Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, that's what happened to me. But of course, that was early in a 2T. The time was ripe! It couldn't have been more ripe.

It's never hard to find my questionnaire:
http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm

Yeah, see that is what has shaped you. You were around at a time that was "awakening." I was not and i was shaped by science and only that. It is quite a hard thing to wrap ones head around your mindset once one idea on life has taken root. Ok, will take the questionnaire again.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

life creates life. Sperm/egg or seed etc. Look up heavy bombardment for how life got here for starters.

What? It came from somewhere else? That does not explain it. How did it originate there?

As Alan Watts says, trying to explain life by some prior cause or event, doesn't explain anything. It leads to an infinite regress. What explains something? Something else. What explains that? Something else. What explains that?

You never get there.

Another video for you not to watch:
https://youtu.be/G4j6cUwCRmI
Alan Watts - "The wake doesn't drive the ship anymore than the tail wags the dog"

But extremely entertaining for those who do watch!

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yeah, see that is what has shaped you. You were around at a time that was "awakening." I was not and i was shaped by science and only that. It is quite a hard thing to wrap ones head around your mindset once one idea on life has taken root. Ok, will take the questionnaire again.

I would suggest, though, that to understand other mindsets besides one's own is an essential part of education. I know them all, because that's how I was able to create the philosophy wheel, on which all mindsets have their place.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What? It came from somewhere else? That does not explain it. How did it originate there?

As Alan Watts says, trying to explain life by some prior cause or event, doesn't explain anything. It leads to an infinite regress. What explains something? Something else. What explains that? Something else. What explains that?

You never get there.

Another video for you not to watch:
https://youtu.be/G4j6cUwCRmI

But extremely entertaining for those who do watch!

yes, it came from somewhere else. Water was brought here which contained the ingredients for life which were created out of "the big bang" It was all created from that and brought here. Earth was also formed from space pmsl you do realize that right? It came along with the formation of the earth. You have to look into that. They go into detail about it. I have a fave doco to watch on it. Dunno if you would watch it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would suggest, though, that to understand other mindsets besides one's own is an essential part of education. I know them all, because that's how I was able to create the philosophy wheel, on which all mindsets have their place.

Then how come you do not understand if one does not like jb or cannot understand what you deem as "good music" or like me, following science?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What? It came from somewhere else? That does not explain it. How did it originate there?

As Alan Watts says, trying to explain life by some prior cause or event, doesn't explain anything. It leads to an infinite regress. What explains something? Something else. What explains that? Something else. What explains that?

You never get there.

Another video for you not to watch:
https://youtu.be/G4j6cUwCRmI
Alan Watts - "The wake doesn't drive the ship anymore than the tail wags the dog"

But extremely entertaining for those who do watch!

You do realize i watch your vids right? I watched your jb vids. Give me some credit. Just i watch, but does not mean i agree.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would suggest, though, that to understand other mindsets besides one's own is an essential part of education. I know them all, because that's how I was able to create the philosophy wheel, on which all mindsets have their place.

btw for your surprise for this question There is a rational explanation for everything, since events are produced according to physical laws. i answered not strongly agree, but somewhat agree. Based on the fact they have not answered all questions as of yet and i have seen some things and experienced some things that science has not explained and has in fact dismissed but i cannot deny it happened. So, as it was not explained i came up with my own theory.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would suggest, though, that to understand other mindsets besides one's own is an essential part of education. I know them all, because that's how I was able to create the philosophy wheel, on which all mindsets have their place.

and for this "Your thoughts and beliefs create your reality." strongly agree. Life is what we make of it. The proof is in our different mindsets as to what life is or means and that shapes our lives in different ways.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would suggest, though, that to understand other mindsets besides one's own is an essential part of education. I know them all, because that's how I was able to create the philosophy wheel, on which all mindsets have their place.

Ok, now i remember. I am hard core science, but when it comes to a persons personal outlook and "calling" in life, i am a moderate. Pretty much, life is what we make of it and we see the world with different mindsets/eyes.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

It is that that does not make sense to me.

What about that don't you understand?

As for life growing within outward, for me that is answered with reproduction. I just don't understand.

It's easy to observe directly that life grows. But science explains it otherwise. It can't help it. It seeks explanations, or causes. Science is a method, and it is subject to the foundations of its method, and limited by it.

Life creates life, as you said. It makes sense, therefore, to call it the Creator.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What? It came from somewhere else? That does not explain it. How did it originate there?

As Alan Watts says, trying to explain life by some prior cause or event, doesn't explain anything. It leads to an infinite regress. What explains something? Something else. What explains that? Something else. What explains that?

You never get there.

