[Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

OH YA ! wanna fight about it ! LOL , i dont.

On May 3, 2:59 pm, DarkwaterBlight <douglas.bli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfourtunately, TTS, independently the cells do not and would not
> exist as life per say but rather mere dead cells and without thier
> counterparts they're just dust in the wind... Likewise, if you were to
> remove your blood cells, for instance, from your independent cell self
> you would die. Other life forms would be required for your life to be
> sustained. Furthermore, if it were not for the cells that are requred
> to nourish your body and sustain your life, your energy would be
> released and become a part of the collective energy fields and your
> cells would be transfered and converted into different forms of matter
> and energy according to the laws of conservation of matter and energy
> and the laws of thermodynamics. Need I go on?
>
> On May 3, 1:58 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > the human body is made of millions of independant living and dieing
> > cells that make me an independant life form constructed of independant
> > life
>
> > On May 3, 10:03 am, DarkwaterBlight <douglas.bli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > To answer in terms of clarity; A "collective" of any sort cannot exist
> > > "independently". Likewise, all that is has purpose and exists
> > > collectively and even though I may reject a notion as being "real" or
> > > "truth" it exists as real and truth for those who accept it as such.
> > > Perhaps even more real and true as a result of those who relent
> > > against such notions as it brings conflict and re enforces and
> > > solidifies for those who hold these beliefs. To accept all as being or
> > > taking the middle path is a good start to understanding a "collective
> > > consciousness" because it neither accepts or rejects any knowledge,
> > > wisdom or thought but just is, as life is! Not something to be
> > > possesed, life that is, because we cannot keep it we just are it.
> > > Gabby, Rigsy and Om hit on some great points btw and this is just my
> > > personal understanding of things so, for what it's worth, I hope I
> > > helped to answer your questions.
>
> > > On May 2, 12:57 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my mind about collective
> > > > consciousness...rather a question...does the collective consciousness exist
> > > > independently...what does it mean exactly...to put it crudely is it the
> > > > realisation that you are not the only phenomena..but what i feel is....it is
> > > > very difficult to transcend ones own person...but is it important....why do
> > > > we really get irritated with self absorbed or self seeking people....why do
> > > > we condemn selfishness..in any sense...are we so insecure as to feel
> > > > deprived because of that ...or is it something more.. i hope i make sense..
> > > > and i hope you get waht i am trying to ask...i would like all to
> > > > answer...cos i really want to know....
>
> > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight <douglas.bli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually changing, evolving
> > > > > and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an expanded "mind
> > > > > space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is to be said about
> > > > > rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be correct by the
> > > > > standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the bar" in
> > > > > consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more correct thinking of
> > > > > our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into thought and mind is
> > > > > this not the desired effect?
>
> > > > > On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it ....what is the
> > > > > realm
> > > > > > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and
> > > > > > rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that
> > > > > thought...because
> > > > > > ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the mind will
> > > > > > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does know....
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <nis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >  Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking separates, in
> > > > > > > subject-object relationship.
> > > > > > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process. Thinking about
> > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a vicious circle. You
> > > > > > > cannot think
> > > > > > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never take you to the
> > > > > > > Truth.
> > > > > > > But when you direct your thought to something (say yourself) which you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics and limits, and
> > > > > > > stands
> > > > > > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is thus reduced
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > its essence.
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -