Bring4th

Hello friends,

I've thought about this for a while and would be interested to see what you think. There is the idea in new age thinking that the truth (or may we say, facts) are actually relative rather than definite. That is- what is true for you is your truth and may not be true for someone else. I am not sure if this was ever touched upon in The Law of One or not, but there are several things in the Law of One that might make this possible. The first is infinity. That infinity exists allows for any possible reality to exist. And the second is that all is, literally, one. This implies that reality is illusory or perhaps holographic in nature and thus anything is possible just as you can imagine anything you like.

I understand this only in concept. In real life it makes no sense to me, really. There are several things that I could list as example that could not possibly not be true for anyone, such as the fact that the United States of America exists, that there are oceans on Earth, or that The Godfather Pt.2 was by far the best of the trilogy.

Ok, the last one is debatable, but can anyone help me understand the first two, or this concept of all truths being true?

not... the right word for that is "axiom": a true that dont require demonstration

this is a concept that resonates strongly with me, as does the illusory, holographic nature of reality

I think I understand what you're saying. All truths are going to be true about our species' thoughtforms. Let me explain. The U.S. of A. is a thoughtform by our species. It is an "entity" created by our mind, a shared idea. Many different people know many different "facts" about this entity. One person can say the U.S. does not have mountains. Another person can say that the U.S. touches the ocean. Both of these things, if the person saying them believes them, are true to that person because the U.S. is different in that person's mind, conforms to that person's will to be true to them. Before you say "Well it is a fact that the U.S. has mountains and touches the sea. That's true. So if someone were to say that it doesn't have mountains or doesn't touch the sea, it would be false." I would say that those two things are only true for our shared version of the U.S. thoughtform.

This brings me to universal truths. A civilization on another planet knows nothing of the U.S. Therefore, on our planet, we have the U.S. thoughtform which exists as one entity in billions of different realities (heads), experiencing a "life" in each one of those, and if we look at our created entity, is both true that the U.S. does and doesn't have mountains, does and doesn't touch the sea, and on and on to infinity. The U.S. just experiences itself as ideas in different heads learning about itself with different forms of truths. But universal truths must be different. If there is something universal that all intelligent species recognize, then it must be one truth. Perhaps there isn't such a thing that everyone can agree on. Maybe God, or, the Self's Spirit, is one Truth told throughout the universe in zillions of different ways. So maybe there is no one constant truth, and all truths are true. Or maybe there is only one truth, and it can only be expressed through countless partial truths.

My head's spinning!

I fully agree with you Lavazza, you also Aaron. Respect!

A third perspective:
Imagine infinity, all is possible nothing is manifest. Within its potential are states that can exist because they are consistent on the inside. They may be opposed by other states but they're still true. Like a book. The fact that you're reading a book about dragons doesn't stop us from saying it was a convincing book if it was. The story can be consistent and you could then say it exists in potentiality. It just cannot co exist with our known reality. (no dragons allowed) But it exists, and from its perspective our reality cannot exist.

No matter how you manifest a state from the infinite potential it will always be consistent. It will always be different. And it will always be a place someone calls his life. And it will also always be intricately linked with all other potential un-manifested states.

Our world seems very consistent because we synchronized ourselves to a large degree with the people around us. But look deeper. Things happen to people that cannot exist for other people. These inconsistencies usually don't meet, and if they meet they are usually like initiations leaving a mark on the life of an individual.

We're the bridges between the worlds, the knots in the dream web.

And this is why you see what you see and I see what I see. Why you're you and I'm me. And it's also why so much in our shared world seems objective truth. It is shared truth. In it's very essence our shared creation.

We're all artists on this great canvas of life, each painting different parts of the big picture.

Thank you for that perspective, Ali. Your thoughts are beautiful, and I resonate very much with them. Welcome back by the way!

Hey Aaron: Thanks for mulling this over with me. I believe I understand what you are saying for the most part- Someone on a different planet has absolutely zero information about the USA on Earth, and therefore to that person it does not exist. But we could say the same thing about Earth's oceans which is probably the best example to look at. Someone off-world could also know nothing of oceans here and to him they would not exist- until he traveled in a space ship to Earth and saw that they were there, in which case they would exist. Yet another way of saying the same thing is that that person didn't believe oceans were here, but was simply wrong. In that sense "all truths" were infact *not* true. But this begs the next question, if all entities in the universe including those on Earth were 100% convinced there were no oceans on Earth, would there still be oceans? We're bordering on further paradox here, at least in my limited understanding!

