A look through my eyes.

RE: A look through my eyes.

Recognising our ignorance is a marker on the road to wisdom. I know that this sounds trite, but is the truth to me.

Hi Carlov
Interesting quote with a very sound background. Of course it would require honesty.

I can honestly say that whilst I have been following my own path and teaching others for over 40 years, I have to say that I have been learning all of that time. So I supose, that having said that, I have been ignorant of many things throughout that time. So yes I have recognised my ignorance during that period of time and IMO have obtained a level of wisdom.

I have been contributing here and there since I subscribed and I all too often take the contrary view: Gets you thinking as to how you really see things.

I have a feeling that if we are honest with ourselves some of us have done that too, I know I have. It stimulates a good debate. May you continue to do so.

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Carlov, and thanks for letting us into your mind. 😀

I always enjoy it when people suggest that we need to have balance. i.e.

Without hate there can be no love.

Consider these two things.

1. Hate is merely an absence of love. It is not a negative aspect but a lesser aspect of love.
2. It is a human condition that we need to quantify things. We "need" to see hate so that we can have something to compare against in order to recognise love. However, if hate were to disappear (we were to rid ourselves of that attachment), we could still be left with everything being love. Although we would have nothing to compare against, and no way of quantifying the love that is there, everything would be love. Then we could reach a state of peace. It is only our holding onto the need to quantify love through hate that keeps us from finding peace.

This also applies to Good and Evil, or any other comparitive "opposites". 😉

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: A look through my eyes.

I actually agree with some of those dualities, but not with all. So perhaps that's another stage in the learning process? ;)That not all we thought had to have two sides actually does? Isn't that dogmatism too? (I say this philosphically, not to be personal.)

I just wonder if someone can please help me out here? It's just in the last month that I read the old idea that the brain has two distinct hemispheres - that you can even divide them and get two personalities - is old-fashioned and flawed. It's an old idea and in fact the proverbial right side features of the brain can be found anywhere in the brain, in truth. Same for the left side. But I forget where I read that.

Light and darkness are in some ways not opposites. I wouldn't call them "opposites" anyway such as plus and minus. It's more like whether you have something or no something, such as life on a planet, or no life. There will have been a time when the universe had no light.

There have been many threads on HP on the subject that hate is not an opposite of love. (And those who disagree.) Too big a subject to go into, but I'd say to be loving is natural; hatred is simply a form of illness where the wires are severely crossed. I wouldn't say sanity and insanity are "opposites". They are different states, and hard to define.

Mystical experiences give almost all who experience them a total certainty in certain things such as perhaps the existence of God, or that God is in all matter, or in reincarnation. These "experiences" are defined as being beyond and above logic, and there's a good argument to be made that those who have them and then report them are not being dogmatic. They've simply seen over a wall most of us haven't yet climbed?

All the same, those who experience things such as on the recent NDE thread don't IMO become "dogmatic", and would still be open-minded to a degree. In a sense, their minds have been opened more than anyone's as they've experienced something quite beyond limited human logic.

V

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Carlov,

I’m certainly glad you’ve joined HP as you post thought-provoking threads.

Whatever belief system you care to mention; none can deny the fact that our brains are divided in two hemispheres:

Yup, but what does that prove? We have two arms! On the other thread about evolution v creation I’ve posted about what I believe about intelligence!

This blueprint is the model for my beliefs: In every aspect of life we are all divided:

Proved by whom??

Torn between rise and fall, night and day, birth and death. These opposing forces that are so peculiar to each other yet remain a part of the whole: Without hate there can be no love. Without ignorance, understanding is meaningless. Without lies how can we know truth?

I apologise to everyone who has heard my views before, but I’m now getting on my soapbox! [sm=soapbox.gif]

“Without hate there can be no love” ? What a load of rubbish! (I’m not getting at you Carlov, - this is a widespread belief) A baby doesn't have to know abuse, anger, hatred, suffering and deprivation in order to gurgle, smile, enjoy, laugh, play, be filled with love, wonder and delight. I use the example of a baby as I feel that they are nearest to our original state of purity, innocence, love, perfection and goodness before we were educated into universal mortal beliefs.

