Loneliness Is The Real Cause Of Selfishness

[xiaohua]

I don't understand people who claim that existence is definitively one way or another. At best, we can only ever determine how things appear to be. This reality could be a matrix, a hologram, a dream world for all we know. Don't box yourself into any religion, including the religion of materialism.

 

[meatbag]

I don't understand people who claim that existence is definitively one way or another. At best, we can only ever determine how things appear to be. This reality could be a matrix, a hologram, a dream world for all we know. Don't box yourself into any religion, including the religion of materialism.

There is so much more than appearance. If this existence is a hologram how can sensations be explained, pleasure, pain, hot, and cold. The assertions that life is some kind of hologram or "virtual" reality come from the types of people who want to convince everyone their lives have no meaning, that what happens doesn't matter because it isn't "real". What we do, how we treat each other, what we create; these things are very real and meaningful.

 

[xiaohua]

There is so much more than appearance.

That's what I was implying in my post.

The assertions that life is some kind of hologram or "virtual" reality come from the types of people who want to convince everyone their lives have no meaning, that what happens doesn't matter because it isn't "real". What we do, how we treat each other, what we create; these things are very real and meaningful.

You're preaching to the choir with me. People who think 'everything is material' are generally the ones who try to convince other people that there's no deeper meaning or essence to life.

 

[meatbag]

Whenever I see someone talk about materialism in such a manner first thing that comes to my mind is that a person is lacking a few IQ's or is ignorant or both. Of course that everything is matter or energy but I think your "dope" disabled you to be open and honest when it comes to understanding of things. We are not living under the glass bell. That's first.You learned that part from Peat because he can mentally contemplate that as a "material" evidence that it's like that. Oh Yes it's identical process but it just the the thing that we have no clue(and will never have) how to measure various SYNERGYSTIC influences/impacts from our environment and whole cosmos(synergy between nutrition, lifestyle, all environment,sun, stars, planets etc). So in "theory" yes everything is material but it's just the thing that synergystic circumstances and personal limitations from circumstances will never allow us to fragmentize all synergystic processes/impacts and interactions into single reactions and molecules. And when you can't do that you must call it "spiritual" or Devine (imposible to understand and comperhend) and that also is just one proof that ancients(traditions ) were much closer to Truth about Cosmos(Devine law or God) than today's Science(and Peat theory).Ray Peat A Thomas Kuhn Reader?

Most Scientists 'can't Replicate Studies By Their Peers'

Dude come on, don't call people low IQ or say they "lack IQ points" because they disagree with you. If you actually think someone is less intelligent than you and/or that what they are saying is wrong, just make your point and explain yourself. If you think you're right and their wrong and it's important to you that they learn what you view is correct, insulting them isn't conducive to their learning, in fact it hinders it.

That said I disagree. Just because something can be understood, observed, measured, and replicated doesn't mean its nature is not of the Divine. Just because something is "mysterious woooooo" doesn't mean is ever unknowable or not understandable. To think we shouldn't try to understand things and use that understanding to help inform our decisions; how to make things, what to do when we are sick, how to protect ourselves from radiation,etc., just because we can't know everything is silly. Like you imply, taking a reductionist view of our abilities to understand these things and reach the conclusion that if it cannot be measured and understood by our current capacities, it must not exist is also silly.

So if there is the spiritual and there is the material, then are they mutually exclusive and separate? No, the spirit is of the material and the material is of the spirit. Happenings in the material influence the spirit and happenings in the spirit influence the material. Otherwise we cannot claim there is a spirit since there would be no indication or influence of it or by it in the material.

How did the ancients acquire their truths? Is the process different then the process we use today to acquire truth? Not really, they made observations, recorded and tested those observations to achieve and explanation, and then passed them down. What hinders this process is dogmatism and an attempt to control. Of course there will always be flaws in our understanding, because human nature is flawed.

If you claim that;

So in "theory" yes everything is material but it's just the thing that synergystic circumstances and personal limitations from circumstances will never allow us to fragmentize all synergystic processes/impacts and interactions into single reactions and molecules. And when you can't do that you must call it "spiritual" or Devine (imposible to understand and comperhend) and that also is just one proof that ancients(traditions ) were much closer to Truth about Cosmos(Devine law or God) than today's Science(and Peat theory).

