Synergy. No praying, just working together.

Is synergy already a universal law?

There is only One. Synergy is a fragmented awareness of the One.

Yer, that really helps us to understand the world and beyond.

Simplicity is often ignored in favor of creating a complicated explaination.

You seem to dislike an analytical approach, especially the reductionist type. If the parts are there why not investigate them, rather than just look at the whole? What have you to fear? Might you have no evidence, no data, nothing?

Amongst other things, understanding synergy might help us to live together better as humans. After all, praying doesn't seem to have worked. Or maybe God is trying to tell us that sadism is a good thing. Yes, that's right, it's part of competition and that's part of the theory of evolution. So God believes in evolution. Better start spreading the word!

God has a belief system? Is this part of the analytical approach?

No sense of humour?

Yes, by all means, but lets get back to the name of God. One must beleive there is a something, prior to giving it a name. Obviously you agree that such a thing as a something connects all of humanity. But if we give it a name, a new name, like Lindsay expanding his own label from God to G'D and then again to G�D, does that change the inherent nature of what is?
You spoke of prayer having no affect on the extending habits of the herd and the ability to get along, but you might be looking at it strictly from your own point of view and a limitation of belief in What God should look like rather than realizing what God is.
If you step back a bit, say a few billion miles and view the solar system would you have the same perspective of humanity if you had to study it under a microscope?
Take a look at the human nervous system and the bilogical action of disease, invasion of cancerous cells and the overall health of the body.
Most doctors will agree that health is heavily impacted by the state of mind and the levels of stress one maintains.

If one gets sick what fundamentally changes in life threatening diseases is the state of mind, one decides to believe they want to get healthy rather than to believe in the illness and a short term experience on the way to death.
Regardless of what the doctor believes often the patient takes a direction that is or was beyond the doctors expectations.

Your beliefs and your personal universe may appear differently as you rearrange it and attach new labels, bring attention to yourself by inviting everyone else to see your point of view so that you may validate yourself, but it may not change the inherent nature of choice in the individual which is simply a reflection of the impossiblity to control nature.

Prayer is personal, it is ones own conversation to God and it could be more unified in that one is having a conversation with ones Self but generally speaking the conversation is often from a place of separation and duality, where God is some thing outside of ourselves.

Unification begins with the self. You have to connect yourself with what you perceive rather than wait for it to meet your expectations. Only from this foundation of reality does life make sense.

Makes sense in your eyes~ Can you give us a clear precise definition of what exactly the "One" is. And if the "One" assumes the role of God what difference does it make if you call it "God" or the "One"?

Labels are superfluous to the absolute, only the ego needs to find meaning that is congruous.


There is no thing it is not, and no thing that it is.

How about "all" what Buckminster Fuller termed the only possible "eternally regenerative" system? Then one can gain favors with "all" by working with it, through synergy. "All" is more powerful than any of the sectarian concepts of a supreme being because it contains all of them. The synergy thing I believe comes to support using the scientific method which I figure renders the mythological concepts considerable only as myths. In order to embrace "all" as supreme being the other concepts of supreme being become clarified as debased exercises in divisive coercion rather than a pursuit of mutually rewarding understanding.

There is really nothing wrong with any term. The thing is, God cannot be reduced into any terms of endearment or meaning and capture the entirety of God. You can always point toward something but the end result is you point toward your best impression in a specific moment in time and in thought, anyone who would try to interpret your meaning is only going to superimpose theirs onto yours in the attempt to unify the word, the thought, the impression, the feeling, the moment...

I agree with you except for your first sentence, "There is really nothing wrong with any term." The rest is why there is always room for improvement. What is "wrong" IMHO is that policies adopted from cosmological perspectives impact our lives and can be quite a source of violence when not in accordance with best understanding. Unless one is enamored with nihilism, it is good to seek better understanding from my perspective.

Uh yeah... but who is going to be in charge of making someone enlarge their viewpoint and rise above the limitations they create in defining God in terms that appeal to personality?

Replacing the word God with some other word doesn't recreate God nor does it force anyone by default to think differently.

