Synchromysticism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominus Deus

I'm arguing about liberating your mind so you can see things and hear them instead of putting signs under them that fit into the concepts you've already laid out. Honestly, this goes closer to an objective universe only I'm turning the hose on you this time because it's humanity's great pitfall. Reality is always more than the labels you give it or the ways you rationalize it. Reality on its own cannot be rationalized, argued or proved. It can't be named, judged or repeated. It is non-dualism at it's finest.

---

Firstly, the "liberating your mind" is a crucial argument I am trying to tackle. No one persons arguments or words can help others "liberate" their minds because it is an entirely introverted process. What is useful is discussion and learning but actually speaking of the actual transcendence is pointless because, as we have asserted, talking specifically about it is futile and not exactly possible. Thus, there is no sense in speaking of it, and especially not "teaching" it. Thus, the only real thing left to do is talk about things that can actually be interactive.

Labelling things and categorising things is essential for language and comprehension of our environment. Without it, you would not be doing nor thinking anything you were while writing that post. It is an essential part of survival and this is my point; the philosophy of Cartesian uncertainty holds absolutely no practical value when interacting with others. It is an entirely introverted and selfish process (and I mean selfish as in you are the only one that can benefit from it). Sharing your self-development with others does little except come off as pretentious or offer nothing of substance (ie. "I learned the importance of uncertainty today" does nothing for anyone).

Quote:

---

This is a change every human being has to make, none of us are any different in that respect. When you actually experience what I'm talking about, you'll see you give up nothing you ever actually had in the first place, and gain so much more.

---

Are you implying that I have not made the same transcendence that you have? Why do people keep making statements like this? This is exactly what I am speaking of. You do not know that I have nor that anyone else has, so why do people keep making the "if you experienced what I experienced" statements? It's preposterous and sophomoric. The very experiences your pretenses are falling upon are based on subjective experiences, so why would you even begin pontificating this..? Why am I constantly repeating myself? When you people get it that your contradicting yourself when you say "you ought to treasure subjective development" and then try to teach others how to do it..? You can't! I know you agree with that, so why does it keep coming into every discussion..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

You're saying reality can't be rationalized, however you're rationalizing it. See it basically saying you can't label something, but then you're labeling it. You're judging reality to be not judgable.

---

See this is a productive and substantial point that wendylove has made that I would like others to take note of.

I recognize the actual lack of representative value that all things have, but the point is looking at the way in which these things are utilised and used in language and life in order to propel development. While the word "chair" is a misleading label to an absolute or universal definition of a "chair" it is still practical and useful to use the word "chair" to refer to something specific when conversing with others or to organize my thoughts.

Quote:

---

The point is, you're trying to reason that reality is more then reason. Can't you see the problem with this?

---

This I don't follow. I'm not saying that reality is more than reason, I am just saying that even when you discover that all things hold no value, you can still utilise the way things are used and the way things are manipulated to further development and learning. Reasoning is still entact and absolute.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Firstly, the "liberating your mind" is a crucial argument I am trying to tackle. No one persons arguments or words can help others "liberate" their minds because it is an entirely introverted process. What is useful is discussion and learning but actually speaking of the actual transcendence is pointless because, as we have asserted, talking specifically about it is futile and not exactly possible. Thus, there is no sense in speaking of it, and especially not "teaching" it. Thus, the only real thing left to do is talk about things that can actually be interactive.

---

One person cannot tell another how to liberate their minds, therefore we shouldn't talk about it?

This goes back to what Really was saying on universal truth. Only you can discover universal truth, however we can provide each other clues. And what am i supposed to do when the whole world has become an empty, meaningless, endless illusion and the only thing left to seek is... an end to the seeking.

Quote:

---

Labelling things and categorising things is essential for language and comprehension of our environment. Without it, you would not be doing nor thinking anything you were while writing that post. It is an essential part of survival and this is my point; the philosophy of Cartesian uncertainty holds absolutely no practical value when interacting with others. It is an entirely introverted and selfish process (and I mean selfish as in you are the only one that can benefit from it). Sharing your self-development with others does little except come off as pretentious or offer nothing of substance (ie. "I learned the importance of uncertainty today" does nothing for anyone).

