What is the smallest 'thing' in the universe, currently? Well, it's 'quarks'. Now the question is: What are 'quarks' made of?
Is it true that 'quarks' are made of even smaller particles? Then, what are those particles (that are smaller than quarks) made of? And where would this chain of the quest for the 'smallest of smallests' ~ end?
What is the 'ultimate' building block of our grand and beautiful universe? I have full awareness of the fact that you don't know the answer. Because 'you' are the 'answer'!
Good question. There may be other intelligences in the universe capable of making their own private universes.
...what do you mean by "intelligence?" Am I one? If so, I am not a creator, of universes anyway…
or am I?
Perhaps you are a creator. Do you have a flower garden? A pet? Even a bowl of spoiled food in the fridge?
Sure! Your bowl of mold and germs would be an entire universe to the bacteria there. And the garden one to the flowers planted; they can never move, just look about at the far off blooms and green unknown of the grass.
A universe is a matter of perspective and proportion?
How would we know? We occupy the only universe we know of - it could be put a single "atom" of a larger one, or not. Although a great many people will tell us there is absolutely another one.
And you believe those people have proof?
They say they do...which is not to say that I agree with them as not a single one has ever produced a shred of evidence. Just claims.
Did you ever come across a book called Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda? There is a movie playing in theaters near me called "Awake" about him and his line of gurus.
He looked like a girl! Anyway, I had googled him a while ago while I was trying to broaden my understanding of 'Indian spirituality'. They have some really fascinating figures out there. Someone named Shankaracharya (Adi Shankara) who formulated 'Advaita Vedanta' ~ struck me the most. He said something like this: "Everything is an illusion" ~ which is quite true from a certain viewpoint.
Yogananda is considered an avatar of love. You might want to check out his book. Very insightful.
How do you figure that we are connected to the universe? or that we are the building block... My guess is through consciousness. Is that what you mean? or what?
I find this interesting: If 'quarks' were conscious - of what material would that consciousness be made of?
It seems pretty clear to me ~ when I connect this question with all the experiences that I've had in my life ~ that consciousness is the 'ultimate stuff'.
Yes. What experiences?
That what we call 'awareness' - is mostly a result of 'direct perceptions'. There is a difference between reading a book about Himalayas, and going to Nepal and experiencing (with body and the senses) the Himalayas yourself.
When we travel, we experience the totality of the reality: the roads and hotels in Nepal, the people and their dress and food, their poverty and their desperation, and also the magnificence of the Mount Everest and Annapurna. But you can't subtract the socio-economic life of Nepal ~ from the natural beauty that surrounds them ~ because you have to avail their services as long as you stay in that place.
It's quite like the difference between dream and the reality that we perceive when we are awake.
It might take a week-long seminar if I were to verbally describe all the (meaningful) experiences of my life. Everyone's life is interesting and full of experiences.
In one sentence: It was kind of a 'spiritual roller coaster ride'.
Really! most people do not acknowledge/recognize their spiritual experiences, I don't think. What's one example?
Hey, are you in Norway? Now, I find that really amazing… to be able to communicate in seconds a c r o s s the globe! Its too much!!! I am watching Saturday Night Live right this second in LA. (Jim Carey is hosting.)
Have you ever been to Iceland or Greenland? I caught a glimpse of both countries in the movie "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" with Ben Stiller, which I liked. Of course the critics did not like it. Did you see it?
(Sorry, if I now sound like a pen pal... lol!)
I am in Norway, but I've lived in Nepal. We tend to think that all these countries are very far from each other. But in reality, we can travel anywhere on earth in less than a day. It's all more 'connected' than we think it is.
You might know about TED conferences: you are in LA. I'm planning to apply to speak there soon, and participate in the yearly competition. My subject would be 'God and telepathy'. I have more ideas as well.
TED is awesome! But you will find they tend not to allow these sort of subjects any more. Too many charlatans got through the door a while ago. But - good luck.
