Think Different - Essential

What do you think the world will be like in the year 3012?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:36:00 -0400

In my opinion basic needs that represent ourselves to other things should have a tremendous leap, again and again no matter what, even beyond 1000 years. Why? Because for any kind of research actually represent self actualization to different forms of real life, and the closest research to our typical (that will always be the most interesting fields) are:

- Ourselves, genetic engineering,
- Our inner self, spiritual awakening
- Control, interconnected between our brain and machine
- Intimacy, no distance from us to the other people through communication
- Health, human will have more chance to live longer
- Public Services, online shopping
- Entertainment, virtual reality
- Violent, even stronger since there will be hard competition
- Protection, nuclear weapon ownership will spread to many countries
- Space, there will be space domination, for the moon and other planet for our resources
- Leadership, since i believe anything should have balance, fairness, then when at one side has been improved tremendously (extremely), but the other side will lead to create equilibrium, and it will naturally be realized through the leadership of a very strong and dominating, and move from one country to other countries as an natural adjustment, to eventually stop (beyond 1000 years) in a country until the time for the longest period ever happened in domination (It’s because anything move within different poles of a cycle, big to small, many to less, small to big, less to many, and any possible of cycles, to create balance)

Now, make all of these as one scenarios, it’s fantastic and even scary.

Less or more …

Do you believe in collective unconscious?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:34:10 -0400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

Yes, i believe. I will try through another way. It’s gen. Gen supports typical of our personality, but gen also has standard for typical of human generally.

If we consider that this gen has its own forms for typical of human, and since we have consciousness because of this gen, then this gen that works unconsciously for us, should be considered a reflection of collective unconscious.

Less or more …

What's in a name?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:32:22 -0400

We have our own personality that given outside from our name. Alphabetical has its own vibration, just like playing specific color of music day by day. As we use our name, finally our natural personality can be pressed because of the name, then we tend to change the direction as noted by our name. This can be happened only if we have strong name.

We can check (http://seremonia.blogspot.com/p/visio-persona_5134.html ) whether our name give nice atmosphere to ourselves, and it will be an added value to the character of ourselves.

If we think this analysis is as we felt on everyday life, then our name can be considered as a booster to our natural personality. But it could be, that we are feeling just not the same as described on this analysis, therefore, there might be a personal conflict inside ourselves. If we can manage this conflict (caused by the differentiation between our personality & our name), then we can stay on both sides (lucky we are), but if we can’t manage it properly, we maybe act on everyday life just like people without determination, confusion.

There are plenty of research in this field, for the power of name, several of them http://www.mendeley.com/research/whats-in-a-name-mortality-and-the-power-of-symbols/ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/29/theobserversuknewspages.uknews

But, NAME HAS NO EFFECT to people that has strong personality (that has clear and strong needs to be done), learning motivation, expert on meditation, and doing another options for practicing character building. But, while we are on a weak state, our name will take control on us. It’s hidden enemy or an added value as blessing in disguise.

Complete name reflects our whole personality, while nickname reflects our short response. We better select both wisely.

What’s in a name? It’s the Power of Name that shapes our styles and our taste, silently or not.

Less or more …

What is the definition of intelligence ?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:30:51 -0400

Thinking is activities by associating and connecting among associated proportionally, then tracing limits between them. Thinking is just one of another process that build the structures of intelligence.

For intelligence itself,

Judging from:

- Living things or organic beings, intelligence, is an act of defense that can maintain the viability of an organism or living things (their selves). Similarly, a smart community can defend the community itself from collapsing. The more standard needs of a community or a living thing can be maintained, and the more often it happens, it is increasingly showing its intelligence.

- Non-organic objects or other material, the material is not a smart thing, but you will see the intelligence behind the material if it’s capable of moving or able to make the movement from a starting point to another point and can go back to the original point. The more perfect of a movement of a material in a circular pattern, the greater the intelligence behind the material.

Computer is an objects that can be directed to form a loop. If the computer is not damaged and showed the ability to make a circular pattern, it appeared there is intelligence behind the computer (in this case, who activate the computer, or someone makes a computer).

The simplest appearance of intelligence is similar to a sweep of the circular trajectory. Reason behind this, because life is always something moving, then after something is moving, the momentum will continue in a linear direction or headed in different directions. If the movement similar to linear, then it might be smarter or may not be smart. But if it is against momentum and form a resistance movement in a circular pattern, something that not only has the power of resistance to a certain extent, but something that also has the will, which is indicates an intelligence.