Hey Ali: Essentially we're talking about the parallel dimensions / realities or multi-verse idea, right? So the idea is, that infinity exists. Because it exists everything conceivable also exists. Nothing doesn't exist in this framework... So in a way everything can be true at the same time. I suppose this is a solution but we must admit that this is quite a different idea than the one in my first post about everything being true, as it is implied to be in one universe since multi-universes are not mentioned.

If you would both humor me for a little while longer- I think there is more fat here we can chew. Setting aside the multi-verse for a minute, how can we further explain this concept with regards to a shared reality? For example, we have a great thread called 'Hellfire' in which many thoughtful posts explain how Hell is really just a controlling device made by humans (or perhaps in part by Orion entities). Yet for millions of people, hell is 100% real. How can believers in this concept and non-believers both be right? Or can we conclude that as far as consensus, shared reality is concerned, all truths are not true?

Or, just one more example, there were points in time where there were no humans alive who were aware that the Earth is actually a sphere. I'm talking back before it was ever even conceived of. But, the earth was a sphere back then I think we can agree. Quite confusing!

Maybe the multi-verse is the only place where this 'all truths are true' concept makes any sense. But if that's true, why even bother using the concept as long as you exist in one universe at a time?

perhaps it is the concept of truth that is at the core of your question here, what is truth? to me a truth cannot be isolated from the experiencer. it reminds me of some of the questions posed by quantumn physics, the paradoxes and the influence of the observer on the outcome

my thoughts tend towards there being no absolute truths, truth is always relative to the entity experiencing / observing / commenting upon it, and thus there is the capacity for all truths to be valid

I would offer that there are indeed Universal Laws or 'truths' that we are all subject to either consciously or otherwise. The false 3D notion of truth is one of consensus of the majority. If a matter is agreed upon by 51% of the social group this will generally be accepted as a 'truth' despite the flawed message. Using this mechanism the human race has been programmed to be kept 'in the dark'.
Universal truths are multi-faceted. They expose much 'surface area' to the light and thus can be seen in moments of stillness. They resonate with your higher self.
Most humans look to others selves in the social mirror for their 'truths'. I believe the path of the adept begins with the 'looking within' and the discovery of these Laws of our most ingenious Creator.

Love & Light

Quote:But this begs the next question, if all entities in the universe including those on Earth were 100% convinced there were no oceans on Earth, would there still be oceans? We're bordering on further paradox here, at least in my limited understanding!

If all entities in the universe were 100% convinced that there were no oceans on earth, and were somehow closed off from "discovering" that there were oceans, then any experience having to do with oceans, from sensing to conceptualizing, would be ignored. Perhaps when an ocean is experienced in some way, the experience remains essential, fragmented, and ethereal instead of being consolidated into and labeled by the intelligence as the concept of "ocean". I don't think that one could conceptualize "ocean" if one had never experienced anything like it and was incapable of discovering it. So, if every entity in the universe was 100% convinced of no oceans, and was prevented from discovering them, they would not exist.

This is amazing to me. We can take this even deeper and see from this that our human intelligence cannot conceptualize of any new idea unless it experiences through sensory input (emotions included) something in the creation. Our brains are the blank sheets that the projector is aimed at, and a slide has to be put in the projector in order for something to be displayed, you see? If an entity were closed off to "ocean" and yet was swimming through one, "ocean" remains in potential, unknown by the entity. To that entity, "ocean" is part of the Tao unmanifested. Do you see the parallel here? As a planetary entity, we swim through an ocean of cosmic love and knowledge that we know nothing of. We're closed off to it. It's unrealized to us right now. Basically, we are all experiencing everything in the universe, but because of our particular level of consciousness, we are only capable of being aware of a finite amount at this time. What raises our level of consciousness? What causes us to become more aware, to evolve? What causes the entity experiencing the ocean to suddenly realize that it is ocean and conceptualize the idea of "ocean" in the head? I think that's directly controlled by our Higher Self.