Hey thank you! Surprising encouragement from an unexpected source. TEDx London is fine too. As far as I know ~ they have been waiting for something 'logical about God' for a very long time now. Let's see if I can infiltrate somehow.
Well - you "might" get into a TEDx, but I very much doubt it. I am all for letting people express whatever they want.
But - there is nothing "logical" about god I'm afraid, and that is what you are going to be up against.
Check out - if you haven't already - Vilayanur Ramachandran's TED talks. He is brilliant.
Of course we don't have 'God's' cellphone number or anything like that. But there are ways to illustrate that 'God' is a part of the totality of reality. Someone needs to bring the paradigm shift. Thank you, again, for the advice and encouragements.
No - there are not ways to do that. People have been trying to "bring that paradigm shift" ever since the concept was first proposed.
But - I am open to being proven wrong.
Show me. That is all it will take - show me and I will believe you.
You wouldn't need to believe anyone if you can see 'it' yourself. By then, you would know that it's a part of our reality.
It's pleasing to hear that you are open to possibilities. We all should be and need to be.
I have seen "it" and I think you are mistaken in your conclusions. But - if you cannot show it to anyone then you are also not being truthful when you claim that "there are ways to illustrate that 'God' is a part of the totality of reality," if you cannot do so.
Agreed. But there are many ways to 'see'. You can not show me how your index finger moved a minute ago. But that doesn't mean that 'it' didn't move. Your webcam might reveal how it did move. Even your fingerprints on your keyboard.
So what? You said - "there are ways to illustrate that 'God' is a part of the totality of reality,".
Please do so. Or do you now admit you cannot do so?
I'm not sure why you're getting aggressive. I have not been evasive or irrational in anyway up-to now, as far as I know.
Of course God is a part of the total reality. But it's not that we can visit God in God's office or in God's living room and discuss the situation of the world. We need to realize that things are as they 'are' ~ and they will not modify their essence or existence just because we do not like the way that they are.
Every child discovers this fact when they get fairly acquainted with the real world: people and their intentions, and the general nature and structure of the world.
I am not getting aggressive. I am asking you to do as you claim. That is all. You claimed - "there are ways to illustrate that 'God' is a part of the totality of reality,".
Please do so. Or do you now admit you cannot do so?
It's difficult to demonstrate and convince anyone about 'that' unless they appreciate the basic structure of reality (as it relates to God) and the 'natural' limitations that it puts before everyone who is trying to understand the mechanism that lies behind this material reality.
I must clarify that my approach has been quite simple here. I have of course stated that it is possible to demonstrate that God indeed exists. I have also stated that I can demonstrate that myself. And I've spent considerable time and effort making things clear for you: that it isn't possible to get any 'direct evidence' regarding God ~ but we can demonstrate God to others using 'alternative methods'.
I have also shared the fact that I'm planning to apply to speak at TED, and to participate in the yearly competition. I'm not asking persistently repeated questions just to invoke a response from someone.
Odd you keep on making these claims and then fail to make good on them. So - "there are ways to illustrate that 'God' is a part of the totality of reality," is untrue.
Perhaps the only way to appreciate God is to see God with your own eyes and hear It speak with your own ears. Will that be convincing enough for you?
Wow - you are very, very good at avoiding the question. I will take that as a yes in that case. Your claim was false.
Avoiding what? If god majickally appeared and spoke to me - yes - that would be convincing enough for me.
So - you were lying when you made your claim? Again?
"Avoiding what? If god majickally appeared and spoke to me - yes - that would be convincing enough for me."
~ Glad that you have admitted this much.
I am a reasonable person. Most would "admit" the same. Not sure why that makes you glad.
Dear me. No wonder religion causes nothing but conflicts.
Good idea. You won't be listening though.
Is this the way that you always sign off from a conversation? I've already given you my positive answer: It's possible to demonstrate God to others. And I can do that. But I have also described in detail the 'limitations' that I had to deal with to reach that success.
