Some LOA people Believe this.

About: via fb

.. I say it is more like Chaos not become Cosmos (c.f. Barbara Cubed).

It all hinges on the meaning of the word possibility & potential.
I doubt that someone touching his right hand to his own right elbow & feeling the experience in both direction is a possibility without surgery or some other degenerate condition.

Comments

Seth says

I don't believe that Abraham Hicks meme either.

Thing is, Cosmos already does exist in it's peculiar configuration. And that configuration was not my choice. So i experience the Cosmos that i find, and change it by the things i do. My inner life i have more choice about ... but that is just for me personally ... it does not effect Cosmos at large.

Chaos to me is just a viewpoint ... it is almost a judgement. What's not in my network can feel like chaos. I think there might be some being to whom that chaos would be called cosmos ... but that is probably not what Hicks is talking about ... and maybe not what you are talking about either. They call it my limitation that i cannot so easily change Cosmos. Me, I do not buy that ... too convenient for them to say to shame me into accepting their thesis ... and to make themselves feel omnipotent.

Yes i agree, some things are possible, and other thing are not possible in this world ... notwithstanding that internally and privately i can imagine anything whatsoever.

Mark de LA says

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 11:56:01 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:46:44 17814

OTOH, I did imagine the elbow thingy above with all the sensory stuff & it seemed to work.

worked for me

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 11:37:57 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:23:51 17814

What are you doing with your infinite orgasm at this very moment?

trying to create a useful way to respond to your question

The question may be rhetorical or have no use at all.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 12:07:29 17814

choy 2014-10-04 12:03:46 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:54:35 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:44:17 17814

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

yep. certainly the input causes the thingey. and the input belongs to Cosmos.

yet is chaos the sensory input itself ... or rather a viewpoint or judgement or conception about that?

I still don't think you grok the choa-cosmos thingy. My belief strengthens with each of your comments on it.

Can you elaborate on how your conceptions here differs from mine?

Yeah, you use too many words - it is quite simple. I got no distinction as I listened to your words in my mind (which is the only way I can read them).

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 11:54:35 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:44:17 17814

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

yep. certainly the input causes the thingey. and the input belongs to Cosmos.

yet is chaos the sensory input itself ... or rather a viewpoint or judgement or conception about that?

I still don't think you grok the choa-cosmos thingy. My belief strengthens with each of your comments on it.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 11:48:07 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:40:13 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:37:57 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:23:51 17814

What are you doing with your infinite orgasm at this very moment?

trying to create a useful way to respond to your question

The question may be rhetorical or have no use at all.

well my orgasm was involved with my answer to your question ... the intention of the question itself was quite otherness to me. if you say it was rhetorical now, well then i am sorry i cumed on it

I am using the term useful much in the way PR used it in this video snippet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDd5_ZR9A&feature=youtu.be

Seth says

choy 2014-10-04 12:03:46 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:54:35 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:44:17 17814

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

yep. certainly the input causes the thingey. and the input belongs to Cosmos.

yet is chaos the sensory input itself ... or rather a viewpoint or judgement or conception about that?

I still don't think you grok the choa-cosmos thingy. My belief strengthens with each of your comments on it.

Can you elaborate on how your conceptions here differs from mine?

Seth says

choy 2014-10-04 12:40:46 17814

seth 2014-10-04 12:34:03 17814

choy 2014-10-04 12:13:45 17814

seth 2014-10-04 12:07:29 17814

choy 2014-10-04 12:03:46 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:54:35 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:44:17 17814

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

yep. certainly the input causes the thingey. and the input belongs to Cosmos.

yet is chaos the sensory input itself ... or rather a viewpoint or judgement or conception about that?

I still don't think you grok the choa-cosmos thingy. My belief strengthens with each of your comments on it.

Can you elaborate on how your conceptions here differs from mine?

Yeah, you use too many words - it is quite simple. I got no distinction as I listened to your words in my mind (which is the only way I can read them).

... or said differently, you didn't understand what i said

Yeah, perhaps & yet having brought the thingy up in the first place I do know why & what I said.

... and unless you articulate it, there is no way i will know what it is.

Mark de LA says

seth 2014-10-04 12:34:03 17814

choy 2014-10-04 12:13:45 17814

seth 2014-10-04 12:07:29 17814

choy 2014-10-04 12:03:46 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:54:35 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:44:17 17814

The chaos-cosmos thingy is just the sensory input of all kinds before cognition as something. Cosmos is after you have done so. Such is what GW was saying.

yep. certainly the input causes the thingey. and the input belongs to Cosmos.

yet is chaos the sensory input itself ... or rather a viewpoint or judgement or conception about that?

I still don't think you grok the choa-cosmos thingy. My belief strengthens with each of your comments on it.

Can you elaborate on how your conceptions here differs from mine?

Yeah, you use too many words - it is quite simple. I got no distinction as I listened to your words in my mind (which is the only way I can read them).

... or said differently, you didn't understand what i said

Yeah, perhaps & yet having brought the thingy up in the first place I do know why & what I said.

Mark de LA says

What PR said in the clip is what I had heard before from others including GW & RS. Looking through the lens of utility & value prevents progress in obtaining knowledge of spiritual worlds. One may not have the consciousness to see how stuff fits together yet & when you do looking for value (or any kind of preconceived notion of context, it is similar to having you focus on green things & missing all those that are yellow.

Mark de LA says

From the chung voo hex #13 of yesterday - the chaos-cosmos thingy pokes her head out in yet another context: (P.2422)

Seth says

source: mark
Looking through the lens of utility & value prevents progress in obtaining knowledge of spiritual worlds.

quite so.

Seth says

choy 2014-10-04 12:11:41 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:48:07 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:40:13 17814

seth 2014-10-04 11:37:57 17814

choy 2014-10-04 11:23:51 17814

What are you doing with your infinite orgasm at this very moment?

trying to create a useful way to respond to your question

The question may be rhetorical or have no use at all.

well my orgasm was involved with my answer to your question ... the intention of the question itself was quite otherness to me. if you say it was rhetorical now, well then i am sorry i cumed on it

I am using the term useful much in the way PR used it in this video snippet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_bDd5_ZR9A&feature=youtu.be

Seems that PR in that video prefered the true to the useful ... or at least he opened the door for that possibility. I did answer the question honestly (truthfully), for that in fact was what i was doing at that precise moment.

To me the word "useful" refers to the consequences of something. Sans consequences of an action, its use, for me, does not exist. So if the consequences of how i answered the question did not produce some interesting understanding, then my response would have been useless.

in retrospect, since it provoked a consideration of truth vs use, ... and especially if you got a wee chuckle at the punchline ..., i think my response was consequentially worth it. What do you think?

Some LOA people Believe this.

About: via fb

Tags

Comments

See Also