The larger the area of movement to form a circular pattern, or the neat form of circular pattern, or circular movement involves an object that is getting bigger, then this is all also determine how big the accuracy as well as the strength of an intelligence.

Intelligence is the ability to take different directions to maintain or reach something.

Less or more …

Define your essential purpose in 10 words or less

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:23:52 -0400

Widening awareness to aware duality to non duality to God

How do you know you have found your passion?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:23:08 -0400

Meditate is the most sharp way to guide us in this field.

But practically, you can try these to closer to self understanding:

1. Try to interact with others. Read book, widening our knowledge to give us more chance, to get our passion with fair (no hidden of something that left behind),

2. If your heart vibrate strongly to something, whether it triggered with curiosity or strong denial, it may be your passion,

3. Just make your list and make a log for further experience. Perhaps in the future your heart will vibrate strongly or even stronger to something the same as you experienced in the past (in this case: one not enough, but more makes clearer)

4. Try to validate, whether it against your believe or not. If it against your believe, try to generalize it and look for other subset that you might still interested on other subset with strong vibration within your heart. And repeat again for the number 3.

5. And if you found something then, the best part is struggle, fight to achieve it with kindness & carefully until you get what you dream on.

If somehow you thought this was wrong passion, then remember this: we already passed this correctly then it’s our limit. We are imperfect, but we try to do the best. It’s our ever best guess.

Less or more …

Does life have to have a fight (cause) to be meaningful?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:22:01 -0400

Our life is meaningful when we consider ourselves having fairness. Just when we thought we had fair life, then we thought we had meaningful, happiness life. That’s our right, a fairness.

Why we faced fights:

- Usually we let ourselves (aware or unaware) closer to the wrong way that led us to unfairness (mismatch)
- Usually we didn’t see process as it should be for ourselves and it made our heart feeling hurt (unfair)

We should see our essential purpose personally (not always be the same to others), and we will accept that essential purpose as our own boundaries (unique standard for ourselves) and fulfilling it with patience without “a (sense of) fight” feeling in our heart.

Fight (a kind of survival that will hurt their feelings, that be considered personally as hard way) is a must for any people that cannot open their mind. Usually kids experienced this and kids didn’t feel any meaningful life, but don’t let us (with more awareness) drawn into this.

It’s not about how we should change the world, but it’s about we change ourselves to accept the world and we see the world change for ourselves. It’s not as easy as it said, but the point is, that we could live within this idea as long as we know where are we within huge plan of life. And when someone already have a way to see the right place to fulfill their own fairness, they will put on it with sincerity and with patience as an adjustment in comfortable FEELING. They won’t see fight anymore. See anything as should be without hurting their selves.

To be meaningful? is fulfilling the correct fairness specifically for ourselves personally.

It’s a classic suggestion but worth, that by meditating we could seek our own pathway (correct fairness).

It’s a long road, but knowing this, is an essential start. Further, achieving awareness that make ourselves aware where we should be placed on specific & correct fairness and patience to fulfilling it, is a tremendous achievement in enjoying our life.

Less or more …

How can something be called as God?

Wed, 30 May 2012 03:18:03 -0400

Actually “God” is just a term for us:

- labeling, identification for specific Super Existence, Being or similar to these (this will always make idea behind “God” seems exclusive, typical, intimidating)
- easy to direct within our conversation

That’s why i didn’t want to jump directly to the term “God”. For me it’s intimidating (but that’s different ways of us). First, i prefer (had) to find out what kind of something that can be considered as Super Being? I had to find out about what could be considered as “Powerful”, “Super”, “Real Control”, “Real Independent” Being and similar to these (hope you get my point), AS IS.

I didn’t want to accept “what is God” or “God is”. I just want to find out, what is provided by the truth as it is for us? what is the farthest provided by the truth as it is for us? what is the farthest limit provided by the truth as it is for us?

And i found that the farthest limit provided by the truth as it is, is the fact that any existence fall down between two positions:

- dependence to something

- not dependence to something

It’s not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It’s strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence. It’s not about i don’t want to save you, then you will not exist, or it’s not about i gave you chance, now you are alive.

It’s essential. It’s about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It’s relatively, since we may say that our existence live within earth, within bigger space, within biggest space.

It’s strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can’t be exist without its function.

