what is REAL?

Can you demonstrate them?
We live in a world of bodies. Threat and harm have no face, no body. They are as real as a child's nightmare.

So there is the traffic cop of probability.

However living things must make distinctions and that ability most functionally is between yes and no. Acceptance and negation.

There is one aspect that is essential to the order of continuous probability and it is a prohibition against not being, because if not being were part of the probable, then nothing would exist.

The proper use of negation is to not invest energy in things that have no substance. Instead, negation is used by and large to cultivate negativity.
This is because people believe in things that do not exist. Instead of genuine negation that would refine our efforts and successes, negation is used to complain and we complicate our understanding through our own pronouncements.

Creation is extension and is a law without opposite, that is, creation creates like itself. It cannot create unlike itself.

Is all physical, life?
Simply, you can speak apart from your true feelings.

Extension by whatever means, is creation.

 

thedope:

This is true, but then they are actions and states, not identities and personalities.

Ideally. They do pass as nightmares do... provided we don't die from them.

lol It is not that actuality permits no 'absolute order', it is the open nature of its 'permission' that there is none!

Lets take the affirmation of life as 'example' ;D. How can we ultimately accept our own deaths when we can't even know them? Philosophizing our ends from sight only then having to face the music when the instruments have had it has been human history, - as far as it is recalled with any certainty! lol

Laughter can contain life, and not just prolong it! ( Words of one who feels old just saying it! lol )

I do not see said prohibition as essential as I do not see an order to probability beyond its continuity.

I agree completely, which is why I deny the existence of threat and harm to life in as much as I do not threaten and harm it, but only that. I do not deign to speak for all experience despite wanting to speak for everyone! ;D

Yes, so what to make of all seeming contradiction? In what way are our multitudes contained? I feel sure the whole humour of humanity is capable of bridging the very worst of its emptinesses - the desire to pass away.

No, but all life is physical, without opposite as you say. The life of the mind need not be confused in reflection.

I can?

 

Nor can harm be invariably demonstrated. It is an abstraction taken from individual perspective.

The order is to allow for all expression.

I don't understand the question.
Acceptance and negation are used in a special sense. What I am describing is not the same as capitulation and resistance. Acceptance in the sense of there being no distinction between you and the thing. What we accept in this sense does not involve affirmation. Conversely, negation when properly exercised is the end false appearances.

Laughter is the product of yes and no in the same place.

You may have seen me write this before.
I am constrained by the self organizing principle of life. It is my only prohibition. In that single prohibition, I may find grace.

Since threat or harm are abstract relating to perspective, you may find yourself harming when you have not intended to harm of threaten.
The improper use of denial.
You uphold what you seek to defend against.

See clearer.

If not all physical is alive, what makes the physical alive?

Very capable. You can read anything without personal investment of passion, but simply by wrote. You may make statements designed to deflect consideration of strong or uncomfortable emotions. You may give responses out of habit. Whether or not you practice things that way is another matter.

 

thedope:

True enough, it must be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate the harm to life in death. lol

Technically speaking, order is expression.

Without affirmation, acceptance is really only assimilation. Life is distinct in its functioning. Appearances are never false, but true by degrees, or consensual 'truth'. The question of how death can be accepted when it can't be known is not meant to be rhetorical.

So is that a yes or no to laughter?! lol

If you can point out to me how such a constraint is a prohibition, you have more grace than I! The self-organizing principle of life does not prohibit 'non-being'! Why would it?! How could it?! lol

In seeking to defend? That accusation is unmerited! My defence stands!
To exercise caution at all costs is too costly to what our courage compels us to!
I am not one to tip-toe on the eggshells of abstraction! Perish the notion of an all-mending metaphysics! lol

You don't mean see as you do, do you? ;D

Complexity become simple enough in itself to approach the self. Extension is not necessarily consciousness per se.

No, my true feelings would retain their nature relative to all of those positions, not apart from them.

 

Life gives way to more life you say.

So technically expression is order, that is why I say the order is to allow for diverse expression. I cannot imagine a better route to joy than to be participating and being allowed to participate. Any thing goes except for annihilation.

I say gravity is equal to magnanimous intent. There is something not being comprehended about the nature of life in that we imagine that reality can be less than real.

The properties of matter are absorptive, reflective, and polarity. You can inhale, you can exhale, and you can retain the breath between. You can lengthen or shorten those elements of the breath in any proportion as long as the order continues.

Is assimilation any less accepting. There is assimilating and there is the state of being assimilated. There is also anti-assimilation, non-assimilation, and re-assimilation.

Are you suggesting that life has a motive?

You do not see with your eyes. Consequently you can see things that are not there and see things in distorted proportions. The eye is the lamp of the body, if the eye be sound, the whole body will be full of light, but if the light in you be darkness, then how great the darkness. Do not judge by appearances, but rather use right judgement.

The answer to your non-rhetorical question has been succinct.

"Acceptance in the sense of there being no distinction between you and the thing. What we accept in this sense does not involve affirmation. Conversely, negation when properly exercised is the end false appearances."