Two things have and will enforce more intelligent understanding, appeal and peer pressure. With the best cosmology, which includes a viable concept of supreme being, the best tools may be made available. People using those tools to success for themselves will attract others to want to do the same. Secondly, people not wanting violence will (have) pressure(d) others to accept appropriate methods to fulfill their needs and desires. Functional belief and subsequent functional behavior should (has) led to success and this is something everyone wants. I do realize the degree and extent of anomie has greatly corrupted many an individual's reckoning model of universe to embrace asocial behavior, quite institutionalized, but humans are the most adaptive critters so there is hope.

For some I suppose the idea that we are experiencing a great increase in our abilities via the information explosion brings the realization that we either find some far-reaching solutions to some broadly pressing challenges or we basically destroy ourselves. Such folks will probably embrace speculation and experimentation to find appropriate solutions, win-win scenarios.

Are we there yet?

I spent some time in the southern states of the U.S. and was entertained by the amount of Baptist Churches that were built.
Seems that within the peer group of the Baptists there was always someone with a better way and a better plan to convince a few of the group to start another belief/church down the road from the original. This created a rift between the two congregations that would eventually dissipate over time, but with the amount of churches that have been built, and within such a close proximity of each other I would tend to lean toward the idea that peer to peer there is no equality in temperament and thinking.
If you take a look at any local high school and the cliques that develop within a group of people all going to the same school not everyone raises their glass/attention to support their almamater. Nor do they think the same, have the same desires and goals and, some barely achieve a level of staying present mentally in or out of the classroom.

Examples of peer pressure taken to an extreme is the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, yet in any event the human mind is pretty divided in its thought streams and its focus and attention and in seeking instant gratification, let alone God.
Many would rather self indulge themselves in their own belief systems and protect that than give up their individuality to become part of a large herd rushing toward the holy grail.

I think you're optimistic in your idea but.....

It applies to the ego and its points of reference that are changing.

Joesus, I have to ask, do you consider yourself to have an ego? And is the elimination of an ego a requisite to enlightenment?

If the ego is influencing the mind with its layered perceptions of beliefs as reality then one does not see or experience life clearly.
The ego can be removed as an influence and returned to its proper place as the servant rather than the master of the mind.

Have I mastered the ego?

What would be the point of answering that question?

To help me understand, its a genuine question. I am honestly trying to further understand these concepts of enlightenment. I believe anything that can enrich or enhance your life is worth looking into.

Yeah verily...

Me thinks ego is basically the word "trains" or threads that get often repeated in our heads, putting a buffer between ourselves and our senses, clouding our thoughts (which do not have to be in words at all). More in keeping with this thread's discussion, I might suggest that the ego is the devil, distracting and abstracting from our higher spiritual self and the self, as a part of all, is god. Oh well, just semantic distinctions which are subject to personal interpretation. The way I see ego is as something to be set aside and there are ways to do that, to still the inner voice, to get in touch with the self which, incidentally, shares no end of common needs and desires with all the other selves on this planet, human and otherwise. That is why I have great hope that we will be able to come to working, sustainable, relationships based on common (eventually) belief. We really don't want to destroy ourselves. It will become clear in time and what is now little known and seen as impossible is liable to become popular and accepted. Not that I know what that will be. :~)

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I'm waiting at the door
And I'm standing in the darkness
I don't want to wait no more

I have seen without perceiving
I have been another man
Let me pierce the realm of glamour
So I know just what I am

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I'm waiting at the door
And I'm standing in the darkness
I don't want to wait no more

Feel the angel of the present
In the mighty crystal fire
Lift me up consume my darkness
Let me travel even higher

I'm a dweller on the threshold
As I cross the burning ground
Let me go down to the water
Watch the great illusion drown

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I'm waiting at the door
And I'm standing in the darkness
I don't want to wait no more

I'm gonna turn and face the music
The music of the spheres
Lift me up consume my darkness
When the midnight disappears

I will walk out of the darkness
And I'll walk into the light
And I'll sing the song of ages
And the dawn will end the night

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I'm waiting at the door
And I'm standing in the darkness
I don't want to wait no more

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I cross some burning ground
And I'll go down to the water
Let the great illusion drown

I'm a dweller on the threshold
And I'm waiting at the door
And I'm standing in the darkness
I don't want to wait no more

I'm a dweller on the threshold
Dweller on the threshold
I'm a dweller on the threshold
I'm a dweller on the threshold

Van Morrison "Dweller on the Threshold"

There are two voices actually that are within us, and the ego is usually the loud one, the one we hear in the waking state while under stress and in need of instant gratification.