Another video for you not to watch:
https://youtu.be/G4j6cUwCRmI
Alan Watts - "The wake doesn't drive the ship anymore than the tail wags the dog"

But extremely entertaining for those who do watch!

this man goes against the very theory of t4t. and against some things you have said too. "Real music has not come along for 37 years" you say. Till jb. All that the 2T is has shaped you. Just like the 3T shaped me. The past does not completely die. We have evidence it existed right under our feet. You were there in the 2T just as i was in the 3T. The bible has not faded away and it is something from the past. He really does not make any sense comparing the past to movement in the water from a boat.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What about that don't you understand?

It's easy to observe directly that life grows. But science explains it otherwise. It can't help it. It seeks explanations, or causes. Science is a method, and it is subject to the foundations of its method, and limited by it.

Life creates life, as you said. It makes sense, therefore, to call it the Creator.

That is what i mean. You say you understand other perspectives, but really, this shows you really do not. Not being nasty, it is just shown in your responses to me and others i may add. If you did know, you would not ask. You would have an idea why i do not understand.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What about that don't you understand?

It's easy to observe directly that life grows. But science explains it otherwise. It can't help it. It seeks explanations, or causes. Science is a method, and it is subject to the foundations of its method, and limited by it.

Life creates life, as you said. It makes sense, therefore, to call it the Creator.

It seems to me that looking within yourself is pretty much making up your own theories about life which cannot be tested to be truth.As science is ever questioning itself it is not limited. It changes with new discoveries.

1. The Heart has its reasons, which Reason does not know. 4R 2M strongly disagree
2. The senses cannot be trusted to give us the truth.
2E 1M somewhat agree
3. There is a rational explanation for everything, since events are produced according to physical laws.


2R 2M somewhat agree
4. Your thoughts and beliefs create your reality.

4S strongly agree
5. Reason leads us to discover the general truths and ideas that explain all existing things.

2R somewhat agree
6. If you would know the truth of life, look inward into yourself.

0 neutral
7. Since we're all different, and times change, there can't be universal standards of right and wrong.


2E somewhat agree
8. Do not seek your treasure in the things of this world, but only in the eternal things.

0 neutral
9. Reality is fluid and ever-changing; thus forever beyond the grasp of the rigid, abstract concepts & categories of our thought and language.


2E somewhat agree
10. Ultimately, the universe is made of solid and indivisible particles.


4M strongly agree
11. The universe is unfolding according to a divine plan and order.


3E 3M strongly disagree

now for me it is a toss up. Is this a test for the physical reality, the world around us. The basis for what makes things work, or is this our perception of it and what we make and make of it. It is a toss up for me and why the clash.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

It seems to me that looking within yourself is pretty much making up your own theories about life which cannot be tested to be truth.As science is ever questioning itself it is not limited. It changes with new discoveries.

It seems to me that looking within yourself is direct observation, rather than using an instrument and experimental procedure to examine what can be seen with the senses. These observations of the "within" are validated by others who see the same things, looking within. That's called the spiritual tradition. The pre-set assumptions, terms and procedures of your scientific "test" determine and set the parameters of your "discoveries."

Originally Posted by Taramarie

That is what i mean. You say you understand other perspectives, but really, this shows you really do not. Not being nasty, it is just shown in your responses to me and others i may add. If you did know, you would not ask. You would have an idea why i do not understand.

No, it was just a question, like you would ask me. Try again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It seems to me that looking within yourself is direct observation, rather than using an instrument and experimental procedure to examine what can be seen with the senses. These observations of the "within" are validated by others who see the same things, looking within. That's called the spiritual tradition. The pre-set assumptions, terms and procedures of your scientific "test" determine and set the parameters of your "discoveries."

ok so i think that would be "perceiving" according to myers/briggs. That was not my dominant trait as i do see but i judge and when i judge i do tend to turn to tried and true methods. Look up my type for an answer there. It has been said we are more "traditionalist." Your type is not. But when faced with something that i could not explain and there was no answer that was when i was actually forced into looking within myself to explain what i saw. I directly observed and was forced to trust what i saw as to me, seeing is believing and as it was not a one occurrence i had to look within for an answer. I still am not sure tbh. So, looking from my experience with that, now i can understand.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it was just a question, like you would ask me. Try again.

that was a valid observation as you say you understand mindsets.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

this man goes against the very theory of t4t. and against some things you have said too. "Real music has not come along for 37 years" you say. Till jb. All that the 2T is has shaped you. Just like the 3T shaped me. The past does not completely die. We have evidence it existed right under our feet. You were there in the 2T just as i was in the 3T. The bible has not faded away and it is something from the past. He really does not make any sense comparing the past to movement in the water from a boat.

Well, proof that you watched. Excellent! It's always hard for me to understand how someone like Watts or Sheldrake can be so obvious, and yet people don't get it. I would not agree with him if he said the past wasn't there, or didn't happen. But what he said was that the past does not drive the present. That is the disproof of scientific materialism, whose entire project is to do just that. QED.

