Effort to Simplify

[Vinaire]

The basic problem is an ADDITIVE to the state of STATIC. The most fundamental additive is SURVIVAL.

It is ok to postulate all day long, but the moment you want a postulate to continue (survive) as a CONSIDERATION, you are inviting trouble.

As long as one holds to a consideration, one is limited by that consideration for that duration. And when that consideration becomes fixed, one’s limitedness is fixed as well.

So, on the surface, the limitations are due to fixed considerations, or automaticities. But underlying that, the culprit is the additive of SURVIVAL.

It is only when something is surviving that it may be altered. So, the pre-requisite to any ALTER-IS is SURVIVAL. When a lie exists, it exists only because the underlying “truth” is surviving.

TRUTH is simply a fresh postulate that has no survival added to it.

.

 

[Rene Descartes]

The basic problem is an ADDITIVE to the state of STATIC. The most fundamental additive is SURVIVAL.

It is ok to postulate all day long, but the moment you want a postulate to continue (survive) as a CONSIDERATION, you are inviting trouble.

As long as one holds to a consideration, one is limited by that consideration for that duration. And when that consideration becomes fixed, one’s limitedness is fixed as well.

So, on the surface, the limitations are due to fixed considerations, or automaticities. But underlying that, the culprit is the additive of SURVIVAL.

It is only when something is surviving that it may be altered. So, the pre-requisite to any ALTER-IS is SURVIVAL. When a lie exists, it exists only because the underlying “truth” is surviving.

TRUTH is simply a fresh postulate that has no survival added to it.

.

As long as one considers that

survival => additive => problem

then is guaranteed to have solidity in the equation.

When one considers that

alter-is = survival

then they have created a game with inherent traps.

A game where one cannot win based on design alone.

Reminds me of the game of Scientology, the only game where everybody "wins".

Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

As long as one considers that

survival => additive => problem

then is guaranteed to have solidity in the equation.

When one considers that

alter-is = survival

then they have created a game with inherent traps.

A game where one cannot win based on design alone.

Reminds me of the game of Scientology, the only game where everybody "wins".

Rd00

Thanks for pointing that out, RD.

It is always a "mirror facing mirror" type proposition. Ultimately, one has to recognize the mirror set up that is creating the illusion of infinite.

.

 

[Doc]

Using examples to these posts that is applicable to life situations would be helpful to all if you are here to invite discussion from all.

Speaking in abstracts is as enlightening as handing down a tablet of thoughts from atop the mountain from which you are philosophizing.

 

[Vinaire]

Using examples to these posts that is applicable to life situations would be helpful to all if you are here to invite discussion from all.

Speaking in abstracts is as enlightening as handing down a tablet of thoughts from atop the mountain from which you are philosophizing.

Alright, give me some examples of considerations you have been holding on to for quite some time (Ha! that is the word clearer in me, ).

.

 

[Doc]

The basic problem is an ADDITIVE to the state of STATIC. The most fundamental additive is SURVIVAL.

It is ok to postulate all day long, but the moment you want a postulate to continue (survive) as a CONSIDERATION, you are inviting trouble.

As long as one holds to a consideration, one is limited by that consideration for that duration. And when that consideration becomes fixed, one’s limitedness is fixed as well.

So, on the surface, the limitations are due to fixed considerations, or automaticities. But underlying that, the culprit is the additive of SURVIVAL.

It is only when something is surviving that it may be altered. So, the pre-requisite to any ALTER-IS is SURVIVAL. When a lie exists, it exists only because the underlying “truth” is surviving.

TRUTH is simply a fresh postulate that has no survival added to it.

.

For example, this post....please give a basic example to apply to it .... it makes reading it make more sense...just a suggestion.

let's keep things objective, I am not here to be put in session.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Thanks for pointing that out, RD.

It is always a "mirror facing mirror" type proposition. Ultimately, one has to recognize the mirror set up that is creating the illusion of infinite.

