over searching again bentinho massaro

Mark 2016-01-17 09:10:01 [item 16956#42395]

fyi, after wasting > 15 minutes

trying to find the item in which N mentioned him before he spelled it right, I gave up – none of the tags worked for me. (you see I didn’t know his name – that was purpose of search) I woke up this am after thinking about it & finally decided to try a general search on the word “missmatch” due to N’s comment. I would also try “expansion” (my comment) & both would have worked. Anyway I can’t imagine how difficult it would be when even a dozen active users get into the pool here

seth 2016-01-17 09:51:31 [item 16956#42426]

yes i get it. thing is, if N had tagged it when he first introduced it, like i did making a thought that represented it … then all he would have had to do was refer to it by tag name and it would have saved both him and us a lot of grief. but then i guess we wanted that, eh? … just being a bit provokitive of nathan’s new assumptions about his multiverses … and ours. me i am pretty good on this internet thingey at finding stuff that people wave at … i pride myself … but somtimes it feels so very good to assume that they are acting in good will and just ask them dirctly … strange how many times they still won’t respond directly. ok ok, just ranting here

nathan 2016-01-17 09:54:15 [item 16956#42427]

How would a misspelled tag have helped anything? The problem was not if I had tagged it, the problem was that I so horribly misspelled it that even Google couldn’t find anything close. Tagging would not have helped.

seth 2016-01-17 10:01:20 [item 16956#42429]

that is why we (er, me) are so very careful about how we spell tags … and why we need that feature not to barf here.

dA 2016-01-17 10:02:40 [item 16956#42430]

What is “not to barf” in reference to?

my fbi1 protocol which allows me to correct tags … it still barfs.

Seth says

dA 2016-01-17 09:57:40 [item 16956#42428]

You see, if I were to start tagging things in ways that make sense to me at tagging time, you guys would not be able to find them any better than I can. My tagging things won’t help you. But you reading something I write and forming a memory about it that you can later remember any part of makes it entirely possible for you to find my stuff. This method works for anyone. Tagging only works for language gurus like you guys.

seth 2016-01-17 10:10:18 [item 16956#42431]

your tagging helps us when you can point directly to something rather than just waving at it and assuming the we will figure it out. It is the same reason that Tim Berners Lee invented the URL … but a little different … why, well because tagging is subjective … and URLs are objective and global. This is real natural language at work. I realized that (or maybe imigned it) when folksonomy first came out with delicio.us … see some of the original thoughts folksonomy … if you care i will go back and find some of them. But of course none of that has to do with me trying to get you to use tags … hey do it however, you are so great just as you are … but when you cause others problems, don’t blame them for your vague ambiguous waving.

dA 2016-01-17 10:16:59 [item 16956#42433]

I simply don’t seem to have any problem finding things with a good search. I find things on google easily almost always with the first try … and now have been doing the same here. If I had even a slight problem I would be interested in a method that worked better. Has nothing to do with being great, maybe you could try my way. Maybe you would find things faster than you do with tags.

seth 2016-01-17 10:21:54 [item 16956#42434]

search is great …
knowing where to look divine.

--Bozo Faust

i do searches all the time … like i said, i pride myself with finding things … don’t need to try what you apparently think i have not already.

dA 2016-01-17 10:26:01 [item 16956#42438]

I am only talking about how you keep pushing tags when even you with your best method of using them have to go through several extra steps on both ends to use them successfully. My method has one step and seems to get the same or easier result. I’m not adverse to you using whatever method you want. I am only continuing to point out that all the things you keep hyping about tagging are not the only, and perhaps point by point, not even the easiest way to keep track of things.

Mark 2016-01-17 10:29:01 [item 16956#42439]

I wonder what is easier remembering a tag or a bunch of words to make a search query?

Both are nice!

dA 2016-01-17 10:34:46 [item 16956#42441]

I agree. The more ways the better. And a better fit for more kinds of people. Both of you started this dialog pointing out that both of you would have found things easier if I had used tags. That we have tags is great. That you like them is great. That you want me to use them is ludicrous. I have no interest in tags and I find things perfectly fine and in most cases fewer steps than you do using tags.

yep, no problem.

Mark de LA says

dA 2016-01-17 10:36:09 [item 16956#42442]

and p.s. Yes, for me, it is far easier remembering words and phrases I have read than remembering tags. That’s how my memory “tags” things!

seth 2016-01-17 10:42:03 [item 16956#42445]

and that is just fine for you.

language is not just about you.

language is about what you understand from others.

and what they understand from you.

if you look at it only from the point of view of what works best for you, then you will probably not get why language itself is so amazing for us.

tagging is actually constructing language.

maybe that is just a Bozo

… but i don’t think so.