Andas an argument (for the existence of called God) that ensuretheanswer tothis question (what is provided by the truth as it is for us? what is the farthest provided by the truth as it is for us? what is the farthest limit provided by the truth as it is for us?), that “the earliest” is the farthest limit that came out to me from the truth as is. And it told something about the farthest limit. And it’s the set “as the earliest” (uncaused cause, the biggest). But, i didn’t mean it’s God! It’s the real “Super Set” that everything depended to this (live within, relied on, and similar to these).

At the further stage i just had to find out whether this truth already told around us. And i found that typical as it is, has the name called “God”. Therefore i added another label as “God”. But in essence that doesn’t mean i accept the term “God” very very easily. It’s just my last assertion. I started from the truth and goes to God (not in a contrary), just to put myself fair enough while dealing in this case.

At first seemed out of intimidation, but for the last, seemed being intimidated. But it’s enough for me to know that my assertion that can be considered as my backup for further life after died, is based on the truth. That’s my maximum effort.

I am not the kind of Real Super Being, i am just trying to do the best to make logical relation between what can be offered by the truth as it is and what should we do to make a backup for further survival (live and life after died).

In my opinion, not creating backup it’s similar to carelessness. And creating backup is common and could be accepted, but pick a backup without checking the possibilities compared to the truth, it’s even worst.

That’s the best i could do, the rest is up to the next truth as it is.

Is There a God? Yes, There is a God!

Mon, 28 May 2012 18:04:00 -0400

After a long search for truth and finally found evidence of the existence of God, … and after knowing the absence of arguments to the exploration of pattern depth exploration as i have, so i started this publication.

We should understand in this field, very carefully, or we will be trapped on classic argument about free will, suffer & similar to these, and we will judge there is no God according to these, easily without further analysis. It’s like saying that “seeing is believing” but we did based on hearing and thinking without seeing & still believe. It’s funny, and we don’t want to be trapped like this. Or it’s like saying something is subjective therefore i will make a denial, but we are still doing in a subjectivity. Or it’s like saying, should be very logic, deductive, axiomatic, should be measured, strictly, … but on everyday life we often made an adjustment based on possibilities, guess & similar. We just have to put our will fair enough.

The point is, if we wish to explore in this field we should put our consistency wholeheartedly, so we could act to analyze without emotional or overconfidence, overprotective and without easy to make denial and similar to these. It’s a long journey, i hope you have huge patience to run on this very hard road.

This argument may have perfected the argument that you know is: “because of the infinite backward search is not possible, then it will end to the earliest of Something (God)” (cosmological argument), where I made perfection by abolishing the reasons relied on “the consequences of infinity”, and by looking at what happens if the idea of infinity in this argument is sustained, then observe the consequences.

There is a God (The Greatest Uncaused Cause)

The existence of something comes from the existence of something else and the existence of something else comes from the existence of something else, repeatedly, to form backward search from current cause to the previous cause endless.

1. “x” derived from ~ (endless). //(“x”, current cause) derived from ~ (endless, the previous causes)//

2. Assuming there will be no existence come out from (represented by) “x”, then the left-most boundary is at “x” and the possible way to find a trace is by tracing back to the right direction (the previous cause) move away from the “x”.

3. The question now is whether there is anything (existence) can come out currently? There are two possible answers are:

If it’s not possible for the creation of any existence, then there is no change in the number of existence,. And the amount of existence from the “x” to the right (previous causes away from the “x”) is for certain amount (finite amount of existence). It asserts there is existence as the earliest. //THE PREVIOUS CAUSE IS AWAY FROM “x”//”x” <————| previous causes that ended//

If it’s possible for the creation of any existence, then this asserts that from any point in between “x” and pointer that far away from “x” (labeled with “y”) could be tracked back closer to “x” //THE PREVIOUS CAUSE IS CLOSER TO “x”//previous causes that ended at or closer to “x” |————>//

4. Which resulted in the formation of two-way tracking down as follows:

tracking to the right, from “x” to backward, away from “x”//”x” as current cause to previous cause//”x” ——-> (current cause to previous cause to the right direction)//

(asserts the opposite) tracking to the left, from any point in between “x” and pointer that far away from “x” (labeled with “y”) closer to “x” //there is an “y” as current cause to previous cause as or closer to “x”//an “y” as current cause to previous cause as or closer to “x”//”y” ——->”x” (current cause to previous cause to the left direction)//

5. This asserts: “x” (tracking backward to) ——-> “y” , and “y” (tracking backward to) ——-> “x”, and it’s equal to:

“x” ——-> “!” <——- “y”,therefore there is meeting point (uncaused cause) in between “x” and “y”.//where “!” is the meeting point as “the uncaused cause”, and it asserts, there is “uncaused caused”//

January, 1 – 2000 ~ April, 20 – 2003: 03:00

This dialogue is an effort to facilitate understanding. Sometimes it seemed that logical thinking was considered as “not make sense” because it uses (“dry”) reasoning which rarely (not common) in use in everyday life. This dialogue may help you to get an impression that “make sense”.