.

vinaire,

one can have fun and mock up mirrors or the illusion of inifinite

remember I said "fun"

the key word here is "fun"

In the end I think one of the key things is what you are pointing out

additives

the only good additive is a fun additive

if one takes the fun out of the additive then there is no fun - excuse me whilst I sort of state the obvious

also if an additive is not fun, must one be required to "add" fun to make it "fun"?

Now that sounds like a mirror of inifnite illusion although there might be times where doing something like that would be a good thing, to at least mentally escape a trap.

But let's make sure there really is a trap there and let's not have an additive trap.

I think you and I are on a roll today.

Where is alanzo when we need him?



Rd00

 

[Alanzo]

Using examples to these posts that is applicable to life situations would be helpful to all if you are here to invite discussion from all.

Speaking in abstracts is as enlightening as handing down a tablet of thoughts from atop the mountain from which you are philosophizing.

You'll have to excuse Vinaire, Doc.

He's Indian.

 

[uniquemand]

Oh, and here I just thought he had a skin condition.

 

[Vinaire]

You'll have to excuse Vinaire, Doc.

He's Indian.

OK Doc, let's take the example of Alanzo postulating that he is an armadillo. That would work just fine because he can always change that postulate. He wouldn't be limited by that postulate for long.

But if Alanzo decides to continue that postulate of being an armadillo, then he is committing himself to the beingness of an armadillo. Thus, he would be limited because of his consideration. See, it is additive of "continuing to hold that postulate" or "survival of that postulate," which constrains him to that fate that all armadillos get subjected to.

Now, it becomes worse, as this consideration gets submerged into his subconscious and becomes an automaticity. Now, even when he re-postulates himself to be a human, he continues to act in many ways like an armadillo, and that creates a lot of conflicts. It gives rise to many unwanted conditions.

Now, I am sure you can make a similar example of your own. I know I am squirreling the word clearing procedure here, but it is ok as long as it produces some positive result.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Oh, and here I just thought he had a skin condition.

Indians are cooked just right when they were being created by God.

Whites are undercooked.

Blacks ore overcooked.

.

 

[uniquemand]

Are you trying to say you want to throw all white people in ovens, Vinaire?

 

[Rene Descartes]

OK Doc, let's take the example of Alanzo postulating that he is an armadillo. That would work just fine because he can always change that postulate. He wouldn't be limited by that postulate for long.

By if Alanzo decides to continue that postulate of being an armadillo, then he is committing himself to the beingness of an armadillo. Thus, he would be limited because of his consideration. See, it is additive of "continuing to hold that postulate" or "survival of that postulate," which constrains him to that fate that all armadillos get subjected to.

Now, it becomes worse, as this consideration gets submerged into his subconscious and becomes an automaticity. Now, even when he re-postulates himself to be a human, he continues to act in many ways like an armadillo, and that creates a lot of conflicts. It gives rise to many unwanted conditions.

Now, I am sure you can make a similar example of your own. I know I am squirreling the word clearing procedure here, but it is ok as long as it produces some positive result.

.

vinaire,

I am postulating that the beingness that I now have, the identity in this lifetime with this body, is immortal!!

So far so good!!



Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

Are you trying to say you want to throw all white people in ovens, Vinaire?

Maybe they themselves may want to throw themselves in ovens, the way things are going on the world stage.

.

 

[Vinaire]

vinaire,

I am postulating that the beingness that I now have, the identity in this lifetime with this body, is immortal!!

So far so good!!



Rd00

The question is, "Are you considering (continue to postulate) it too?"

If so, you would be limiting yourself by that consideration.

.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Indians are cooked just right when they were being created by God.

Whites are undercooked.

Blacks ore overcooked.

.

Ahh, I get it vinaire.

You are saying that whites need more masala

and that blacks need more cardoman

Now I know why the curried food in the chinese restaurants is so much different.

as usual you are enlightening to us all.

Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

The point is are you considering (continue to postulate) it too.

If so, you would be limiting yourself by that consideration.

.

Who cares??!!

It is working!!

Rd00

 

[Vinaire]

Who cares??!!

It is working!!

Rd00

I continue to be happy for you if you are happy with yourself.

.

 

[Night Owl]

<DELETE>

 

[Night Owl]

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

<DELETE>