 |
New Civilization News: Searching for truth |
Category: Spirituality 17 comments 5 Feb 2006 @ 17:51 by martha : All is Energy" From the time we are children, beliefs and microbeliefs are taught to us. And by the time we are adults, we may not realize how many pre-digested arguments we have accepted without question." It is in the releasing of the energy of beliefs we accept as children that the greatest healing occurs and the awareness dawns that we are perfect as we are. It is the combination of energies that we use upon our path and then observe that leads to the greater understanding of connectioin with all. And when we quiet our mind and allow the heart chakra to accept love fully the full beauty and joy of why we are here opens up. Welcome to NCN. It is a diverse group of souls all seeking. Good luck, enjoy the ride. martha@intheflowwillallowexpansion.com 7 Feb 2006 @ 18:43 by poetsong : On Microbeliefs Microbeliefs are not religious dogmas, but the strongly held beliefs that make us who we are. "I am stupid" is a horrible thing to believe, but some believe it. It's not a religious conviction, but it may reflect what we believe. "The world is not safe," or "I can't trust another" may be strongly held beliefs. Again, we might not call them beliefs, thinking this is a religious term; but they stand up to scrutiny, because when we examine the impact, we make our choices based on countless micro-beliefs, not even aware we have them. What we believe impacts our lives more than we could imagine. The only way we can grow is to realize what we believe, and determine which of our beliefs are actually worthy of holding onto, and which need to be renounced and abandoned. "I am not stupid. There is an advantage in trusting another, though choose wisely who to trust. The world may be full of risks, but risks can lead to benefits...etc" N Marion 10 Feb 2006 @ 15:53 by swanny : Communication Greetings I wonder if somehow if communication is evolving somewhat. The Mcluan adage that the medium is the message offers a clue to the same message just in different forms being broadcast by the old mediums of tv radio phone and snail mail. Yet this medium is somewhat confusing or Hmmmm? There is a asychoronized shift occuring and somehow the rhythm of communication is.... changing to say the least. But what is being communicated. You write good... ha anyway welcome I guess Its a strange web... 10 Feb 2006 @ 20:45 by poetsong : Communication evolving? Words change and so does their use. If communication was evolving, we'd have greater understanding. However, I gather we have greater confusion now. People feel increasingly misunderstood. In fact, this is central to the point of "micro-beliefs". Insight, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge are like keys. Each one unlocks a mystery. I believe something about me, about others, and about the world. That impacts how I move and act in the world. Generally, a bad micro-belief is based upon a misunderstanding, lack of insight, lack of knoweldge or lack of wisdom. Am I a person of value or worthless? I believe one or the other, or waffle between ends of the spectrum. All my relationships are colored by this belief. If I feel worthless,then I won't defend myself, or put up boundaries that say, "Do not step on my head!" I have to believe in my worth to stick up for myself. And so, people who have low self-esteem tend to allow others to speak for them, squash them, and in some ways violate them. What we believe at every level is important in so many ways. How this relates to communication is that it's never enough to speak words. Communication is very much a part of what we do as well. The reason why so many people are screwed up isn't because they weren't loved, it was because words were not enough to convey that. In fact, many parents do love their kids, but that isn't translated, and so you have myriads of people who did not "feel" loved. 10 Feb 2006 @ 21:07 by swanny : Thanks Poetsong Thanks I was debating this with myself the other day. The aspect of others "telling" us they love us and yet us not "feeling" loved. It would seem the feeling is more important than the telling as the feeling is more... hmmmm of a knowing or hmmmm not sure. Didn't actually resolve it. I did note that if one is required to "change" themselves somehow in order be told or feel loved then is that acceptable? I sort of concluded that change within reason and so maybe but to become something else good or bad hmmmm It was troubling to me. If one cannot be loved for what one is within reason I suppose then is that really love then or something else. Much is made of unconditional love but the day to day love is well. Anyway I didn't end up resolving much more than I was somewhat averse to having to change or such at least to dramatically in order to be loved. Somehow something about that feels incorrect. We do change and grow and learn when we do and are ready but to use love as a bargaining chip does not really strike me as love. 