“Without ignorance, understanding is meaningless”? Think of a young Australian Aboriginal child, or a native American one, taught the wisdom of the tribe by his or her grandfather or grandmother. Do you not think that they would instinctively KNOW that this understanding was real and true and grounded in past experience? I can remember learning as a child how to heal (we don’t see it as a “gift” but as a science that can be taught and learnt.) It touched the core of my being – I instinctively knew it was true and could prove it, effortlessly (wish I still could!) 😀 I didn’t have to know ignorance to appreciate and recognise understanding.

I have been told many times on HP that we cannot appreciate good unless we know evil, or happiness unless we know sorrow, or even good fruit unless we have tasted rotten! A baby doesn't have to drink rancid milk in order to enjoy his bottle.

I am also told that we need balance. Yes, we need balance in everything - a bird needs two wings in order to be able to fly, but those two wings are not opposites - there’s not one good wing and one bad wing, but two complementary wings, like with the balance of our womanhood with our manhood qualities - these are all good, valid, spiritual qualities - as well as meekness, we need courage, as well as tenderness, we need strength etc. We need complementary balance, not contradictory!

Heat does not balance cold. Cold does not exist – it is simply the absence of heat (that is a scientific fact) Heat DESTROYS cold – it does not balance it.

Light does not balance darkness. Darkness does not exist - it is simply the absence of light. Light DESTROYS darkness. When you turn the light on, where is the darkness? Darkness could never overpower light and it’s exactly the same with the human belief of evil.

Good does not balance evil - understood metaphysically, evil does not exist either. Yes, of course to human sense there's evil (and we shouldn't ignore it, or excuse it away by saying it is purely subjective). There is also darkness and cold. We can see darkness and feel cold, can't we? And yet, they are simply the absence of light and heat. What I'm saying is that evil is not actually a power as most of the world believes. That we give it the only power it seems to have by our belief in it.

Without lies how can we know truth?

Without truth, there would be no lies – I’ll give you that! But the truth has to be there first, or there could be no lie about it, so your argument breaks down again. [sm=dance.gif]

The duality of life by its very nature is absurd.

I couldn’t agree with you more Carlov!! The SUP

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Healistic

Is it a quote? Still, wouldn’t be the first time.
Yes. Honesty is a large part of my makeup: Far too much for my own good I have been told. It has been my most costly trait and yet I cannot rid myself of it and no longer try to. An all too rare attribute in people.
The only times I find myself misleading people is when there is absolutely no reason to do so. As for other people: Omission is the one that dogs me at present; but that is for another day perhaps.


And hope so too. Exercise for the mind.


Hi Energylz

Balance yes, and by my compass, instability.
I have witnessed hate so I cannot accept your premise.
To labour the point: There can be no peace without war (conflict if you prefer.)

Hi venetian

Well this is the point. It has two sides and is a whole. Both at the same time.
It's not rigid to accept that light is both particle and a wave is it? In order to understand the problem you have to accept both merits.
On the brain: Your questions, whichever ever answer you accept still fits in with my thinking.
Light is the opposite of dark and the absence of darkness. Do you see?
Hatred is an illness? I like that, but conversely when it is calculated to harm as many people as possible using reason to deceive people and attain a pre-determined goal? it is sick, I’ll grant you, but I reasonably perceive it as far more tangible than an absence of love.

Sanity verses insanity. I agree. Hello auntie, that’s a nice hat you’re wearing.[X(]

I think I mentioned it elsewhere. I myself have experienced the “supernatural.” I am caught between wondering if it was a trick of the mind or a religious experience. Most likely why I am talking to you now I guess.
As I said: The only reasonable attitude I can take is that there are no sensible deductions to be made.

Hi again Pricipled
And thank you.

The hemispheres simply demonstrate the blueprint Imention. I had not considered offering proof because this is “through my eyes.”

If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a fire to your response. I do hope I haven’t upset you.

I appreciate your analogy with the baby. But you said it yourself; they are not educated in the way of things. I could easily argue that a child does not know how to love, but this would be seen as emotive and I would derail myself. Instead I will suggest you consider a child born into starvation, suffering and death. They are all of these things you record with a passion and yet they are unaware of why this should be. These are my reasoning’s, not those of an infant. The child does not analyse “this milk is rancid so I will not drink it.” This is a function (genetic perhaps) that is there to preserve life.
The same applies to the tribal people you mention. To explore your thoughts: I am sure that the wise and best hunters and gatherers would mock those that do not know how to survive in the wilderness and so are indeed aware of what ignorance is.