It is the sense for language. When one wants to find something in a book or text or here one most likely formulates something with a bit of language. I really don’t want the machine reading my mind nor creating an abstract want to get there. Sometimes it does work like this AM even for me. We don’t have picture search etc. … yet.

Mark de LA says

seth 2016-01-17 11:11:01 [item 16956#42455]

ok i can’t catch up with this enthralling dialogued here … so going to make breakfast instead

Si says

nathan 2016-01-17 09:48:12 [item 16956#42420]

The Law of Attraction is not a religion. It is a principal, like gravity. Lots of people attribute things onto it, create maps for it, and other things that are religion like, but the LOA itself is only a principal of the multiverse.

Mark 2016-01-17 09:48:58 [item 16956#42422]

So you believe!

nathan 2016-01-17 09:49:38 [item 16956#42424]

Nope. I don’t believe, I state.

Mark 2016-01-17 10:41:34 [item 16956#42444]

Yep. Werner Erhard (TR somewhat) taught thousands how to declare & state & act congruent with same. Almost every religion/faith/occult order uses such – even if they have to do it in the name of Choronzon or some other being for invocations & evocations. Esther channels Abraham & before that Seth.
I choose to test & try … to some extent Esther Hicks discourages that so that people do not have to notice their bank accounts are not increasing. OTOH, GW in his Silence gives a similar approach without the discouragement.

← I like this symbol as it reminds me of “a rose growing out of a manure pile” – one of my chosen mottos (originally for Common Logic).

dA 2016-01-17 10:43:32 [item 16956#42446]

There is a reason for it. When you state you create more effectively. It works. Try it. Unless you don’t believe trying and doing things for yourself is the best way.

Mark 2016-01-17 10:47:49 [item 16956#42447]

Been there still doing that; for whatever your “it” points to.

dA 2016-01-17 10:51:24 [item 16956#42449]

It is the only subject of this thread … “stating”. You have actually said that you are trying to avoid doing that.

Mark 2016-01-17 10:53:22 [item 16956#42451]

garbled … message coming through [NOT] .

dA 2016-01-17 11:11:17 [item 16956#42456]

Too much fatty tissue and hip bones covering ears and eyes?

Mark 2016-01-17 11:13:28 [item 16956#42458]

ad hominem must go down well in your universe – not mine – talk amongst yourselves – #1

Good thing your in my multiverse than right?

Seth says

dA 2016-01-17 10:36:09 [item 16956#42442]

and p.s. Yes, for me, it is far easier remembering words and phrases I have read than remembering tags. That’s how my memory “tags” things!

seth 2016-01-17 10:42:03 [item 16956#42445]

and that is just fine for you.

language is not just about you.

language is about what you understand from others.

and what they understand from you.

if you look at it only from the point of view of what works best for you, then you will probably not get why lnaguage itself is so amazing for us.

tagging is actually constructing language.

maybe that is just a Bozo

… but i don’t think so.

dA 2016-01-17 10:49:18 [item 16956#42448]

I think it is a particular language. A kind of language. Just like all different kinds of language it works better for those well suited to it by how their brains work and worse for people who are not suited to that kind of language and structure and memory patterns. It’s a kind of language that works well for you.

seth 2016-01-17 11:00:25 [item 16956#42452]

well we all think in a language that is peculiar to ourselves. That relates to our “our ontology” or our “belief structure” or just our beliefs. That is pretty much a given and i believe that we both already agree on that. right?

incidentally i like the word “peculiar” here rather than the word “particular” … logically they mean the same thing … but “peculiar” implies that it is strange to somebody else … and that is the way it feels when i encounter an ontlogy in another person that is very different than my own. For example, yours

.

but our internal language and ontology is one thing … communicating between each other even with the differences is quite another.

if it is all just you, of course, you will not grock that being the perdicament which prevalils.

dA 2016-01-17 11:10:19 [item 16956#42454]

Traditional language is communicating with another through the physical medium. I have no problem with that. There are other ways to communicate using the vibrational connection too, and I’m not talking about telepathy, though that is also valid, I am mainly talking about sensing … utilizing emotions which are telling you things about the vibrational channel. Because we here on earth have primarily deemphasized emotions and emphasized what we observe instead, language is our primary means of communication. I’m good with that. Peculiar is good too

LOA? & Wishful Thinking

About: abraham-hicks, esther hicks - the skeptic's dictionary - skepdic.com

Tags

Comments

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

See Also