Chester
25th February 2017, 19:48
Beware of the single most monstrous post I ever wrote... a post so monstrous that I had to break it all up into several posts. Note that I will be editing (cleaning up) these posts soon. Please, forgive grammar and other errors until them.
Sam Hunter, may I ask where you get 'improving' from and also 'more are glad T is President'?
I ask because I get the opposite, on both above (as in: observing, noticing, reading,..). I also (actually) get the opposite from 'aware/sane in the US'.
Thank you.
Perhaps it all boils down to a.) your own experience, b.) who you talk to (I talk with all sorts of folks from all walks of life) c.) the information I experience from third parties where I magnify the strength of information by its "honesty rating."
And couple all that with the enthusiasm I experience from folks who somehow found out how to think for themselves and do so realistically and critically.
Thank you Sam Hunter for taking the time.
I have some more questions, taking the opportunity to ask you. Because you shared about improving and increasing numbers. Which I am interested in.
'improving' (at my first post) in '...' meant quoting the topics I am interested in.
My questions (taking you experienced and others did too): what are the improvements? I'd like to get some examples, to understand what those improvements are/mean.
(If you like to share.)
Its not that I don't believe there are improvements, and I am also happy that there are such. I know its rather personal, but thats what I am looking for.
Personal accounts, experiences, detail.
(Because the opposites I mentioned are also personal, details - so to get a more complete picture just for myself I am looking for something similar. The personal. But only if you like to share)
And second: can you also share some more details about
all sorts of folks?
(for instance, also folks who voted for someone else? Or no matter their vote what changed/improved for them? Such kind...)
Thank you very much, I appreciate you taking the time.
:sun:
Hi sunpaw,
To answer your question I believe that it is best to do so in its own separate thread. Note that I will be writing in such a way that is inclusive to all readers.
I will first need to answer your questions from my own experience.
But in considering this I realized that my own personal experience (much less my conclusions) would likely not make much sense unless you understood my (metaphysical) world view. In addition it may help you to understand what I call “my operational assumptions” (some might call these beliefs… I will explain the difference), and “my operational protocol.”
Note that I am 59 years old and though I have been deeply immersed in consciousness studies for a good 25 years, I have only adopted my current metaphysical world view to be my primary operational assumption in just the last few years. This world view is known in philosophical circles to be “idealism.” More on this further in the post.
I arrived at my current primary operational assumption by utilizing my operational protocol that I had unknowingly been developing for years but which finally took form such that I was able to grasp it, formalize it and have the ability to articulate it now to others. It should also be noted that both my operational protocol and my establishment of operational assumptions go hand in hand in that each of these experience an ongoing refinement process.
Simply stated, perhaps my most significant operational protocol is that I never accept any single bit of information as fact unless I can prove to myself ‘well enough’ that it is fact. And that in cases where I may call something a fact, I always remain ever open minded such that new information might cause me to change my characterization of fact to false or fact to assumption. I utilize a process I learned as an odds maker – development of one’s confidence level with regards to any specific thing. In my protocol, I rate everything on a scale of 1 to 99 where zero represents “Impossible” and 100 represents Absolute Truth. I have learned the hardest of ways that by assigning a confidence level that allows for a wee tiny bit of wiggle room, I avoid a great deal of embarrassment and even better, I avoid damage I might otherwise do when I operate that I am 100% right about anything.
Anything where my confidence level is in the upper 90s or has my highest confidence rating of 99% I probably will call “fact.” Anything that achieves a confidence rating of near zero % probable I would probably call, “most likely not true and if 1% I may even call “false.”
The key here is to understand I remain ever open minded about everything… always.
So, here is a little more helpful background. I, like so many of us, have asked some of the most fundamental questions. These being - “Who am I?” “What am I?” “Where am I?” “Why am I?” “When am I?” and “How am I?” Some readers might recognize that journalists are taught these same six questions (http://blog.journalistics.com/2010/five-ws-one-h/) and I applied it this thing I described as “I.”