In the cartoons we watched (or I should say I watched) they were symbolized by the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. Usually the devil on the one shoulder was very enticing and motivated to convince you to go for those things that were pleasing to the senses, while the angel was directing you to see a bigger picture of yourself and others, it appealed to your higher nature.

Max, I can appreciate your desire for knowledge, but how would you know really without spending time with me and experiencing the differences of having mastered the ego and not? Just because someone says something doesn't necessarily mean they have experienced what they talk about. Anyone can read a book about enlightenment and parrot the information, in fact the ego can amass a great amount of knowledge and convince itself it is enlightened.

The ego works very hard at breaking down enlightenment into the particulars creating a system to measure itself and to measure itself against others.

Indeed but in the same way, the same deception could occur in person as well. Though you may argue this, you must confess that it is possible for someone to misinterpret enlightenment in another, even in person.

I guess your saying that total cessation of the ego would possibly cause a collapse in the connection with the outside world. So thus I can conclude that you do not attempt to end your ego entirely but rather simply quiet it down and allow the rest of your mind a greater freedom.

You know, Milton Erickson had very similar views. He thought that the conscious was overrated and we should allow our sub-conscious - which is much more powerful, to do the majority of things. He thought that the conscious mind tries to control everything and stops the sub-conscious from using its full potential.

You never really got the most important lesson from the whole truth is an opinion philosophy. It does have an end to the percieved paradox - you decide your own truth. Not having any truths will bring you to insanity, instead search for the truths that bring you happiness and enrich your life. Its an empowering philosophy, not a crushing one.

As I said before, Ego places all of its importance on symbolism, pertaining to facts of personal reference derived from what it sees and interprets in association to this lifetime.


The ego is a tool of the manifest. Consciousness is not dependant on this tool nor does it become blind to itself when it is beyond its limitations.


There is a slight difference in the description of consciousness and the rise to Brahman consciousness (advanced unity) in the treatises of Badarayana (Brahma Sutras) and Jaimini (Purva Mimamsa). Badarayana describes the rise of conscious awareness through the path of the sages and Jaimini describes the expansion of exalted consciousness in the path of the gods.
The path of the sages is the short path and the path of the gods is the longer path.
The difference is in the importance of preserving feelings associated to relative desire in the manifest. It basically divides the path into two choices.
1. Follow every desire of the subconscious until they are no more and all that is left is the consciousness being aware of itself.
2. Become aware of consciousness at its source and bring that forward into the manifest until the manifest desire streams collapse into their source.

Because the source experience is far superior to the path of the sages and the path of enjoyment, and both paths end in the same result, it is considered that the path of the sages is the superior path by the enlightened masters who speak to those of consciousness itself.

Because consciousness does not differentiate between superior and inferior and because time is not a construct binding consciousness it does not invest itself in the free will of the human to make the choice between either path.

One can become enlightened in a single lifetime by following the path of the sages, or follow the path of the gods and continue to divulge themselves in the subconscious impulses of following the outer senses that are attached to the manifest until such time as it has exhausted itself in its pursuit of happiness in the course of many many lifetimes.

The interesting thing is that the path of the gods always ends in the transition into the path of the sages.



Because free will is the most basic function of the human experience and also because consciousness itself is constantly reshaping reality within the boundaries of natural law the relative truth is tangible within the limits of the human experience.
If you are constantly writing the play and designing the stage on which it is performed and you completely immerse yourself in the stage play and forget your status as creator then your truth is what you make of it.

Consciousness itself however never loses itself or its ascended status in the manifest, yet the human can make choices to divulge its awareness in a hypnotic state, self absorbed in its sense of self (stage appearance and role playing).

Once one becomes Self aware of its ascended self and the freedom from the attachments to the roles and the props the relative truths are realised as illusions only, and that they never really existed other than in the mind.
The one truth of consciousness itself becomes the stable unchanging truth in greater awareness (enlightenment) replacing the illusions of the hypnotic altered states of attached sensory beliefs.