I am glad that you have found a belief system that you can live by. I envy you this.

Yes bird’s wings are opposite and complementary. Through a line of symmetry?
Both harmonized and contradictory.

Cold does not exist? Guess I’ll turn the central heating off then. And I might as well

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Carlov,

I see quite a bit of where you are coming from. Such as your mention of light being both a particle and a wave. (According to present science, as science seems always to be changing.)

But that's not an "opposite" in the sense that some people conceive of good and evil, or up and down. It doesn't all follow logically to me TBH.

Certainly I wouldn't say the whole world and all of life is constructed of opposites. And whereas a bird may have a left and right wing, personally I'd never conceive of that in the sense of them being opposite as in contradictory or against each other - obviously. So if I may say so, your construction appears to contain logical flaws.

To explain one thing. :DI've been on HP since November 2003 (and some longer). It's only to be expected that some subjects simply repeat, almost exactly the same. Seeing everything as opposites may perhaps be a new one here. But there have been quite a few who deemed that on the specific subject of good and evil, these were "opposites" as, if you like, white/black, left/right. Or no, actually the thesis was that you can't have good without evil. One problem with repeating subjects is that one can of course get weary of going back into them! Maybe a few of us should keep a list of links to a dozen or twenty frequent subjects so that we can just paste in past replies. 😉

But the concept as arisen in the past seemed literally to be that good and evil were equal opposites. As if by some magical formula of the moral universe, there couldn't even be 49% of one and 51% of the other. I can't see any logical evidence for such an idea.

But on that specific subject, some of us don't see them as being even related. As an esotericist, I believe, and believe I've experienced "higher planes" of existence - that there are many levels of matter, life and reality. In virtually all of them, evil doesn't exist. There's only Good. Having grown so used to this world of contrasts, most think a world composed only of Good would be boring or repetitive. That's like saying it would be boring to come to the end of your most favourite piece of, say, classical music, and then go have a deep talk with an incredibly wise angel, and then have a wonderful laugh with friends, and then learn how to create with thought, or to heal those in this world who are sick.

I don't think I've expressed that clearly as it goes deeply out of philosophy and into my worldview. Sticking with logic, if good and evil have no logical reason to be 50/50 in this world (how could that even be measured?), then they can become 75% good, and then maybe 95% good - and if such is possible, then there can be a 100% point for Goodness as formany things. An oxygen molecule is that, and nothing else. Does it have its own specific and dedicated opposite?

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Great post Venetian! How I wish I could explain things like you! 🙂

Carlov, please don't think you've upset me - no, no! But yes, this really is a subject I feel passionately about and I enjoy the opportunity to have this discussion with you! [sm=1kis.gif]

I was lying in bed this morning and it struck me that one of the logical outcomes of your premise is that you can't have illness without health, or that you can't know good health without experiencing illness. As the demonstration of CS is based on God, GOOD being the ONLY power, and that gives us the authority to reject and overcome all beliefs of limitation, suffering, negativity etc, (and because to a small degree I've proved this in my own life) yes, I hope there is fire to my response!

Re cold not existing - it's true. (Another case where the senses defraud us) I was much taken with the logic that someone posted in this little analogy below and sent it to a friend who has a PhD in pure math to check the facts. This little story was originally on the Christian pages I think, but get beyond that and the logic is interesting.

Did God Create evil? (all things were created by Him & without Him was not anything made that was made?) This will make you think for a while.

At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian whereupon he proceeded to degrade any poor soul that timidly answered "Yes," mocking his/her statement of faith.

One semester, he asked the question and a young freshman raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?" He replied, "Yes sir He did!" The professor responded, "If God made everything, then He made evil." The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.

Then another student raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?" "Yes, you may," responded the professor. The young man stood up and said "Sir, is there such thing as cold?" "Of course there is, what kind of question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"

However, to the professor's surprise, this young chap replied, "Actually, sir, cold doesn't exist. What we consider to be cold, is really an absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there."

Then the young fellow continued, "Sir, is there such a thing as dark?" Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is." And once again, the young lad replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."

The final question posed by our young friend went like this, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?"
The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil." The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of Good. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of Good. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat or light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The professor had nothing to say............