Dialoque:

Me: “Okay “endless”, you should run into the past as far as you can do”

Endless: “Yes, i’m running into the past”

Me: “Can you stop for a moment, so i can catch the earliest?”

Endless: “No, i keep running into the past, and I never cease to run into the past, therefore there will never be the earliest”

Me: “Well, what if i make some guesses about the numbers representing the amount of presence in the path of your journey into the past, as the number farthest (largest)?”

Endless: “Well, what is that number?”

Me: “That number is less than you have”

Endless: “You can not catch me!, I am still (always) running into the past (changing)”

Me: “That number is equal to the amount of the last presence in your search path to the past?”

Endless: “There will be an increasing number on my side, therefore, your number will never be the same as my number, and i am still running into the past”

Me: “That number is greater than you have”

Endless: “your number is my number, and there is greater number than myself, and i am still running into the past

Me: “While you are running back into the past, are you passing by for any presence, or any time you go back in time it reflects a new existence?

Endless: “I just passed it, because the amount of presence of existence in the past have provided as much as any needed”

Me: “It is impossible, because it means you’ll never be at the farthest point in the past from an actual existence”

Me: “So the truth is, that every time you go to the past, it was a journey that also reflects the existence of a new existence (there is no other choice)”

Me: “It also means that, from any point in the past, I can pass a variety of the existence to an opposite direction compared to the direction of your journey into the past”

Endless: “Why?”

Me: “Because your journey represent new presence, therefore i can go back to the opposite direction that represent my journey from “the cause” as new presence that had been visited by you, and go to “the previous cause”

Me: Therefore, if i withdraw from the direction opposite to the direction of your journey, and also can do searches backward from the direction of the current existence that has the same direction as the direction of your journey, the two explorers will meet at one point

Endless: “Well, finally you found the end point (meeting point) of your search into my past”

In a series of searches within causality, the search at any point from the left or from the right, will meet at two points close together. One of the two points must be “the result” (dependence) for the other (cause), so as already mentioned through argument & dialoque, one of them must be “without beginning” (uncaused cause). If there is no one as “uncaused cause”, then there is no any caused, which is an impossibility.

Finally, we have to agree that causality has to stop somewhere (it’s not because we think there is missing links and we should make our own completion behind the infinite to create reasoning by linking it to something to create completion that it could be considered as “make sense”, as classical understanding, but), its because consequences of infinite itself (in any possible ways) insist us to go to the single pointer as “the earliest”.

Another problem is, do we believe the earliest as the strongest, powerful? We should ask whether we believe the earliest as the set and we are the subset, or the opposite, the earliest is the subset and we are the set.

But since we are the latest (current, now, or the future) then it can be considered we are the subset and the earliest is the set. Therefore, the set should be able cover the subset. Meaning we are part of the huge set, and it’s enough for me that the earliest capable to do stronger than us.The very last.

This argument is actually more likely to assert deism, which asserts the existence of more than one uncaused cause.

We should know that for “the earliest as the set”, and descendant as the subset should be asserted as: the set is biggest and (already mentioned) covers all subset. It includes the size that cover up something. The subset should be within the set. And the set in this case (as the earliest) should be the biggest than its subset.

It’s not about the set as set of something with its own subset. But its about the set as the earliest. It’s not about the set as the earlier. Therefore it’s the biggest that covers all subset within the set (as the earliest).

It’s not about subset that placed side by side with the set, but it’s about subset within the set. Subset is placed “within”. Subset is “in”.

The points are:

- While we already found the set as the earliest, it asserts that we (as the subset) are within only one set as the earliest

- There is no possibility for the subset go across to another set (another “the earliest”). Whether we consider more than one set “as the earliest” live side by side or not, but for the subset within any of “the earliest” unable to walk across another set as another “the earliest”.

-And because for every “uncaused cause” does not constitute “cause” for other “uncaused cause”, then any “uncaused cause” is an existence separate from one another.