Then the Divine and the spiritual is just a constantly receding explanation that is reduced by the understanding of mechanical interactions between what we can recognize to exist.

 

[meatbag]

That's what I was implying in my post.


You're preaching to the choir with me. People who think 'everything is material' are generally the ones who try to convince other people that there's no deeper meaning or essence to life.

Yeah, I think a more holistic view of the material, which accepts that just because something "works" doesn't mean there isn't an improved explanation and that new understandings can and should be implemented (knowledge is tentative) opens us to realizing, "wow this world is incredible, there is so much going on". Embracing alternative explanations, without being so open minded our brains fall out on the floor. But I think rather than understanding just how things 'appear' to be, we can actually understand what is happening and apply it. I think part of the deeper meaning is to explore and to share in the exploration, not be a dragon that hordes anything; knowledge, pleasure, wealth, etc.

 

[nikolabeacon]

@Meatbag It's one thing to "measure" and another to "recognize" or "observe".

Their observations were holistic and much more truthfull (that said all synergystic interractions/impacts were taken into account ) not isolated in the lab or under the "glass bell"

Spirit or Devine is just that part when you can't "measure" it. Not that it's immaterial . That was "my point".

 

[meatbag]

@Meatbag It's one thing to "measure" and another to "recognize" or "observe".

Their observations were holistic and much more truthfull (that said all synergystic interractions/impacts were taken into account ) not isolated in the lab or under the "glass bell"

Spirit or Devine is just that part when you can't "measure" it. Not that it's immaterial . That was "my point".

Here is where I disagree; If something observed cannot be explained with present understanding, it should not be attributed to the divine. When it is understood in this way it is easy to, as I said, see Divinity as nothing but a receding explanation for things that we don't understand. Therefore when something is unknown, attributed to the Divine, and then a better explanation is achieved, this would mean the attribution to the divine was incorrect. To me the Divine is manifest in the understanding, and the unknown is just unknown that people take advantage of and say stuff like "Yup it was the demons that did that, now give me 10% of your income and i'll put in a good word for you with the angels so this bad stuff won't happen again" .

Okay, so the whole reason I started posting to you was because you made claims about Peat and Newton being 'autist' and making claims about how a failure to follow traditions is wrong. Well I'm not sure if you've actually even studied Physics, Chemistry, Newton, and Peat since there work literally shows the synergism of the Natural World. Before the understanding of gravity do you know what the "traditional" understanding of orbits and why things fall down was? If you look it up you'll see it wasn't very 'synergistic'. Have you read about the experiements Peat frequently mentions on which he bases his recomendations? The influence of planetary cycles on biorythyms? The influence of Carbon dioxide on Hormones and Proteins? The work of Robert O Becker and Polanyi? His approach lends so much the synergism of why and how things happen, did you just read things such as "Peat likes milk, drink some milk".


Can you give an example of an observation where "holistic and much more truthfull (that said all synergystic interractions/impacts were taken into account" vs the isolated lab vs "glass bell" understanding. IMO the isolated components are used to just used to understand something specific, and then it is determined how this fits into a "synergistic" understanding of how things work.

 

[nikolabeacon]

Here is where I disagree; If something observed cannot be explained with present understanding, it should not be attributed to the divine. When it is understood in this way it is easy to, as I said, see Divinity as nothing but a receding explanation for things that we don't understand. Therefore when something is unknown, attributed to the Divine, and then a better explanation is achieved, this would mean the attribution to the divine was incorrect. To me the Divine is manifest in the understanding, and the unknown is just unknown that people take advantage of and say stuff like "Yup it was the demons that did that, now give me 10% of your income and i'll put in a good word for you with the angels so this bad stuff won't happen again" .

Okay, so the whole reason I started posting to you was because you made claims about Peat and Newton being 'autist' and making claims about how a failure to follow traditions is wrong. Well I'm not sure if you've actually even studied Physics, Chemistry, Newton, and Peat since there work literally shows the synergism of the Natural World. Before the understanding of gravity do you know what the "traditional" understanding of orbits and why things fall down was? If you look it up you'll see it wasn't very 'synergistic'. Have you read about the experiements Peat frequently mentions on which he bases his recomendations? The influence of planetary cycles on biorythyms? The influence of Carbon dioxide on Hormones and Proteins? The work of Robert O Becker and Polanyi? His approach lends so much the synergism of why and how things happen, did you just read things such as "Peat likes milk, drink some milk".


