Just checking in on the fish

  • Thread starter TENYEARS
  • Start date
  • #1
TENYEARS
472
0
So one of the fish has it's own forum, nice. Is the bowl bigger or does it just have mirrors?

Waiting..... or not.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Hi Tenyears !

Have you allowed yourself to be lured back into the bowl?
 
  • #3
TENYEARS
472
0
What bowl? I see only fish doing squareouts in an ocean with no begining and no end, no top and no bottom.
 
  • #4
FZ+
1,599
3
And hello again to the fish that thinks he is a ruler.
 
  • #5
Mentat
3,918
3
TENYEARS, I had not yet noticed your absence. You seemed as active as ever.

However, I have a question to ask you: If we are the fish, in a bowlless bowl (with no top or bottom or sides), then isn't our reach limitless? IOW, aren't we as free as we could ever hope to be? After all, if you happen to escape an infinite bowl, what space have you left for "swimming"?
 
  • #6
TENYEARS
472
0
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.
 
  • #7
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.
And yet what is it that we're reaching towards? What is there to attain ... if not the art of Zen? :wink:
 
  • #8
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.

What difference does it make then that we are in a "bowl" and you claim (claim, mind you, as you've proven nothing of the sort) that you are not. If you can realize beyond that which you realize, then you are "outside of the bowl". Until you realize that which you do not realize, you will never leave the "bowl", and realizing without relizing is self-contradictory/paradoxical, thus logically impossible.
 
  • #9
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?
 
  • #10
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?

Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.
 
  • #11
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.
Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point. :wink:
 
  • #12
TENYEARS
472
0
Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.
 
  • #13
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point. :wink:

That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is :smile:.
 
  • #14
Whatever limits or restrictions we can percieve or imagine we will find a way to break them, although I would like to know more accurately what those restrictions are.
 
  • #15
Royce
1,514
0
Yet if I know no boarders there is no threshold to pass through. It is we who create our boarders thus our thresholds thus limit our reach. This mentat is what I have been trying to tell you in other ways in other threads. We may be in reality in a fishbowl. But our reality is only in our minds.
Greetings Tenyears Good to hear from you again.
 
  • #16
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is :smile:.
Except that science has defined the limits, and this is what most people adhere to, at least on this forum anyway. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #17
TENYEARS
472
0
Iacchus32, that is exactly my point. Science at that point becomes nothing but a fact in a game of jepordy. Disjointed images and symbols. Truth requires one to go beyond that and not by dismissing what is obviously true and esential, but by that which is not.

Take IQ for example. I have always known it was a function of all human beings to have absolute intelligence. In 1987 I became a witness to it in a state of certainty. Only now there was a study of IQ and found it to be a function of nature VS nurture and it was found that nurture was found to be statistically a great factor in IQ. Obviously science is really not to swift for this to not have been done for so long.

Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.
 
  • #18
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.

But there would be no threshold - nor, indeed, any borders - if the bowl is (as you say) without top or bottom or sides.
 
  • #19
TENYEARS
472
0
Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.
 
  • #20
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

Good to talk with you all.

If you were really correct, you would address my objections direcly, instead of side-stepping them. I don't know if you've noticed yet (though I credit you with an at least average intelligence), but the members of the PFs (for the most part) are not disuaded by your mystic comments that serve as a smoke-bomb to disguise your escape of logical discussion.
 
  • #21
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by TENYEARS
Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.
Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."
 
  • #22
Zantra
781
3
I think TEN is suggesting that we're going in the wrong direction- that we need to rely on common sense, but not so much of logic. I can't grasp it's exact intent, because there's no context.

I know I've made some jokes about this (glug glug) but I'll adress it seriously now. I know the reference you're making, I've heard it made in other terms. You're basically saying that even if we reached the limits of the bowl an escaped beyond, we would not understand because it's so foreign to us. Science is a tool. But we must realize that like any other tool, it's only as useful as the person using it. And it has it's limitations. Science isn't complete, but many people use it as if it were. However we are not limited completely. The only limits are those of our imagination, and that is limiless as long as we keep improving it. We must realize finally that there is no bowl, that in fact our bowl is the universe, and we may only go as high as the water allows us, but if we've run out of water, then we must add more;) It's all very zen

Life is but a play, the earth is a stage, and we are the poor, poor players that walk upon it.
 
  • #24
TENYEARS
472
0
Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a refering to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

There is no symbiotic relationship.

There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.
 