And the suitability of the building blocks of matter consisting of particles, then I personally believe that all existence is in the grip of one “uncaused cause”. And exclude for other “uncaused cause” since there is no contribution from other “uncaused cause” to our life.

Is love the only one as strongest emotional force?

Mon, 28 May 2012 18:02:48 -0400

Epiphany …, and when it comes to reality, it converted (to be more specific) to: “Love is one of the poles of a cycle, where the other pole is “Threatened”. “Love” and “threatened” is the strongest force on its own pole. Those will dominate us to make us closer to or far away from something. Sometimes …, we do love or we should be threatened, or we should be threatened to do love …

Heart full of love must be free from feeling being threatened, whereas if we are threatened, then we will experience fear (which tends to move).

It’s just that sometimes fear was difficult to make someone move, that’s why I chose “Threatened” which can be interpreted as fear (that has a better chance to make a movement). I have not found (yet) the right term similar to “fear”, except by using the “Threatened” that reflects “fear” with high possibility to make a movement (although also threatened not always make a movement, but rather draws us closer to understanding “should be”, “tend to” move relevantly).

But basically, i can adapt it as “fear”. At least you know the idea behind what i have said.

//Can you explain more about what you mean by “we do love or we should be threatened, or we should be threatened to do love” …?//

The law of nature has specific ways to determine whether someone has been feasible to perform acts of love, and when it does occur, then:

- When we are “obliged” to do love, then we must do something that reflects specific love (love to someone, love to God, and more …), and we when we can not love, then the law of nature will put us in condition is being threatened.

- Or from the other way, when we are “obliged” to do love, then the law of nature will give someone a threat that leads a person to better understand for something and hopefully this gives a new awareness as a trigger to do something that reflects specific love to something (love to someone, love to God, and more …).

It’s the mystery of nature about how to put love and fear around our life.

We are the member of society.

We should move to a specific pole, for example pole for love. If we don’t want to pass the pole for love, then we are like as an obstacle to others. When we still disagree with the pole for love, then we will be forced by others to move through different pole (pole for fear), forced to go & continuing our journey to the pole for love.

“Threatened” is not about unfairness. It’s stepping stone to another pole of love.

It’s not karma. We just have to move again and again from one pole to another side of cycle (different pole). We just couldn’t stay on one pole permanently. Whether we are an enlightened being or not, we still have to move along the cycle.

For example, our awareness is increasing and it will make us realize about survival and we want to survive and stuck on something (love something). It’s the work of nature (ourselves as member). Generally it’s a necessity.

At first, we didn’t know what love was. Threatened & survival led us to a condition that we thought should be lived on it. We tried to adapt it and we loved it.

There isn’t way that love will come from the same pole (of love). Goes to a pole from another pole. (Threatened) & put us to move to a safety place as a place for a seed of (love), while we stay on a pole (of love) temporarily and shift to another pole with our desire to secure our life (being threatened - and to survive), for hope we can back to another side of a cycle (pole of love).

Mystery of nature …, we are always conditioned. It acts differently that we don’t know completely, while ourselves use our free will within boundaries that stand on this http://www.ted.com/conversations/11078/do_we_have_choices_in_life.html?c=453697

There isn’t something bad here.

The first link, was intended to track the continuity of our conversation easily, while the second link represent my understanding that relevant to this conversation and to solve the limitation in TED (since we have limitation for only 2000 characters to talk about love).

I believe that we are finite, and our freedom as far as on whom we rely, therefore our love has limitations, and that’s why we love something in limited ways. Our love is conditional within limits.

If unconditional love must be there for real (without doubt), then unconditional love should be happened by ignoring all the possibilities. It is not possible, since we are imperfect. Even if it is considered possible, then that kind of love (unconditional love) is coming not from us, but it has to do with the power greater than ourselves and to put this unconditional love to us, to be able to love someone at best.

For me, if unconditional love exists, it’s the love that meets certain conditions which we consider as the best standard. Unconditional love in my opinion, could be replaced to “i will express my love at best”. At best, as far as we know according to our own knowledge and what we believe.

And mothers (generally) can give unconditional love (at best) that represent typical of mother as someone that gave our birth (most precious gift).

We can do unconditional love by doing things (at best) with sincerity, and i do conditional love related to God for rewards. But if we have to educate the value of love of our life, we should put our acts based on sincerity (for goodness), but for the scenarios (frame work) may involve conditional love (that constructed by giving reward & punishment) for educational purposes as stepping stone to make others closer to the sense of love. The rest is up to them.