(Actually, I disagree with the statement that evil is simply the state where God is not present, because to me that is an impossibility! However, the earth is dark when the sun seems to be absent, but it is still shining away! [sm=nature-smiley-008.gif] Anyway, I then wrote to my friend:

>PS Dan - is that scientifically correct - is cold simply the absence of
>heat? How then are there varying degrees of cold?

That was good post, and yes you could certainly say that cold is the
absence of heat. (hea

RE: A look through my eyes.

I was just struck my the thread title. 🙂

Eyes themselves are a good example. They don't oppose each other, neither are they complementary. The system of having two eyes is simply another example where it's really just one thing. The two eyes are just a singular system whereby we have vision --- in 3D, which is important. 🙂

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi venetian

Science can no more find an absolute than anyone who reasons. So yes it is always changing. If it did not then by definition it would be useless.

If the wings were not as I have said, there would be a lot of pedestrian avians. I might point you to a page of flight mechanics here, but I think you are splitting hairs.
I already said by its nature it is absurd and I did claim it to be logical, just the way I see things (at the moment,) despite being a deductive thinker.

[link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality [/link]


It was someone else who mentioned balance BTW.
Proportionate measures would be subjective. People who set out to only do good might inadvertently do harm. (A trade embargo for example.) So I can't help you with the division of good and evil any more that I could give you an equation for love, say.

Here you go:

[link= http://www.matter-antimatter.com/oxygen-antioxygen.htm ] http://www.matter-antimatter.com/oxygen-antioxygen.htm [/link]

Your world view must be exceedingly reassuring.



Hi Principled

An interesting point well made.
What I will say is; before I developed my own maladies, I was uninformed of what wellbeing was. My condition(s) have given me a greater understanding of what it means to be healthy through an appreciation of my "better” days.

Granted, my flippant replies were only intended to underline the use of the language.
The same principle applied to good and evil does not necessarily follow. I am sure you are not trying to apply the laws of thermodynamics to prove the existence of god.

Might I suggest you look at this:

[link= http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp ] http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp [/link]

RE: A look through my eyes.

Carlov, hi,

Your reply to me seems antagonistic? If I myself came across that way I didn't mean to. It's a net debate!

"Your world view must be exceedingly reassuring." is personal, is what I mean. Well, maybe it is reassuring. 😮

Have I misunderstood you? I thought your point was that the world / universe is composed of opposites? As with eyes and wings, I'm replying that these are not opposites or opposing. Some functions or phenomena have a singular function e.g. to fly or to hold in the hand, or to see in 3D. To do so may require 2 wings, 2 eyes, maybe 300 feathers or more, 500 muscles, 8 fingers and 2 thumbs .... is the world really composed of dual opposites? (Or was this not your point?)

Thanks,

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Carlov,

I enjoyed this from that link:

While the professor stood up at the beginning of class and did his thing, the student had an idea. She got up and said, "Professor, would you mind if I said something?" He said, "Of course not. This is an expressive classroom, and I think it would be fine if you spoke your mind."

The girl said to the class, "Have you ever seen our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Then she asked, "Have you ever felt our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Finally she asked, "Have you ever heard our professor's brain?" and, like the other times, nobody answered.
She then said, "It is quite obvious that our professor has no brain." [sm=rollaugh.gif]

I had no idea that there was an unban myth putting that down to Einstein (I'm happy to post it as I've checked the facts with my physicist friend) but as you've brought up Einstein, Carlov, you may be interested to learn that he was very much taken by the radical ideas in Mary Baker Eddy's primary work, Science and Health. He made many remarks showing his understanding and appreciation, but my favourite is:"Science and Health is beyond this generation's understanding. It is the pure science. And, to think that a woman knew this over eighty years ago!" 🙂

Judy

RE: A look through my eyes.

I must say, quite apart from the thread subject, that's a really interesting Einstein quote, Judy!

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Venetian
I have a natural talent for unintentionally offending people. It is my greatest failing. It was not my intent. I would most likely have said the same thing to you in person, but with the added channels open that are not available in web chat you most likely would have realised I was merely making an observation. (Though some people do take umbrage with me in person too. (Do I hear some “not surprised” comments?)):)

The examples you raised are single entities, or of a single entity. Technically we should be discussing the opposite of bird or eyes, which is of course ridiculous. I used the flight example to show the influence of my hypothesis is present, (as you mentioned the example in the first place.)

RE: A look through my eyes.