I referred above to my at least 25 years of ardent study, meditation and contemplation of consciousness and through the process of doing this, I arrived at the conclusion (for now at least) that consciousness, itself, is fundamental to all. Currently, my favorite information source regarding this view is Bernardo Kastrup and my favorite book he has written is called, “Why Materialism Is Baloney.” (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Materialism-Baloney-Skeptics-Everything/dp/1782793623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488041060&sr=8-1&keywords=why+materialism+is+baloney)
Also More here (http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/08/my-philosophy-and-quantum-physics.html)
Equally to my appreciation of Berbardo Kastrup’s information is my appreciation for the “standup philosopher” (his own label), Tim Freke. He has written dozens of books, but my favorite is his book – “Lucid Living: Experience Your Life Like a Lucid Dream.” (https://www.amazon.com/Lucid-Living-Experience-Your-Dream/dp/1780289626/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SY3Z599X333KMGZH49J9)
In addition, Tim gave a talk a few years back where he presented in a very easy to understand way what is known in the perennial philosophy as “The Paradox.”
Here is that talk –
nZmJUYIsp98
So with all the above in mind I have formed my primary operational assumption that consciousness is fundamental to all and that all springs forth from consciousness. As mentioned above, this view is known in philosophy as “idealism.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) (Note: this is not to be confused with looking at life "idealistically").
It is important to understand my term, “operational assumption.” The word, “assumption,” should be clear to the reader, but I do not assume it is to every reader (ha ha)... Some may argue that we can “know” something even at this deep level of understanding with regards to those six questions I listed above… some call this “gnosis” for example. Some call it “the a-ha!”
Interestingly enough I would have to say that when I discovered “the Big Me” (as Tim calls it and as I also now refer to it), I had that massive “a-ha” feeling. But I would never tell you or anyone else for that matter that “this is the way it is.” I would be happy to tell you that I am typing on a black Logitech K270 keyboard at this moment. I would tell you that this is a fact. I could “prove” this to you if you were standing next to me. I would still only apply a 99% confidence rating to this “fact.”
What I cannot tell you is a fact is that ‘consciousness is fundamental to all’ as that is your own conclusion to draw. Another property of an assumption, besides that it cannot necessarily be proven is that new information might cause one to change their assumption… maybe modify it or maybe even throw it out completely with or without a replacement. Having said all the above, to try and look at anything that involves the realms of form, one has to start somewhere which is what I did from the POV of Sam Hunter yet once I explored the paradox, I also realized that I desired to discover a starting point for “the Big Me” – a point which I assume doesn’t exist and has obviously never been discovered by materialists and in my opinion never will be… but a point I can philosophically “point to” once I begin to philosophically explore the realms of form – from mental constructions (ideas, imaginations, etc.) to physical form
So with my primary operational assumption in place and my acceptance that there is indeed a Sam Hunter (a ‘sort of’ fact… along with Sam Hunter’s story), apparently a human being whose life began 59 years ago and whose life will likely end one day and whose life has been a story (like all of ours)… combined with my own, personal “a-ha” that there’s this “Big Me” (again all and only an assumption), I found myself experiencing sadness that “my story” will find its end.
So looking at all this deeply, I extracted the primary difference between “Big Me” and “Sam Hunter and his story.” The “Big Me” has no individuation as “it” encompasses all unless “the Big Me” is viewing itself, something philosophically all but impossible or at least all but impossible for a “Sam Hunter” to grasp. Yet, that it could be argued that “The Big Me” itself experiences all this subjectively… this is when idealism becomes “monistic idealism.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monistic%20idealism)
Definition of monistic idealism. : a system of philosophical idealism emphasizing the primacy of the One (as the Absolute or Nature) rather than of the many —contrasted with pluralistic idealism — compare hegelianism, spinozism.
And as stated, paradoxically, Sam Hunter is an expression of individuation and in my opinion ‘individuation’ is Sam Hunter’s primary property.
And so back to “the sadness…” Recognizing this underlying sadness catapulted me to develop my “full spectrum operational assumption.” This full spectrum looks at life from three primary points of view where monistic idealism is both the “top view” (or could be called “the ground”) and is also the all-encompassing view of all three. I call this Level One and All. It is “the Big Me.” And within “the Big Me” is all… all of us, all possibility, all manifestation of form… simply all.
I then look at Sam Hunter, his story, this one life and I label this point of view as Level Three.
And surely the reader notices I have yet to describe Level Two. Level Two is my boldest assumption. It is the assumption that there’s an individuated expression beyond and within “The Big Me.” And that it is from within “my” Level Two (suggesting my individuation) that (hopefully and assumptively) infinite Level Three expressions come forth - one of which is, Sam Hunter. I emphasize that Level Two is a hope and desire. Level Two is (at least so far) ‘unprovable’ though we have ample circumstantial evidence (and I have ample personal experience) to raise confidence levels that Level Two is “real” and very close to 99% if not indeed 99%. But again, I am only speaking for Sam Hunter when I state this.
