SOUL

One can believe it's absolute truth that the fast approaching train won't hurt even though they are standing on the tracks but I guess the train's belief that it will splatterfy the soft, fleshy creature in front of it is truer? Ah...ok, you are the train and the train is you so it's simply an exercise in the absolute unity of all one can experience in the relative....nevermind. This. The notion that things don't exist when not observing them is an inconsistency of this solipsistic ideology as expressed currently. How can the relative be in control of the manifest when it is a product of the absolute? This is why it would be more accurate to suggest that everything exists even though the relative isn't observing it because the absolute is always observing. The relative just may not be aware of the omnipresent absolute observation. I fully expect this reasoning to be adopted by the solipsists because it actually addresses a main criticism of the ideology.

After reading this top post I took a moment to contemplate the nature of group think and sought to break from the preconceived notions I may have about it. I had an insight that we may have an underlying acknowledgment of our oneness and since we are social animals that this oneness could be expressed in a collectivizing around ideas, concepts and beliefs. So in a way the sense of 'social self' is created from our intuitive knowing of oneness and is formed through the social nature of humans playing out in groups or in a previous incarnation of human socialization, in tribes. Although, as we are well aware the stronger the crystallization of self, even a social self, the more it forms an identity that will block the light-enment and cast a shadow. The shadow of social self can manifest all sorts of limited perspectives and unhealthy behavior. Ideally it would be preferable to cultivate the connected sense of oneness without it materializing as a social self that casts a shadow on the consciousness of those involved so creates a separation from others that may not aligned with the group of thinkers. Just a thought, not sure how helpful it is.

The notion that everything is only imaginary...is only imaginary. Our interaction with everything including our own self takes place in the field of awareness in the mind, we have no direct access to it other than it's appearance in our mind. People have used this to suggest that means everything is only imaginary. I myself have suggested that imaginary and imagination aren't the same thing for a lack of a more suitable word for the dynamic of our interaction with everything happening in the field of awareness. It seems to me that there is confusion created with the use of the words imaginary and imagination for what mystics and spiritualists use it for the our perception of the physical manifest. Materialists won't accept consciousness as anything more than a byproduct of physical matter no matter what word is used while many mystics view physical matter as a byproduct of consciousness. I don't know if this philosophical rift can ever be resolved so I would suggest just be at peace with whichever way you view it and try to avoid stirring conflict with those who view it differently.

As I understand it now I made some comments, the point of my comments were about society as a whole and with nothing to do about sex or gender. You interpreted one piece of my comments as sexist in some way lumping it in with other people's comments. I clarified my comment had nothing to do with sex or gender and your reply to it was about having a softer touch with a masculine mind....on a comment that was misinterpreted in a way I didn't intend it to be and it had no indications it even implied it to be that way. So I feel like you are continuing to engage me in a discussion about something I still don't quite understand what it is we are discussing and because I don't understand, you think I've been sexist, overly dismissive and avoiding 'service to well being'. I have made repeated efforts to ask for clarification and explanation so I can better understand and yes, serve well being but all I get is accusations of being disingenuous...my word not yours but that's what it seems like. It certainly is an eye opener. Genuinely, my apologies if I have offended.

I'm trying to understand what you meant by saying "Sometimes the softer touch is needed in conjunction with the masculine mind to have a fully well-rounded sense of "wellbeing" that you always talk about." and not having much success in connecting it to what I originally said that you have taken offense to. Maybe if you could explain this a little bit to help me understand instead of just continuing to accuse me of sexist behavior. I would appreciate a little help in understanding what it is you think I said and how your response applies to it because the short sentence towards it isn't enough for me to get it, I apologize for this.

Can you please explain it to me because for me to respond to the merits I would have to understand what you meant. I don't understand what you are talking about so please pardon me for being so dense, have patience with me.

I'm still not sure what you are talking about.

Actually Albert Einstein is quantum...he's only matter when you are looking at him but when you aren't he's in wave form.

I hope you aren't referring to me because I did happen to use that phrase in my reply but I made no mention of sex, gender or anything of the sort. If you interpreted it that way it's not something I said or intended to say.

Something I have noticed, at least in the U.S., the past 20 years or so there has been a growing disinterest in the general population for uplifting each other. Sure, we have the artificial sweetener happy feeling types across social media but it's rarely encouraging people to well being and more about posting quotes and just feelings. Much of the 'improvement' and 'actualizing' centers around materialist pursuits like career, money, stuff and appearances. It's an obsession with the trophy life. Not to mention this so often is accompanied with being 'better' through comparison where the in group is good and the out group is bad. Though, it's so obvious how people are self suffering and seeking relief from the misery with so many flocking to the growing self help field and interest in spirituality. Yet even much of that seems to be focused more on materialist solutions and becoming an acolyte of a belief system, therapeutic process, group or person. While the dumbing down of every aspect of socialization to the lowest common denominator has always been an issue of human interactions it seems especially prevalent currently.