Ah ah, you brought up JB. Kinser alert! Kinser alert!

I don't think any of us are limited by the times we live in. Maybe in childhood, it's very hard for someone to break out. But later, anyone can break out of their established mindset, and widen it, at any time. I agree, awakenings are easier times to do that. There's a general mood of "let's breakout out of established mindsets." In 3Ts and 1Ts, it's more like "don't rock the boat; keep business as usual going." So I understand your position.

But I think cohorts from about JB's onward will be more open to breaking out of established mindsets. I think he is showing, in his interests and approaches, that's he's not so limited to his immediate influences, powerful though they were on him. I like JB not because he's bringing the 2T back for me (he's not), but because he's among those who are bringing quality back to US pop. A 4T is a somewhat less limited time spiritually than 3Ts are, at least among some people, because change is happening. Some later cohorts among millennials could become leaders of the next Awakening, just as some younger GIs like Alan Watts were of the previous one.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it was just a question, like you would ask me. Try again.

btw this what i have highlighted. I am not in competition with you, i am not attacking you, nor am i trying to push you into a corner. I am observing what you say and observing you say one thing then your action contradicts it. You say you understand mindsets. I do not see that and i believe when asked, not many here would say you understand mindsets. You may understand the theory, but it is limited to that. When talking to people, you seem baffled as to why some would not like what you like or not agree with what you agree with. This is just what i have observed. This is one thing that confuses me as i try to rationalize everything.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, proof that you watched. Excellent! It's always hard for me to understand how someone like Watts or Sheldrake can be so obvious, and yet people don't get it. I would not agree with him if he said the past wasn't there, or didn't happen. But what he said was that the past does not drive the present. That is the disproof of scientific materialism, whose entire project is to do just that. QED.

Ah ah, you brought up JB. Kinser alert! Kinser alert!

I don't think any of us are limited by the times we live in. Maybe in childhood, it's very hard for someone to break out. But later, anyone can break out of their established mindset, and widen it, at any time. I agree, awakenings are easier times to do that. There's a general mood of "let's breakout out of established mindsets." In 3Ts and 1Ts, it's more like "don't rock the boat; keep business as usual going." So I understand your position.

But I think cohorts from about JB's onward will be more open to breaking out of established mindsets. I think he is showing, in his interests and approaches, that's he's not so limited to his immediate influences, powerful though they were on him. I like JB not because he's bringing the 2T back for me (he's not), but because he's among those who are bringing quality back to US pop. A 4T is a somewhat less limited time spiritually than 3Ts are, at least among some people, because change is happening. Some later cohorts among millennials could become leaders of the next Awakening, just as some younger GIs like Alan Watts were of the previous one.

pmsl let him be upset. I am not worried about bringing jb up. He actually is irrelevant to me and talking about him does not bother me in the slightest. Btw i have also observed others do in fact bring him up. Just so you know i have observed some say it is only you that brings him up which is horse shit. I read the comments even ones i do not participate in except political ones given i am a foreigner.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, proof that you watched. Excellent! It's always hard for me to understand how someone like Watts or Sheldrake can be so obvious, and yet people don't get it. I would not agree with him if he said the past wasn't there, or didn't happen. But what he said was that the past does not drive the present. That is the disproof of scientific materialism, whose entire project is to do just that. QED.

Ah ah, you brought up JB. Kinser alert! Kinser alert!

I don't think any of us are limited by the times we live in. Maybe in childhood, it's very hard for someone to break out. But later, anyone can break out of their established mindset, and widen it, at any time. I agree, awakenings are easier times to do that. There's a general mood of "let's breakout out of established mindsets." In 3Ts and 1Ts, it's more like "don't rock the boat; keep business as usual going." So I understand your position.

But I think cohorts from about JB's onward will be more open to breaking out of established mindsets. I think he is showing, in his interests and approaches, that's he's not so limited to his immediate influences, powerful though they were on him. I like JB not because he's bringing the 2T back for me (he's not), but because he's among those who are bringing quality back to US pop. A 4T is a somewhat less limited time spiritually than 3Ts are, at least among some people, because change is happening. Some later cohorts among millennials could become leaders of the next Awakening, just as some younger GIs like Alan Watts were of the previous one.