A non romantic view. There is nervous laughter that is not at all funny.

I do not recall asking to appear, nor now that I am with you, can you expunge me form my influence in your life. Creation is a law without opposite, once the caterpillar sheds it's skin it remains a butterfly.

I don't accuse considering our fondness and subject matter. I make comparison.

If your defense stands, you are already attacked and will inevitably attack in return. Are you claiming to be the author or arbitrator of harm?

I question not how to do no harm because harm is without substance, but how to be, truly helpful.

I mean see as you are able. You can see the solution to contradiction.
It is condition. Condition to speak with, contradiction to speak against.

Your words may not reflect at large, elements of your inner life.

 

All these big words and weird sentences are trippin me out lol

 

thedope:

How much allowance do we have for expression? Why can't annihilation go? lol
In seeking singular meaning, it's inevitably lost. But you're not. Your attitude to the matter has me in agreement with you before and past all consideration.

I've been funny enough to say it's that we don't have to die, but I wasn't comprehended, was perhaps not funny enough. lol

Yes, but why does it resist description!? lol Joy? Power? Expression beyond measure?
Itself?..."More"?

I hope you're not suggesting I become death thedope. I'm not grim enough!

Yes, I can think of other laughters that are lacking also, but I'd rather not. lol

You almost make it sound like I'd want to expunge you! lol But it is true friend, I am indebted to you, as to anyone whose understanding is beyond debt.

I'm not sure of how helpful overall it is to say harm is without substance. Overall, what it suggests is more than helpful, it is triumphant, and while I personally grasp it, I can see how difficult it may be for others to do so in thrall to their own suffering. I mean, it's easy enough to tell amputees there is no harm to their lost limbs, but it is so much like declaring "Off with your head!" I do not see the point, overall, in saying life can't be harmed when it can, but I do see the point in saying it needn't be.

There is a subtlety I'm sure you haven't overlooked, that of where speaking 'with' and 'against' lose their respective distinction in the pursuit or playing out of an idea. ;D

They may, and at large, but the extent of reflection must of course be limited by them. They're words after all!




NYdeadhead1993:

Better than trapping you in. I don't know, when the subject is reality, I'm not sure we can do more than make conversation! lol

 

Trippy, ain't it.

 

Everything seeks to be what it is. That is to maintain it's own integrity, from the hardness of a stone to the wall of a cell, to the sense of gratitude as you behold it.

Well to be fair then, it can neither come nor go.

I find unequivocally shared intent in devotion to good.

Well in this instance the punch line doesn't fit. The disparity I refer to is not all physical is alive compared with all life is physical. In my mind that is like saying some physical things are less than real.

 

I don't see that it does. A blossom is quite a statement.

You are homo sapiens, tasting man and knowing man. In those things, you are all measure.

Certainly I sympathize. I would rather keep an open mind.

My point being, even if you wanted to, you could not. Put it another way, we cannot deny the effects of our own thinking.

That is because helpful is a matter of timing, not of matter. The thing that you are is equal to any virtue at any moment. A mind without anxiety is wholly kind. A mind without anxiety perceives the moment without prejudice . To be truly helpful is to be at peace, not to take sides.

Like I say, helpful is a matter of timing. Life cannot be harmed but our illusions about life, are, in jeopardy.

The reason for making the distinction is to remove a barrier that we have erected against the perception of love. Illusion always expresses itself as some justification for separation. We are not nor can we be separate or apart from reality and be real. The defense against harm is an attempt to deal with illusion as though the illusion were real. This has the effect of perpetuating illusion and failing to fundamentally address the problem, which is why despite all our apparent desire to have it otherwise, the problem persists. If we bring illusion to truth, truth simply dispels the illusion.

I mean in plain terms, we are our own arbitrators of condition.
A contradiction is an indecision about what you would see.

We can improve our appreciation of it.

 

thedope:

In my mind it is saying that life is our own reality.

I'm willing to credit resistance its own bliss. Lifes motive resists description to indulge it.

Anxiety then has only one side? The ecstasy of expectation, the prejudice I have for instance that love is nothing but condition and never without it, that the moment itself is perception...I would like to believe in peace! In the deep lasting peace of dreams. But why have all our peaces been stillborns? Is it the doubt in inherent existence that you mention? By the law of identity, only a mind that is wholly kind is wholly kind. Even to anxiety!

What we love altogether of life is more than our illusions about it, so I share in the poetry of such a statement. However, there are possibilities for life that yet fall into the category of illusion in that they currently remain to imagination, and in honour of them and not just the injured, I say only that life needn't be harmed.

The illusory nature of the barrier erected against the perception of love suggests that it is a matter to be regarded in its physicality, specifically that of fear. The measures of 'defence' taken against harm for instance, not all of them are attempts to deal with illusion as though it were reality, but rather with physical effects. The persistence of the problem is not that it is not addressed fundamentally, but that we do not all address it at the same time.

Yes, but by the time we do a new installment has taken place. Or is that precisely what you mean? lol

 

Yet, not life is our reality also?