I appreciate you sharing yours as well, it's quite revealing.

An exchange of words, concepts.....of stories.... Why are you distracting from the question? If you believe everything is story then you exhibit belief in the ego when it tells you that everything is the story because to the ego, there isn't anything but the story since that is all it has and it wants justification for it's story, it wants your belief in it's story. Who is it that would believe in the story? This is (psyche)logical proof that there is more than the story in our experience of consciousness otherwise one agent of consciousness wouldn't seeking something, belief, from another agent of consciousness. This is the description of how one 'frees' the will....it's not limited to just the story the ego tells. We can choose to believe any story, even one we create or even not to believe in a story. We can just accept what is as it is and allow stories to be guides, not our identity.

...but can you tell the difference between 'what is' and the story about it? Can you tell the distinction in consciousness between the ego, the story teller, and awareness, the observer to which the ego is telling it's story to? You haven't demonstrated in our exchange that you do.

Is it predetermined whether there will popcorn for the movie?

The 'happening of existence' is just isness unfolding, it just is, but me telling you about it is the story. Happening is manifest being but a story isn't actually happening, it's being told. The happening of a story is the telling of the story. The ego uses symbols and meanings for the interpretations it makes in telling it's story but for whom is the story being told in our consciousness? It is awareness that observes the story telling in our consciousness. Our perception in awareness can be aware of more than just what the interpretations of ego in the mind. The teller is adding it's commentary based on past experience yet awareness observes the happening as it unfolds including the story telling in it. Sure, the story of all existence may be in the story being told by the ego in god's mind yet again for whom is the story being told in god's consciousness? Which prompts my ego to reminds the mind of that story about how it's turtles all the way down. Does god believe the stories being told in it's own mind? Who is it that believes the story in god's own mind? Hah God is just being I am just being. The irony is not lost on me that all I have written here is story...I like turtles.

That's the story you tell yourself to distract from the point I'm actually making. You spin this tale in your imagination instead of actually taking a moment to consider the point I am actually making by the slight changes to the apparently repeated message. Think it through, after I'm done enjoying the beautiful Saturday afternoon I'll come back tonight to see if you chose to figure out the point and address it or just continue with your story telling...because you know how some people are just addicted to their stories.

@RMQualtrough Yea, humans are story tellers and even though people will have their 'explanation' story evolve over time the thing that doesn't seem to change as much is the attachment to the story. Their story is the 'truth'!...whatever version they're telling. Not that stories are the problem, who doesn't love a great story, it's the belief in the story that generates the attachment to the story. So much attachment they will abuse others, hate others, fight for and even kill for the story...to protect their story.

@Tyler Robinson epic

Speak for yourself, you were good until you said eventually you will whether you want to or not. You found it. That's fine, but just cause you found it doesn't mean another will. Go in peace.

The 'dream' is just another story that is used to justify reasoning of the 'life is not real' belief.

The ego is a portion of the body's sense of self so it's an autonomous agent of our psyche. It may take awhile before the grasp of the ego is loosened, it's grip is strengthened through our belief in the activity it organizes in the mind to build identity and it's grip is loosened by ceasing to believe it's activity. Although, being in conflict with the ego still justifies it so just abide in awareness and eventually the pull of the ego fades away.

@Matthew85 Don't confuse the conceptual framing of the beliefs for the psychological mechanism of belief. Also, in the way that we believe it either opens up potential to us or it limits the possibilities for us. If you think we have no control over it then that is a limiting belief for you, one that you have no control over but it has no influence in anyone else, it's just yours.

The mechanism that empowers the 'grasp' in our experience of mind is belief, more specifically it is limiting beliefs that serve as a barrier. Even the most awakening insights one might have can turn into a barrier if we allow it to become a limiting belief. As an example the insight that believing in good and evil manifests in us judging everything with that moral dualism. If we turn around and say we must remove this or it is a barrier to further awakening, freedom or enlightenment it becomes a limiting belief. We have now put this separation between us and something we imagine we don't have or could be. This is a condition we trust is true limits us by believing we have to do something a certain way to cross that barrier or close the separation. So while it may benefit someone to free themselves from the judgement of moral dualism it doesn't benefit them to think they are presently insufficient because they may currently still perceive that moral dualism. This can also be applied to the notion I see so often suggested that belief has to be removed. That is itself a belief and again creates a barrier between as we are presently and what is imagined in the future. It's a paradox of sorts to be at peace with being as we are and also still seek a more holistic expression of consciousness.

It's everywhere and everything if one allows it to be that.