- - -
I wrote this to the article and the commentators who associate truth with arrogance:
Once people believe something true, it is accepted as a foundation from which to interpret, experience and relate within - as if such an identity is in fact who and what they are and as if the world actually is as their thought defines.
The identity then naturally forms to seek validity and reinforcement and to resist, overcome or avoid threat to what is held to be true and one's self - and thus operates as a distorting filter to the actuality of what we truly are in asserting a bubble reality that can just as well align with fearful self-denying belief as with loving self-extending belief. Indeed belief can operate a reversal of consciousness such that love is redefined as fearful and fear redefined as protective to oneself against 'fearful' love. The 'need' to be right riding roughshod over the will of others just as it does within one's self.
That belief works is evident. The power beneath belief is the power in and of which reality is experienced as point of view. The attempt to manipulate belief or use it as mask merely adds levels of complexity and confusion over what is actually believed.
The belief we have and are a power unto ourself over life and self and others is 'playing out its bubble reality'. But the belief and the wish that causes us to want to accept it is at a cost of a true awareness of the power and nature OF consciousness AS reality - which is unlimited in its integrity as in its scope.
Wholeness IS health. Division and conflict operates sickness as a scam, as a racket. As a device through which to assert power to separate will over Life. Not that this applies to the one suffering their belief for they know not what they do, because they know not who they are.
A commentor wrote:_
"Once people believe something true, it is accepted as a foundation from which to interpret, experience and relate within - as if such an identity is in fact who and what they are and as if the world actually is as their thought defines".
So then challenge your belief system by doing a homeopathic proving. See my response above.
I have experience of homoeopathy 'working' despite or regardless that I did not believe it would work. I cannot tell you 'how' it worked - and I cannot tell you how this ever present moment of awareness exists. In fact there are innumerable aspects of 'how' that are beyond my capacity to know - and as I am not seeking to know in that sense - I don't need to know. I am communicating without knowing 'how' - although the mind can overlay all sorts of models as to what it wants to believe is going on. When people invest exclusively in one true model, they become ignorant of other perspectives and arrogantly seek to prevail. It doesn't matter what the model is, its an investment of identity.
I don't feel any desire or need to prove anything to anyone, nor to apologise or justify my own experience of being - and I extend the same freedom I accept for myself.
Controversy and conflict are attractive and exciting to some. I feel inflammation is a term for sickness. One can scratch it and manage it and make an identity out of it but it is not truly joyous. Each to their own.
A cure is a reawakening of conscious health - not merely management of disease. Materialism limits humanity to mechanism. I'm ok with noticing mechanism in act but not with the drive to control Life thereby. I am still in the Science that seeks to uncover what is already true, rather than assert an establishment model in the name of the one true way. Frankly I see scientific establishments as corrupted by corporate agenda and their ego or self-image. Not that scientist are unworthy but that scientism is used as part of managing perception - which is neither the job of science nor an honourable intent.
Ultimately, whether something is 'true' is not an asserted definition so much as a yielding whatever obstructs awareness of it. I clearly 'come from' a different set of presumptions than you - but that doesn't mean I don't honour your own unique journey of discovery.
I received this in return:
Good on ya'. Its nice to exchange with someone who actually has experience with homeopathy. I didnt read that into your post. I assumed I was dealing with the usual so-called "skeptic" whose understanding of homeopathy is limited to an intellectual level: "its too dilute; it violates the _known_ laws of chemistry and physics therefore it cant work"_
I find it so often, this unwillingness to challenge ones own paradigm. I was there at one point, myself. I decided for other reasons that my life wasnt working, so I decided to start getting out of that box and trying other approaches that challenged my beliefs. Some worked, some didnt but it got me out of my very circumscribed way of thinking and being.
I think a homeopathic proving conducted by "skeptics" would work on two levels. They would have a direct experience which is more powerful than an intellectual understanding AND they would have objective data that they could evaluate.
To one who chose to ridicule our conversation:
Funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks! I guess my 'spirit' needs some kind of a tune-up so I can understand things on a higher level._
Flippancy will one day flop and flip. Enjoy yourself - but of course. But neither you nor anyone do not owns or controls a 'Spirit' and the illusion that you do (as an 'independent thinker' is the basis of believing that your own understanding has usurped it. And while your control reflects your confidence, you may swagger as you will. What is generally presumed to be 'understanding' cannot but eclipse more inclusive perspectives - for all that a higher level is, is a matter of perspective - not of personal status or accomplishment.
Nothing is so blinding as the belief one already knows. When you need to understand on a higher level you will find your own way to access it, but while you don't it is in the pile of discards.
Yielding what we think we know is the way to access perspective. If what you have works for you, why demean or invalidate what others find working for them? Is that not an insecurity on your part? Is resort to ridicule the first sign of an un-owned self questioning?
- - -
"Your dealing with a dog that wont let go of this bone"._
No I am sharing a willingness without coercion or persuasion. The attempt to change others only invokes opposition and defence, whilst revealing one's own need to seek what one must therefore believe one lacks.
The mind in argument with itself sees argument everywhere by putting it there. While victory seems meaningful, such conflict will be treasured. But when it is seen to cost one's treasure, it will be abandoned.
Some things that touched me in times past, flowered in their time of readiness. Who is to judge?
- - -
To others comments on the placebo effect:
Prozac is a placebo with additional payloads. Internal reports revealed placebo to be 100% as effective as prozac. Public reports edited that to 80%. The nocebo is also very effective - such as being told you have only a few months to live. Placebo is much much more pervasive in everything including the 'power of the established reality'. Belief - like so many things - has surface masking complexities and primary core components. As a surface masking persona, you have no capacity to challenge or question or believe core belief because the persona is made OF it and to hide or protect it from exposure.
Consciousness is not the 'hard problem'. It is the soft and permeable Answer - but only to a like willingness and not to the set of rigidly defined self-assertion. Arrogance and ignorance operate self-delusion. Willingness Listens, discerns and conducts.
- - -
Someone responded to my posting with a phrase as if I had written it:
[Hi. I came here to claim that magic is real]
You are welcome to your self-empowerment philosophy. I think you're a loon.
My reply to them:Did I write "I came here to claim that magic is real"?
No - that is a personal interpretation.
Interpretation is a kind of magic. It can make things seem to be other than they are.
That it occurs is real, The experience one gets from it can be considered really experienced, but the interpreted reality is not true.
What I think of you says more about me than it would about you so I use what I think to learn more about what is running beneath my thought.
What you think of me is not my concern. That you extend some sense of a communication is received gratefully.
The power of the mind is unlimited - AND it can create the experience of being an almost powerless but separate mind within an external reality to which it is almost entirely subject. Of course one is free to believe whatever one chooses to accept - but having laid a foundation, the rest will follow within the parameters laid down - unless the foundation is brought into question.
I believe that much of what is generally accepted as 'my thinking' is a sort of surface routine that is a running of background processes that are not true of us at all.