Doh, I've already typed this message once and lost it... let's try again...

Scuse me for coming back so late in the conversation, it seems to have ben flying past since yesterday, so also excuse me if I've missed something or I'm repeating something in skipping through the posts 😉

Regarding the wave particle duality. Quantum particles do appear to act as waves as well as acting as particles, but they do not act as both at the same time (as demonstrated with the double slit experiment[link= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment[/link]). If a quantum particle is observed to obtain its position then it appears as a particle and exhibits no wave like properties. If the particle is not observed directly then we can observe it's wave like properties. We cannot observe both at the same time.

Likewise with heat and cold. Cold is just an absence of heat (or you could say that heat is just an absense of cold, although that usually confuses people :D). If we measure the amount of heat, we cannot measure the amount of cold as a second property of the same measurement. To measure the cold we have to take a seperate measurement but, likewise,we cannot measure the heat during the same measurement as a seperate property.

War and peace. It is possible to have peace without war (of conflict) although it is only through peoples need to quantifyor measure peace that they have to have conflict to be able to make that measurement against it.

You say you have experienced hate. How can you define hate? Hate is but a lesser form of good. Only because you know of greater measures of good are you aware that what you are experiencing is a lesser good and this is something you label as hate. If you had never experienced any good at a greater level than what you call hate, you would not know of any greater good and, what you now call hate, would be as good as it gets. It's all relative levels of good.

Matter and Anti matter is a whole subject in itself, and you have to bear in mind that these appear to exist in two different time frames (one travelling forward in time, the other backwards) according to quantum theory. You may be interested in reading QED - The strange theory of light and matter by Richard P. Feynman if you enjoy quantum principles.

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: A look through my eyes.

OK Carlov, no problem.

AN interesting premise, this thread, but I'll probably leave at this point as abstract (to me) philosophy doesn't grab me that much. Though I realise it may not be abstract to you.

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Likewise with heat and cold. Cold is just an absence of heat

But as the temperature drops when hot, even by 1 degree it becomes colder, even though it is still hot. Brrr

RE: A look through my eyes.

Hi Energylz

Yes they do behave this way at the same time. It is that we cannot measure them doing so. If you measure them as waves the results you get are as you would expect and vice-versa.
[link= http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node154.html ] http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node154.html [/link]

Defining hate. We will have to agree to disagree here I think. I cannot structure an argument against what you clearly hold rigid in your belief system. I suggest considering the legal definition of hate crime.
[link= http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/ ] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/ [/link]
Pay particular attention to the fact and figures section.

Getting onto theoretical particle physics is probably an indicator that I should move over to the scientific section.
It doesn’t get more abstract than this Venetian.

RE: A look through my eyes.

ORIGINAL: Carlov
Yes they do behave this way at the same time. It is that we cannot measure them doing so.

Slight contradiction there methinks 😉
You state it as fact that they do, but then say that we can't show it. Hmmmm 😮

If you measure them as waves the results you get are as you would expect and vice-versa.
[link= http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node154.html ] http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node154.html [/link]

But you can't measure them as waves and particles at the same time. If you observe them as particles then they lose their wave properties; if you observe them as waves you can'tobserve the particle at the same time. It's one or the other. 😉

Defining hate. We will have to agree to disagree here I think. I cannot structure an argument against what you clearly hold rigid in your belief system. I suggest considering the legal definition of hate crime.
[link= http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/ ] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/hate-crime/ [/link]
Pay particular attention to the fact and figures section.

I knowenough about home office and hate-crime stuff as it's a fielf I am familiar with. In these instances, hate is being defined as a level of good which is not acceptable in the society in which we live. e.g. let's take racism. For some people or societies it is acceptable not to like people of a particular race, whilst for other people or societies it is not acceptable. Laws like this are laid down to reflect the general opinion of our society that not accepting people of different races is not as good as accepting them. It's an artificial level and label assigned to a particular goodness by society. Even then the law has difficulty in quantifying what actually constitutes hate for each form of hate crime. If it was easily clear cut there would be no need for the CJB to get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everyone is good and I'm not saying that society is wrong for treating such actions as crimes. I have a personal opinion that labelling them "hate" crimes is misleading as it's a general categorization of other crimes such as racism, homophobia etc. Just because someone is, for example, homophobic, does not mean that they hate homosexuals, it could mean that they just feel uneasy in themselves at the thought of themselves being homosexual. Each case has to be looked into individually and cannot be immediately classified under the "hate" label.

