[OT] Eckhart Tolle

[rbro]

Eckhart Kicks ass, and I have been very lucky to witness him speak a couple of years ago.

Me too, last year. An amazing experience.

[BongoBennie]

I have a few of his live seminars on tape, besides being amazing, he is actually quite funny.

[leonard]

The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.

ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
then read in depth about electromagnetism, you can find the links on your own..

then read this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?qsrc=2888

then tell me again how chemical/atomic bonding is "intelligent"

[pulsoc]

The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.

ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
then read in depth about electromagnetism, you can find the links on your own..

then read this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?qsrc=2888

then tell me again how chemical/atomic bonding is "intelligent"

Thank you for attempting the always uphill battle against the new-age braindeath creep that so many feel-good hippy denialists insist on polluting philosphy with.

[Tone Deft]

The intelligence which holds even the most basic atomic structure together is absolutely mind boggling.

ok. it's a bit clear you don't fully understand.
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond
then read in depth about electromagnetism, you can find the links on your own..

then read this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ?qsrc=2888

then tell me again how chemical/atomic bonding is "intelligent"

Thank you for attempting the always uphill battle against the new-age braindeath creep that so many feel-good hippy denialists insist on polluting philosphy with.

except for the fact he got it completely wrong.

there are 4 fundamental forces in nature, electromagentism is not the one that hold atoms together.

FAIL. want to guess again?

[deva]

Again IMO, the clarification should be about how you 'frame' any moment of your life. Its always your choice to work within your uniqueness. A simple example is the glass that is either half full or half empty.

The 3rd option for the glass, is that it simply is. The concept of half full or empty is memory based. To experience the moment means exactly that it is not framed. If you look at a rose, and think, it is a rose, it smells good etc, you are in your memories not in the moment. The most beautiful and creative moments of my life have been when my mind is not referencing the present with comparisons from the past.

[chasedestroy]

mmmmmm.... the smell of warm eckhart tollehouse cookies.


that's a memory, im not living in the moment.

[pulsoc]

except for the fact he got it completely wrong.

there are 4 fundamental forces in nature, electromagentism is not the one that hold atoms together.

FAIL. want to guess again?

As usual, in your rush to be an Ahole you miss the point. Covalent bonding and intelligence are not related unless you want to radically change the definition of one or both. Why did he include electromegnetism? I don;t know. But he didn;t get it completely wrong.

[Tone Deft]

[

I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.

the point is pretty simple, no reason to point it out.

you're always a twat to me, chill out.

btw it's not that he included electromagnetism, it's that he included atomic bonding.

[pulsoc]

[

I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.

the point is pretty simple, no reason to point it out.

you're always a twat to me, chill out.

What concept did he miss??? He didn't explicitly tie covalent bonding with electromagnetism, and even if he did it wouldn't change his POINT, which was that ascribing the quality of intelligence to laws of physics expands the meaning of the term so as to render it meaningless.

And dismissing a valid point like this with your l33tsp3x FAIL bit entitles you to twat treatment, IMHO, especially considering that it was directed to MY quote.

[Tone Deft]

[

I'm not being an a-hole, it's a pretty basic concept he missed while copping attitude. FAIL. I agree that the OP made an annoying connection.

the point is pretty simple, no reason to point it out.

you're always a twat to me, chill out.

What concept did he miss??? He didn't explicitly tie covalent bonding with electromagnetism, and even if he did it wouldn't change his POINT, which was that ascribing the quality of intelligence to laws of physics expands the meaning of the term so as to render it meaningless.

And dismissing a valid point like this with your l33tsp3x FAIL bit entitles you to twat treatment, IMHO, especially considering that it was directed to MY quote.

you, leonard and the OP are three people who are using words and concepts that you do not understand.

electromagetism is responsible for chemical bonding.

the strong and weak nuclear forces are the ones that hold atoms together.

we agree that implying intelligence is in the fundamental forces of nature is a hippy dippy assault on science and common sense. I take it a step further that you and leonard are wrong for using terms that you clearly do not understand. get it? the same fault you find with the OP I find with leonard's post, people using terms they don't understand.

the OP is at least well spoken and interested in discussion, leonard simply misspoke in a hypocritical fashion, an easy call out for FAIL.