Quote:If you would both humor me for a little while longer- I think there is more fat here we can chew. Setting aside the multi-verse for a minute, how can we further explain this concept with regards to a shared reality? For example, we have a great thread called 'Hellfire' in which many thoughtful posts explain how Hell is really just a controlling device made by humans (or perhaps in part by Orion entities). Yet for millions of people, hell is 100% real. How can believers in this concept and non-believers both be right? Or can we conclude that as far as consensus, shared reality is concerned, all truths are not true?

Hell means many different things to many different people. We're not unified on the idea. We might as well have a million different words for hell because when each person says it, there may be a slightly different or radically different concept behind the word. In that way, every hell is 100% real to the person who wills it to be 100% real to them. Likewise, every non-believer is right because their concept of hell is a no-hell. If they have no knowledge of it, it doesn't exist as per my whole ocean deal up above. lol If the concept has been shared with them, they will morph that concept into one that's compatible with them, even if it's a "hell doesn't exist" hell, the concept is still there. Something's still filling that brain space, so to speak, that is 100% true to them.

Quote:Or, just one more example, there were points in time where there were no humans alive who were aware that the Earth is actually a sphere. I'm talking back before it was ever even conceived of. But, the earth was a sphere back then I think we can agree. Quite confusing!

I would say that the concept of the sphere shaped Earth didn't exist to early humanity. (Once again, see "oceans" above haha) Or I could word it positively instead of negatively and say that the concept of the sphere shaped Earth was only known to early humanity as the unmanifested Tao. That is, we knew it, but we didn't KNOW it, if you catch my drift. Because all truths are true! Everything that can be known is known (whether realized or unrealized) simply because it can be known! Mind bending.

Hi Lavazza, et. al.,

It seems that we may be confusing knowledge, beliefs, and truths. What is interesting is that within 3D we really have no access to truths, only “knowledge” of what is experienced and “beliefs” about what is not experienced but is suspected. Over time, our beliefs may become our knowledge, but neither of these have anything at all to do with the underlying truth.

Consider the infant, newly learning about his/her world. For the infant, nothing is known or believed, all must be experienced and assimilated. This process of assimilation of experience is used to build in the infant’s mind a model of how the world works. According to the Law of One, this new experience or catalyst can be thought of as being processed through various archetypes of the mind and body.

”Ra, Book IV, Session 92” Wrote:Questioner: Turning, then, to my analogy or example of the newborn infant and its undistorted Matrix of the Mind, this newborn infant has its subconscious mind veiled from the Matrix of the Mind. The second archetype, the Potentiator of the Mind, is going to act at some time through the veil—though I hesitate to say through the veil since I don’t think that is a very good way of stating it—but the Potentiator of the Mind will act to create a condition such as the example I mentioned of the infant touching a hot object. The hot object we could take as random catalyst. The infant can either leave its hand on the hot object or rapidly remove it. My question is, is the Potentiator of the Mind involved at all in this experience and, if so, how?

Ra: I am Ra. The Potentiator of Mind and of Body are both involved in the questing of the infant for new experience. The mind/body/spirit complex which is an infant has one highly developed portion which may be best studied by viewing the Significators of Mind and Body. You notice we do not include the spirit. That portion of a mind/body/spirit complex is not reliably developed in each and every mind/body/spirit complex. Thusly the infant’s significant self, which is the harvest of biases of all previous incarnational experiences, offers to this infant biases with which to meet new experience.

Note in particular the emphasized lines. Each person’s significant self in mind, body, and as it develops spirit, is the result of all previous incarnational experiences. So even when we first graduate to 3D and take on the spiritual aspects of the mind/body/spirit complex, we are already the product of previous incarnations and experiences. This set of experiences, is enhanced by the racial or planetary mind which provides the new self access to a vast fund of knowledge and experiences based upon all those that have come before.

“Ra Book IV, Session 91 Wrote:Questioner: What is the origin of the planetary or racial mind?

Ra: I am Ra. This racial or planetary mind is, for this Logos, a repository of biases remembered by the mind/body/spirit complexes which have enjoyed the experience of this planetary influence.
Questioner: Now, some entities on this planet evolved from second density into third and some were transferred from other planets to recycle in third density here. Did the ones who were transferred here to recycle in third density add to the planetary or racial mind?