Ok well I wont go further into what i have been discussing regarding you understanding mindsets. I will give you the benefit of learning. So I will just explain my mindset on what he said so you do understand or at least read what i say and maybe digest it. He says that the past fades away. We have evidence that while some things do, others do not. Skeletons do not, fossils of different varieties do not, evidence of the past is all around us and within us from what has shaped us. If one is brought up on religion from a book that was written in the past they usually follow what makes them feel "safe and comfortable." Which would be their religion. The past shapes people in childhood and they go on to shape the present from their interpretation of their past. Some things stay, some are rebelled against. That is my mindset on this topic.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

ok so i think that would be "perceiving" according to myers/briggs. That was not my dominant trait as i do see but i judge and when i judge i do tend to turn to tried and true methods. Look up my type for an answer there. It has been said we are more "traditionalist." Your type is not. But when faced with something that i could not explain and there was no answer that was when i was actually forced into looking within myself to explain what i saw. I directly observed and was forced to trust what i saw as to me, seeing is believing and as it was not a one occurrence i had to look within for an answer. I still am not sure tbh. So, looking from my experience with that, now i can understand.

Good. From my perspective, there is much to learn by looking within. I can see, for example, by looking within, that I am always in the present time. I can also see past and future, but I am always present. One can go quite deep just starting from there. And I can observe how things feel and sense in my body, and see the focal points called chakras. And can see the aspect of myself that is not the senses, but pure consciousness. That's just for starters. And self-reliance in the midst of confusion could also be called looking within, if I understood what you meant.

I don't remember your type. But if you go by what your senses tell you, that is sensing, not perceiving. S, not P. I myself am a P type. If you are judging, that is J, the opposite of P. Perceiving does not mean Sensation in the myers-briggs and jungian system. It means openness and spontaneity. Judging means decisive and scheduled. The opposite of Sensing is N, Intuition. In myers briggs and jung, this means knowledge of archetypes, generalities, and possibilities in imagination. An N person is a visionary, an S person is a doer or builder, or a maintainer and provider. N sees what could be, S sees what already is. I am strongly N.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, proof that you watched. Excellent! It's always hard for me to understand how someone like Watts or Sheldrake can be so obvious, and yet people don't get it. I would not agree with him if he said the past wasn't there, or didn't happen. But what he said was that the past does not drive the present. That is the disproof of scientific materialism, whose entire project is to do just that. QED.

Ah ah, you brought up JB. Kinser alert! Kinser alert!

I don't think any of us are limited by the times we live in. Maybe in childhood, it's very hard for someone to break out. But later, anyone can break out of their established mindset, and widen it, at any time. I agree, awakenings are easier times to do that. There's a general mood of "let's breakout out of established mindsets." In 3Ts and 1Ts, it's more like "don't rock the boat; keep business as usual going." So I understand your position.

But I think cohorts from about JB's onward will be more open to breaking out of established mindsets. I think he is showing, in his interests and approaches, that's he's not so limited to his immediate influences, powerful though they were on him. I like JB not because he's bringing the 2T back for me (he's not), but because he's among those who are bringing quality back to US pop. A 4T is a somewhat less limited time spiritually than 3Ts are, at least among some people, because change is happening. Some later cohorts among millennials could become leaders of the next Awakening, just as some younger GIs like Alan Watts were of the previous one.

Thank you for understanding what i mean and also my mindset type has been shaped more so to be "dont rock the boat." I was forced to try explain something i dont understand. I never believed in ghosts, but i went through many things that questioned what many deny exist. Doors opening by themselves (no, the way the door is positioned it could not be a draught and no one was there. It shut itself too. I would wake up with scratches all over my back and arms andhand marks, bigger than my own on my back. That i cannot explain. I cut my finger nails short too and i cannot bend that way nor can explain the large hand mark. I would wake up bloodied and bruised and scratched all over. I saw some freaky things too which completely baffled me. Taps and lights would turn on by themselves. I cannot explain any of it. I was awake for some of it too and witnessed some of it. When my nana passed away it suddenly stopped. I have no answer for this. Only for the apparition i saw and i can only explain it as maybe excess energy from a person and maybe a memory but i cannot be sure on this. It really made me question some things and i can not deny the physical things that happened in any rational manner.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good. From my perspective, there is much to learn by looking within. I can see, for example, by looking within, that I am always in the present time. I can also see past and future, but I am always present. One can go quite deep just starting from there. And I can observe how things feel and sense in my body, and see the focal points called chakras. And can see the aspect of myself that is not the senses, but pure consciousness. That's just for starters. And self-reliance in the midst of confusion could also be called looking within, if I understood what you meant.

I don't remember your type. But if you go by what your senses tell you, that is sensing, not perceiving. S, not P. I myself am a P type. If you are judging, that is J, the opposite of P. Perceiving does not mean Sensation in the myers-briggs and jungian system. It means openness and spontaneity. Judging means decisive and scheduled. The opposite of Sensing is N, Intuition. In myers briggs and jung, this means knowledge of archetypes, generalities, and possibilities in imagination. An N person is a visionary, an S person is a doer or builder, or a maintainer and provider. N sees what could be, S sees what already is. I am strongly N.

yes that is what i meant