Everything is Made of Energy Stuff

Ricky, thank you for sharing this, not only for sharing but for starting this discussion, this is how I realized how important is to communicate with respect and assertiveness. Actually my current meditations ended lately on some similar thoughts and it is great that you shared them here.

Sometimes I don't give myself enough time to come here as share the thoughts I got, but it is something, that you and everyone else that actually do, that encourage people like me to come and share.

Thanks again

Technically we are just a collection of energy, biochemical, bioelectrical, etc...as I sit I'm a mass of potential energy, when I get up and stroll across the room I'm a mass of kinetic energy, when I speak I release heat energy and vibrate air molecules creating sound...

Becoming one with everything is simple..just open your mind to it rather than slamming the door shut....or use some super glue or duct tape ....

Super glue for the non believers :laugh:

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” - Douglas Adams

:laugh:

Dude, you should check out the big ball of timey wimey thread. It's got a lot of cool theories in it.

Right now I'm studying pilot wave theory. The whole of quantum mechanics can be explained by it plus it's a continuous theory. It relates to this thread because there is a theory that space-time interacts with energy at multiples of a fundamental frequency(the de Broglie wavelength). So when you say it's all energy and vibrates, that's true... according to pilot wave theory. When you say we are all connected to everything, that's true too because our pilot waves interact and form superposition nodes(see principle of superposition), and things that are like double-slit interference, as seen in this animated gif

Well it's mostly good to be back. I see some things haven't changed.

For my first post back after my absence I feeling a heatfelt welcome from the postive statments many of you made.

Thank you.

As for my post....

....I try to get in, learn more about, rely upon, have confidenc with my intuitive and touchie feely. I desire to open myself to things directly that are beyond my limited senses.

I have a good mind for science and can conceptualize many/most scientific assertions. BUT truly knowing is beyond science and for me to rely on only science to explain and understand things is to limit myself. It is arrogant to think we are capable of knowing/mastering all there is. Knowing that you don't know frees/opens your mind to all possibilities.

Thoughts are not just about logic. Feeling is more than just emotions. Thoughts and feelings are very refined energies and are very very powerful though difficult to discern.

Having said that: I presented no evidence or facts of any kind, asked no questions nor tried to persuade anyone of anything. Accurate, meaningfull, worthwhile??? It was for me.

If anything I write makes you think/feel/expand your mind then I did good. Think what you like, believe what you wish and live well. We need more thinking and feeling to make the world a better place.

Peace

I personally believe what you said too, but with addition that this energy that is everywhere; it is conscious and aware.

scott777ab wrote: I personally believe what you said too, but with addition that this energy that is everywhere; it is conscious and aware.

Sure. We are an example.

What energy is like beyond our perceptions can only be speculated. I don't think I'd be stretching my imagination too much to expect that there are life forms more advanced/refined than humans.

So... if energy is conscious and aware (whatever the heck that means because with the ill, nay, sick non-definition of energy it could be literally anything and one might expect that consciousness and awareness are buzz words of the same nature), and we are an example of that, then wouldn't rocks be an example of energy being not conscious nor aware (unless the ill, nay sick non-definitions of conscious and aware are such as to allow for conscious and aware rocks, i suppose)? If we are arguing from examples, surely that must go both ways, and conversely, in order for it to only go one way the argument must be one that wouldn't rely on examples.

To the second paragraph of Rickie's post #153098 (and only to it from this point on) I would comment that admitting you don't know is something one should do if one doesn't know. At the same time, when I know, let's say, that the earth resembles an ovoid in shape, I am perfectly comfortable saying I know this (and I can show that I do), and, and here comes the crucial bit, while I am open to change my mind as new evidence comes about, I am not just "open to the possibility" of flat-earth geology. My skepticism wouldn't have me stick to a belief despite and against reason but at the same time, it wouldn't let me accept any without reason either, much less when I have plenty of reason to accept an incompatible claim to the one suggested.
Yes, I agree, on the quest of knowledge the blind reliance on one method is irrational. But of course if it happens to be the one and only most reliable method with no other ever showing any remotely comparable merit on any occasion, the reliance on that particular method, be it limited as it might, suddenly becomes very easy to justify. The assumption that we are capable to master all things is not rational and perhaps ultimately false, too, but we are fully aware of that when we employ it as a working assumption. If we assumed the contrary, we would constantly have to ask whether there is anything at all we can master and how would we go about telling masterable and unmasterable things from each other which would make the kind of progress that enables us to write without carving anything into stones and shipping them across the oceans over months rather than milliseconds, simply put, impossible.
Most of us owe their lives and all of us owe their lifestyles to the working assumption that things are within our reach and that we will get them all if only we try hard enough. It is not humble to assume that we cannot, it is cowardly and lazy. We know that there is a lot we don't know and we even know about some of the things we don't know. But to not know everything doesn't mean to not know anything. And we are open to whatever the answers we find shall imply for what we previously had accepted as working assumptions. We aren't open to possibilities, we are open to advancement. Our minds aren't free due to our ignorance, they are trapped instead in the pits of ignorance struggling to climb outand succeeding, one inch at a time, day after day. We acknowledge our ignorance, but we don't accept it - we fight it.

And wouldn't that be a sentiment to tie to or get out of the second line of the code?

Gisteron wrote: So... if energy is conscious and aware (whatever the heck that means because with the ill, nay, sick non-definition of energy it could be literally anything and one might expect that consciousness and awareness are buzz words of the same nature), and we are an example of that, then wouldn't rocks be an example of energy being not conscious nor aware (unless the ill, nay sick non-definitions of conscious and aware are such as to allow for conscious and aware rocks, i suppose)? If we are arguing from examples, surely that must go both ways, and conversely, in order for it to only go one way the argument must be one that wouldn't rely on examples.

If looking for useful definitions, an example might be 'conscious' being self aware, and 'aware' being aware of outside of self. The 'structure' of a rock is simple compared to an animal, and its rate, quantity and variety of change is, as a result, at a different temporal frame. By virtue of its simplicity that rock can last a million years, by virtue of our complexity we collapse near 100.

The problem might be expecting some truth from a practise, when the practise is not about seeking truth primarily but improving the experience of reality to have a better and more rich truth.

Funny thing is we are not really aware of what is outside of self, we are aware of our self interacting with outside which we interpret as outside! But for practical reasons it makes sense to split mental processing into different areas. One example would be to use a three tiered level of;

1. space realm - temporal, spirit
2. mind realm - corporeal representation, spatial
3. abstract realm - mental, emotional

While its all the same system of awareness, it probably uses different circuitry in the brain. Some people might have an ability to integrate visual processing (like in dreams) to different senses to work with such concepts. I dont think anyone is trying to 'define' reality by doing this sort of thing, rather have a greater experience of it or try to refine the experience for some nature of benefit.

I agree though we must stay firmly anchored in the science of reality, and for me Jediism does heavily incorporate science and scientific discovery to shape how we can better experience reality.