How To Think Correctly

[rols]

So, what is the ultimate thing that all life forms would not be able to exist without?

Sex.

(And lots of it)

 

[trendie]

I hope the conclusion to this isnt some sort of "psychic ordering" type of concept, that we have to be in "harmonic" frequency with the universe.
I have a nagging feelijng I have read something similar to the way this is going, by the name of "Master Key", all about "being one with the universal consciousness".

I need to know it isnt that before I invest any more of my time.

Please tell me it isnt Master Key.

 

[rols]

I hope the conclusion to this isnt some sort of "psychic ordering" type of concept, that we have to be in "harmonic" frequency with the universe.
I have a nagging feelijng I have read something similar to the way this is going, by the name of "Master Key", all about "being one with the universal consciousness".

I need to know it isnt that before I invest any more of my time.

Please tell me it isnt Master Key.

It's much more than the platitudinous Master Key.

I seem to have missed much of the fun at the party and like the worst kind of guest I will be probably the first to arrive and the last to leave.

Much of the 1000+ posts of this thread has been establishing what is partially summarised in the paragraph below.

The Lord Buddha has said that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."
- Secret Doctrine, Vol. III, page 401. [vii]

Are we now heading into the choppy waters of secret knowledge?

Will CYOF present us with his own esoteric catechism for traders?

 

[Mr. Charts]

"No, no strings, just my interpretation of something that I feel to be absolutely 100% correct."
I'm sure you realise new trader was referring to String Theory, not strings attached.
What do you think are the relevance of worm holes, if they exist?
Science is a dynamic set of systems, so ideas rarely stay static, but are affected by new knowledge; which is why old science has a reducing influence on newer thought although a few basic principles continue to apply. This is in contra-distinction to belief systems which tend to remain stubbornly static and therefore new knowledge has minimal effect on them.
There is no correct way to think, per se, only incorrect ways.
The same applies to trading............
Just thought people ought to consider that after 1225 posts........
Richard

 

[superfly]

Very good, not one unique correct way to think

There is no correct way to think, per se, only incorrect ways.
The same applies to trading............
Just thought people ought to consider that after 1225 posts........
Richard

 

[grantx]

CYOF,

As you say, the Socratic dialogues were beneficial to both teacher and pupil; they are also succinct. Use the dialogues as your model and ask a pertinent question.

"It can be done, by anyone, once one believes in what they are doing". In what are we supposed to believe - or as a minimum, discuss?

The thread is already degenerating into anarchy. Give it a purpose. Get a grip.

Grant.

 

[superfly]

The thread is already degenerating into anarchy. Grant.

Thanks for the good laugh.

 

[rols]

CYOF,

As you say, the Socratic dialogues were beneficial to both teacher and pupil; they are also succinct. Use the dialogues as your model and ask a pertinent question.

"It can be done, by anyone, once one believes in what they are doing". In what are we supposed to believe - or as a minimum, discuss?

The thread is already degenerating into anarchy. Give it a purpose. Get a grip.

Grant.

Anarchy is good. I suggest we all quit the cliches and go with the flow.

What has any of this got to do with trading?

All and nothing.

How do we express thesis and antithesis simultaneously?

A paradox which will reveal the truth for those wishing to find it.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Anarchy perhaps, chaos no.
The thread never had direction, therefore cannot be gripped or directed without control. In this environment such directional control is not only inappropriate but impossible.
I suspect that to CYOF, exploration and self-expression are what matter. Perhaps pleasure in button pushing is an element.
Travellers must travel. Whether they really wish to reach a destination is another matter. For some the journey is all. And that is just fine. Whatever gives happiness and some fulfillment.
Richard

 

[blackcab]

I now have to go and do some more research before I make a complete ass of myself when I have to give you all the answer, as a little wobbler has now been introduced.

Respect to you.

 

[blackcab]

I've already aborted a couple of replies to previous posts as I don't want to clutter the thread with pedantic nit picking, so I'll reply to this one and then get some kip.

