Messages

The greatest weakness of integral philosophy is not this, however, but the lack of focus on new ideas. Integration may itself be a new idea, and some new ideas may rise to further the mission of integration, but what about  new ideas that don't serve integration? What about revolutionary ideas? That completely turn the tide of our thinking?

I'm not sure if Integral Philosophy explicitly excludes new ideas, but it may be habit to do so since you have tons of complex concepts trying to mesh together and all of a sudden a new groundbreaking concept comes along that undoes everything you've been working so hard on to rebuild.

Exactly how would you feel if this happened to you? No matter your answer to that, I think it's important to note that hardly ever it is suggested to 'be patient'. Another flaw in Integral Philosophy may be impatience, but I need more info about the subject before I make an assumption like that.

I think the answer is in the simplicity as well. I thought of 'red wrench' not because it was the simplest tool, but because i'm involved in linguistic society to some level, so linguistically, wrench is only 1 syllable aka simpler, not to mention its a bit of onomatopoeia with the whole starting with R thing.

Happypuppy, I would like your critique on my logic, if available.

Translation:
Is it possible to open portals between the physical and the astral? A good example for me would be something like in the Stargate series, seen on Scifi (not the space channel).

My answer:
To me, I think anything is possible if you want to dedicate a lot of time and patience to it, possibly several lifetimes if you believe in reincarnation. On the other hand, you could just be dreaming again.

When did we get focused on consumerism rather than progress? Aren't there many inventions and ideas that get snuffed because it might cause a profit loss? Isn't this against what we should be striving for?

Do you think female androids will also get grossed out by toilet spray?

And some of us desire a toilet designed without a lid. Stupid alpha people...

What on earth has Munroe's Focus models got to do with this subject of chakras?

No James, no. He is talking about Frank's model, which is based on Monroe's, (not Munroe) model.

If you BELEIVE you will get healed through those meditations then you WILL. The mind is very powerful
If you believe in something alot, then it does happen.

First, why do you post your name at the end of your post? It's a BBCode headache to remove it when I'm quoting you. You and Frank both grrr.

Anyways, you're basically stating if I believe in something enough, it will happen. So if I believe that to be cured of some half-brained bubonic west-nile that I need some special super power, I will get that super power and be cured (if my will is strong enough of course)?

It seems to me that you're using some type of wierd reverse psychology to prove that the mind is as simple as doctors say it is. Try again, and this time go for pages that don't use so much JS in them (30 scripts for a silly little page of text? seems fishy to me)

I knew this would happen. I think all men secretly harbor the desire to create a totally complient female who exists only to serve them.

I don't want that. I want someone who is equal to me, and wants to remain equal to me.

It seems that lions represent importance in your life, and insect-type things represent wariness.

Given this, two important things to you look like they may start to fight each other, and you'll become shocked at this.

The thing to note though is that I think you believe deep down there that the value of the card is not that important, but the major things in your life are. You must teach yourself how your lions and insects relate in your mind, so you can see more clearly.

I thought this topic had something, until I realised that many of the points that were argued against (such as intelligence, math, logic, etc) were used in writing the post.

Visualization can help to strengthen your memory, prepare you for the worst, send you to a far off land in a story, or even help guide your actions when you don't know what to do.

I personally believe that there is a higher order to visualization, and sometimes what you see in your mind couldn't possibly be from yourself. In this sense, visualization can become a faith builder.

So your reaction is understandable. But it is precisely just that, a RE-action.

Yes I am human, but you forget that one of the main rules of thumb to go by on here (yes I mean on the entire AP forum) is to take stuff with a grain of salt. When I see things involving other planets come into play, I tend to avoid them since everyone and their sister seems to be posting variants of Nibiru as it comes to them (usually for attention or delusion, but rarely justifiable for some of the posts you see). I think at this point I can still say how I reacted is still "ok", even with your well written response about a doctor coming up with this stuff. I consider most doctors to have feathers up their butt, so still what you write is just telling me that someone with a degree has written something groundbreaking, not someone who is necessarily correct at all (blind leading the blind sometimes?). I think the writing was intended to impress rather than express.