---

If you mention the word Cartesian again I'm going to pee in your oatmeal. I do not follow Descartes. I have never directly read a word of Descartes, only what other people have interpreted from him.

And you need to read this part very closely because this where the argument continues to go in circles, I am not suggesting you give up your definitions, I am only suggesting that your definitions fail to define the world. They are words, they are flawed. They have their purpose, to translate ideas, transfer associations, turn the world into something you can talk about. But they do not describe the world, rather the world describes your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Are you implying that I have not made the same transcendence that you have? Why do people keep making statements like this? This is exactly what I am speaking of. You do not know that I have nor that anyone else has, so why do people keep making the "if you experienced what I experienced" statements? It's preposterous and sophomoric. The very experiences your pretenses are falling upon are based on subjective experiences, so why would you even begin pontificating this..? Why am I constantly repeating myself? When you people get it that your contradicting yourself when you say "you ought to treasure subjective development" and then try to teach others how to do it..? You can't! I know you agree with that, so why does it keep coming into every discussion..?

---

Read the bottom of my post. In reality I'm no where, I'm not ahead or behind of everybody else. It used to be I thought I was ahead, when I was like twelve. I have experienced mindfulness and called it that, that's not to say you haven't, but I assume you haven't experienced that state of consciousness while calling it that. You probably called it something like "Being in the zone." I was able to put my mind in the "zone" on demand and it made me focused and aware, and was done with no struggle at all. Now I struggle, and hence can't accomplish.

This does not make me better, it's simply something that happened, therein cased in the flawed words I chose to write which fail to define my argument. And naturally, they are vulnerable to misinterpretation of another attempt at condescension.

Quote:

---

See this is a productive and substantial point that wendylove has made that I would like others to take note of.

I recognize the actual lack of representative value that all things have, but the point is looking at the way in which these things are utilised and used in language and life in order to propel development. While the word "chair" is a misleading label to an absolute or universal definition of a "chair" it is still practical and useful to use the word "chair" to refer to something specific when conversing with others or to organize my thoughts.

---

This is where the argument changes drastically, and you have to realize that words simply fail to convey what I'm trying to express, so I'll try my very best you also have to try to understand. I'm not saying I know more, just that I have an answer to that question for myself and if you would like to know how I have answered this question then pay attention with an open mind. Rather than take apart my poor, unfortunate words with the burden of holding up an idea that transcends them, try to use my words to reach the idea, even if it's a fabricated one.

When it comes to this, it is no longer philosophy. It is about being, at this point, and like you said there's nothing left to talk about, just discover.

I say the pitfall occurs when people start and end with the chair concept in their head, which is a collection of ideas and associations from their past all mixed together to form a response. Moving away from a chair, to something with practical value, someone see a log floating down the river and it resonates with a memory from the Discovery Channel so you are able to think "maybe it's a crocodile" because it's possible based on previous information. Then, your eyes "scan" for a crocodile, or search the log to see if it becomes the "crocodile" concept from their brain. Another way to put this is they look at the log, and check their brain for resonances to crocodiles.

So what we have is first what we see, then what we call it and the implications it gives us, and then we're done with it. Well, with that attitude, all you ever see is the past. We're always searching for something, so instead of seeing the world we're scanning it to pick up resonances to memories.

I forgot the name of the scholar that said this, but he said,

"Nothing is the way it appears to be, nor is it otherwise."

And the obvious question is, then what?

That's the point, the present moment is always brand new, there are no words or rationalities to put it in, including the very rationalities I used to describe the concept. In an ever changing universe everything around us is constantly brand new. Energies are being shared, ideas are being shared, there's a conversation going on. This is not dualism at all, this is a oneness of matter and consciousness, as matter is made up of consciousness.

Quote:

---

They are words, they are flawed. They have their purpose, to translate ideas, transfer associations, turn the world into something you can talk about. But they do not describe the world, rather the world describes your thoughts.

---

I disagree, you're thoughts are not abstract things they are produced by the world. Languages are mean't to be functional, hence why we use them. When I say pass me that chair, I'm not describing my thoughts, I'm using language in a functional way.

Also, the world describes you're thoughts is vague. I am and you are part of the world, also thoughts are too. Thoughts are just a subset of the world.