Can you give an example of an observation where "holistic and much more truthfull (that said all synergystic interractions/impacts were taken into account" vs the isolated lab vs "glass bell" understanding. IMO the isolated components are used to just used to understand something specific, and then it is determined how this fits into a "synergistic" understanding of how things work.

Synergystic interractions/impacts even inside of one living cell are close to imposible to "measure" let alone when you want to study and "measure" interractions/impacts between millions of molecules, cells or between our complete organism and whole environment and it's impacts.

That's the problem with everything "scientific". It's all great in theory but when you apply that to real world it all just fails. As I explained in other thread very often knowing lot only makes it much more difficult to understand whole thing. People are falling on big Names and "science" . But every "part" that someone recognize , observe(and even measure) can give you a clue ,but only a clue , what's happening in synergy. People today easily tend to neglect simple wisdom such as "less is more" when it comes to knowledge.

I read Peat's blakish Moto "more" "more" , "more" but it's sound like too much LSD or cyprophetadine at times you know or some other kind of "dope" that has nothing to do with reality.

It depends also on what sources of traditional knowledge you based your points that their knowledge wasn t very synergystic. Traditional or ancient knowledge about Influences of planetary circles on byorhythms is great.But I guess in Peat world it's BS or some kind of conspiracy. I have read everything from Peat that can be found on net (including all his books) that he presented to public. And also about other people he mentioned in his work.

Example is everywhere and time will tell that majority of current "scientific" progress brought more harm and dissbalance in harmony than "improvements"
you can not just measure isolated molecule and just "fits it somewhere in synergy. With isolated parts as i said you will hardly understand something. In fact it's the opposite. that gyorgyi's quote explains it very well.

 

[meatbag]

I read Peat's blakish Moto "more" "more" , "more" but it's sound like too much LSD or cyprophetadine at times you know or some other kind of "dope" that has nothing to do with reality.

I don't understand, what moto? Only "moto's" I've heard form the guy are "Perceive, think, act" and "keep fun up, and stress down"

That's the problem with everything "scientific". It's all great in theory but when you apply that to real world it all just fails. As I explained in other thread very often knowing lot only makes it much more difficult to understand whole thing. People are falling on big Names and "science" . But every "part" that someone recognize , observe(and even measure) can give you a clue ,but only a clue , what's happening in synergy. People today easily tend to neglect simple wisdom such as "less is more" when it comes to knowledge.

If you're referring to 'Big Names' like Neil Degrasse Tyson and the party people of science, well, I wholeheartedly agree with you! If you're referring to people such as Newton, Einstein, Maxwell and Polayni etc. Well I wholeheartedly disagree. But again, it is about their work and their claims, not the people themselves. When I use the name I am using it as a 'stand-in' to represent their work. I do not disagree there is a 'cult' of science, but hopefully you recognize there are divisions within the domain.

And what are clues but something to follow up on? I don't think anyone here or Peat would say "Yuppers, we got the clues, we're done here". Yes often times big things are made of small things, often times the characteristics of the big thing can be explained by the small thing, but sometimes there are distinct differences between something and its constitutes. As I'm sure you're aware one of the first rules of Chemistry is, "The difference makes a difference".

It's funny, "Doing more with less" is a statement Peat frequently makes, from what I have read and heard from him. But please understand, I am not making the man out to be anything but a man who has done interesting work, who has done good by many people.

It depends also on what sources of traditional knowledge you based your points that their knowledge wasn t very synergystic. Traditional or ancient knowledge about Influences of planetary circles on byorhythms is great.But I guess in Peat world it's BS or some kind of conspiracy. I have read everything from Peat that can be found on net (including all his books) that he presented to public. And also about other people he mentioned in his work.

Just like it depends on the application of what is learned from science. If you think it is "science" that is the causing the problems you're attributing to it, I'll just restate what I said earlier "you're attributing the cause"

Can you please "assert" specifically what you disagree with Peat about? So far it seems like you think Peat is "anti-tradition", well he frequently alludes to wisdom found in traditional practices and then shows science that has been done that supports this;


"I knew people in the biodynamic/ Steiner approach; and they told me various interesting things about the influences of fields created by the moon cycles and so on. And, following up on some of that stuff, I found out that there were fairly mainline researchers continuing ideas that Steiner had proposed, doing the interaction between the moon cycles and botanical processes. From the 20’s thru the 40’s there were several people doing very good research unrelated apparently to Steiner, but showing that organisms are biologically coordinated through the earth and moon fields."
- KMUD: "Steiner Schools And Education

Where is the conspiracy? Sounds like he is just saying that the environment of the organism has a synergistic effect, all the out to the planetary cycles.

that gyorgyi's quote explains it very well.