You have to show yourself. The only way to do that is to be open to reality. Consciousness is proof of God… your own. As God shet already mentioned in the OP.
Can you develop this thought, that consciousness is proof of a god, further? It doesn't follow by any line of reasoning I can come up with. A logical sequence of statements, coupled with observable facts as necessary, should be adequate.
I am open to reality. It doesn't seem to include this god thing. Odd you are so adamantly arguing this thing exists - and then contradict yourself.
At least you admit you have no proof of anything now. Good for you.
- consciousness is proof of Consciousness. We are a drop in the Ocean. We are a small portion of consciousness contained in a body. God is the manifestation of consciousness contained in the universe and within everything in the universe. You can't think about it too much. If you don't want to, more power to you!
Yes, God as Creator, as Father of our beings, as Consciousness, itself, as Spirit. But, we are stuck in our bodies. We can get out of them. There is a way.
Some have ascended back into the Spirit and Consciousness of God... Jesus was one. If we contemplate the words of Jesus, we can learn how to do it too.
Just rambling on with my own thoughts for anyone who wants to consider them… Not all want to consider them… Thats fine with me.
Sit quietly and focus on the point between the eyebrows and just above them. You will feel what you truly are. What you are is what God is. It is very simple. That's all I will say. Take it or leave it.
The (material) universe, and our bodily senses have been 'designed' in such a way that we do not have a 'free' access to the dimension of consciousness (spirit). We need to accept that limitation, and try to engage creatively to invent and discover alternative routes to access that dimension while we are alive and inside our bodies.
That's possible. It's possible to demonstrate that God is a part of the totality of reality, that way. I can do that myself.
My friend has just returned from Iceland. I've seen the pictures. It's a beautiful place. The architecture of the cities seemed (to me) quite 'Irish'. They have some great sculpture works. I'm a bit homely person!
Our ability to travel is based on many things. I get lost driving to the beach thirty miles away! just kidding… well not really…
I am going to fly to Wisconsin in a couple weeks, though. Going to spend some time on a farm with an authentic Scandinavian sauna house… Do you know what that is?
I get exhausted by certain types of people. I prefer to be at ease in my home or in places where that element is missing.
oh. what types of people? I find that hard to believe since you are involved with TED conferences and traveling. What do you get out of speaking to groups of people?
Well, satanic delusion is very influential, unfortunately. I guess this is your mission… to bust the negative programming that goes on in the world. You would also enjoy reading the works of Dr. Maria Montessori. She reveals how adults can help children stay connected to their inner lives.
You are spot on. Most people, in my experience, are 'unaware' that they have been programmed in that way. It starts to move them as soon as they hear someone speaking logically about it.
Yogananda explains that we are at the beginning of the higher ages... in other words, we are at the lower end of the higher ages… we are just coming out of a long period of ignorance.
- according to what I have read.
His theory seems quite probable. Compared to the age of the universe ~ we are all newcomers to this reality. Even 50 thousand years seem like a nanosecond in the cosmic-clock.
It's very possible that the phenomenon that we call 'religion' ~ will be revolutionized and will be transformed into 'something' which would have a more accurate expression towards reality
There are many precursors that this might indeed happen within the next few centuries, if not in this one.
It may start quite early (satanic delusion). The weakest point for its infiltration is 'sex' and 'sexuality'. As we immerse more into life ~ we discover that this element is spread everywhere just as a drop of poison will be found everywhere in a bottle of water if it got inside.
Well I'm 'planning' to speak there. I have developed ways to deal with this 'element' that I've mentioned. We all learn it ~ whether consciously or otherwise. It's a lot easier to get with it as long as there is a shared goal or some objective to pursue. Otherwise it tends to fall heavily on me.
We can not change the world alone. We need to impact everyone. For that, we need a powerful medium, like TED.
The core building block of the universe is Love.
This is the desire of the Creator to Bestow pleasure.