Ra: I am Ra. Not only did each race add to the planetary mind but also each race possesses a racial mind. Thus we made this distinction in discussing this portion of mind. This portion of mind is formed in the series of seemingly non-simultaneous experiences which are chosen in freedom of will by the mind/body/spirit complexes of the planetary influence. Therefore, although this Akashic, planetary, or racial mind is indeed a root of mind it may be seen in sharp differentiation from the deeper roots of mind which are not a function of altering memory, if you will.

So Lavazza, what I think you are seeing as truth is instead a set of knowledge that you gained based upon a consensus experience of how to view the world that you developed over many incarnations and also inherited from the general consensus of those that have lived here before. I think that this also gets at the root, if you will, of your question on another thread about non-understanding, because it is impossible to understand the Law of One, which is a fundamental and foundational TRUTH, from within 3D where all we actually have is consensus KNOWLEDGE which is built upon the house of cards of our singular and collective experiences.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

(03-29-2010, 11:23 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Ali: Essentially we're talking about the parallel dimensions / realities or multi-verse idea, right?

Yes.

Quote:So the idea is, that infinity exists. Because it exists everything conceivable also exists.

Precisely.

Quote: Nothing doesn't exist in this framework...

"Existence" is something that is relative to something else. An object taken on it's own always exists. Whether it exists relative to you is a variable. If you hold a book. And the main character has a talking horse, then the question if the horse exists is actually if the horse exists relative to your world. Which it doesn't. But if you ask the question for the main character it does exist. Better stated, it does actually exist for you, as a fictional entity in a book. But this does not contradict add to or remove from the existence of the horse relative to the main character.

Quote:So in a way everything can be true at the same time. I suppose this is a solution but we must admit that this is quite a different idea than the one in my first post about everything being true, as it is implied to be in one universe since multi-universes are not mentioned.

You're right I have difficulty switching to the one universe metaphor.

Quote:If you would both humor me for a little while longer- I think there is more fat here we can chew. Setting aside the multi-verse for a minute, how can we further explain this concept with regards to a shared reality? For example, we have a great thread called 'Hellfire' in which many thoughtful posts explain how Hell is really just a controlling device made by humans (or perhaps in part by Orion entities). Yet for millions of people, hell is 100% real. How can believers in this concept and non-believers both be right? Or can we conclude that as far as consensus, shared reality is concerned, all truths are not true?

I would suggest that maybe the shared reality as an external "object" is not how I would look at it. I would consider shared reality that part of our perspective that is synchronized to the point where it makes sense to us to communicate to each other how to deal with it. There is no central object, but our synchronisation and creation seems as if there is precisely such an object.

No doubt you know the story about the blind folded philosophers and the elephant. Just like to each of them the elephant is a different thing. To each of us shared reality or our perspective on it is a different thing. We call it shared because it is conceptually the same. Our logic can argue about it and when we communicate the logic it fits from multiple perspectives. This is what it means, nothing more.

Quote:Or, just one more example, there were points in time where there were no humans alive who were aware that the Earth is actually a sphere. I'm talking back before it was ever even conceived of. But, the earth was a sphere back then I think we can agree. Quite confusing!

How would you know the earth was a sphere or even that she is? From our perspective it could be a sphere. Meaning that if we take our perspective millions of years into the past it would to our perspective still be a sphere. But our perspective did not exist then. So how can you be certain it was actually a sphere?

It's a sphere to you now. But do you think it's a sphere to a cow now? To a cow it would be a huge curvy plane and if the cow walks long enough in one direction he ends up at the same spot on the plane. Two realities, both true. Both not the same, and both not contradictory. A rock would perceive the earth as a field, time flows differently for it. It shares our reality and does not contradict.

Quote:Maybe the multi-verse is the only place where this 'all truths are true' concept makes any sense. But if that's true, why even bother using the concept as long as you exist in one universe at a time?

I honestly don't think you exist in one universe at a time. You think so, your mind tells you this is so. But you're a multidimensional entity in truth.