Quote:

---

It used to be I thought I was ahead, when I was like twelve. I have experienced mindfulness and called it that, that's not to say you haven't, but I assume you haven't experienced that state of consciousness while calling it that. You probably called it something like "Being in the zone." I was able to put my mind in the "zone" on demand and it made me focused and aware, and was done with no struggle at all.

---

I think this is just a flaw in you're ego. You want to have something special, you want to be special, so you give some moment in you're life a special quality. Now, you can say that Onus or other people who are relax don't feel the same way, but at the end of the day you're just struggling to be special.

Quote:

---

This is where the argument changes drastically, and you have to realize that words simply fail to convey what I'm trying to express, so I'll try my very best you also have to try to understand.

---

This is just another trick to make you think you're special. You haven't got anything special to express thats why you fail.

Quote:

---

So what we have is first what we see, then what we call it and the implications it gives us, and then we're done with it. Well, with that attitude, all you ever see is the past. We're always searching for something, so instead of seeing the world we're scanning it to pick up resonances to memories.

---

No, what we have first is what there is, then the idear forms of it. Also, I doubt that, actually according to the working model of memory, the brain keeps on updating you're memory i.e. its active. Also, its impossible to see the future because of entrophy, which forces us to see time in one direction.

Again, this is just generalizations. Also, I doubt the method you're using which seems to be introspection.

Basically, if you look into you're own mind then you know only a little bit of reality. So for example, you would think we only percieve stuff and then try and fit it into past experiences, when it could just be you.

Quote:

---

That's the point, the present moment is always brand new, there are no words or rationalities to put it in, including the very rationalities I used to describe the concept.

---

I disagree, the present moment is just an illusion caused by entrophy. In reality, everything just happens at once, however preception of time forces us to see it as like a clock ticking away in one direction. Even if there was no words, then so what? You're using words now, hence the need for it.

Quote:

---

This is not dualism at all, this is a oneness of matter and consciousness, as matter is made up of consciousness.

---

Based on what evidence?

Again, you're being lazy and not basing you're ideas on empirical evidence or logic. There is no evidence that matter is made up of consciousness. All you're doing is trying to generalize from introspection, which is flawed. You're not special, you have no deep knowledge of the universe.

Get a degree in Theortical Physics or Mathematical Physics before saying rubbish like matter is made up of consciousness. Well, I hope you feel special as if you had any evidence for you're claim then you would proberly be getting a nobel prize soon.

Well I don't have to get a degree to talk shit, somebody already did, her name is Elisabet Sahtouris

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

This here encapsulates the problem - you also cannot comprehend or understand what you are even talking about, let alone prove it or anything close to that. So you can't argue for it or try to prove its existance because you cannot. If you cannot argue or prove its existance, then stop trying to deter others opinions and growth with your "surrender to higher power".

---

I cannot comprehend, understand, rationalize or prove what I am saying. Does that make it dissapear? This is about Reality, is it not? What am I to complain about the unknown Reality?

The unknown is one with the entirety of the phenomena all humans are collectively witnessing, because it is both what is seen and what is beyond the seen. Where can proof/evidence go, here - with what use? A drop cannot claim the ocean, but the ocean can acclaim its drops. Different paradigm of understanding, different context. Science does not answer spiritual questions, spiritual work does.

Collecting Concepts is all we do...

How we choose to Convey them is the thing that differs...

One collecting purely subtractive concepts from introspection will speak in... Cryptic Concise Code

Another gathering purely additive concepts from outrospection will speak in... Complex Conceited Constructs

Obviously, we know which way a person leans when we read the content of their posts...

Is one way of thinking necessarily better than the other? No.

Is one more intelligent or have a firmer grasp on reality? No.

Each person's reality is real in it's own right...

Don't think just because one chooses not to speak in massive walls of additive logical banter that they are "sophomoric" and "pontificating".

Each has their own way of conveying their perspective. It's not a game of word chess where the man who can string together the longest idea wins...

Sometimes contemplation on open-ended ideas is much more interesting than reading clear-cut one-sided ones...

I don't know about you O'nus but I hate simply sticking empty labels on ideas and just cataloguing them away without further thought...

Last year we got into a discussion about the falsifiability factor of solipsism and transcendence of language and words. Just because an idea is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's a sophomoric way of thinking unworthy of further thought.