And the ultimate pleasure is to be like the Creator, bestowing to others. It is an unquenchable hunger, because it comes from an infinite source and feeds an infinite need.
Every pattern in nature is built on this -- quarks, mu mesons, electrons, protons, chemical molecules, evolution, time and space.
Finding parallels in nature and parallels between physical reality and spirituality has been my life's quest. Pattern recognition has been a part of my former professions -- Hollywood artist and software engineer. It has also led me to a number of discoveries, including the mechanics of creation.
Yet, I have so much more to learn. When you remain humble and hungry, the universe is full of delights to discover.
Jomine Jose, only because you are blind to the spiritual world. The spiritual world is far more "concrete" than anything in the physical. Pull the plug in the spiritual and the physical disappears. That makes all this "stuff" that you hold in high regard pretty flimsy.
lone star77wrote: "Finding parallels in nature and parallels between physical reality and spirituality has been my life's quest... It has also led me to a number of discoveries, including the mechanics of creation."
This is a good example of direct perception. I surmise that intuition was involved here. Calmness and serious inquiry is the precursor of telepathic perceptions.
PS Perceiving God directly will tell us a lot about love… and logic as well. (Hint: Love without logic is dangerous.)
More Personal Opinion... (based on experience.)
But that's easy! All you have to do is find a truth in physical reality and, like everything else "spiritual" declare that it spiritual as well. Presto! A parallel.
The problem occurs when physical reality doesn't match with what has been declared to be a "spiritual truth" - as we can't prove such things we can only accept the reality as the only truth.
There, however, is a link between energy and spirit.
Kathryn, interesting points.
Calmness and serious inquiry can be two of the required ingredients, but there are more, as far as I've found. Humility (a lack of self-concern) is one. But "serious?" Serious seems a bit too "heavy." When I've experienced direct control over physical reality there was a definite sense of "lightness" or "bliss." There was, however, a fearless confidence that might be mistaken for "seriousness."
Another critical ingredient was a selfless love of others with no need for reciprocation. And finally, there was a perfect, 100% responsibility for the actions of others. Something quite remarkable happens when you take such complete responsibility (not negative "blame") for someone else and their needs. First of all, you can no longer be a victim; there's no room for being one. Second, forgiving the other person any crimes against self becomes effortless. Suddenly, Christ's teaching about turning the other cheek makes sense. And third, with such perfect responsibility and wishing for them everything that they desire, you cannot help but love the other person, even if they are your enemy.
You say, "Love without logic is dangerous." I understand that you have your own limited experience. I have mine. Perhaps our definitions of love differ. If you're talking about the needy, selfish love that most humans use, then yes, love without logic is indeed dangerous. But selfless love with no self-concern is superior to logic for it is pure spirit. There is no danger in the spiritual world. From the spiritual world all physical reality is built and controlled. All foundations of logic are established. This True Love (from spirit) doesn't need logic and will never suffer any danger.
Thanks for returning.
- logic depends on facts… or truth. If we do not know the facts of science and nature, we may not use love rightly or only according to our own limited understanding. God has the Facts. We need to confer with wisdom: God's.
According to me and my thinking, based on mistakes I have made.
I agree Kathryn. Logic does depend on these things, but, of course, it is not these things. As a mathematician, computer scientist and college professor, I have used logic a good part of my life. It is an essential tool on some levels of existence.
The more I learn about spirituality and science, the more apparent it is to me that book learning -- knowledge, facts, etc. about reality -- has no effect on using Love correctly. Self-awareness is far more important in this regard.
If we are truthful with ourselves and doggedly scour our feelings for our intent and attitudes, then we can know if we are receiving anything for our own selfish benefit. We can feel it.
When we give with complete altruism, then a doorway opens. We can see more than we can with our own human eyes. We can see creation and manipulate it. When we return to selfishness, then this doorway closes. The spiritual blindness we experience is directly connected to this separateness or self-concern-centeredness.