Getting onto theoretical particle physics is probably an indicator that I should move over to the scientific section.

*nod* sounds like a move.

It doesn't get more abstract than this Venetian.

Abstract, Theoretical, Illusions, that what all of life is. 😀

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: A look through my eyes.

hi Energylz
I cannot prove it. But deductive reasoning should tell you: It does not change the behavioural properties of light because you are calculating wave or particle theory (which is what you suggest I think.) It is constant regardless of how it is measured. So it is both.

I have racked my brain to try and develop an argument for you on the subject of hate. You have explained your position with skill and clarity.
As I say: We will have to agree to disagree.

RE: A look through my eyes.

Just popping back in here to say:

ORIGINAL: Carlov

hi Energylz
I cannot prove it. But deductive reasoning should tell you: It does not change the behavioural properties of light because you are calculating wave or particle theory (which is what you suggest I think.) It is constant regardless of how it is measured.

What about the well-known "fact" (in quotes as science is always on the move - but this fact has lasted quite a while) that the observer affects what he's observing. The two are somehow interlinked. I suspect this is what Giles had in mind. So according to this, which so far as I know is still accepted within modern physics, you'll get what you are looking for, and that doesn't mean the other side of the phenomenon exists at the same time. They are in fact not objective phenomena at all (light as particles or as waves in this instance) but somehow linked to and affected by the observer. That would mean that we don't know anything about light's properties for sure when it's not being observed!

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Original: Venetian
What about the well-known "fact" (in quotes as science is always on the move - but this fact has lasted quite a while) that the observer affects what he's observing. The two are somehow interlinked. I suspect this is what Giles had in mind. So according to this, which so far as I know is still accepted within modern physics, you'll get what you are looking for, and that doesn't mean the other side of the phenomenon exists at the same time.

Indeed this is what I am referring to.

A light bulb can appear to be "on" or "off". Sometimes when I observe it the light bulb is on. Sometimes when I observe it the light bulb is off. I know it exhibits both of these properties, but by Carlov's deductive reasoning, this would suggest that the light bulb can be both on and off at the same time, even though I can't observe such a situation. We are, of course, getting into the Schrodingers Cat thought experiment here, for which there is no answer. We could also bring in the many world theory, suggesting the bulb is both on and off in different "parallel" worlds and we will exist in both of those worlds and observe one of those situations in this world. Theories, theories, theories. Great aren't they. 😀

As Venetian points out, the observer appears to have an effect on what is observed. Quantum investigation using the double slit experiment, have shown some interesting facts (and I always use the word "facts" loosely ;))...

If an observation (detection) is made within both of the slits to observe which slit the quantum particle is passing through, then the particle is detected in only one of the slits and the resultant pattern produced appears as it would for quantum particles acting as particles i.e. travelling in a straight line through the slit. If the detection apparatus is turned off, then the resultant pattern is an interference pattern which indicates that the particle is passing through both slits at the same time and causing a pattern indicative of wave properties. It gets even more interesting...

If the experiment is set up to detect which slit the particle has come through but the detection is put after the slits, so the quantum particle will not be detected, in theory,until it has already passed through the slit(s), then the quantum particle still acts in the same manner as the original experiment. This is as if the quantum particle "knows" in advance whether it is going to be observed anywhere in the experiment, and if so it will act with particle properties and not wave properties. It "knows" before it gets to the slits (from the source) what the experiment is set up to observe and this observational set-up alters the whole experiment. Theoretically this is an indication of "some thing or information" travelling back in time from the future so that the source particle knows the future and can alter the outcome accordingly.

I think this should really be discussed in the Scientific Matters forum, but, as the Philosphy forum was created off the back of the SM forum a while back, it's not going to matter that much; there's a grey boundary between the two.

Original: Carlov
I have racked my brain to try and develop an argument for you on the subject of hate. You have explained your position with skill and clarity.
As I say: We will have to agree to disagree.

*nod* I was just giving you another persepective to look at. 😉
Also, if you go along with the principle of the law of attraction (something that's quite "out there" at the minute) then to spend your time focusing on "good" rather than "hate" would be beneficial for ourselves.

Love and Reiki Hugs

RE: A look through my eyes.

It's amazing stuff, isn't it, Giles!

