Reef's Changing Ontology

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 10, 2024 19:51:38 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 10, 2024 19:51:38 GMT

Tenka:
While I am speaking my mind, I think you have entertained a lot of stuff that I was once ridiculed about when I first came to the forums which is another good thing in my eyes.

No doubt about it, Reef's is now very much singing to the Tenka choir, and yes, at one point it was Reefs herself who ridiculed you more than anyone else on ST for your "in the dream views" mistaken for "realization."

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:08:44 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:08:44 GMT

Mar 15, 2015 at 4:57am Reefs said:
The absolute is all there is. What is the relationship between all that is and all that is?

This is the perfect quote to mirror back to you, this many years later, as you insist upon and assert the existence of LOA and a "personal creator" who can be either "In" or "out of" alignment with Source.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:13:03 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:13:03 GMT

Yet another quote of the same:

Reefs-of-yesteryear: Are you trying to answer why and how the world was created? That's existential questions stuff again. Ask yourself, where do those existential questions arise from? Where does this drive to find answers to existential questions come from?

It comes from that same imaginary "someone" who is now insisting that LOA is an existent, inviolable "law" that dictates outcomes, who feels all warm, comfy and cozy in holding to that belief.

Do you even recognize that your belief in LOA as an existent Law, equals an "answer to an existential question"? (erroneous as it may be..)

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:26:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:26:32 GMT

Jan 24, 2019 at 3:46am Reefs said:
Cause and effect, as well as LOA, is camouflage (or part of the camouflage). In the smaller context it is a force to be reckoned with (that's why they call it the law of attraction and the law of karma). In the largest context, however, it is just one of many possible models of explaining the process of creation. You often hear peeps here talk about how creation is neither random nor predetermined but a spontaneous unfolding and how there is a certain order to this nevertheless. Quantum physics has some very interesting theories in that regard. But the model that seems to describe this spontaneous and yet orderly unfolding of creation best (both physical and non-physical) is LOA.

A much more diluted buy-in to LOA back in 2019, eh?

The fluctuations of your ontology/ontologies over the years, is something indeed...a wild ride!

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:31:14 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:31:14 GMT

Reefs:
I use the term co-creation the way A-H use it, i.e. in the impersonal LOA context, not just in the personal/deliberate creation context as you may have been erroneously assuming.

No such thing. You're imagining the existence of such a context.

From the impersonal viewpoint/context, there is no process of creation.....no causation within the dream. All people, all ideas, all feelings, all yearnings/desires, everything and anything that is perceived/a perceivable, empty and devoid of it's own inherent existence...appearance only.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:41:29 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:41:29 GMT

Reefs-of-2021:
Again, let's not confuse LOA with deliberate creation. Deliberate creation, as it is usually taught, assumes a personal creator, free will and cause and effect. LOA doesn't assume any of that. LOA works the same if there is a personal creator, an impersonal creator or no creator. And LOA also works the same if free will would be the case, determinism or just a spontaneous unfolding. And LOA also works the same with rational thinking or magical thinking. And LOA also works the same in a setting with time or timelessness, cause and effect or no cause and effect. But what LOA is incompatible with though is the idea of randomness. But randomness is like solipsism, it's a psychological impossibility. So it's a purely theoretical problem.

Throughout the years, you've flip-flopped between holding to one side of your silly distinction between plain old, stand-alone LOA, vs. "deliberate creation." But usually right after you've made that distinction and claimed you are only asserting LOA as Truth, not "deliberate creation" and at times, just as above, even going so far as to offer arguments debunking "deliberate creation," in a few posts later, you're usually right back to arguing once again for the veracity/Truth of "deliberate creation/being a deliberate creator."

You are so obviously completely confused and befuddled over this LOA/deliberate creator issue. And as I've said previously, I think it goes without saying, the reason the whole shitteroo of the ideas of LOA/deliberate creation combined, appeals to you so deeply, to anyone who is as attached to this teaching as you so clearly are, is because you are yearning and grasping for some specific set of conditions that you deeply fear, is not in the cards.

LOA/deliberate creation theory, offers a semblance of hope where otherwise, you'd have to accept "what is" and for you, that "what is" that is "absent/without the circumstance you crave for" is intolerable.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:46:40 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:46:40 GMT

Mutt-of-yesteryear (2021):
No doubt that "a guy climbed a mountain, defying gravity" is an after-the-fact, objectified description. But how is "like attracts like" not an after-the-fact, objectified description?

Look at that....actually pushing back a bit on the nonsense! Nice!

Reefs-of-2021:Well, it is, of course. It is a model of reality. And in that sense, it is not different from any other model of reality and will ultimately suffer the same fate as any other models of reality. But in the context of models of reality, it is by far superior to any other model, at least as far as I am aware.

So which is Reefs? An inviolable, (T)rue Law that absolutely, without fail "dictates" what will/can appear, or merely "a model" that will ultimately suffer the same fate as all models?

You are as slippery as they come.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 4:56:02 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 4:56:02 GMT

Reefs:
What is happening in your experience is a reflection of your state of being.

That would equal "two/actual duality."

State of being and is part and parcel of "what's happening in your experience." Nothing that happens in experience is actual creative/causal to anything else.

Wake up and that becomes crystal clear.

One appearing facet "causing/creating" another, may indeed be a very compelling, "seeming" experiential facet prior to SR, but after, you'll never look at "state of being/arising circumstance" that same way again, where just because state of being seemingly, apparently, "precedes" other content, it's mistaken to be causal/creative to it.

It's all one seamless, expression. No-thing that appears on the movie screen is actually causing anything else. That's just 'story.'

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 5:02:31 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 5:02:31 GMT

Reefs-of-yesteryear:
Right, how many people every year die of fear their condition being terminal than their condition actually being terminal, because some 'trained professional' with a degree in a hospital has given them a scary label or told them they only have 3 months to live based on some funny statistics?

So then, do you also then, still believe that people can die 'before their time'? If so, That most certainly asserts some kind of pre-destined time of "rightful death," vs. the death that happens "prematurely" due to fear.

This rabbit hole just keeps going deeper....

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

Reef's Changing Ontology Jun 11, 2024 6:23:46 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 11, 2024 6:23:46 GMT

Reefs:
Enigma apparently never got over getting banned. Figgles neither.

It's obvious you're still coming here to read my posts. Why?

Apparently you never got over it either....more specifically, you said you're done with my challenges, banned & blocked me, which continues to date, yet you're still interested in what i have to say. Despite your assertions, you continue to come here to read my posts (and respond to the points I make on ST) and have been doing so ever since you banned/blocked me from ST several years ago.

So, you don't want me posting directly on ST, but you do very much still want to read what I have to say. What are we looking at there Reefs....? Dishonesty combined with cowardice?

I'm okay with being banned from ST....I quite like the arrangement I've set up where I actually have freedom of speech, here on Gab.

And how would you even know how E feels about it all at this point? He's clearly moved on to other things....I highly doubt he's losing any sleep over what happened years ago as he was also sent packing from ST.

Last Edit: Jun 11, 2024 6:25:59 GMT by Figgles