Gurdur

I prefer heathen buttercups.

malai5

Dear Gurdur.

Are ''buttercups'' not from the same ''source'' as you?

But we agree, if ''buttercups'' are ''heathen'' (outside of religion) then so are we. And loving it.

Cheers.

Malai5.

Luiseach

Hmmm....I wonder: are you speaking symbolically? Are you talking about how we, as human beings, invest the natural world with what we define as 'meaning'?

malai5

Dear Luiseach.

What we are saying is very simple. There are ways to see which are very limited. Using only the ''given'' meaning limits the experience and as human beings usually do, adopt the ''Occams Razor'' approach. However, what appears to be the most obvious is only so in relation to what we have been taught. In other words, limited parameters.
When you start to examine what is appropriate in your actions and view and what is not, based upon what you really know and not what is appropriate socially or culturally ''correct'', you will be starting to see the real you and not the ''little'' self clone of your upbringing.

The ''natural world'' and everything else is invested with an ''agreed'' meaning, yet all have the ability to expand the ''personal'' meaning and maximise the experience of ''life''. To do this you have to divest of the ''robot'' you were taught to be. This process is so insidious, so automatic, you are ''blind'' to yourself and you don't even know it. Start by standing outside yourself and assess what you see. Never judge yourself, or compare with any others, for in truth you are an individual on an individual path, you just have to learn to see this. Be the opposite to a ''robot'', be your ''True'' self.

Cheers.

Malai5.

sweep

dear malai 5

I like flowers. they smell. marijuana flowers mean that I can cook them in butter and feel odd. dafodils and tulips smell good and look nice.

I like them because they attract bees.

the question I would ask is, if you write in this particular vein, how can any flower have a true meaning, when we can use different sorts of language to know them?

since you seem to be using umbrella theories without context, this philosophy could have tenuous links with any manner of situation. Only when we delve from the general to the particular do we find so much difference. Hence the world we derive is a colourful place, neither right or wrong, black or white, this or that; the further we travel from the stem to the branches the further away we get from the object, as it is.

to use a worn out old chestnut: sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees.

If I have misread you, I apologise

malai5

Dear sweep.

That is the point entirely. The 3d world is so enmeshed in it's learned ways, that it indeed, ''cannot see the wood for the trees''.
Individuals cannot see past their ''robot'' like ''instinctive'' animal behavior and way of being. If that is all humans were supposed to be, what is the point in being able to recognise your own consciousness. The ''unseen'', parts of you, the universal side to you is the reality and the truth. When viewed from that more expansive perspective, everything takes on a new meaning.
Marigolds are not marigolds, miracles are not miracles, you are not you (or how you once saw yourself).
The view from the ''bigger self''/universal position, will allow you to ''see the wood from the trees'', as there are no answers in the ''woods'', just ''woods''. The bigger view allows you to see the whole ''forest'', lets you ''see'' where you really are.

Cheers.

Malai5.

Richard1366

malai5

There is no God,
There is no higher power,
There was no creator....

Get over it...your 3D philosophy is Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest...

braces_for_impact

OOOoooooohhhhh, now THAT'S fluffy!

sweep

the anti-thesis won't cut it around here rich man. what's in a name? what is the thesis behind the term: god?

.... mums the word

feeling isn't dumb, feeling is god