And it might as well remain within Philosophy, since though you point to Science, I'd also take it into Spirituality or Psychic. :DTo me, the fact that consciousness is affecting matter/energy indicates that they share common properties. Of course, in true "Tao of Physics" style, and all the quotes in that book challenging you to guess which were made by mystics and which were made by physicists (and you can't guess correctly at all), to some of us this indicates that matter/energy contains or is consciousness.

(I suppose an alternative view would simply be that consciousness can affect matter and energy. So consciousness is therefore some kind of force. Meaning that psychic phenomena in some cases must be real: these experiments are "psychic phenomena".)

P.S. So referring once more to the thread title, a "look through your eyes" changes what you are looking at. :DWe could as well call it, "A Change By My Eyes".

V

RE: A look through my eyes.

Yeah. I didn’t really expect anyone to agree with me.

Let me just leave you with this thought: Suicide bombers; what makes them tick?

Humour is reason gone mad.- Groucho Marx-

RE: A look through my eyes.

ORIGINAL: Carlov
Let me just leave you with this thought: Suicide bombers; what makes them tick?

A belief in a level of goodness engrained into them by their own society (sub-society/religion etc.). They believe what they are doing is good.

RE: A look through my eyes.

Whew – all this physics talk is way over my head!

ORIGINAL: Carlov

Let me just leave you with this thought: Suicide bombers; what makes them tick?

However, as to Carlov’s last remark, allow me to elaborate on Giles' succinct answer!

Why did almost a whole nation of formerly decent people with a Christian background either collude or at least look the other way under the Nazi’s? Of course fear for one’s life played a huge part, but the whole thing could not have gathered momentum like it did without a form of mass mind control – hypnotic suggestion accepted into consciousness.

I remember reading the account of a Jewish New Yorker who was investigating the whole terrorist mentality. A friend of hers, who was a moderate Muslim, was asked to translate a training video featuring our friend Osama. She saw it before it was translated and she said she found herself ready to sign up, so great was the hypnotic suggestion coming forth!

As with the German people before WWII, many Muslims have been educated to see themselves as the under-dogs and most of this is an attempt to win back their identity – it’s political, not religious. You only have to see the mass mind-set at a football match or at any games where nations compete against nations and this is what it is. It’s group-think rather than thinking for ourselves. Wanting to belong to the tribe and that desire being corrupted and controlled by a few individuals with evil intentions and power plans.

Giles explains this above and Mary Baker Eddy wrote:

Evil is sometimes a man's highest conception of right, until his grasp on good grows stronger. Then he loses pleasure in wickedness, and it becomes his torment. (Science and Health p 327)

The malicious form of hypnotism ultimates in moral idiocy. (S&H 103)

I visited in his cell the assassin of President Garfield, and found him in the mental state called moral idiocy. He had no sense of his crime; but regarded his act as one of simple justice, and himself as the victim. My few words touched him; he sank back in his chair, limp and pale; his flippancy had fled…..

This mental disease at first shows itself in extreme sensitiveness; then, in a loss of self-knowledge and of self-condemnation,--a shocking inability to see one's own faults, but an exaggerating sense of other people's. Unless this mental condition be overcome, it ends in a total loss of moral, intellectual, and spiritual discernment, and is characterized in this Scripture: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

It’s not all hopeless though as was shown forth by this thread:

How a British jihadi saw the light

We may think we are not under other people’s influences, but we are being influenced all the time. Why, when a character in a soap develops an illness or disease is there a huge increase in the instances of it? Why is it, that in the US, where drugs are allowed to be advertised on television, that these suggestive techniques are used to plant the fear of disease into well people’s minds and to get them to rush to buy “preventative” medicine as well as often bringing forth the symptoms of what they fear?

Selling Sickness to the Well
A new book looks at how pharmaceutical companies are using aggressive marketing campaigns to turn more people into patients.

Q. How do you think this is affecting the American psyche?
A. Asclepius was the Greek god for healing and one of his children was Panacea. She is one we all worship—no matter if we’re Jewish or Christian or Muslim. We all want a panacea, particularly if we’re vulnerable or sick. The trouble is that there are vast commercial and professional forces trying to exploit the vulnerability we have and exploit our desire for a panacea. I don’t know what is happening to the American psyche. But I see a country bombarded with advertisements. We’re seeing fear of dis