Why does everyone call DNA "deoxyribonucleic acid"?

Because it's descriptive and provable to be descriptive over and over. Angels and superhumans spoken through latin terminology are not (can we please try to get out of this crazy Latin phraseology please? no one in their right mind would use complicated pseudoterms for something such as the topic of discussion, and I expect it to be disrespectful to some level as well). How about this, we'll just refer to these as HSS from now on, since everyone uses DNA instead of it's long form. Not very impressive looking now is it? Again, I think the writing was intended to impress rather than express.

In conclusion, I suggest everyone start looking at things posted on AP with a salt shaker in hand (you're going to need many grains of salt to drudge through what is posted here!). I doubt that this can be disproven anyways, but not fully provable to be honest either, so why try? We need something a bit more constructive than a new way (long latin form) to call beings that we don't fully comprehend.

That is exactly what made one third of the angelic kingdom fall during the last earth in the moon period.  God gets what God wants.  If he wanted to control you then you would be a puppet.  God created you.  God wants to be with you, to help you grow and be healthy, what is best for you.  This is normal for a parent.  Humanity is presently in the adolescent period.  Some children show strong signs of wanting to rebel, to be their own boss, and even run away from home.

So we agree, except on the fact that God never would desire to control anyone? Erm, we are all parts of God, so God will directly control those that he needs to at any point. Plus in a way, as children of "free will", which is what God wanted as best as we know, essentially by being human we are still being controlled and limited by God.

How does free will equate to being controlled by God though? Well, last I checked, I wasn't able to do most of that which I desire, simply because of my human roots. Therefore, God controls me because God made me human.

That is exactly what made one third of the angelic kingdom fall during the last earth in the moon period.

I never knew that anyone on Earth had direct knowledge of the exact number of angels in heaven, unless you're being symbolic here...?

So you may be wondering why doesn't God tell you this.

Not at all, since when that question comes up in my mind, I try to douse the curiosity fire with "Be patient!"

Additionally, along your lines of categorizing God, you still have a hella long way to go.

Frank as a humbled master, not even pointing to his own book in the works.

Please do not take this the wrong way guys!

I feel akward when I read excerpts from people who say such and such info comes from Planet Soandso, so generally I tend to stop reading at that point, no matter what the source.

However, I think the concept of Homo Sapiens Serinissimus is a valid goal to work towards, but the concept has much too long of a name for me to want to use. Why not just something like Serenus (amalgamation of serene and us, which seems like a valid goal to bring everyone to understand one another)?

God doesn't want to control you.

Maybe God does want to control you. This is why I converted to agnosticism recently, since I believe I am God, in the many limbs of God sense (and yet I still don't know what I want/need).

But yes I agree with your logic completely. The problem with that (for me at least) is that sometimes logic isn't the only part of the equation. Logic is only a small part of God.

Yeah, and I still don't understand what it means.

I understand it, because he wants to find a way to integrate separate studies into a single study. Simplification is what this means. Alternatively, here is a thread with links to integral based studies.

I agree that it should be done, but alternatively should still be kept separate as well, so every possible aspect of this is still regarded as special.

However, I think this stuff is being integrated, at least in music. Where would the entire electronica genre be without computers? Art+Science! But maybe what needs to happen is more companies integrate some type of beauty into the services they provide unemotionally.

What do you think?

Gah, I'm confused as to where the nothingness came from (and no Neverending Story references please!)

Strange that you would use a ship with an incomplete 5 point fractal set. Sounds discordian to me, or at least magickal. As far as design goes, I think it would be great as a transition ship if a human were to get slung to the Astral through some type of rift!

Maybe this is your link to becoming gifted in controlling water as well, or at least disguising air in the form of water?

I don't know but I'd like to help you come up with some interesting abilities using air; maybe we can set up an irc and discuss it as a group?

Keep searching daemon.  When you get there you will see two options.  1) Not surrender to God.  2) Surrender to God.  The first one is what the fallen angelic kingdom chose during the last great earth period countless years ago before this earth was created.  The second is much better.  God is Good!