To the untrained mind in the waking state which cannot perceive of anything beyond its attachment to sensory experience, the deprivation of senses and sense of self in the manifest is terrifying, it is the end of life itself and that fear can drive the mind into a belief of loss that is considered insanity. Without its relative anchor it has nothing to attach itself to and the mind drifts into death by suffering the delusions created by fear.

Of course it is, and it exists in the same way as does enlightenment, the path of the sages and the path of the gods.

While you claim your understandings you tread a path of ideas. How you become attuned or attached to your understanding is how you become attached to the self and create the ego and your truth.

When the desire of the subconscious is layered with the memories of personal experience it takes potential and then projects itself into images of reality as it creates the foundation of its life and its experience.


This is the one unchanging truth that underlies all relative truths.

The idea "I master the ego" is self-referential. The fundamental issue of self-control leads to infinite regess. What is the solution? Quiet reflection can lead to growth. So can action. Balance.

A better term for God is "I'll risk it"!

Spinoza defined God as "that which there is none greater." My definition is "all that there is." Therefore, a better term for "God" is "nature."

Would you apply "nature" to a vacuum?

A better term for God is

Hmmm. Kirby, Hoover, Dust Devil...?

Seriously now, some people see nature as separate from something else, in fact, a lot of people. We've got "artificial lighting," "artificial intelligence" and other so-called man-made items. I see those as confused, myself, but some do think nature is only a part of all. KISS, (keep it simple smarty) just plain ole "all" suffices.

According to Spinoza in his Ethics, "God is a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." According to Spinoza, God is the only being whose essence necessarily involves existence (which he takes as one proof for God's existence).

Intersteller space is the hardest vacuum known and it contains about one atom per cubic meter. Hard vacuum is generated on Earth in chambers for testing spacecraft and other devices. The vacuums of which every person (except astronauts) has personal experience are artificial. However, even the artificial is part of nature in the sense that "nature" is all that is. If one accepts that mankind arose via a natural process (evolution), then one must accept that man's artifacts are part of nature too. The distinction of the "artificial" is one of convenience.

I totally agree with you Rick. The thing is if we are to come to a useful term we will need to communicate with others. The clients on this forum seem to be pretty perspicaciously exceptional but still you get that question suggesting that "vacuum" might not be a part of "nature."

I pretty much avoid studying philosophy mainly because I find those that involve themselves with it are seemingly lost in the broohaha. Still, what I learned from the "Beyond Belief" conference and your reference to Spinoza almost makes me want to seek out some writings of his, almost. I have this idea that sticking to science will cause me to evolve my own philosophical ideas though much of what passes itself off as "science" is arguably philosophy. I'm working on developing those arguments at present. The ability of one's perceptions to come to useful teleology is dependent on the validity of their infrastructure, me thinks.

...just in case...

another better term for God is 5 to 1

MAX, I JUST BECAME AWARE OF THIS THREAD suggesting, "A better term for God". Perhaps what we are all discovering is: there are any number of terms other than god, God, or G�D. It could also be G?D. The point is, I am talking about a concept, not a person, a heavenly father called God.

Rick calls it Nature.

Could we think of human beings then as nature in a conscious and very fragile form. However, if we are willing to get rid of our arrogance, our ego, and to become humble enough, we have the amazing opportunity and ability to work in close cooperation with the vast and seemingly all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present unconscious. From the point we make the choice, that is express our good will (Love) to be at one with the ALL, the human potential is limitless.

This leads us to the comment by Max: BTW, Max, did ME think of the conscious as the same as the ego? I presume he did. I presume you are familiar with his use of
Therapeutic Metaphor
The legendary Milton Erickson, the famed Hypnotherapist, was renowned for his ability to assist people in making dramatic personal changes. For people who didn't recognize what he was doing, Erickson simply told stories, parables, or jokes. Others recognized there were deeper patterns at work.

Erickson made it look so easy he even fooled the experts. Erickson's student Ernest Rossi watched Milton work with a client and recorded the hypnotic induction step by step in his book, "Hypnotic Realities."

BTW 1, I have Rossi's book. I also have: Advanced Techniques of Hypnosis and Therapy--Selected Papers of Milton Ericson, M.D." by Jay Haley (Grune and Stratton, 1967). A client, who became a friend and, later, helped me teach the pneumatology course gave the book to me. He found in a used-book store. And I have used ME's methods, on myself and on others, since I first became aware of them in the 1970's. I presume my unconscious mind led me to ME and his writings.