In my opinion, there is no love without acts. For just love as emotional force without proper acts (in my opinion) is like hoping for something better without being exactly placed on it (it’s not emotional enough to force us to do something better, it’s meaningless). Similar to fear without being threatened is not emotional enough to force us to do something (survival) better, it’s meaningless.

I consider love and fear as tools to achieve higher awareness. Love & fear are not the final frontier.

Duality (being & doing):

Sincerity itself, without doing things, is like keeping vibration of love without doing anything. It will not let us go to anywhere (meaningless) unless it should be implemented through acts, that make us having such proper qualities to achieve a state that “being” absorbed into love.

Non duality (being without doing):

If we are talking about love as single experience without taking action, and it should be happened (not for others, not for them) only for ourselves, it’s within love itself. It’s not about “doing things”, it’s about “being” absorbed into love. There is no sincerity at all here.

Duality to non duality:

In general, this is “stuck on something” without distraction, by doing things with sincerity (duality) to achieve enjoyment - wholeheartedly (almost non duality).

To be specific, we can achieve it by implementing sincerity through acts (through meditating and similar to this), i’d rather call this as “total surrender”, but the result is beyond sincerity (as single experience, just “being” without “doing”). It’s “being” absorbed within love (fully enjoyment, there is no awareness here, there is no distraction here).

Where there is awareness (being & doing), there could be sincerity, but where there is no awareness or “being” absorbed” (there is only being) then there is no sincerity in there.

Less or more …

Is there such thing as a selfless act of kindness? is there unconditional love?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:52:00 -0400

We perform a certain act is based on three possibilities:

1. We do without a purpose, being totally hypnotized, unconsciously acts and sleep walker or similar to these.
2. We do in order to obtain personal benefit (however small)
3. We do in order not to get personal benefits (however small)

The first one, not related to the selfless (sincerity).

The third for me, it was meaningless act that leads to irresponsibility. Why? Because each of our actions must be beneficial not only for others but for the development of self. There is no fairness (not proportional), there is no appropriate balance here, and if not managed properly, it could be so easy to sacrifice other people (including ourselves) which is maybe not necessarily true.

The second can be divided into two more:

- The bad: we are part of a good plan, therefore there must be maintenance of ourselves and others to maintain good plan running smoothly. Ignoring it is the neglect of the good itself (any good standard that we hold). And if not managed properly it could be so easy to sacrifice ourselves for the purpose of which is not necessarily true (not always).

- The good: we are part of a good plan, we should (ALWAYS) understand our position within good plan, therefore there must be maintenance of ourselves and others to maintain good plan running smoothly. Keeping this can be done by acting in accordance with what we believe as a guide to keep the truth.

Yes, there is selfless (sincerity), without neglecting ourselves, to keep ourselves perform the task to fulfill the truth as we believe. We do for ourselves to keep others running smoothly as instructed by the truth that we believe. We have to get guidance to act exactly what is perceived as sincerity without sacrificing fairness, but the bottom line as already mentioned. Beyond this is tantamount to injuring the purpose of life itself which starts from ourselves. This is reality, and outside this is meaningless, or we’re imagining.

Less or more …

What Makes Life WorthWhile?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:50:00 -0400

To determine the direction of where are our focus, is to understand that we have two requirements that must be met:

- First, our needs in the material world as enjoy and fulfill our responsibilities. If it gives a nice impression so that we can feel the life is fulfilled, then we will not feel the lack in our feelings (emptiness). One of them is trying to be patience in the face of something http://www.ted.com/conversations/11300/how_can_we_cultivate_patience.html?c=463016.

- But if this did not satisfy our heart. We always feels empty, then this means we get a call to satisfy more often to our soul through the pathway into the self. We can do this with meditation and study how to practice that suitable to us with sincerity to get “where we are as a human being should be put in this life”.

The point is, several people are required to not only live, but rather set their selves as a part of life in a more precise (for better synchronized with others). And for this, our inner self have capability in guiding this. It’s for fulfilling balance for us and others. It’s the duty.

It’s like a puzzle, once we are placed at the correct place we will feel fairness and as soon as possible happiness will come automatically and gradually without being forced by us, and our life feel worthwhile.

Less or more …

Why be a good person?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:49:13 -0400

Our freedom depends to whom we rely http://www.ted.com/conversations/11078/do_we_have_choices_in_life.html?c=453697, and eligibility standards for us is never beyond our affirmation to whom we rely.