A question that comes to my mind is: Do you feel the multiple universes in a multiverse are like single universes separated from each other? Because the thing about parallel universes is well, that they're not exactly parallel. Parallel implies geometrical orientation. They're also not strictly universes in that they're not separated (not uni) and not all(versal). Each universe is another way of viewing the same singularity. A perspective. A change in one universe will change every other universe.

Incidentally, since February it seems everyone started asking this question.

(03-30-2010, 12:23 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that we may be confusing knowledge, beliefs, and truths. [...]
So Lavazza, what I think you are seeing as truth is instead a set of knowledge that you gained based upon a consensus experience of how to view the world that you developed over many incarnations and also inherited from the general consensus of those that have lived here before. I think that this also gets at the root, if you will, of your question on another thread about non-understanding, because it is impossible to understand the Law of One, which is a fundamental and foundational TRUTH, from within 3D where all we actually have is consensus KNOWLEDGE which is built upon the house of cards of our singular and collective experiences.

Hey 3D, great to see you here again!

Yes, it's entirely possible that I am confused on the point of truth vs. knowledge and also perhaps beliefs. Maybe a better heading for this thread would have been "All beliefs are true?". For this is primarily what has caused my to become confused about the idea. I really like how you have laid out the three levels of understanding... Beliefs first (conjectures about the way it is), knowledge second (observations about the way it is) and finally truth (actual knowing / experiencing / being the way it is). This framework helps a lot! From this I would suggest that yes, all truths must be true because there is no way a truth could become one without being one already. This also at the same time makes more sense out of the flat-earth vs. round-earth belief systems and that although groups of entities may be completely convinced of something, it may not in actuality be that way.

Ali Wrote:I would suggest that maybe the shared reality as an external "object" is not how I would look at it. I would consider shared reality that part of our perspective that is synchronized to the point where it makes sense to us to communicate to each other how to deal with it. There is no central object, but our synchronisation and creation seems as if there is precisely such an object.

No doubt you know the story about the blind folded philosophers and the elephant. Just like to each of them the elephant is a different thing. To each of us shared reality or our perspective on it is a different thing. We call it shared because it is conceptually the same. Our logic can argue about it and when we communicate the logic it fits from multiple perspectives. This is what it means, nothing more.

You've summarized shared reality very well! And yes- I always loved the story about the elephant and the blind men. It's a great reflection to us about how much we actually know about all there is.

Ali Wrote:How would you know the earth was a sphere or even that she is? From our perspective it could be a sphere. Meaning that if we take our perspective millions of years into the past it would to our perspective still be a sphere. But our perspective did not exist then. So how can you be certain it was actually a sphere?

It's a sphere to you now. But do you think it's a sphere to a cow now? To a cow it would be a huge curvy plane and if the cow walks long enough in one direction he ends up at the same spot on the plane. Two realities, both true. Both not the same, and both not contradictory. A rock would perceive the earth as a field, time flows differently for it. It shares our reality and does not contradict.

I understand where you're going with this idea, but I do have to say that I think it underscores 3D Sunset's point about our mixing terminology quite well. The cow's reality may not include the idea of a spherical Earth, or anything past the horizon for that matter and yet although she is unaware of anything else, else still exists in a factual sense. Much in the same way as our physical space-time universe geometry might be flat, curved in to a sphere, torus or some other complex shape and we cannot perceive it. So the cow's beliefs and knowledge support that the universe is the field she is grazing in, although her beliefs and knowledge is limited.

Quote:I honestly don't think you exist in one universe at a time. You think so, your mind tells you this is so. But you're a multidimensional entity in truth.

I have little doubt my friend. I've been purposely steering the conversation away from multiple dimensions simply because for the most part I have heard the theory of all truths being true from people in the context of our shared reality (or uni-verse). On topics from moon bases to how the coming havest will go down. Now that I'm seeing that it really can't work with one reality (or so I speculate at this point) I am open to looking at how it fits in with many. But I think you've already done a good job of doing that.

Quote:A question that comes to my mind is: Do you feel the multiple universes in a multiverse are like single universes separated from each other? Because the thing about parallel universes is well, that they're not exactly parallel. Parallel implies geometrical orientation. They're also not strictly universes in that they're not separated (not uni) and not all(versal). Each universe is another way of viewing the same singularity. A perspective. A change in one universe will change every other universe.