Mistakes? I've made my share, too. I don't know it all. Far from it. But I know what True Love tastes like and nearly everyone doesn't do this. Very few can really turn the other cheek with a clean, loving attitude. Usually, I don't. But I've been there and I know what it feels like. Logic had nothing to do with it. In fact, most every aspect of it was counterintuitive. Perhaps this is spiritual "logic" of a sort, but it isn't intellectual; it's more at "feeling."
One example of the counter-logic aspect of my most powerful experience: When I took perfect, 100% responsibility for the actions of other drivers which had nearly caused 6 consecutive accidents within 2 minutes, there was no logical reason for doing this. It simply felt right. When I did this, a series of miracles ensued.
Thank you for discussing this. It gives me another opportunity to learn and to share. I find new distinctions in the experiences I've had.
I hear what you are saying, lone77star. Unselfish love should do the trick, but I still say knowledge is necessary, especially when you consider that unselfish love is exceedingly RARE!
Logic is always a good thing wouldn't you say?
Love must be balanced with logic and logic must be balanced with love. The two go hand in hand.
like yin, (love,) and yang, (logic,)
female and male,
mother and father
negative and positive,
democrat and republican
- as far as I can tell…
Thanks for the continued discussion.
Knowledge is something else entirely. Yes, of course it's necessary. Without knowledge (awareness) we have only emptiness and nothingness. Without it we may as well not exist at all.
Unselfish love rare? Absolutely. And that's one reason to be unreasonable about it -- to help nurture it away from rareness toward abundance. If we get reasonable, then we give wrong instruction.
Analogous example: As a kid, Joe saw his father make the television work better by giving it a thump on the side. He figures a hammer might be more efficient and is puzzled why his new television stops working altogether. Oops!
Such knowledge and logic can help us understand the difference between the shallow, selfish love of physical reality and the True Love of spirit. But that's only to correct our misconceptions. Using logic in the application of True Love only gets in the way and sometimes breaks it altogether.
Example: When someone harms us, logic says to avoid or to fight back. This blinds us to True Love and makes it impossible. True forgiveness cannot happen in an environment steeped in such logic. And True forgiveness depends on True Love.
Logic is not knowledge, naturally, but I wouldn't have made a career out of logic if I didn't appreciate it a bit.
But I disagree with you about balancing logic and love. If you're talking about physical love, then I would agree with you. But True Love is above logic and above all dichotomies. Balancing the two would be like taping an ice cube to a Saturn V rocket (the kind that took man to the Moon) -- balancing cool with heat. The rocket is all about movement, not heat, though it may use heat to produce that movement. The tiny ice cube isn't an adequate counterbalance. Logically, they're not even opposites.
Physical love is not the building block of the universe I was talking about. Physical love comes only much later in the sequence of events. Physical love is blinded by selfish need. We need not view it as bad or evil. It simply is what it is. Logic, used there, is a good thing to keep passion from going astray.
But True Love is so far above logic, dichotomies, Demopublicans versus Republicrats, and the like, that it's not even in the same universe. It's above the universe. It stands outside of time, too.
These are some of the things I've learned from my own lifetime of experiences with spirit, science and miracles.
Well, some people do not know when to love and when to stop loving.
When too much love is spoiling their kids.
When too much love is robbing a child of his ability to be independent and learn to do for himself.
When too much love is killing the will of a partner to even live because of a smothering effect.
When too much love is dolling out money by the govt. and creating dependance amongst the people who would otherwise learn to work for their own bread.
Maybe we need to define love. Altruistic love is also very rare. However, what is truly good for oneself ends up being good for others, luckily.
Good points, Kathryn.
And it looks as though you are not talking about the same "love" I'm talking about.
You're talking about the physical love of humans through ego (self-concern). The smothering effect you mention is not True Love, but an attitude at or close to sympathy which is highly destructive.
So, I think we're in complete agreement.
But True Love (altruistic love without any self-concern) will become more prevalent, because this is the time for it. Ego (self-concern) is about to explode and then implode. This will result in a great deal of suffering. But it doesn't have to be that way. If we discover True (altruistic) Love before then. The more who do, the easier it will be on all of us.