Correct -or to put in simple language, they Vibrate at different frequencies, which in turn results in different vibrations of the light waves, which results in the different colours in the visual mind as you have aptly described.

Now, as I said, I am no expert, but already from these discussions I am seeing that Vibrations or Frequencies, are very important.

I wonder why?

That observation looks a little selective; you may have been the first to use those terms in this thread. Anyway, if you were using colour perception as a means of introducing vibrations and frequencies to the discussion for some reason, I assume you know about wave-particle duality? And the quantum nature of things? (Energy comes in discrete packets, it's not smooth - that realisation alone turns our understanding of the universe on its head; the universe is digital, not analogue.)

I will add some more insight into how we might have got out eyes - this will also answer the Giraffe question, which is appropriate in this answer.

Thought builds organic structures in animals and men. The protoplasmic cell desires the light and sends forth its impulse; this impulse gradually builds an eye. A species of deer feed in a country where the leaves grow on high branches, and the constant reaching for their favourite food builds cell by cell the neck of the giraffe. The amphibian reptiles desire to fly in the open air above the water; they develop wings and become birds.

Lamarckism (from the French naturalist Lamarck of the 18th or 19th century) was discredited following Darwin and its proponents have long been ridiculed. Lamarckism is what you describe - the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Recently, some evidence has been found to support it, but in a quite specific and limited way (can't remember the details). But it's fanciful to imagine that a cell desires the light or anything else, or sends forth its impulse which gradually builds an eye. I'm with frugi on this - I can't recommend highly enough Dawkins' books The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Selfish Gene, as starters. Really. Any one of those will sort you out.

So, we know that what we have here is evolution, but do we really understand how evolution happens, does it just happen, or what?

We know that rocks don't evolve as animals, and we also know that rocks don't have a brain, whereas animals do.

We need not go any further into this, as it is not relevant for the purpose.

What is relevant to know, is that their is a basic difference between how matter is formed, or evolved, and this basic difference is as result of a process that is governed by immutable laws. Evolution has shown us that at some time, due to some combination of something or other, certain matter took on a different atomic structure, and over many billions of years, has resulted in man as we know today, with the main difference in developments due to an ability of certain types of matter to vibrate and form what we now know as the brain. This could get very complicated, and I am sure that we have many experts in this field, but enough is enough.

My crude understanding - but it is good enough for me and for what points I want to get across for discussion.

Here is where I have to stop myself getting nit picky. You've brought a few subjects up that you seem interested in but have inaccurate knowledge of. I suppose the next question is - have you based your overlying argument or beliefs on that knowledge, or is your understanding of the material nature of the universe, evolution etc., irrelevant to whatever it is you're leading up to? If the former, would it change your overlying views/beliefs if your understanding of particles/waves/neurons/evolution was actually quite different? If no then fine, but if yes, then...?

So, what is the ultimate thing that all life forms would not be able to exist without - not sustain!

Spacetime is a correct answer to that question. I suppose the religious would believe that 'God' is a correct answer as well. I agree with trendie - if this thread is leading up to the answer being something like 'the ultimate thing that makes life possible is harmonic energy vibrations' and the correct way to think is to tune into them then I'll bow out respectfully.

 

[grantx]

Rols,

“quit the clichés and go with the flow.” Why don’t you lead by example?

“All and nothing…express thesis and antithesis simultaneously…A paradox which will reveal the truth for those wishing to find it” The thoughts are there but seem to be stuck in a vacuum.

Evolution as a metaphor for a natural development of survival/trading skills is fine. Unfortunately, I feel this thread may take a similar time-scale to develop.

Picking up on elements so far, I reckon this discussion will evolve (descend/ascend) into a rationalist vs what? Anti-rationalist? Spiritualist?

I’m just waiting for someone to mention Black Swans (please don’t) as a justification for everything/anything. I’ve just mentioned it. Fkcu.

Why do I keep hearing ‘Mystic Meg’?

Grant.

 

[SOCRATES]

I am amazed...it is staring all of you in the face and you cannot see it.
I am not going to make any further comment.

 

[grantx]

Socrates,

I saw it too. I'm not going to comment further (but I will sell it).