Incidentally, since February it seems everyone started asking this question.

I actually don't have much information on how multiple verses work although I have heard some theories. Do you have any good links you could point me to? (hopefully audio or video links so I can listen while I'm at work- not as much time to actually read things). Who else has been thinking about this since Feb? It wouldn't surprise me, I think we're collectively thinking more on common lines at this forum as time goes on. SMC pre-school if you will.

Great thoughts, everyone!

(03-31-2010, 01:26 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]The cow's reality may not include the idea of a spherical Earth, or anything past the horizon for that matter and yet although she is unaware of anything else, else still exists in a factual sense.

Does it really make sense to think about what exists outside your framework if you know in advance that your framework makes it what it is?

I know this is an insane concept. But think about it. If your mind dictates what you see, how can you even ask yourself what the reality is like without the mind?

A table is a massive wooden object. A table is mostly a vacuum filled with moving points of energy. A table is a wave form. A table is an intellectual idea, a table is a place to exist at. But what ever a table is... you need someone to see it as such before it is guaranteed to be anything at all.

Quote:Much in the same way as our physical space-time universe geometry might be flat, curved in to a sphere, torus or some other complex shape and we cannot perceive it. So the cow's beliefs and knowledge support that the universe is the field she is grazing in, although her beliefs and knowledge is limited.

I have started to look at this differently. Her perspective is limited. But that does not mean she sees more or less. She just sees differently.

You know how saints and mystics explain to us how time and space are products of our minds? So how can something be a sphere, if we create it's sphereness during our act of "existing in relation to it"?

Quote:I have little doubt my friend. I've been purposely steering the conversation away from multiple dimensions simply because for the most part I have heard the theory of all truths being true from people in the context of our shared reality (or uni-verse). On topics from moon bases to how the coming havest will go down. Now that I'm seeing that it really can't work with one reality (or so I speculate at this point) I am open to looking at how it fits in with many. But I think you've already done a good job of doing that.

It can't work with one reality. It isn't working with one reality! If you have a string of rope that is woven into a larger cable. Then by following the string you follow the cable, the string always exists inside the large cable twisting and turning as the cable does. Until you come to the end of the cable. The cable doesn't actually break. It just stops being one cable its parts separate ways.

The string then goes it's own way. It can be woven back into another large cable. What will happen is the earths soul cable will be split into a few different cables each of those will be put into new worlds appropriate for the particular soul threads inside the cable.

I now am speaking in a phone companies terminology... I'm sorry I have nothing better. It's also metaphorically, there is nothing that looks like a cable. It just represents the behavior well.

(03-31-2010, 01:26 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]I actually don't have much information on how multiple verses work although I have heard some theories. Do you have any good links you could point me to?

It's not actually hard.... The biggest issue is that you'll really have to dump the old paradigm. The two are not compatible. And I notice that people keep mixing up the paradigms when trying to think about this.

Quote:(hopefully audio or video links so I can listen while I'm at work- not as much time to actually read things).

I'm sorry, I know nothing that really explains this clearly. The best you can do is read certain passages in the hitchikers guide. But in reality they're only hinting at this and it's then not isolated from the rest of the chaos that douglas adams puts into his books.

Can you imagine two playing fields in two separate universes? Sharing one soccer ball? Can you imagine that it would be possible for four teams to play with the ball at the same time without noticing something is wrong? All kicking and movement of the ball is synchronized and exactly the same in both universes. All teams feel they're in control. Yet in one universe the end score is different than in the other! Because the score is dictated by the spectators and the teams. And only "almost completely" by the movement of the ball.

Note that there is only one ball, it is shared by universes and bridges these universes together.

It seems impossible, the odds against this working out in a classical understanding are astronomical.. But odds are relative to our world. Not relative to the larger psychoverse. This is the essence of synchronicity. It drives creation.

To create, we synchronize our perceptions. When enough people see the same thing we call it real and factual.

(03-31-2010, 01:26 AM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Who else has been thinking about this since Feb? It wouldn't surprise me, I think we're collectively thinking more on common lines at this forum as time goes on. Social Memory Complex pre-school if you will.

I think so... And not just at this forum. It was some contacts on another forum, some people I met the other day in real life. I just thought it to be odd for various people to come up with such an abstract topic.