Which Györgyi quote?

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think mediated is the wrong word, "identical with" is better.
If you feel happy, it's because some configuration of materials is producing that feeling; there's nothing outside of material relations.
There's no reason to think that people should focus on maintaining all sorts of "relationships" to get what can be more conveniently produced by drugs. The reason that the pleasure-causing drugs are illegal, is at least in part to keep people addicted to the idea that they must maintain certain social relations in order to feel good. It's a half-truth at best.

 

[nikolabeacon]

That Moto is from his book(if you remember) probably when on too much LsD or cyprophetadine. Second is from recent years I guess after some time on his new prometabolic diet that boosted his serotonin or when he realized it's better not to publish new books on nutrition anymore because knowledge is "tentative".

I explained in other thread with which part I disagree ...mostly his problem with responsibility, and contradiction between all those stories, his recommendation(and honesty with them) ,you briefly mentioned , and reality. And many anecdotal personal experiences that also have nothing to do with Truth.

Quote from that link about "scientists and their peers" @Meatbag

 

[meatbag]

That Moto is from his book(if you remember) probably when on too much LsD or cyprophetadine. Second is from recent years I guess after some time on his new prometabolic diet that boosted his serotonin or when he realized it's better not to publish new books on nutrition anymore because knowledge is "tentative".

I explained in other thread with which part I disagree ...mostly his problem with responsibility, and contradiction between all those stories, his recommendation(and honesty with them) ,you briefly mentioned , and reality. And many anecdotal personal experiences that also have nothing to do with Truth.

Quote from that link about "scientists and their peers" @Meatbag

Are you referring to this Blake quote? Also Ray has never recommended (that I have seen) more than 1mg of cypro at a time and even then not for very long.

"Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more. The bounded is loathed by its possessor. The same dull round, even of a uni-verse, would soon become a mill with complicated wheels. If the many become the same as the few when possess'd, More! More! is the cry of a mistaken soul; less than All cannot satisfy Man." -- W. Blake


"Analyzing living systems we often have to pull them to pieces, decompose complex biological happenings into single reactions. The smaller and simpler the system we study, the more it will satisfy the rules of physics and chemistry, the more we will 'understand' it, but also the less 'alive' it will be. So when we have broken down living systems to molecules and analyzed their behavior we may kid ourselves into believing that we know what life is, forgetting that molecules have no life at all." -Albert Szent-Györgyi

But those molecules support life, no? When we are sick doesn't an understanding of biochemistry help us? Again the issue is not with the knowledge but with the application, and the cause of the misapplication is not simply the desire to "know".

Peat has had experiences, researched, and formed his own conclusions. When you think you have something good and helpful to say, don;t you want to share it? Isn't that what you're doing in the other thread? When a person sees something wrong being done, shouldn;t they speak up? ( such as Peat on estrogen therapy). We can't make conclusions like, "Yeah that guy must have been on a lot of drugs, quoting that famous artist and stuff"

Like I've said, the whole reason I started posting was you claiming people who had different views on the applications of very similar information (szent-gyorgi, buteyko, ling) had mental disorders and were somehow defective. If you don't see how that's a problem I'm not sure what else I can say to you. Again, I do agree with you about certain things but I do not agree about your conduct (calling people autistic and low IQ) or the conclusions you've made. If you disagree with something, you'll find full support from me to speak up and share your views, and I'll enjoy reading what you have to say and probably learn something. But again, hopefully I've been clear about what exactly it is you've said that I take issue

 

[nikolabeacon]

Are you referring to this Blake quote? Also Ray has never recommended (that I have seen) more than 1mg of cypro at a time and even then not for very long.