Reality itself is unfalsifiable.

Sure, you can throw around the concepts 'Solipsism', and 'Cartesian Circle' until you are blue in the face, however, that doesn't change the perspective of the person speaking or make their viewpoint less valid or true...

If you ask me... Cataloguing concepts away and just moving onto the next is a silly way to collect concepts...

My empty critiques of how we wear masks in order to collect and convey these concepts wasn't a stab at anyone in particular but more at everyone...

Just look at how absurd we are... sitting half a world away staring into computer screens arguing the proper way to convey a concept with people we've never even met or seen...

Do we (as individuals) honestly think we are going somewhere by accumulating these massive concept collections? I sure don't.

More or less we are always just rats on wheels of our own making...

And that is the thing I wish people would remember...

Each new concept we collect seemingly pushes us a step forward but since things are non-linear and time/space is non-local, you essentially don't move anywhere and always end up where you started...

Back at square one... without a semblance of a clue...

Each time I isolate the I... I realize that in the end our collection of concepts will fly out the window along with everything else we thought we knew about ourselves...

And, that's the funny thing that I can't help but point out at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

I disagree, you're thoughts are not abstract things they are produced by the world. Languages are mean't to be functional, hence why we use them. When I say pass me that chair, I'm not describing my thoughts, I'm using language in a functional way.

Also, the world describes you're thoughts is vague. I am and you are part of the world, also thoughts are too. Thoughts are just a subset of the world.


I think this is just a flaw in you're ego. You want to have something special, you want to be special, so you give some moment in you're life a special quality. Now, you can say that Onus or other people who are relax don't feel the same way, but at the end of the day you're just struggling to be special.


This is just another trick to make you think you're special. You haven't got anything special to express thats why you fail.


No, what we have first is what there is, then the idear forms of it. Also, I doubt that, actually according to the working model of memory, the brain keeps on updating you're memory i.e. its active. Also, its impossible to see the future because of entrophy, which forces us to see time in one direction.

Again, this is just generalizations. Also, I doubt the method you're using which seems to be introspection.

Basically, if you look into you're own mind then you know only a little bit of reality. So for example, you would think we only percieve stuff and then try and fit it into past experiences, when it could just be you.


I disagree, the present moment is just an illusion caused by entrophy. In reality, everything just happens at once, however preception of time forces us to see it as like a clock ticking away in one direction. Even if there was no words, then so what? You're using words now, hence the need for it.


Based on what evidence?

Again, you're being lazy and not basing you're ideas on empirical evidence or logic. There is no evidence that matter is made up of consciousness. All you're doing is trying to generalize from introspection, which is flawed. You're not special, you have no deep knowledge of the universe.

Get a degree in Theortical Physics or Mathematical Physics before saying rubbish like matter is made up of consciousness. Well, I hope you feel special as if you had any evidence for you're claim then you would proberly be getting a nobel prize soon.

---

I don't think you or your friend will be getting any nobel prizes seeing as how we are on an internet forum. And some people seem to get real offended over some peoples ideas and beliefs and hide behind bashing.

Life is too complicated for any mind or science to fully grasp. Nothing will ever be made so clear but their is one thing for sure. You're arguing over nothing. Everyone views life subjectively if certain people want to live in darkness and not realize the light they carry so be it. Live in the world that has been created for you by the Government and Religious societies since the middle ages.

Some people may not believe in telepathy, some people may doubt Jungs theory of the shadow and global consciousness but all us believers know and understand.

Let them wallow in their self-doubt and self-hatred that has been instilled in them by Christianity for oh so long. No one can be special, only god. Even though as far as I'm aware we were modeled in his likeness?

Some people may pick and choice what theories of Jungs to believe in like the Ego, Id, Superego and totally ignore the possibility of shared conciousness and communication through nonverbal and non-physical means.

We may teach our children history, but it's all subjective and skewed towards the winning sides of wars and battles. Why burn witches, to put out "secret" knowledge. This knowledge is older than the seeds of Judaism(Kaballah) and Christianity, and the prophet Mohamed teachings.

Basically my point is, view what you will.
As above
So below



P.S. There was a time Before degrees and colleges does that mean everyone was uneducated and uninformed? One does not need to spend years in school to grasp concepts.