Sorry, you are not making much sense here, if something seems unreasonable it's simply unreasonable. For example if your love for people of your own religion tells you to kill those who are not of your religion to protect them and don't rely on reason to tell you you are wrong, then you are not doing what is right or loving.
Wow, what kind of logic tells us to avoid or fight back against someone who is harming us and what kind of logic tells us the best thing to do to someone who is harming us is to forgive them. Logic gives us the right thing to do here in this example as well, (stop the person from hurting you and call the authorities so that they will be prevented from hurting anyone else. That's the love we are talking about right. An unselfish act to protect others that we may not even know.
It appears you haven't learned anything of value if you are willing to put love for humanity above logic, because logic tells us when our love is misguided. Groups like ISIS think they are doing a good for humanity and are throwing logic aside just as you described.
Rad Man, I understand your confusion. There is a way to resolve it. You merely have to be willing to look. That requires a bit of humility -- the humility that scientists use when they search for understanding.
When scientists of the 19th century told Thomas Edison that an incandescent light bulb was an impossibility, they were being reasonable. They had many reasons for him to stop his nonsense. They "knew" he would never succeed because science had proven that temperatures hot enough to generate radiation at visible light frequencies would melt known metals. Edison was unreasonable in his persistence to search for an answer.
What can seem illogical to someone of limited experience may be entirely logical to someone who has a broader experience or who is willing to forgo logic to find new information beyond the boundaries of current knowledge.
Edison was being illogical. He was unreasonable.
So was Peter when he stepped out of his storm-tossed boat onto the raging waters of the Sea of Galilee. Yet, he stood for a moment while still buoyed by unreasonable Faith.
When I debug a software problem, I use logic. It's the right tool. But logic doesn't solve everything.
My confusion? LOL. Edison was not being unreasonable, he was being persistent. Reason and logic tells us if we are on the right track. Edison had a reason for his persistence and logic told him he was not hurting anyone with his persistence.
The human mind (consciousness) possesses many alternatives to the (conscious) reasoning faculty.
Sure does, and that's why people burned witches and attempted to eliminate all Jews.
I sure did. It's what happens when we throw reason aside, we become ruled by superstition. Please notice the difference between secular and non-secular societies.
You've mentioned about (roughly) 7% of the total faculties.
So you have nothing then, oh well. I was hoping to learn something.
Let me get this straight. I ask you to explain what faculties the human mind possesses that are alternatives to the reason and are benefical and you (after about 15 posts) mention that you don't understand electricity?
It has been a linear progression. And by the way, I've already mentioned that you are constantly using the rest '93%' post after post, constantly.
Still no answer. Is the reason you give no answer because you have no answer?
A great many conscious people do awful things. It doesn't prevent us from being unreasonable.
Please, most of what goes on in our minds is sub-conscious. Don't pretend you have some kind of ability that others do not. Consciousness doesn't prevent people from doing bad things.
It's something that should already been known. Pretending consciousness is a viable alternative to reason is not reasonable.
It's not reasonable to assume that 'conscious reasoning' (being aware of the fact that we are reasoning something) is the only way that a conscious human being can 'reason'. It's not reasonable as well to assume that 'reasoning' is the main mechanism behind the phenomenon that we call 'assuming anything'.
Okay, I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, but that's not getting us anywhere. First you claim that consciousness is an alternative to reason and then you claim that we can reason with our unconscious minds and we don't need to check that unconscious thought with reason. Nothing good will come of that.
There is much consciousness in that what you've termed as the 'unconscious'. That ['unconscious' (in popular language)] is a part of the totality of the human consciousness.
A TV show I watched the other day made a good claim for self awareness (dictating consciousness) of quite a few animals, defined as the ability to recognize that a mirror image was in fact them. Even the lowly crow passed the test.