I use the term “individuated spirit being” as a label for the Level Two expression. I do not intend to complicate Level Two too much here but I will say that I have always wrestled with the “soul” consideration as a definable difference from the term “spirit” and I continue to. At this point in time I use the term “soul” to suggest a “repository of memories” for an individuated spirit being. I also consider the possibility that I (and perhaps others) may be experiencing two sub levels of Level Two. Level Two A is the free and sovereign individuated spirit being. Level Two B is the theoretical expression of a Level Two being which, somehow, some way, has been usurped by some external third party and which struggles for its sovereignty. Some of the interpretations of the Gnostic myths are allegories for this scenario. Note, I just used the word theoretical in the last sentence but I must emphasize that everything I have written so far is theoretical other than perhaps my reference to Sam Hunter and my black Logitech K270 keyboard. Even that still can be argued by those who see “all this” as nothing but “illusion.” For those who do, I see that they have rested in “the Big Me” and I would never try and tell them that there’s more… Still, I am in the camp with Tim Freke on all that and have expanded my perception to what I term “trilogical perception” all inspired by Tim and contemplating my hope and desire “there be more” for this individuated being.
I am near concluding this part of my post and in fact will leave this already monstrous post as it is while beginning to answer your question in post two.
I feel compelled to conclude this first post by emphasizing that though I operate under the assumption that if my primary assumptions are true, they are universally true for all… all life… all expression of form, form itself… these primary assumptions are something which I would never impose on anyone else such that they have to “agree with” any of it because of one of my operational protocols is: that each and every one of us are free to adopt any operational assumptions we might desire. And though I would vigorously argue with anyone who tries to tell me this keyboard is red and made by Dell, I would never impose my world view of monistic idealism or my “levels view” on anyone as I cannot prove Level One or Level Two, much less Two A and Two B.
Here is a great piece regarding the benefits of adopting the view of monistic idealism if one wishes to explore more - Found Here (http://www.creativespirit.net/henryreed/bookreviews/column2_1.htm)
Sam Hunter, may I ask where you get 'improving' from and also 'more are glad T is President'?
I ask because I get the opposite, on both above (as in: observing, noticing, reading,..). I also (actually) get the opposite from 'aware/sane in the US'.
Thank you.
Perhaps it all boils down to a.) your own experience, b.) who you talk to (I talk with all sorts of folks from all walks of life) c.) the information I experience from third parties where I magnify the strength of information by its "honesty rating."
And couple all that with the enthusiasm I experience from folks who somehow found out how to think for themselves and do so realistically and critically.
Thank you Sam Hunter for taking the time.
I have some more questions, taking the opportunity to ask you. Because you shared about improving and increasing numbers. Which I am interested in.
'improving' (at my first post) in '...' meant quoting the topics I am interested in.
My questions (taking you experienced and others did too): what are the improvements? I'd like to get some examples, to understand what those improvements are/mean.
(If you like to share.)
Its not that I don't believe there are improvements, and I am also happy that there are such. I know its rather personal, but thats what I am looking for.
Personal accounts, experiences, detail.
(Because the opposites I mentioned are also personal, details - so to get a more complete picture just for myself I am looking for something similar. The personal. But only if you like to share)
And second: can you also share some more details about
all sorts of folks?
(for instance, also folks who voted for someone else? Or no matter their vote what changed/improved for them? Such kind...)
Thank you very much, I appreciate you taking the time.
:sun:
Hi sunpaw,
To answer your question I believe that it is best to do so in its own separate thread. Note that I will be writing in such a way that is inclusive to all readers.
I will first need to answer your questions from my own experience.
But in considering this I realized that my own personal experience (much less my conclusions) would likely not make much sense unless you understood my (metaphysical) world view. In addition it may help you to understand what I call “my operational assumptions” (some might call these beliefs… I will explain the difference), and “my operational protocol.”
Note that I am 59 years old and though I have been deeply immersed in consciousness studies for a good 25 years, I have only adopted my current metaphysical world view to be my primary operational assumption in just the last few years. This world view is known in philosophical circles to be “idealism.” More on this further in the post.