I think the idea is pushing unto our world it's slipping into the minds of people. A kind of preschool as you say Our minds are not isolated spaces. We perceive the thoughts around us, and the thoughts important to our world. And those with the strongest affinity will pick them up first and guide others by writing books and movies about them. Not always as a conscious choice. Often as an inspiration representing the global dream.

(03-31-2010, 08:29 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Does it really make sense to think about what exists outside your framework if you know in advance that your framework makes it what it is? I know this is an insane concept. But think about it. If your mind dictates what you see, how can you even ask yourself what the reality is like without the mind?

It's not that insane, in fact Alan Watts made use of this thinking quite often in his writing. He makes a good point in saying that the concept of seperate objects is an illusion created by our society. You could never, for example, describe an ant colony without also describing it's environment. In much the same way I can see your point in this. Without brains, eyes, ears, taste buds, etc. the "reality" is nothing more than various complex patterns of vibration, which runs right in to your next point:

(03-31-2010, 08:29 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]A table is a massive wooden object. A table is mostly a vacuum filled with moving points of energy. A table is a wave form. A table is an intellectual idea, a table is a place to exist at. But what ever a table is... you need someone to see it as such before it is guaranteed to be anything at all.

Not just a vacuum but almost completely a vacuum. The whole of creation is in much the same way- a massive and highly sophisticated, complex pattern of atoms, which are nearly entirely devoid of matter to the point where describing the universe as matter doesn't make nearly as much sense as describing it as energy, patterns, etc. When Confederation entities call our physical reality an illusion they can now be proven correct by cutting edge, and even 20th century physics.

Quote:I have started to look at this differently. Her perspective is limited. But that does not mean she sees more or less. She just sees differently. You know how saints and mystics explain to us how time and space are products of our minds? So how can something be a sphere, if we create it's sphereness during our act of "existing in relation to it"?

Although I still can't accept certain things as being possible (at least in my reality, ha!) I also understand that if they were true, I would not be able to understand how they could be. But just because I take that approach does not mean that my interpretation is the correct one. On the other hand, I can intellectually accept that the concept of infinity in terms of other realities implies that every possible combination of things actually exists. (On a side note this is somewhat disturbing when I consider that the events in James Cameron's 1986 'Aliens' actually took place in some other reality). Of course I still can't understand how in an infinite combination of realities there is a reality where people go to hell, or that god doesn't exist, etc. Paradoxes abound.

I would also like to underscore once again that I can only just grasp this sort of understanding, but that I'm cool with that. Here's an amazing article about a theory of Steven Hawkings', in which he explains how the universe may have retroactively selected it's own evolution in order to come in to existence (the observer effect in quantum mechanics requires an observer for things to come in to existence. For the big bang to happen would require an observer of which there were obviously none pre-bang. But if you toss out the concept of time it is possible.)

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617

It's exciting to me that physics can confirm our esoteric conjectures.

Quote:Can you imagine two playing fields in two separate universes? Sharing one soccer ball? Can you imagine that it would be possible for four teams to play with the ball at the same time without noticing something is wrong? All kicking and movement of the ball is synchronized and exactly the same in both universes. All teams feel they're in control. Yet in one universe the end score is different than in the other! Because the score is dictated by the spectators and the teams. And only "almost completely" by the movement of the ball.

Note that there is only one ball, it is shared by universes and bridges these universes together.

It seems impossible, the odds against this working out in a classical understanding are astronomical.. But odds are relative to our world. Not relative to the larger psychoverse. This is the essence of synchronicity. It drives creation.

Pyschoverse! I love that term, I may have to use that later I can understand how that ball example would work, considering infinity. In the face of infinity, the odds of that happening are overwhelmingly likely. Not just with four different games, but trillions of them. Even that would be a mote. Numbers fail utterly in the face of infinity.

Thanks for humoring me on this subject. Infinity is fun.

(03-26-2010, 05:47 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Hello friends,

I've thought about this for a while and would be interested to see what you think. There is the idea in new age thinking that the truth (or may we say, facts) are actually relative rather than definite. That is- what is true for you is your truth and may not be true for someone else. I am not sure if this was ever touched upon in The Law of One or not, but there are several things in the Law of One that might make this possible. The first is infinity. That infinity exists allows for any possible reality to exist. And the second is that all is, literally, one. This implies that reality is illusory or perhaps holographic in nature and thus anything is possible just as you can imagine anything you like.