P.S.S. Everything is subjective to yourself experienced in the present. But that does not mean you can't view the past or the future. Because all of time is really one. Did you not say that yourself?

Words/Language are used for communication it's that simple, but that doesn't mean two people speaking completely different languages can't communicate in some form.


Your views are no more logic based than anyone elses, everything is subjective. And whatever the people in charge believe in is then spread throughout society.



Just another brick in the wall....

Quote:

---

More or less we are always just rats on wheels of our own making...

---

If you really want to be right, rats created us as an experiment.

My computer is almost done computing the reason to life, hope our planet don't get blown up before it's done :-/

Quote:

---

And some people seem to get real offended over some peoples ideas and beliefs and hide behind bashing.

---

This is lame. Seriously, you can disagree and not get offended.

Quote:

---

Life is too complicated for any mind or science to fully grasp.

---

I disagree. If you look at theortical physics they are trying to understand everything, although there is some problems, but still in a hundred or maybe even twenty years time the theory of everything will be known.

Quote:

---

totally ignore the possibility of shared conciousness and communication through nonverbal and non-physical means.

---

The problem with this is that things are accepted because they have evidence.

Quote:

---

P.S. There was a time Before degrees and colleges does that mean everyone was uneducated and uninformed? One does not need to spend years in school to grasp concepts.

---

Actually you anwsered it with the burning witches example. The point is before we had degrees and college most people thought the world revolves around earth. Also, we need school or university so we can understand comple concepts, if you look at Ramanujan, even he was severly harmed by not have a decent education in mathematics.

Quote:

---

Your views are no more logic based than anyone elses, everything is subjective. And whatever the people in charge believe in is then spread throughout society.

---

Actually, I try and base my views on science, which is objective. Also, mathematics, which is really objective. So yeah, I think my views are not subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

This is lame. Seriously, you can disagree and not get offended.

---

He's talking about you

Quote:

---

I disagree. If you look at theortical physics they are trying to understand everything, although there is some problems, but still in a hundred or maybe even twenty years time the theory of everything will be known.

---

Hahahahahahahaha

Quote:

---

The problem with this is that things are accepted because they have evidence.

---

Atheist apologist quote of the day

Quote:

---

Actually, I try and base my views on science, which is objective. Also, mathematics, which is really objective. So yeah, I think my views are not subjective.

---

Do you really think anyone else in this thread is trying to live their life according to mathematical law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Do you really think anyone else in this thread is trying to live their life according to mathematical law?

---

What you talkin' bout fool!?

When I get up each morning I look in the mirror and say...

"Y to the M X plus B... All over 2 AC... Axis Mundi"

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/.../axismundi.jpghttp://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...axismundi2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

This is lame. Seriously, you can disagree and not get offended.


I disagree. If you look at theortical physics they are trying to understand everything, although there is some problems, but still in a hundred or maybe even twenty years time the theory of everything will be known.


The problem with this is that things are accepted because they have evidence.


Actually you anwsered it with the burning witches example. The point is before we had degrees and college most people thought the world revolves around earth. Also, we need school or university so we can understand comple concepts, if you look at Ramanujan, even he was severly harmed by not have a decent education in mathematics.


Actually, I try and base my views on science, which is objective. Also, mathematics, which is really objective. So yeah, I think my views are not subjective.

---

It's funny if you think in a hundred years we will all of a sudden have all the answers to everything... Too bad science is constantly being edited and fixed because they realize ideas and concepts that they once held to be true were found to be not. People as a whole are insane if they think they will truly understand every little complexity to the universe.

Wiccans/Pagans never held the view that the world revolves around the earth. Never was part of their religious beliefs. Though it was a common belief back in the day, I believe it was an idea perpetrated by Christians...
The first person to come up with the theory of the Earth moving around the sun was in fact a Greek by the name of Aristarchus around 300 BC.

We don't need schools, they help in this day in age because parents can't seem to handle teaching their kids anything. You can learn without school.

Science and math are great and I pay great attention to both of these subjects, but they are not all life is made of. Their is more than you can see.

Your views are subjective, it's impossible for them to not be.