I arrived at my current primary operational assumption by utilizing my operational protocol that I had unknowingly been developing for years but which finally took form such that I was able to grasp it, formalize it and have the ability to articulate it now to others. It should also be noted that both my operational protocol and my establishment of operational assumptions go hand in hand in that each of these experience an ongoing refinement process.
Simply stated, perhaps my most significant operational protocol is that I never accept any single bit of information as fact unless I can prove to myself ‘well enough’ that it is fact. And that in cases where I may call something a fact, I always remain ever open minded such that new information might cause me to change my characterization of fact to false or fact to assumption. I utilize a process I learned as an odds maker – development of one’s confidence level with regards to any specific thing. In my protocol, I rate everything on a scale of 1 to 99 where zero represents “Impossible” and 100 represents Absolute Truth. I have learned the hardest of ways that by assigning a confidence level that allows for a wee tiny bit of wiggle room, I avoid a great deal of embarrassment and even better, I avoid damage I might otherwise do when I operate that I am 100% right about anything.
Anything where my confidence level is in the upper 90s or has my highest confidence rating of 99% I probably will call “fact.” Anything that achieves a confidence rating of near zero % probable I would probably call, “most likely not true and if 1% I may even call “false.”
The key here is to understand I remain ever open minded about everything… always.
So, here is a little more helpful background. I, like so many of us, have asked some of the most fundamental questions. These being - “Who am I?” “What am I?” “Where am I?” “Why am I?” “When am I?” and “How am I?” Some readers might recognize that journalists are taught these same six questions (http://blog.journalistics.com/2010/five-ws-one-h/) and I applied it this thing I described as “I.”
I referred above to my at least 25 years of ardent study, meditation and contemplation of consciousness and through the process of doing this, I arrived at the conclusion (for now at least) that consciousness, itself, is fundamental to all. Currently, my favorite information source regarding this view is Bernardo Kastrup and my favorite book he has written is called, “Why Materialism Is Baloney.” (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Materialism-Baloney-Skeptics-Everything/dp/1782793623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488041060&sr=8-1&keywords=why+materialism+is+baloney)
Also More here (http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/08/my-philosophy-and-quantum-physics.html)
Equally to my appreciation of Berbardo Kastrup’s information is my appreciation for the “standup philosopher” (his own label), Tim Freke. He has written dozens of books, but my favorite is his book – “Lucid Living: Experience Your Life Like a Lucid Dream.” (https://www.amazon.com/Lucid-Living-Experience-Your-Dream/dp/1780289626/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SY3Z599X333KMGZH49J9)
In addition, Tim gave a talk a few years back where he presented in a very easy to understand way what is known in the perennial philosophy as “The Paradox.”
Here is that talk –
nZmJUYIsp98
So with all the above in mind I have formed my primary operational assumption that consciousness is fundamental to all and that all springs forth from consciousness. As mentioned above, this view is known in philosophy as “idealism.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) (Note: this is not to be confused with looking at life "idealistically").
It is important to understand my term, “operational assumption.” The word, “assumption,” should be clear to the reader, but I do not assume it is to every reader (ha ha)... Some may argue that we can “know” something even at this deep level of understanding with regards to those six questions I listed above… some call this “gnosis” for example. Some call it “the a-ha!”
Interestingly enough I would have to say that when I discovered “the Big Me” (as Tim calls it and as I also now refer to it), I had that massive “a-ha” feeling. But I would never tell you or anyone else for that matter that “this is the way it is.” I would be happy to tell you that I am typing on a black Logitech K270 keyboard at this moment. I would tell you that this is a fact. I could “prove” this to you if you were standing next to me. I would still only apply a 99% confidence rating to this “fact.”
What I cannot tell you is a fact is that ‘consciousness is fundamental to all’ as that is your own conclusion to draw. Another property of an assumption, besides that it cannot necessarily be proven is that new information might cause one to change their assumption… maybe modify it or maybe even throw it out completely with or without a replacement. Having said all the above, to try and look at anything that involves the realms of form, one has to start somewhere which is what I did from the POV of Sam Hunter yet once I explored the paradox, I also realized that I desired to discover a starting point for “the Big Me” – a point which I assume doesn’t exist and has obviously never been discovered by materialists and in my opinion never will be… but a point I can philosophically “point to” once I begin to philosophically explore the realms of form – from mental constructions (ideas, imaginations, etc.) to physical form
So with my primary operational assumption in place and my acceptance that there is indeed a Sam Hunter (a ‘sort of’ fact… along with Sam Hunter’s story), apparently a human being whose life began 59 years ago and whose life will likely end one day and whose life has been a story (like all of ours)… combined with my own, personal “a-ha” that there’s this “Big Me” (again all and only an assumption), I found myself experiencing sadness that “my story” will find its end.
