Hi Mike Levine!
May I quote:
"In a post a few days ago you said this:
But if you count God first; nothing shall be impossible to you
Do you believe those kinds of grand claims should be backed by something more solid than mere words, some sort of proof or evidence?"
O.K.: I was raised as a Catholic. I was taught this (about putting God first). It seems a reasonable thought. I didn't know you wanted proof.
Here is a logical idea:
God is Existence.
To do anything "without tripping over stuff you didn't see"; that is; to avoid the pitfalls of muddled awareness: be aware of awareness.
Suppose you had full consciousness of everything you experienced from conception. How could anything be impossible; in that your ideas about what COULD be done would be so free of error or misconception that everything that you thought COULD be done in fact COULD be done?
Where does the idea of "impossible" come from? Obviously it is not supposed to include logical contradictions? For something to be "impossible" to do; requires a division: the concept of the act in question; and of the supposed future background against which the act in question is allegedly "impossible".
But: if creation is "transparent"; freshly made; if the future can allow every honest possibility consistent with freedom and with consciousness and with consciousness of the past: how could any honest idea be impossible?
If someone says: "it is impossible to levitate an oil-tanker 100ft above the ocean": what are they saying?
On what grounds do they say this? How generalised a statement is it? Perhaps such statements could be much more specific... but the more specific you get, the more things unravel?
Quote: " For instance, if I tell you "Alan, I can give you eternal youth if you pay me 200 pounds a month for the rest of your life", wouldn't you be afraid of disposing valuable funds which could be better spent somewhere else?"
Yes. But I am not saying that.
I can say there is an issue here that I have now clarified more with logic.
Quote: "(please don't take this to "my theory proves we can be eternally young"; it's not my point. My point is, isn't proof required before commitment?)"
I wasn't asking "commitment"; I was talking rather loosely perhaps? Yet I felt it was fair enough. I tried to show now logically why it looks like an interesting idea. I think it is interesting the things Jesus Christ is recorded to have said.
Quote: "In any case, Mike Pearson was wise enough to make the following observation, which you (purposedly?) ignored:
Oh, yeah. But you were saying you were short of cash to answer some of my earlier posts -- couldn't afford internet. Has that changed?
Don't you realize the fact that something so trivial, such as internet access, which is so easy to a lot of people and so difficult to you, means you are perhaps not as in close touch with reality as you claim to be?"
On the face of it: fair comment. But I could say: what has monetary wealth in this world got to do with awareness of reality? It has plenty to do with awareness of some aspects of reality, like of how to make money.
But: although I said I have awareness from when a newborn baby; and recently of a way of mapping physics; neither is necessarily linked to financial wealth. In fact; knowing how things really are might paralyse one's "artificial" capabilities on this Earth.
But I am not into being some jumped-up guru. Internet debate is a good place to swap ideas; test ideas; learn new stuff; make mistakes and learn. I put up ideas like everybody else; hopefully all us parties learn in the process of discussion.
"You also recently asked how you could solve your 'internet funds' problem. Doesn't it strike you as strange that someone who knows so much about reality doesn't have enough knowledge to get himself a computer with unlimited access?"
I know how to: it costs too much if I am to spend on outdoor adventures.
Quote: "Even Harv, whom you seem to consider so "afraid of the truth" knows the answer to the question that eludes you."
I know the answer; but it would be such a financial weight that I choose to rely on limited public internet use mostly. I asked Harv if he was afraid specifically of the practice of finding seemingly workable transferability of pattern "templates" from one area to another.
That is because this activity can seem like taking metaphors literally; so can seem crazy; like taking poetry literally.
But I do this with my eyes open; I just notice common factors in different areas and draw attention to them.
Quote: "I don't want to sound patronizing but I think you have to hear this. There is a great truth to the universe, which is unrealized by far too many people. The great truth is that we know very little but think we know a lot. It's very easy to convince yourself of anything you want, because when it comes to your own arguments, you are the most gullible guy around."
Well; it can help to ask people to challenge one's ideas. Thank you for doing so and please do not hold back!
Quote: "Now don't you think you shouldn't trust one so gullible as yourself that much? Isn't the skepticism of others, their cynicism even, actually a blessing to help you defend yourself from your own naivete?"
I actively seek content-focused severe challenges to what I write! I have confidence; by being open to existence; by not denying any voice of 6 billion; gives a lot of confidence. I win each way: if I make a mistake; someone finds it and I learn; if I do not; cool; if I make a mistake and no-one notices; well this is unfinished.
Quote: "I'm sure you'll reason your way out of this. I just feel I had to say it, now it's said."
"reason my way out"? But what is wrong with my answer?