SOUL

@Serotoninluv Well, with weather there are constants, the mountains, valleys and other topographical features don't move much. Then add that to the increasing understanding of how weather is formed and behaves as well as the data base of previous weather conditions and data tracking so of course "predicting weather" becomes more of a known quantity. Same thing with DNA, as we learn and we accumulate a database of understanding from experimentation added to the new knowledge that will come we will have a better base of understanding and manipulating the variables, however many of them there are, to get accurate results. Now consider the number of variables that are at work in the universe.... is it a stretch to consider them an infinite number? How could we count them anyway? How could we even account for them? Sure science does a pretty good job of observing effects but that's all it is, watching and from that having an understanding of how it behaves. They then call that the "cause" of them but it's just a behavior effect. Just like your name, scientists suggest love is merely a chemical reaction because they see the correlation between the chemicals and the feeling. They say the chemicals cause the love but if that were true every instance of the chemical would cause the feeling, but that's not the case since the chemicals correlate to more than just those feelings. So maybe the subjective experience of love is accompanied by the chemical reaction, not the chemicals causing it. It's recognizing the indeterminate interacting with the determinate as a whole and possibly why Da Vinci had an insight that transcended mere knowledge accumulation, it's recognizing the whole just like you said, a holistic approach.

@Serotoninluv I'm just using that term to communicate that it's a whole lot of them but why assume it's not an infinite number of them? Or even suggest its limited to quadrillions of them?

@sgn Reading some of those links you gave there is an interesting point about the drawing a conclusion before the questions are even asked. There is quite a bit of that in non-duality/enlightenment as well, it's basically priming to 'see' it a certain way, with a certain conceptual paradigm. Although, that article writer sure exposes some 'culty' stuff about it....

@Serotoninluv You make an interesting point about whether it's really 'random' if it just is a lack of awareness about the infinite variables that contributes to the outcome. An infinite cause and effect so to speak which is just another deterministic method and it would suggest if we could orchestrate the variables we could effect an outcome which is the idea behind genetic manipulation. Although, allow me to take a philosophical view of this, if there is only order there wouldn't have ever been the infinite variable universe we observe. There requires an element of chaos, for a lack of a better word, for the infinite variability to exist in the universe and also cause the entropy that is observed. This may not quite be 'random' as we understand it but there is an indeterminate element that contributes to what is happening in the universe. The interplay between order and chaos manifests in the observable universe, a 'dance' between the deterministic and indeterminate, what 'absolute' forms that these exist in may or may not be something we can discover using the scientific method. So, it may not be 'random' but it's not fully deterministic, either.

The "I am" affirmation can be useful in our inner work when the ego brings us past thoughts and emotions to be identified with. "I am" is an empowering tool for being present in the moment and eschewing the past identities we may be attached to. When it becomes dogmatic is codifying it into a "truth" that is projected out as a universal "truth" for everyone instead of recognize it's personal in nature and actually is evolving present being not stagnant in identity.

@sgn There definitely is a gimmicky 'cure for all' that makes people 'always happy' rhetoric found around it that can be problematic. The simplicity of it doesn't seem out of place because awakening is simple even if it's not always easy or that one method works for everyone.

Absolutely, there is, although I won't venture to explain what I experience as revelation in exploring it other than it's a 'feature' for the evolution of the universe.

Just another marketing of a repackaged generic 'self awareness' method, it is what it is. If someone actually does the self examination any method will work and it's just a matter a preference when it comes to who one gravitates towards as a guide or even if one needs a guide.

It's all knowledge accumulated by methods of discovery but they are different methods to acquire understanding about different areas of scope. Spiritualists can be just as dogmatic if not more so than the scientific minded and if people were more open to accepting the potential in each of these fields of knowledge instead of just exploring one while denying the other it would lead to a sense of equanimity when encountering challenging ideas.

@Ocean That's the point, I'm never 'right', it's always just another turtle.

@Ocean Only if you see it....

@Ocean Only when observed....

@Ocean You appear to still be missing the point, beyond just the infinite number of "story" variations that can be, just the mere observation of it alters it irrespective of how it is interpreted or communicated. That isn't just a story about it, that's how it behaves regardless of the story about it.

It's all content, the screen, the movie, the absolute, the Truth, infinite, awareness... it's all content. Just through observing it, it behaves differently than as it is unobserved so everything we experience it as is different than it is as it is. So just because someone slaps a label on it whether that be "absolute" or "Truth" and thinks that they are observing in awareness the "it is what it is" what they really are expressing is their subjective experience of it that behaves different than it is unobserved. This is why i responded to a poster's authoritative statements about 'what is' with it's just their 'belief' since that's what it is, their subjective experience they believe is 'what is' and/or the 'truth'.

I don't understand what you are asking me, what do you mean by "content"?

@Ocean Actually, truth doesn't even exist until someone tries to speak it and no amount of capitalization changes that. It's sort of like how in the double slit experiment the photon is a wave until it is observed and then collapses into a particle. What is behaves one way unobserved and behaves another way observed. So truth is a subjectively assessed standard that we make objective comparisons to but each one of us subjectively experiences it and have our own standard.

Yes, deer.

Belief is just our trust that something exists or is true so a description can be a belief if we trust that it's the way it is. Truth is a comparison of what is asserted that it is compared to what actually is. So truth is a relative term that depends on a standard which may be subjectively attained but it is objectively compared.

A genuine transformative change would be to transcend the pendulum not just swing it.

There are merely your own beliefs from your own experience and are not everyone's, the sooner you realize this the sooner you stop trying to convince others that their experience is exactly like your own.

It really is as simple as you suggest, 'taking things personal' is using that natural passion you have for the beauty of life and instead making possessive about self. A simple practice would be to observe the inner life as you go through every day, watch how the egoic mind will instigate thoughts or stir emotions to influence in 'taking it personal'. Being aware of these initial impulses in us creates the opportunity for us to not reflexively agree with it, if we aren't aware of when it initially moves in us we may unconsciously endorse it so empower that identification with the emotional impulse. This way when we find ourselves in more heightened emotional interactions there is already a practiced self aware observation that can allow it not be blown 'out of proportion' in the mind so not be reacting in behavior. We can still feel the emotions without necessarily making it into more than it really is. Does this make any sense?

Building belief paradigms around sterile abstracts purged of any of life experience is just another form of conceptual self and it isn't any more right, better, enlightened or truth, it's just a preference of perspective but not necessarily a preferable one at that.

@Patang I agree that there are many ways that love can be expressed ranging from self interest to self less. Although forgive me for disagreeing on a subtle nuance but there really is no such thing as unconditional love. What you described in accepting, surrender, non-attachment and non targeting are all conditions placed on love with characteristics of selflessness. So the love that we are expressing can be a mix of both self-interest and selfless as well as it can be a mix of other emotional impulses including fear. Which is why we self inquire to discover the characteristics of our behaviors so we can express ourselves in a more selfless love if that is our intention.

Who? Haha!

Nice, yes, the body takes a million 'selfies' a day to paint a mosaic portrait that could be called 'self'. There is one facet that I would like to add to your description and that is love. It is love that pulls all of these many 'selfies' into one in us like a unifying embrace even if it is fear that clings onto it in attachment that doesn't want to let it go. Love will let go though, in love there is freedom and trust, this is how we can tell if we are embracing in love or are gripped in fear. Are we able to let go?