So for those who believe that God as the supreme command that should be obeyed by us, or the community, or a mixture of both, and others like it, that should be obeyed by us, then we will also assume supreme command from God, from any community or who are considered as highest authority that agreed by us, as the feasibility of a good standard.

Good thing because something is selected among the many things that become part of a good standard for us and: at least can help us to survive, and the maximum can develop ourselves approaching completeness (the extent of knowledge) at each stage of development.

So, Why be a good person?

- For those who believe as being that should lean on the law that has no consciousness, then the answer is, so that we can avoid the damage that can be caused by consequencies of the laws that we believe, and that at least can help us to survive, and the maximum can develop ourselves approaching completeness (the extent of knowledge) at each stage of development.

- For those who believe as being that should lean on God, or community that has consciousness, then the answer is, so that we can avoid the damage that can be caused by consequencies of the laws from authorities that we believe, and that at least can help us to survive, and the maximum can develop ourselves approaching completeness (the extent of knowledge) at each stage of development.

The point is: Be good, or we will be punished in any possible ways by whom we love or by whom that we consider as undeniable threat, so we can have limited freedom to survive and we can fulfill ourselves for better perfection (completion) within each stage of our development.

Less or more …

What working techniques do you know of, which allow access to the informational field?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:45:00 -0400

Actually, by learning how to meditate seriously, it will let us access such hidden information as mentioned in this question, and it will give us more benefit. But it’s not as easy as it said. We need God that will guide us through unique ways that specific to us. These are some of it as triggers to be guided:

I only add two things are essential, namely:

1. Strong Desire http://www.ted.com/conversations/11217/how_do_you_get_yourself_out_of.html?c=458432

2. Persistence (never give up) for practicing anything related to this achievement

These two things can make the process of our prayer having a constant energy to achieve the goal.

We can combine these step, with another steps from any religion, for example, as mentioned by Edward Long (http://www.ted.com/conversations/11517/what_working_techniques_do_you.html?c=465053), or combined with meditation technique that suitable to us.

According to my experience, not always as easy as i said, but doubling the chance a little bit more faster than usual.

There is secret behind desire. You may try for yourself (with an adjustment), while i pushed my desire to the full extent as i could to OBE within almost 15 hrs (3 times/day) for about 3 days. Very strong desire, just sit, and desire for something - like praying continuously, take a rest for a while and continuing (just desiring something), and the result will almost instantly, without knowing any kind of methode that usually required on meditation techniques. The next day, i’ve got OBE.

Well sound a little bit “there will be big fatique on practice”, but its worth. Different degree on practicing for different person, but generally, best result came from best practice. Fast result came from continuosly practice.

It’s like creating unstable bridge, between us and the other world, while the bridge is always collapsing unless already connected in between two points.

Or like a wound that will not recover when disturbed, but if we continue to maintain (not annoying), then the repairs will be completed quickly. I replaced with: It’s like building a bridge of iron, which if delayed will soon be attacked by rust, but if it continued almost without interruption, then the bridge will be immediately utilized and generate value even to care for itselves.

It could implemented for other purpose. And somehow, the highest power has its own way, whether through people, or accident helping us, or through spirituality.

The key is: just by desiring something very strongly, and continuing with less interruption, it will take us to our wishes or at least there is BETTER REPLACEMENT of what we wish.

We just need time schedule (just sit, most effective & desiring), or try desiring while doing anything. Can you imagine, if we can maintain this very very strongly desire almost within 1-…,15 - 20 - 24 hours? We will be FORCED HARDLY and CONDITIONED to get our wishes.

Simple experiment, if we desire strongly enough and continuously without interruption to have such a dream, there is big chance, we will experience dreaming as we wish.

Careful enough with our wishes, might be there was the one our wish that strong enough to placed it at boiling point and without being noticed suddenly it jumped out :)

Less or more …

Can we divide people in two category i.e intellectual and non-intellectual? and if we can on what basis are we dividing?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:44:38 -0400

Yes we can do this as long as for temporary. We may have prejudice, make clasification to our humanity for social relation, but it should be for temporary and situational. It helps us to rethink and reposition. But when we do clasification on this case of humanity permanently, then we will lose our sight from another possible sides that might be coming as we run development of ourselves in the future.

It can be done, but wait for the next release, and accept for an update.

What is the greatest hope that mankind will continue?

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:43:40 -0400

Basically, people need to be guided. Including a community or even wider. Since guidance reflects a direction which really needed for anything to move at the correct direction, and since moving to the right direction is the most important to achieve peacefulness, therefore the greatest hope of mankind is to have worldwide agreement to achieve peacefulness.