I may be wrong, but;

My views on God allow us to only be a part of God, making it impossible to surrender to him. God allowed free thinking to a limited degree, so how can anyone not think things that God intended them to?

And personally I think you are misguided about God being good. God encompases both good, bad, the grey area inbetween, and the regions humans can't even begin to comprehend about such things.

[realizing it all together at the same time]

ever thought of the bigger picture?

Sometimes I just want a 5x7 instead of an 8x10 since the bigger picture is more fragile. But seriously, I used to all the time. It led from seeking wisdom to seeking perfection to accepting imperfection to realizing it all together at the same time (along with focusing on how to relate other things to these).

Why does existence exist?

Because in Latin, the word "exsistere" means to come forth or be manifested. You're working with limited bounds of the mind, since everything is here now, and it was never manifested, as the word exist implies. Plus you're also asking a loaded question...Why does manifestation manifest? Because that's its job to!

God is an anomaly of non-existence.

God is an anomaly of nonmanifestation. Actually I think this is at minimum partially wrong (maybe totally; I dunno), as it is the duty of God to uphold God's desires, which includes the desire to create. Of course I think God suddenly did manifest somehow, but only if you think of time as a thing without beginning or end. Before time, there was a reality that was most likely beyond the grasp of any human, and things probably lived there too! I also want to point out that I don't like to view the universe as on a timeline, more of as on a quantity of various dimentions, so we're probably going to clash by comparing apples and oranges of viewpoints.

...I (Did you mean to add "have a"?) good question about Integral Philosophy is what does that even mean? I looked up "integral" to give me a clue, but I still don't have one...

I'm worried about your Searching Process. The first thing I did to find a good response to your post here is to click the last page in this subforum. I pseudo-immediately found the What is Integral Philosophy? thread. Within it, I found this:

Hi Tom,

As Robert Bruce mentions, Integral Philosophy or Integral Psychology is mainly based on Ken Wilber's synthesized overview. Ken wilber believes that Art, Science and Morality - after a long period of individuation -  should now be integrated. He speaks of them as Beauty,Truth and Goodness. His ideas are a voluminous synthsis of perennial philosophy and just about every other major thought throughout the centuries and believes that development of mankind needs to progress within us (as 'I' and We') and without us ('it' and 'its') ie., intentional, cultural, behavioural and social). For a wonderful overview of his work I would recommend 'The Collected Works of Ken Wilber volume four' or a copy of one of his latest books 'Integral Psychology' which is available in paperback (shambhala, Boston, USA.).

An academic of his calibre who also has a life and a wonderful sense of humour - makes him quite a remarkable guy....

I hope you manage to get hold of some of his stuff and enjoy the journey ...
Love
Shirley

I was also going to bash both you and Telos about your little grammatician responses, but I'll pass since I'm not in that type of mood right now. Above all, I hope this helps Manik.

if they dont know how to construct something, they know it cant exist?

No, they know it doesn't exist because it hasn't been fully constructed yet. Just because it has a pseudo-immediate potential of being constructed doesn't mean it will be constructed, and until it has been constructed it doesn't exist.

A really good example of this, to me, would be the really nice Chinese restaurant that was being built next to Busch Gardens close to my house. Supposedly it was going to be the finest Chinese quisine in my area, in the $20 a plate range. Everyone was looking forward to eating there, until one day they put up barracades and it had a For Sale sign in front. Yes it had a large potential of existing, but today we were silly in thinking that it had essentially already existed in some point in the future. It hadn't been fully constructed yet!

There is nothing more than the size of the bounds!

Unicorns don't exist! (They're just horses with rods on their foreheads!) Reductio Ad Absurdum does not apply, because it is not very constructive!

lol

Bah, it's no big deal anyway.

However, is it possible to consider unicorns as existing because they flourish in people's minds? Isn't that the whole purpose of unicorns, to stir our imaginations?

http://www.b-boyjunior.com/

Seems to be his official site, some more videos stuff, kudos to all who prefer french ><