Quote:

---

Subjective - 4 a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes [

---

Quote:

---

The planet Earth exhibits all of these properties and therefore can be considered alive and its own single organism by the scientific definition.
Quote:
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.

---

Firstly people and other organisms are always reproducing and without the Earth would not be able to do so.
Second it's constantly changing and volcanoes can create new land which organisms will form out of the fires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominus Deus

Well I don't have to get a degree to talk shit, somebody already did, her name is Elisabet Sahtouris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabet_Sahtouris

---

That linked seemed irrelevant. Which source of hers are you referring to..? Darwin..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

I cannot comprehend, understand, rationalize or prove what I am saying. Does that make it dissapear? This is about Reality, is it not? What am I to complain about the unknown Reality?

---

No, it does not make it disappear because it never appeared to begin with. So, in order to actually interact with it, we have to be able to know of it at least. You can say the samething about my imaginary friend or a the flying spaghetti monster.

Quote:

---

The unknown is one with the entirety of the phenomena all humans are collectively witnessing, because it is both what is seen and what is beyond the seen. Where can proof/evidence go, here - with what use? A drop cannot claim the ocean, but the ocean can acclaim its drops. Different paradigm of understanding, different context. Science does not answer spiritual questions, spiritual work does.

---

You say that science cannot answer your suggestions.

Science = systematic observations, unbiased, logical necessity, and repetitive qualities that allow others to repeat your results. The result to be able to able to empirically view and systematically repeat (via logic) the hypothesis and results that others have come to. For example; I open a door via the door knob because of the mechanics, etc. This all follows by a system of logic and empirical respect to systematic observation.

So.. are you saying that what you are talking about cannot be answered by logic, empiricism, and systematic observation? Are you suggesting that you cannot use rationality and reason to understand what you are talking about?

We must make a leap of faith to irrationality?

Keep in mind that you used scientific reasoning to come to your conclusion.

[quote="Cyclic13"]
Is one way of thinking necessarily better than the other? No.
Is one more intelligent or have a firmer grasp on reality? No.
Each person's reality is real in it's own right...
Don't think just because one chooses not to speak in massive walls of additive logical banter that they are "sophomoric" and "pontificating".
Each has their own way of conveying their perspective. It's not a game of word chess where the man who can string together the longest idea wins...
Sometimes contemplation on open-ended ideas is much more interesting than reading clear-cut one-sided ones...
I don't know about you O'nus but I hate simply sticking empty labels on ideas and just cataloguing them away without further thought...
[/qupte]

I will call it sophomirc when people pontificate irrationality as biblical truth, especially when they admit it. Why? Because that is the very definition of sophomorism.

I ask for people to speak in lingual terms that others can understand and repeat for others to learn by. When it comes to subjective terms, you obviously can't do this - so why start from the beginning? Instead, talk about things that can be mutually developed. This seems intuitive.. does it not..?

There are rational open-ended ideas that don't have to be pseudo-intellectual or completely vague. Are we forgetting what criticis evolution often suffers? It is an open ended science with wide horizons for development and yet has systematic rules that abide by empirical logic.
Sticking labels on everything and ideas is the very concept of language and communication between individuals. The idea is to be able to talk to one another and mutually develop. I'm not speaking of arbitrarily walking around and labelling every variable, I am speaking of the idea of being able to communicate when it comes to subjective terms.

Quote:

---

Last year we got into a discussion about the falsifiability factor of solipsism and transcendence of language and words. Just because an idea is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's a sophomoric way of thinking unworthy of further thought.

---

You're in denial of being wrong.

There, that is an unfalsfiable statement I can say to everything you say from now on. It is obviously wrong and this is the same characteristic of all unfalsifiable statements. That is why it is a general rule that unfalsifiability is simply irrational and unreasonable - because it can't be reasoned with.

Quote:

---

Reality itself is unfalsifiable.

---

How? First, define reality. You can't just drop some major topic like that has been discussed since the times of Augustine as a proposition that magically breaks the ground of all philosophy.

Please explain how reality is unfalsifiable, because I am certainly looking to get my thesis for my Ph.D in philosophy and something like that would put you into the history books.

Quote:

---

Sure, you can throw around the concepts 'Solipsism', and 'Cartesian Circle' until you are blue in the face, however, that doesn't change the perspective of the person speaking or make their viewpoint less valid or true...