How is it possible?

Believe:

All differentiations on achieving peacefulness are temporary. It is a process that will develop later in life, when, God will give the commands to all humanity to unite in peace. This is not our hope in God. And this is not a possibility to God. But this is a necessity, because we are not talking about other than God. We’re talking about God as the Mighty Creator of all that exists. Which provide guidance.

We can not judge God, that God has done wrong or the process is slow. We can’t accuse God has done this, only if we have been able to demonstrate the priority of everything and put it at the right place. But we can’t and we believe only God can do these.

All disputes are only temporary. If we believe that God unable to unite mankind in one peace, then God has failed. But God never failed, God just wants to do anything within process to develope our awareness. Just one step at the time (gradually).

Therefore, for those who believe in the existence of God, then God might not let the split in the hold to the principle of truth.

Saturation Point:

For each of inclination always have an opponent. And when a state reaches saturation point, it will move to the opposite side.

And following the progress of human civilization, then there will be a shrinking of saturation point.

Up over time from past to the present and into the future, has and will always happen separation and unification, and saturation point will be shrinked, even more (similar to unpatience). This creates severability and consolidation, larger than before.

Until at some level, decreasing of saturation point will reach the point of almost zero and there will be a strong impact not only being united, but also a strong union that gives peace in all directions or such a destructive and extreme severability (we just don’t know yet, which come first, but at least for once it should be happened).

Less or more …

Why is it important to have "emotional literacy" in communication and how does one improve their own "emotional literacy"?

Thu, 17 May 2012 08:28:19 -0400

It’s for doubling the acceptance from others that is relevant to the purpose of emotional literacy itself, and also for doubling our sensitivity to be able react kindly to other things (not only human), so we will have a good relationship that increase caring each other.

The easy way to behave easily as mentioned by emotional literacy, by lowering our ego.

Once we can lowering our ego while interact with others, we can easily capture other emotional signals and we can adapt nicely with an increasing empathy.

That’s from my experience, even more when we do lowering our ego continuosly while doing something like writing or responding to others, we could have an empathy output or any other as several already mentioned on emotional literacy.

Technically (directly and we can activate by now easily), by lowering our breathing. We can try this by making our breath cycle (up-down) more often at the down side a little bit longer than while breathing at the up side. At first, while practicing this, we were running out of oxygen on our breathing. Soon we can maintain this practice without running out of oxygen and breath smoothly. Or if it’s still difficult, try meditating seriously, then we can get this expertise as side effect easily. There is connection, well connected, directly and instantly, in doing this with the ability to implement emotional literacy.

We shared this technique very limited to our friends, and although this technique rather old, but it gave result instantly, from egocentric people converted to empathy personality dramatically. It gives us an added value (sensitivity) to our leadership that dominating (dominate in a sensitive way). It’s like pushing the button of emotional literacy.

This is a unique way in collaborating within ourselves to have nice relationship. We used to call this “low vibration” (although it gives a higher vibrational energy in the field of spiritual).

Less or more …

Is there a value for anti-empathy?

Thu, 17 May 2012 08:00:00 -0400

There is nothing that is meaningless as long as it’s an existence in anyway. Therefore anti-empathy must have a benefit for us.

At the very root, people with anti-empathy is exist to face someone with anti-empathy and also to fulfill the lack of anti-empathy on the other side of people with empathy.

For practice, since people with anti-empathy tends to use more ego compared to people with empathy, then, as long as anti empathy can be educated properly, they can be useful to handle such critical condition on leadership that needs direct order with less prejudice.

Anti-empathy is not a bad things. Since everything that exists must interact with something else, then by studying the relationship between anti-empathy with others, we will be able to know, when anti-empathy can have a certain use value.

Less or more …

What was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden?

Mon, 14 May 2012 23:12:00 -0400

Forbidden fruit was not a fruit, but its: our denial to God (because someone didn’t realize that rejection was not being directed to other than God that never wise, but the refusal committed against God that always the source of Wisdom).

The forbidden fruit is rejection based on the suspicion that God is not wise. Denial to whom that shouldn’t be denied.

TED - Ideas Worth Spreading

Mon, 14 May 2012 18:23:00 -0400

TED - Ideas Worth Spreading:

TED, Technology, Education & Design

About TED

TEDTalks (Share knowledge from the expertise as speaker at first hand)

TED Conversations (Q&A)

My TED