I understand this only in concept. In real life it makes no sense to me, really. There are several things that I could list as example that could not possibly not be true for anyone, such as the fact that the United States of America exists, that there are oceans on Earth, or that The Godfather Pt.2 was by far the best of the trilogy.

Ok, the last one is debatable, but can anyone help me understand the first two, or this concept of all truths being true?

Oh ! How did I miss this wonderful discussion. I must check OLIO more often now

I think it can also be the perspective that changes the truth. In our 3D reality the truth is known only in the small slices. We don't get the whole truth. we just see a side view so to speak. Someone else may have the other side and another may have the other slice. Why do we think there are so many religion all claiming to correct. And at their origin unadulterated point they are actually all true to their truth. It reminds me of the story of the 5 men with blindfolds who were discovering an elephant. They all got a side of the standing elephant. One men said the truth is like a big ear, another said it is like a big tusk and another said it like a big pillar. They were all correct while no one had the entire truth.

We the humans live on the planet earth thinking we all have the same reality but is it? Your reality depends upon your belief system. You see what you believe in. It is like that experiment I heard about.

A group of flies were born and raised inside a glass box. They had all they needed to survive inside that box. The learned to fly inside that box. They had the freedom to fly anywhere inside the box. Then the box was removed. The experimenters were surprised to find that the flies did not fly away. They would just fly up to the earlier boundary and no more. They had learned to fly and live inside the walls and that was their world to them.

I just remember this from my memory and don't have the supporting evidence but it does provide a very interesting insight about how we learn to define us and our realities based upon our belief systems. That becomes our truth.


I can think of a few simple real life example where the truth being relative can be explained.

For ex: The sun rises in east and sets in west every day. That is our undeniable truth. But to an entity with a large enough perspective of our solar system, that is not correct. For that entity the truth is that sun remains stationary and the earth revolves around the axis to cause this East West thing to happen.

For ex: The mass reality is that aliens don't exist and they will deny it even when one is standing right in front of them. They will use the hallucination, physical illusions, confusion or any other argument in the book to deny them. Once the belief is set one way we will find many ways to ignore the other aspects of the truth or reality.

For ex: I have thought sometimes that maybe there are more colors than 7 that we know of. Just here on 3D. It is totally governed by our eye organs to create a perception of these colors. The organ changes the perception changes and the colors become less or more. The same world but different reality and different truth.

PS: Does USA really exist from space? how do you create the country boundaries from space? Did these oceans really exist a few hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years ago. The earth crust aligns itself constantly and there might have been some other oceans.


SO the bottom line is - change your perspective and you can see an entire new world. The perspective can be restricted by the physical limitations like the organs. Or the mental limitations in the form of beliefs or just divinely placed as part of 3D design.

I've given this concept some thought, and frankly, it makes my brain want to explode. Layers upon layers upon layers...does anything actually exist outside of our perceptions? If you truly don't believe in God, does that mean that in some way God doesn't exist? Ugh...it's like an ice cream headache.

(04-01-2010, 09:06 PM)ahktu Wrote: [ -> ]I've given this concept some thought, and frankly, it makes my brain want to explode. Layers upon layers upon layers...does anything actually exist outside of our perceptions? If you truly don't believe in God, does that mean that in some way God doesn't exist? Ugh...it's like an ice cream headache.

I guess the key word here is 'Truly Believe'. You can not think outside of universal laws and boundaries. It is just not possible. If you can think of it then it is possible.

Coming to god. If you don't believe in him then something else take that place in your perception reality. It is just a matter of word and concept. You don't apply the god word to this picture/concept but another one. And who knows- We all might have the same idea in our head but calling it different words and figting we know the best.

For ex: My god may be a person sitting somewhere on a high chair playing ping pong and eating ice cream. But someone else's god may be in all things and all beings. They may not recognize my god and I may not recognize their god. But their perception is wider and more comprehensive. They are seeing the solar system from the space while I am seeing it from the earth...