BTW 2, Max, I agree with you, this apporach--that is, the bringing of the unconscious and the conscious to work together, in harmony, can be, "an empowering philosophy, not a crushing one."

You could but you would be shortchanging human potential to accept the form as limited.
If Man is created in Gods image then Human beings are without limits.

Check what Shawn quoted in
/forum/index.php?showtopic=13541&hl=
"Ancient Indian philosophy (as contained in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads) has long maintained that the Self is one and the same in each of us, and that individuality is an illusion. We are all one and the same Self, we are the Universe conscious of Itself, but many people believe otherwise due to conditioning and memories. Shawn, the host of this forum wrote:
If we really are the universe conscious of itself (individuality and the ego being an illusion), and if the universe is infinite (an infinite multiverse, universes within universes ad infinitum), then what does that say about consciousness and the true identity of 'I'?

So you're willing to give up the "fragile form" part, as the illusion?

Rick tells us:
Questions:
Is this is a statement of fact, or is it just one of faith?
If it is a proveable fact, how does one go about proving it to be such?
Is there is such a thing as an absolute vacuum, that is, one which contains no atoms at all?
If so, can this phenomenon be measured and proved to be as claimed?
What is a soft vacuum?

What is an atom? 99.99% empty space?

1. It's an empirical fact. See various astronomy references.

2. Yes. Take a cubic meter with one atom in it and divide it in half. One half will have a 50-50 chance of having no atoms in it.

3. If you wanted to spend a lot of money, you could produce a total vacuum and spend some time proving it was empty by scanning it with a fine laser.

4. A soft vacuum is less costly to produce than a hard vacuum. Soft vacuums are used for various test and research purposes, and also in Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and magnatrons. Soft vacuum is measured in torr. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr

I think that's a rather naive view that is often erroneously "taught" to beginning science students. The atom is quantum shells, the structure of which is determined by the nuclear structure. Electrons reside in the energy levels of the shells. The shells are probability distributions. You could not access that "space" in any meaningful way so to compare it to a macroscopic vacuum is erroneous.

99.99% Non accessable meaningless space....?

You got it. Take for example a lump of metal such as lead or gold. The atoms are "touching" each other, and there is no way to squeeze more atoms into the metal matrix. Therefore, whatever "space" there may be in there, there is no real way to access it.

No way, or no known way?

Known physics precludes any meaningful access, unless one happens to be a gamma ray photon.

As one who did some basic studies in physics, decades ago, and who is still very interested in it, Rick, I really appreciate you taking the trouble to answer my questions which I just got around to reading. I found your answers very congruent with my philosophy of religion.

In the Spirit of dialogue and of the new thread, ON RELIGION, started by Max, here, at this point--I am always open to change-- is what I believe this has to do with what I call G�D, or, as you term IT, Nature:

Our very ancient and unsophisticated ancestors, IMO, sensed gods in almost everything and everywhere. And, loving to fight, they warred in the name of their gods.
Later, the more sophisticated ancients simple lumped all the gods into one. The semitics called Him:
Elohim (the highest power),
Allah (the highest power),
The Greeks and Latins called Him, Theos (the highest idea), Deus, Deos, Dieu (the highest idea),
We anglos called Him, God (the highest Good, Love). All, loving to fight, and claiming to have God on our side, added politics and economics to the mix and continued to "enjoy" the glory of battle.

Certain wise people among the ancients, including Jesus, sought to speak of G�D in a way other than in terms of matter, space and time.
The Semites called it Ruach, Rooka, Ruh--meaning air, wind, breath.
The Latins called it Spiritus, Spirito; the Greeks callled it Pneuma.
We Anglos call it Spirit.
If as you say, there is such a "thing" as vacuum--space without matter, or atoms, then I can just as easily call it Vacuum.
For me, this means that I can say that Nature, or G�D, is ALL Vacuum, plus all measureable matter within it. I cannot imagine anything beyond that. God, or gods, less than that are, for me, too small. For me, it is the One Unifying factor.

hi, i just wanted to ask a question. what are some inconsistencies of Einstein's universe and the quantum world

In addition to mass-energy, there exists consciousness, which nobody yet has been able to explain.