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:00 by swanny : The History You are right though or observant Poetsong in that communication has sort of become purjorated perhaps from its original intentions. I find myself much of late getting unclear and mixed messages from just about everywhere. Now as much as this may just be a mature stance of the form, I think we may have to "prune" the communication tree and look back in history to the original "intentions" of communication, apart from it being mere advertizings, deceptions, lies, sensation etc. etc. It was or would be so much nicer to return to a clarity where people meant what they say and said what they meant or is fuzzy logic and fuzzy communication the new norm? Okay so the history of communication. Perhaps started out as a survival and then social mechanism. It would be difficult to trace though I would think. True we should be "discerning" but should communication be considered somewhat sacred for the sake of ? truth? Or has Truth become irrevelant? 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:04 by swanny : Ghandi... Ghandi is said to noted though that at "first I thought God was Truth and then after some time realized that Truth was God." 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:09 by swanny : The Attitude... The Attitude seems to be though of the times is Truth is irrelevant in leu of making a fast or slow dollar. A sad commentary? Somewhat true? The instigator of fuzzy logic says that truth is not a duality ie T or F He professes that truth in truth is perhaps a matter of "degree" or "truth value". Perhaps that is problematic to black and whiters and most though. 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:09 by swanny : Then... Then some have postulated again that there are some "necessary" truths. This is an interesting take as it aligns itself better with the concept or intention perhaps of truth from the get go. 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:16 by swanny : The Law... Then in reference to "Law"... can't quite recall but offhand it states that Truth is that that conforms with reality and that also which proves itself over time or stands the test of time or something similar, but don't quote me. 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:23 by swanny : Antinomies Even the Law is conflicted though by the notion or concept of "antinomies" which is two apparent or real or valid truths or facts but which oppose or contradict one and other. Now that is a concept from the 1700s or 1800s which probably set the world on its ear because it creates a schizphrenia validity of sorts. That things can not only have two meanings but two opposing or opposite but valid meanings. Truth thus is not an easy thing it would seem. I digress. 11 Feb 2006 @ 13:38 by swanny : Help... That doesn't help does it, Well sorry I guess I don't know what truth is. 11 Feb 2006 @ 21:17 by poetsong : What is true; what is conveyed to me. When it comes to love, my father may have loved me and failed to convey it. However, it may be he had a bad approach, or there was a disconnect in me. What is a disconnect? It's like bad reception. Someone says something that I don't hear. And this is true of my relationship with my father. I love him more now than ever, and understand him more now than ever; but only as healings have taken place. My father said, "I love you" in ways that didn't speak to me. I had to learn to listen to his language; but that took overcoming what was in effect, a disconnect in my own ability to listen. As much as we are wounded, we tend to listen wrong, and misinterpret life. Some walk around with what we call, "A chip on their shoulders..." Well, that is too broad a definition. What is a "Chip?" Technically there are thousands of versions of a chip. Only as much as I am misunderstood can I recognize I might have misunderstood someone else. I tried to say, "I love you..." but they didn't hear it in the language they speak. And we all have different ways of feeling love. One likes touch, another prefers gifts, and another simply likes toast in the morning and clean socks in the drawer. Well, I may say, "I love you in my language," but you wont hear it unless I learn to speak your language. Love is there, but not getting translated. More often than not, people simply can't communicate what they feel effectively. Well, I am not one for giving into futility. Through understanding we learn to speak and hear better. "Ah, my father did love me...very much...and was hurting inside...now I get it...sorry dad." 12 Feb 2006 @ 17:52 by swanny : Hmmm I suppose Love is not a constant as life is not a constant. There were probably times of Love yes, times of hate or? pain and times of indifference. If we're lucky Love occupies the greater percentage of the time and I suppose for most that is somewhat true. 12 Feb 2006 @ 19:43 by hgoodgame : Personally, I'd rather face an unpleasant truth (and right away) than stay dumb and happy! ;) 12 Feb 2006 @ 21:07 by poetsong : Unpleasant truths, and love We are complex creatures, aren't we? We have many sides, and different people and situations bring out the complexities in us. So, in one situation we may seem loving, and in another terribly selfish. So, how do we know love? Perhaps we can someday bring a discussion from another board over to here. We were talking about definitions of love. We used the Greek words translated as "Love" in English, Eros, Phileo, and Agape. The first is primarily carnal, not necessarily sexual, but it is primarily self-centered, "What do I get out of this thing?" It has to make me feel good and happy. Someone who says, "I love you, but can't stand you..." is actually saying, "I don't love you." because it doesn't meet any criteria of love. Phileo is brotherly love, where the word Philadelphia comes from. It is probably the closest thing to love that most people ever know. It is based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It moves past how a person makes me feel; and in some ways Phileo is giving. If I admire someone, I may do something for them when I don't feel like it. However, Agape is the most difficult love to aspire to. It is always "other" centered, and is the most selfless love. Perhaps parental love for a straying child is the closest some will come to this. That child could have caused great pain, and gives nothing in return, and yet the parent sacrifices for them. Yet, Agape can be towards someone in or outside of a relationship. In general, someone who cares about others who gives in secret, getting nothing from another is close to Agape. But a husband or wife can be married to someone who is simply not giving back, and may love them enough to make sacrifices for their sake. "They may never love me back like I need, and seen like an empty well that can't get enough...but I want them to know that someone loved them in their life, so I keep giving." If we are to talk about love, then we have to define "Which Love". People who fall in and out of love generally are stuck at the most immature level of love, which is Eros, "Well, they don't give me the same bubbly tinglies they used to give me, so I'm leaving. I can't stay married to someone when I don't "FEEL" like it." If "Feeling" is the highest parameter of love, then the world is lost. Feelings are flitting. Agape is often an act of the will "against" feelings. "They need my affection...I will get nothing out of this...they will drain me...but I want them to feel loved..." It is kind of like loving a wounded animal, for its sake. Now, Agape is the riskiest love, but when it is reciprocated it becomes the most beautiful love, and something akin to the feeling of saving someone's life, and them turning around and pouring themselves back into you. Eros takes little character. So, you have countless people falling in and out of Eros rather quickly. You can't hate someone you have Agape for, because you are considering their need, not yours. You generally can't hate someone you have Phileo for, because you have respect for them, and some level of fellowship/bonding. But if your relationship is simply Eros, then it is akin to loving a new car until the new smell wears off and you want a different one. In this, we are always best served in knowing what kind of love we have, which we aspire to. And in terms of Unpleasant truths, we can't ever grow until we face who we are, what is important to us, what is in the heart of others, and reality. 29 Apr 2016 @ 11:10 by Bandar Togel @103.12.162.4 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar Togel Online Singapore Togel Online Hongkong Bandar Togel Singapore Bandar Togel Togel Online Terpercaya Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya Togel Online Agen Togel Online Terpercaya Agen Togel Online Other entries in Spirituality 31 Jul 2010 @ 16:29: Innovation Yantra 31 Jul 2010 @ 16:01: Randy Paush - Lessons for Life 30 Jul 2010 @ 16:30: from Baudrillard to Verger: Diversification Vs Global Norms 22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land 22 Jul 2010 @ 02:28: PUNISH BUSH & NEO-CONS FOR WAR CRIMES! 20 Jul 2010 @ 14:24: Getting other people to do stuff 16 Jul 2010 @ 22:57: Considerations on writing 14 Jul 2010 @ 14:53: Therapy Dogs Serve our Wounded Warriors 14 Jul 2010 @ 13:35: Consciousness of Pattern 13 Jul 2010 @ 17:04: What is Consciousness? - My answer on Quora.com
|