|
Post by hollandr on Dec 13, 2007 0:54:06 GMT
>Hopefully 1 of these 3 generates my thoughts, outside of that, well.......
It is the thoughts from the outside that concern me.
I suspect that often the thoughts from outside are carefully contrived to appear as our own.
Some thoughts however are easily detected as foreign. I recall years ago before supermarkets were computerised, I was in a lower income area of town and looking at juice in a supermarket, when I had the thought to change the price sticker from a cheaper item on to the one I wanted to buy.
I was quite surprised as that thought had never occurred to me before. I wondered if I was picking up the residual thoughts of other shoppers - or whether there was a mischievous entity hanging around looking to play games with shoppers
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Dec 13, 2007 9:46:29 GMT
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Dec 13, 2007 15:40:54 GMT
I dont think all our thoughts are own, there are some which feel very internal in relation to others which 'feel' more external. I doubt it's some government device doing the external thinking but I do think that there is a reason based on metaphysics or other realms.
Oh and Hi all ;D
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 13, 2007 22:20:42 GMT
;D Oh and Hi right back at you Y. Very nice Christmas present to see you back posting ;D Maat
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 17, 2007 21:35:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 17, 2007 23:51:48 GMT
I understand that technology exists to produce sounds and voices in the head of the target
Another technology uses convergent ultrasonic beams to produce sound at a specific location
But the literal meaning of schizophrenia is "split mind" and that may be a non-esoteric view of a mind that is receiving several streams of thoughts
Thus schizophrenia may be a diagnosis when the subject is having streams of thoughts that are not their own
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Dec 19, 2007 4:46:08 GMT
We do seem to have got off track. But perhaps that in itself is a demonstration that our thoughts are not our own
Perhaps you heard Charles Birch being interviewed on the Religion Report this week -
Well it seems to me an obvious thing to do because insofar as I've developed any point of view, it is primarily because of other people. I don't regard myself as original, everything that I've written comes from elsewhere and primary from this what are now known as the process thinkers, people who regard the most essential elements in the world as process activity rather than as bits and pieces that have no mentality to them.
Charles Birch - Born in Melbourne in 1918, Professor of Zoology at Sydney University from 1960 to 1963, then Challis Professor of Biology from '63 to '83, Charles Birch won the prestigious Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 1990. He's pioneered a view of the universe that sees everything in the universe from human beings to atoms and quarks as a feeling or subjective entity, and a view that sees God not as almighty and all-powerful, but as persuasive, feeling and growing with creation.
From ABC Radio National
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 19, 2007 5:55:34 GMT
>God not as almighty and all-powerful, but as persuasive, feeling and growing with creation.
That seems fair to me
And about 2 years ago the Solar Logos became noticeably more august and took his/her turn in the Chair for the Cosmic Grand Lodge
One of the impacts of that was a renewal in the solar system which in turn triggered a noticeable shift in the human race over that last year towards recognising mutual responsibility for the planet
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by 2 BOWL CAIN on Dec 19, 2007 18:48:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 19, 2007 18:52:42 GMT
I've known about HAARP for years. I have Dr, Nick Begitch's (I know I misspelled his name) video "Angels Don't Play This HAARP."
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 19, 2007 22:26:31 GMT
Remember what chaos there was in the USA when just the lights went out? What would happen if someone could turn off ALL communication systems at the flick of a switch? Guess we would have to rely more on the voices in our head and that seems to be a LOT more scary than it did before this thread started Just wanted to cheer you all up ready for Christmas ;D Maat (haarping on)
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 20, 2007 11:39:29 GMT
well, considering that most of the specific attempts at influencing the mind these days are distributed via media that are entirely dependant on electric power, it might not be such a bad thing at all.
in fact its because the voices kept offending me that i got rid of my TV, and after 3 years i cant say i have any regrets...
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 20, 2007 22:41:47 GMT
Antonius, you don't live in the East do you ... wise man?
;D Maat silly Xmas Cracker joke for the year.
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 24, 2007 12:32:54 GMT
actualy viewed from down under im more of a northman realy
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 24, 2007 15:17:27 GMT
I just love the piccy of the Cat with the Viking Hat!
|
|
|
Post by tws on Dec 24, 2007 15:25:47 GMT
I just love the piccy of the Cat with the Viking Hat! Yep. Pretty cool ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 27, 2007 21:12:01 GMT
What about thoughts as entities themself, or a specific manifestation of an entity? All the gods on the tree are looking to manifest in the material world (as and through our thoughts). Only one is concerned with balance.
Taking for granted that man is a microcosm of the Universe then it is impossible for something to exist outside of man that does not also exist inside of man. Now, I'm not saying that nothing exists outside of man, rather that while it does exist outside of man, it also exists within him. Therefore there is an aspect of these thought-entities that exist outside of man and we could claim they are not our own. But seeing as they do manifest upon the console of our mind we must also admit that they are our own.
Must we look at everything from an either/or perspective? either the thought is our own or it is not? I suggest we consider that a thought can be both our own and not our own at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 27, 2007 23:04:29 GMT
>I suggest we consider that a thought can be both our own and not our own at the same time.
Quite right - although it might be worth referring to these as thoughtforms - indicating that they exist independently of a single mind - unlike a transient thought about whether our favourite program is on the TV tonight.
Thoughtforms can be built by one or more beings and experienced by many.
A recent example is a somewhat messy thoughtform about so-called terrorism.
I recall years ago in meditation feeling called upon to deliver mentally a lecture on the inner nature of machines. At the end of the lecture I quite clearly heard a metallic voice saying: thankyou. (A friend had the same experience) I rather think that my process of forming the concepts into order and delivering them as words was an example of building a thoughtform
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 27, 2007 23:45:57 GMT
Russell, There's a lesson on Hod!
That actually happens any time we take the tought stuff and put into forms. Be it through talking or writing a post on mfol.
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 29, 2007 12:20:00 GMT
lets take this one step further and say that reality, physical reality is in fact not at all independant from the act of description.
the most fundemental thing about our view of reality, the existance of matter turns out to be deeply flawed. in fact, when science examines matter, the come to the comclusion that it does not actualy exist. what we thought was solid is anything but, and alot of elements that are there are only there when we are looking at them.
what if description is in fact an act of creation?
if a branch falls in the forest, and there is no1 around to hear it it does not make a sound? or perhaps there is no forest at all, untill we choose to percieve it?
|
|