What does self awareness and consciousness say about a god that only recognizes one of many species that matters to it?
How does one pretend the entire universe and all the animals and plants in it are for our consumption and still pretend to have an understanding of consciousness beyond what others have?
That's the question, all right.
Throughout history man has declared himself God's preferred:
The earth, sun - the entire universe - was made just for us.
We are at the center of everything.
We will win the war because God is on our side.
God made me better than you; you can tell because of the color of my skin.
As we learn more and more about the other life residing beside us the fallacy of those statements comes into question (and is often obviously false), but somehow we continue with the belief. Why?
Well, it is possible that God came up with this beautiful world and all nature and then thought, hmmm... lets put two human beings, one male and one female, into this world and see what happens...
hahaha... just kidding.
What really happened is this:
God invented his own masculine body first. Then, He stepped into it and said, "Cool! I think I'll make another body, but feminine." He became She and stepped into the feminine body. Then, God proclaimed, "Wow! doubly cool!" Next, He/She created some stars… well, enough for zillions of solar systems, and then some planets….and finally, a solar system in which one planet was suitable for these two bodies he had designed… (He knew they would soon need their own wide world.)
hahaha! Just kidding.
She designed a feminine body first and THEN a masculine body, obviously!
No No, this is what REALLY happened:
We are all lucky accidents of evolution. Essentially, we are the result of the most fit of the fortunate.
Any other ideas?
Thank you really for the much-anticipated update.
Everything is made from the stardust that the Big Bang created right? I'm eager to know what relation quarks have to star dust. Honest question. (Probably stupid question;)
Quarks are merely one of many kinds of particles. According to physicists and their current theory of matter, quarks are a fundamental particle from which other particles, like protons and neutrons are built.
Stardust is merely a metaphorical term for all matter generated from the theoretical Big Bang and from the explosion of stars. The Big Bang created a universe filled with hydrogen and possibly a little helium. Stars convert hydrogen to helium and heavier elements, depending on the mass of the star.
Stars are massive balls of gas. Our own sun is so massive it is equivalent to 333,000 Earths. All of that weight pressing on the gas causes it to heat up. The heat collides the hydrogen atoms so forcefully that they combine to form helium. But stable helium weighs slightly less than two hydrogen atoms. This little extra mass is ejected as gamma radiation (light energy).
When a star runs out of hydrogen at the core, it collapses to force helium to combine and this causes the star to mushroom out as a red giant. The combining helium produces other elements like carbon and oxygen. More massive stars go through several stages of nuclear fusion and finally produce iron which is a nuclear energy pit. Iron acts as a cold block of ice, causing the star to shrink rapidly. This results in a supernova explosion which spews the guts of the star across the region and will include many elements above iron, including gold, lead and uranium.
All of this stuff is part of "stardust."
...one aspect of false love is as you mentioned:
"sympathy which is highly destructive."
But, not all sympathy is destructive. I guess it all boils down to intent. Self concern vs others concern. But even others-concern can be part of self-concern. *Self* is not bad … especially when open and inclusive of life, joy and others.
But, a closed up Self is no fun.
Good, Kathryn. Your description shows us the difference between compassion (empathy) and sympathy.
Certainly, self is all we have to work with. To condemn self or suppress it only strengthens the separation from others -- increasing Ego. Even suicide does this.
I used to think that suppressing Ego and attempting to eliminate it was a good thing, but I've since learned that increasing Ego while converting its desires to those of altruism may be the best way to resolve the dilemma of suffering.
by LewSethics5 years ago
We all agree that Time and Space are essential parts of our Universe, even though we can't always agree on what Time and Space are. I think that 'Being' is another one of the building blocks, and that everything...
by LewSethics5 years ago
He could have done it in four or five days if He didn't insist on making most heavenly objects thirteen billion light years distant. Just showing off?
by Randy Godwin7 years ago
As far as we know there are more people on earth than at any time in history. Are new souls being produced all the time? If so why?
by Thom Carnes7 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.