Grant.

 

[countryroads]

The sooner this thread stops the better its nothing but a boring load of waffle .

 

[grantx]

Countryroads,

You old wag. I bet you live in an earthenware pot. If it wasn't for waffle some would lack a reason for existence (I won't say raison d'etre because it's pretentious).

Grant.

 

[new_trader]

CYOF, Although it is a charming thought, I don't think desire or 'the effort of reaching' comes into it, though I'm hardly an authority. A genetic mutation occasionally confers an advantage on an organism over its peers, which increases its ability to survive and thus pass on its (upgraded) genes. Regarding giraffes I think there are two theories, one the obvious one of being able to reach more food, the other that it helps them fight more effectively when arguing over mates. You're a chap who obviously likes a good read, so if you haven't already have a look at the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins, both wonderful and far better imho than his crusade against religion. Especially of note is a lucid explanation of how a single cell with some photoreceptive capabilty can develop into a complex eye. Anyway sorry to drag further off topic with a patronising oversimplification. Are you saying that waves of some sort are at the essence of existence?

The difference between biological evolution and trader evolution is that nature doesn’t have a goal or a plan. The similarity is that over 90 % of all species that have ever lived are extinct.

 

[CYOF]

CYOF, Although it is a charming thought, I don't think desire or 'the effort of reaching' comes into it, though I'm hardly an authority. A genetic mutation occasionally confers an advantage on an organism over its peers, which increases its ability to survive and thus pass on its (upgraded) genes. Regarding giraffes I think there are two theories, one the obvious one of being able to reach more food, the other that it helps them fight more effectively when arguing over mates. You're a chap who obviously likes a good read, so if you haven't already have a look at the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins, both wonderful and far better imho than his crusade against religion. Especially of note is a lucid explanation of how a single cell with some photoreceptive capabilty can develop into a complex eye. Anyway sorry to drag further off topic with a patronising oversimplification. Are you saying that waves of some sort are at the essence of existence?

Thank You Frugi,

All noted - and very logical - but we must always hold the view that we do really know nothing in the context of the whole of existence. Opinions are not recognised by the Scientific community, and the term I will eventually reveal, from my readings, at least, has been coined by the men of Science.

And YES - I suppose that you can call it a type of wave - but it is Omnipresent - everywhere - so to think of it as something that is in motion - as a wave - of this I am not sure.

The Marconi hint was as follows: Marconi invented the wireless (well, to be exact, he actually did not, it was the result of several good minds, most notably Nikola Tesla - aka, the forgotten inventor. So, how is it possible for pulses of energy to travel vast distances instantly - and more importantly, what is the scientific explanation for it. I have a crude explanation that I can give, so if we have any budding scientists here in the field of wireless, please do add your thoughts, for they may well be very important in getting a true understanding.

I did not get a chance to do some little research on the wobbler that Richard threw in- but I will today, and post accordingly -providing no one has got it yet - let me check the other posts.

 

[CYOF]

Sex.

(And lots of it)

Whilst I have no doubt that this type of thinking can be very rewarding, some people go a little too far, and actually end up with their brain in the wrong place - a good distance from where it should be

 

[CYOF]

I hope the conclusion to this isnt some sort of "psychic ordering" type of concept, that we have to be in "harmonic" frequency with the universe.
I have a nagging feelijng I have read something similar to the way this is going, by the name of "Master Key", all about "being one with the universal consciousness".

I need to know it isnt that before I invest any more of my time.

Please tell me it isnt Master Key.

Now this is very interesting.

Let me see if I understand this - please correct me if I am wrong.

You have up to now been interested in the discussion, for what ever reason, but mainly due to the participation by all.

Now, you say you have read The Master Key System by Charles Haanel, and see many similarities to what I am posting - but you are not sure?

Why then should it matter if I am referring to the Master Key, or not. Surely it is the participation that is giving the enjoyment, and surely you must be learning something new from the discussions, I know that I am, I have learned some very useful information since this thread began, and all that was from conversing with other human beings.

Slainte,