I like this line. I have something to say about resistance. Nothing is in opposition, creation a law without opposite. It takes two or more to enter the ark of condition. What we resist, persists because we are responding in like kind.

By definition it is the displeasing feeling of fear and concern. The root meaning of the word anxiety is 'to vex or trouble'.

Eager anticipation.

No condition prohibits love and everything is love or the call for it, respiration.

First we dream of peace then awaken to it. Peace is not stillborn, you just dreamed something else before you had awakened.

Self can only be known by self. Otherwise it is called other. An anxious mind has forgotten peace or comfort.

The term illusion refers to a specific form of sensory distortion, an illusion describes a misinterpretation of a true sensation. The ability to create from the abstract quality of mind is not an illusion.

I say if there is no need, then the need addressed is not real.

Taking your example anxiety differs from fear because it is a sense of something menacing out there which is non-existent, whereas fear is a sense towards something objective and real. This kind of biological alertness associated with fight or flight is different from anxiety which is overtly conscious.

Another way of saying that is that it is not addressed consistently. No stillborn, no idle thoughts.
Thoughts manifest through frequency, which is both vibratory presence and duration of that presence. Peace exists where and how much the conditions of peace are met.

Purification, or fundamental change in this respect is accomplished through frequency modulation.

Not a matter of time but of presence.

 

thedope
Damn you are good . are you really a psychologist ? if yes!
how much you take for a hour . is it real after years of working you get crazy because of influence story of many clients ? in my country we make joke of you and calling them crazy doctors .

 

I am a yoga teacher/lay person.

 

Oh and my girlfriend says I'm a pederass.

 

Best line. Think happy thoughts.

 

thedope:

Its own before ours.
The physical is not necessarily alive, but life is necessarily physical.

Creation a law without opposite. I've liked that since I first heard you say it/saw you write it. I'd point out though, in fun (forgiving the 'fundamentals' of the written word in noun and verb,) the apparition of disparity existing between creation as conscious act and extant state, between the willing and willed, or even just the inevitability of both, of either, of there always being more to the "or". The implication being that creation is also a law of unending opposites! lol Are cause and effect really the same truth? Yes and no. Words, I ask you! :-D

But what is peace but our peaces, the collective make-up of our content? You are right though, it is never stillborn. Dead ends are a bad enough thought without that of non-beginnings! lol

Yes, imagination is real.

You know, I could well have committed a couple of clumsinesses in my post according to how one might have comprehended them. ;-D
The first, in not articulating the possibilities for life remaining to imagination that I mentioned, at least in not specifying I meant those that support life, those that remain only in that they require our whole beauty.
The second was in dilineating, or not dilineating to something of an open distinction, the 'category of illusion' from illusion, or misinterpretation, with which you correctly equate it. At the risk of appearing verbose...I won't. lol

What is unnecessary is not necessary, but that does not disclude its actuality as possibility.

Is one thing needful? Or does infinity simply...go on? :-D

You nearly had me capitulating! lol The proclamation "Life cannot be harmed!" has a kind of irresistable appeal to me! But how can I deny life its definition 'in part'? How can I turn away from its specifics, the parts of its sum...in short, how can I deny lives? If everything were just an idea, and not also more than an idea, ie. a reality, I'd have no qualms. I will never however let the encumbrance of qualms detract from the fact that I love that it is said.

I'm tempted to speak technically again here, but the type won't hold my tones don't you know. :-D

andrew45:

thedope's no shrink, he's his own extension!

 

Upon further review, I find since physical is a common denominator for both what is alive and what is not alive, then what distinguishes between them is animation , life having signaling and self sustaining properties. Animal is animated but what animates animal is mind or animus.

On deepest inspection I find the apparently inanimate to have those same qualities, motion, signaling and self sustaining properties. Inertia, density, and friction are just as lively as anything I can fashion.

The body is a communication device not a life generator. The physical is necessary for condition, not for mind. Gravity, intent, precedes aggregation. Animus animates animal. Animus also implies physical.
The thought comes first.

Creation is both wave and particle. A wave oscillates at a certain frequency between two poles or extremes. When you look point to point incrementally along the wave you see a degree of intensity within the wave. You see a rainbow of color when you put these points together again as wave. That is everything has a spectral identity. A spectrum of possible appearances within the wave, from absolute zero, to the speed of light.

What we see is not opposites but high and low, positive and negative poles of the same phenomena.

Are cause and effect the same truth, yes.

 

Continuing,
Yes within the span of a breath, inhalation, exhalation, and retention.

Sometimes I answer indirectly, not to be coy but to introduce theoretical underpinnings.

Peace, is what you want, from all your pieces.

No harm in considering any refection.

Life must be physical?

I like what you say as well. You needn't deny anything real. Creation is a ray, thought, word, and deed. Everything is an idea but just as in exclusive doesn't speak for all. For ideas to manifest, takes effort toward a desired aim. Thought must be articulated to become animate. Not in the sense of actually speaking but translating thought into action in some manner. Frequency is tone and duration. We are durable to the extent that we endure.

I mean presence in the sense of extant as opposed to clocked, if that is what you mean.