So looking at all this deeply, I extracted the primary difference between “Big Me” and “Sam Hunter and his story.” The “Big Me” has no individuation as “it” encompasses all unless “the Big Me” is viewing itself, something philosophically all but impossible or at least all but impossible for a “Sam Hunter” to grasp. Yet, that it could be argued that “The Big Me” itself experiences all this subjectively… this is when idealism becomes “monistic idealism.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monistic%20idealism)
Definition of monistic idealism. : a system of philosophical idealism emphasizing the primacy of the One (as the Absolute or Nature) rather than of the many —contrasted with pluralistic idealism — compare hegelianism, spinozism.
And as stated, paradoxically, Sam Hunter is an expression of individuation and in my opinion ‘individuation’ is Sam Hunter’s primary property.
And so back to “the sadness…” Recognizing this underlying sadness catapulted me to develop my “full spectrum operational assumption.” This full spectrum looks at life from three primary points of view where monistic idealism is both the “top view” (or could be called “the ground”) and is also the all-encompassing view of all three. I call this Level One and All. It is “the Big Me.” And within “the Big Me” is all… all of us, all possibility, all manifestation of form… simply all.
I then look at Sam Hunter, his story, this one life and I label this point of view as Level Three.
And surely the reader notices I have yet to describe Level Two. Level Two is my boldest assumption. It is the assumption that there’s an individuated expression beyond and within “The Big Me.” And that it is from within “my” Level Two (suggesting my individuation) that (hopefully and assumptively) infinite Level Three expressions come forth - one of which is, Sam Hunter. I emphasize that Level Two is a hope and desire. Level Two is (at least so far) ‘unprovable’ though we have ample circumstantial evidence (and I have ample personal experience) to raise confidence levels that Level Two is “real” and very close to 99% if not indeed 99%. But again, I am only speaking for Sam Hunter when I state this.
I use the term “individuated spirit being” as a label for the Level Two expression. I do not intend to complicate Level Two too much here but I will say that I have always wrestled with the “soul” consideration as a definable difference from the term “spirit” and I continue to. At this point in time I use the term “soul” to suggest a “repository of memories” for an individuated spirit being. I also consider the possibility that I (and perhaps others) may be experiencing two sub levels of Level Two. Level Two A is the free and sovereign individuated spirit being. Level Two B is the theoretical expression of a Level Two being which, somehow, some way, has been usurped by some external third party and which struggles for its sovereignty. Some of the interpretations of the Gnostic myths are allegories for this scenario. Note, I just used the word theoretical in the last sentence but I must emphasize that everything I have written so far is theoretical other than perhaps my reference to Sam Hunter and my black Logitech K270 keyboard. Even that still can be argued by those who see “all this” as nothing but “illusion.” For those who do, I see that they have rested in “the Big Me” and I would never try and tell them that there’s more… Still, I am in the camp with Tim Freke on all that and have expanded my perception to what I term “trilogical perception” all inspired by Tim and contemplating my hope and desire “there be more” for this individuated being.
I am near concluding this part of my post and in fact will leave this already monstrous post as it is while beginning to answer your question in post two.
I feel compelled to conclude this first post by emphasizing that though I operate under the assumption that if my primary assumptions are true, they are universally true for all… all life… all expression of form, form itself… these primary assumptions are something which I would never impose on anyone else such that they have to “agree with” any of it because of one of my operational protocols is: that each and every one of us are free to adopt any operational assumptions we might desire. And though I would vigorously argue with anyone who tries to tell me this keyboard is red and made by Dell, I would never impose my world view of monistic idealism or my “levels view” on anyone as I cannot prove Level One or Level Two, much less Two A and Two B.
Here is a great piece regarding the benefits of adopting the view of monistic idealism if one wishes to explore more - Found Here (http://www.creativespirit.net/henryreed/bookreviews/column2_1.htm)