[pulsoc]

electromagetism is responsible for chemical bonding.

the strong and weak nuclear forces are the ones that hold atoms together.

we agree that implying intelligence is in the fundamental forces of nature is a hippy dippy assault on science and common sense. I take it a step further that you and leonard are wrong for using terms that you clearly do not understand. get it? the same fault you find with the OP I find with leonard's post, people using terms they don't understand.

the OP is at least well spoken and interested in discussion, leonard simply misspoke in a hypocritical fashion, an easy call out for FAIL, you're just being a dick.

The way I read it, leonard was responding to the OP's reference to the chemical composition of asbestos.

p.s. F#*k you.

[Tone Deft]

yeah, I say we kick his ass!!

if asbestos had any intelligence it would have killed a lot more humans than it already has.

[gjm]

Again IMO, the clarification should be about how you 'frame' any moment of your life. Its always your choice to work within your uniqueness. A simple example is the glass that is either half full or half empty.

The 3rd option for the glass, is that it simply is. The concept of half full or empty is memory based. To experience the moment means exactly that it is not framed. If you look at a rose, and think, it is a rose, it smells good etc, you are in your memories not in the moment. The most beautiful and creative moments of my life have been when my mind is not referencing the present with comparisons from the past.

In my earlier posts I mentioned 'perception.' My quote above is out of context if not partnered with perception. I tried really hard for years to subscribe to this sort of thinking, but I kept coming back to the position that a life is fundamentally memory based. There are two types of memory. The first is hard wired. Its a type of memory that passes on the essentials of a functioning life form. The second type of memory is developed or nurtured from birth. This is at its core the process of conditioning. There comes a time when a person can exercise the choice to challenge their conditioning. You can exercise your free will to not be on automatic pilot, and thus create a different outcome to a thinking process, or at least change a position held in the mind. I can see nothing in a humans life that removes them from this cycle. EVERYTHING is memory based. Even the ability to think relies on the memory to think. The ability is a recalled process.

To say that something simply 'Is' needs a qualification that relies on memory. Experiencing a 'moment' means that you had to be awake (as in not in a coma) and that your brain had to be engaged in thinking about what you experienced (dreams further the memory example). The fact that you can qualify moments as 'beautiful' means that your memory was accessed and your preference for 'beautiful' had a match. Within those moments, you would have made memory based judgements to 'stay' there because they were feeding you an experience that you were and still are processing via memory. Your 'Perceptions' about beauty were recalled. EVERY single moment in a life is framed by something. In fact, in any given moment there are many internal and external 'forces or process' that are shaping the quality of your moments. This is my point of contention with Tolle and others, that they ignore the fact that their own existence is perception based, requiring the exercise of memory. They are happy to tell you that you must change your memory and perceptions to follow their 'way of thinking', but then jump off the boat short of taking the claims to their conclusion.

To say that you can experience a moment without referencing the past means that you either wiped your memory or controlled your memory to the point that you went through a complex and active reasoning process while in the moment to push away certain thoughts and perceptions in order to allow a different set of experiences to be processed. If you wiped your memory so as to have no judgmental thought processes based on past perception so as to fully experience the moment, exactly how much was wiped PRIOR to the moment? What fundamentally 'new' memories were created? You actually should not be able to answer this because you wiped your previous perceptions and have started from scratch! More likely, and this is why I used the concepts of 'Framing' moments or 'Being' in moments, your exercised a discipline of your mind to control your unique conditioning processes to allow you to experience moments that you can now recall as beautiful.

I disagree that there was a 3rd option, or even that there was a second. There was only 1 situation presented by the glass of water. The brain was engaged to make a series of judgement calls. The result depends on how you individually decide to process the information.

Many peoples lives are made up of imaginary events, with things that either did not happen in the past or will not happen in the future. Some people even create imaginary stories of their future success while being blind to what is plainly obviouse and in front of them. Tolle and others admirably highlight the need to stop living with such perceptions by narrowing the size of the 'field of vision' of the brain and its memory so as to experience a less complicated existence. What they fail to do is follow through to logical conclusions. You cannot create your future, your present moment, or change your past. You can only decide the WAY you think about any given moment. NOTHING simply 'is' (meaning unaffected and unqualified by memory based judgements), it is always what you THINK it is.

[BongoBennie]

and all this has what to do with Eckhart Tolle?