  • #25
Zantra
781
3
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

As far as you not sharing your ideas with us, I can't fathom why- I don't think you'll find a more receptive bunch to new ideas than here on this forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
TENYEARS
472
0
Zantra, it is not that I do not want to share, it is that in doing so you lose because it becomes an object to your experience and not true knowlege. It's kind of like showing the the last five minutes of a movie without the sound or the sound with out the picture. It takes the zest right out of your search. People like to make it on their own steam. I know I do. If I post the logic some say I do not have and attempt to goad me into, what will you have? To some degree it is dangerous.

Look at Hitler, he took the words of neeeeeeeee chi and transformed them into a dream of a perfect people. Sick as it was there is some aspect of truth in the idea, but what he did relatively speaking was so out of context with the actual realization of ne that it was rediculous. Ah, gotta go.
 
  • #27
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.
Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of virual scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...

why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. i'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die
 
  • #29
oh and ten years... i'll check in on you in a minute, with my fist, until you cry, there.
 
  • #30
Royce
1,514
0
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.

Under extreme conditions a species may have a population explosion until its environment can no longer sustain it. It will befoul its environment with waste products until it kills itself off. Or if the extreme conditions are unfavorabe the species may die off completely and become extinct. We as a species were nearly wiped out long ago. our total population was estimated to be below 10,000.

Under stable conditions a species will eventually reach stability with other species in its particular nitche this may of course take hundreds of generations. It is rare that an environment will remain stable that long for such a stability to be reached.

We are now experiencing a population explosion and are befouling our environment. Soon we will exceed the abiliy of our planet to support such a large population and billions of us will die. Thus starting another cycle.

It does not have to be a catstrophic die off but by natural attrition of old age etc with a greatly reduced birth rate and environmental responsiblity. One way or another billions must and will die and not be replaced. Why isn't this obvious to everyone who took high school biology?
 
  • #31
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by steppenwolf
why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. i'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die
All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature. :wink:
 
  • #32
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Royce
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.
There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this? :wink:
 
  • #33
Royce
1,514
0
Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature.
 
  • #34
TENYEARS
472
0
Yes, the truth is not so fun is it. I had a dream a few months back and was not pleased. It was just a dream. I was in ocean waters and it was pure sludge, it was floating every where and there was not fish. I went in the water and it was even difficult to swim. I was helping someone. Then I was back upon the land watching posion pour into the oceans. I was looked to with some sort of status that those who were part of the process that were polluting were trying to convince me that it would be ok that it always has in the past. What a sick feeling.

The societies of man which lived in accordance with nature were mostly tribal societes and only tribial societys. The american indians understood the hoop of life. This was not only a beyond the skin realization, but a learning experience also. For example the herding of animals off of cliffs was a supposed hunting practice. A tribe can only eat, carry and treat so much food. I believe and do say believe that due to there practices large scores of game were wiped out and caused hunger to many tribal societies. They learned from their mistakes and slowly developed the practices which were used by the american indians for thousands of years until they were all but wiped out by the late a 19th century. This extinction of course was caused by an inferior way of life.

One may argue all the points one wishes with these statements, but they are true and it will be our undoing.
 
  • #35
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Royce
Each species other than Man is specialized to some degree. Man is the generalist and unspecialized making him vertually able to instantly adapt to his environment or adapt his invironment to his needs. Man, or Homo Sapiens are the ultimate generalist and adapter on this world whether created as such or evolved as such.

If we were created or planted in this world and not part of the nature of this world, not evoled here, then why is our DNA so much the same as chimp, so much so that we and chimps are more closely related than chimps and gorillas are? Why does our DNA contain that of every form of life on this planet?
From DNA alone it is obvious that we, from the lowest simplist virus or bacteria to Homo Sapiens are all one life form, one nature.
And yet if everything were a manifestation of God, who's to say that we don't represent God on the "highest level" -- "created in His own image" -- as we "step out" of the Garden and face that which has evolved towards us in our own likeness (more specifically the apes). Yet where everything -- even the apes -- seems to be an all inclusive part of nature, except for us that is. :wink:

Whereas just as there are evolutionary forces brought into play, represented by Mother Earth, there is also a static element in the whole equation, representing that which would be most like God Himself, the sun. In which case you have the predetermined characteristics of the Father, the sun, and the volitile evolutionary characteristics of the Mother, the earth. Indeed, if man were created in God's image (hence predetermined), then it would suffice to say that everything which is evolutionary in origin, would have arisen to support God's "introduction of Himself" into nature. In which case there has to be a "genetic lineage."

If you read the beginning of the book of Genesis, you can see how readily the idea of this fits in well with that.
 

Suggested for: Just checking in on the fish

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
170
Replies
2
Views
334
Replies
17
Views
445
Replies
14
Views
424
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
537
  • Last Post
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
946
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
945
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
376
Top