"Reason, or the ratio of all we have already known, is not the same that it shall be when we know more. The bounded is loathed by its possessor. The same dull round, even of a uni-verse, would soon become a mill with complicated wheels. If the many become the same as the few when possess'd, More! More! is the cry of a mistaken soul; less than All cannot satisfy Man." -- W. Blake


"Analyzing living systems we often have to pull them to pieces, decompose complex biological happenings into single reactions. The smaller and simpler the system we study, the more it will satisfy the rules of physics and chemistry, the more we will 'understand' it, but also the less 'alive' it will be. So when we have broken down living systems to molecules and analyzed their behavior we may kid ourselves into believing that we know what life is, forgetting that molecules have no life at all." -Albert Szent-Györgyi

But those molecules support life, no? When we are sick doesn't an understanding of biochemistry help us? Again the issue is not with the knowledge but with the application, and the cause of the misapplication is not simply the desire to "know".

Peat has had experiences, researched, and formed his own conclusions. When you think you have something good and helpful to say, don;t you want to share it? Isn't that what you're doing in the other thread? When a person sees something wrong being done, shouldn;t they speak up? ( such as Peat on estrogen therapy). We can't make conclusions like, "Yeah that guy must have been on a lot of drugs, quoting that famous artist and stuff"

Like I've said, the whole reason I started posting was you claiming people who had different views on the applications of very similar information (szent-gyorgi, buteyko, ling) had mental disorders and were somehow defective. If you don't see how that's a problem I'm not sure what else I can say to you. Again, I do agree with you about certain things but I do not agree about your conduct (calling people autistic and low IQ) or the conclusions you've made. If you disagree with something, you'll find full support from me to speak up and share your views, and I'll enjoy reading what you have to say and probably learn something. But again, hopefully I've been clear about what exactly it is you've said that I take issue with and it isn't the preference for potatoes.

Yes that quote.

Yeah they support life in synergy.

Yeah but if you mentioned Ling, Gyorgyi and Buteyko and other people he mentions I wouldnt put them in a same category...Just because they lack that "dope"

 

[Xisca]

I was standing on a platform waiting for the subway. There was only a couple of people scattered around, each looking at their phone, each emptily staring in front of them or far away into the tunnel, all wisely chosen strategies to protect their field of vision from other people. I was also maintaining my own little box of privacy as I stared at my own shoes, but when I looked up, my eyes met the most wonderful, warm, inviting, soul-pouring gaze ever. It was from a woman slightly older than me, but I instantly felt that I knew her. Her eyes were that of a mother I never had, a sister I never had, and of a true friend that I might never have. It felt like a mental hug. I quickly looked away, but it was too late. I felt a jarring pain in my chest, a smoky heat in my throat, and my vision was getting blurry from tears which I managed to hold in just until I boarded an empty corner of the train and pathetically cried like a lonely foreigner does.

I'll never forget that look.
I made a true friend for four seconds.

My point here is this: if one person's look had such a strong impact on a random stranger, imagine just what it would be like if we looked at each other with eyes charged with such feelings. Just my 2c and a sappy story, I guess.

Might have been me! I do this often, so that I can get a smile back and feel related. Well just to be me. I know that often people just do not want to be 1st as they think others do not want what they want.
We all want heart relations, even for 4 seconds.

 

[Xisca]

ah, the wonders of solitude.....I really like being alone together with someone.....

Yes I dream about doing the same as when I am alone, but with some invisible link with someone. No muchedumbre, just some slight feeling you have to feel as a breeze not a whirlwind!

 

[Xisca]

So what if your honest and people disagree with you?

Ho yes. .. cooperation does not mean people cooperate with others but that they look for people Who can cooperate with them!
Real cooperation was more obvious when people did it together from birth.

 

[Xisca]

Good points. In my experience, women generally need and value social support much more than men.

Mars and Venus. ..
Actually this is social and not linked to gender as such.

 

[meatbag]

Mars and Venus. ..
Actually this is social and not linked to gender as such.

Xisca you're killin me lol you know you can reply to multiple people in the same post :p

 

[Xisca]

@Meatbag I know but I am struggling with my phone! This topic went too fast for me and I try to catch up a pesar de mi móvil that changes my words to spanish when I am not caratula!
Ho my! I had written careful!

 

[lollipop]

Dude come on, don't call people low IQ or say they "lack IQ points" because they disagree with you. If you actually think someone is less intelligent than you and/or that what they are saying is wrong, just make your point and explain yourself. If you think you're right and their wrong and it's important to you that they learn what you view is correct, insulting them isn't conducive to their learning, in fact it hinders it.

+1