---

Yes it does actually. If I simply repeat "you're just a part of my imagination, your opinion is worthless" that person is utilising Solipistic reasoning.. and it's irrational no matter how many times they say it.

Quote:

---

If you ask me... Cataloguing concepts away and just moving onto the next is a silly way to collect concepts...

---

You'll have to excuse me but I was under the impression that cataloguing concepts and moving onto the next is called learning. Either you are straw-manning me, or simply working with undefined (cough) concepts because I obviously have an adament affinity for language. You'll have to excuse me when I say that collecting definitions and concepts is a fundamental necessity for communication. Calling it silly is simply the most selfish thing you can say because it means you don't care about the meaning of your propositions and don't care what others take from it.

Quote:

---

Do we (as individuals) honestly think we are going somewhere by accumulating these massive concept collections? I sure don't.

---

I think so - I am learning. If you arn't, then you are the one losing in the discussion. I am not looking to "win", I am looking to learn and what frustrates me is when people spew selfish things that offer no substantial value to anyone but themself.

Quote:

---

Back at square one... without a semblance of a clue...

---

Speak for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

P.S. There was a time Before degrees and colleges does that mean everyone was uneducated and uninformed? One does not need to spend years in school to grasp concepts.

---

I think you will find that reason and rationality has always been around. Along with that, irrationality and unreason has paralleled it from the very days of those who worshipped the sun by staring at it all day while those who went to Plato's academy banned those who did not know calculus.

Quote:

---

Your views are no more logic based than anyone elses, everything is subjective. And whatever the people in charge believe in is then spread throughout society.

---

Everything is subjective, and this is what science tries to overcome in order to come close to universal laws and rules of physics. Think of the very basics of science and how they try to rule out the subjectivity of things in order to come to a general consensus of the world around us; systematic observation is so that anyone can repeat the process that the author did to have a subjective experience of their results themself.
Why don't people realise this about science..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

It's funny if you think in a hundred years we will all of a sudden have all the answers to everything... Too bad science is constantly being edited and fixed because they realize ideas and concepts that they once held to be true were found to be not. People as a whole are insane if they think they will truly understand every little complexity to the universe.

---

That's the beauty of science - it is always subject to criticism and growth. Irrationality is not. Do you seriously want us to reference everytime the Catholic church has made a change in their plateau? How many times has the pope had to acknowledge scientific explosions? Let's just start by mentioning good ol' Galileo.

Don't forget, it is the irrational people who are jumping to conclude they know everything about the universe. A christian saying that God created everything and is everything is an assumption on the very foundations of the universe and leaves no room for development and only criticism. This is why they are always on the defense from Atheists.

Quote:

---

We don't need schools, they help in this day in age because parents can't seem to handle teaching their kids anything. You can learn without school.

---

Are you seriously ready to commit to this statement? Would you subject yourself to surgery by someone who claims to have self-taught themself brain surgery for X years with no mentor?

The fact is that schools propogate learning and significant excel intelligence and enlightenment. I don't know how you can say anything more foolish than that we don't need schools unless you believe social anarchy is heaven. The very basis of economy and a political haven rely on education and schools systematise intelligence. To say otherwise is to abolish intelligence and any sort of social interaction.


This whole thing is becoming ridiculous.

Let's simplify the whole matter. I will do my best to simplify my argument as best as possible.

+ Subjective experiences are the only thing we can each, individually, be certain of. (ie. the cogito).
+ We can try to express these subjective experiences, but once the subjective experience has passed, it can never be properly represented again (ie. language can never properly represent anything we have ever experienced to another conscious being.)
+ The only way to develop and learn is to come to mutual agreement upon premise 2 and continue living.
+ We can still learn and develop in other matters (ie. physics, biology, etc.) but we must always keep in mind their representative qualities and how flawed they might be.

The question that is left is whether rationality and faith are compatible. That is where I would like to stop.

What do you think...?

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let's simplify the whole matter. I will do my best to simplify my argument as best as possible.

+ Subjective experiences are the only thing we can each, individually, be certain of. (ie. the cogito).
+ We can try to express these subjective experiences, but once the subjective experience has passed, it can never be properly represented again (ie. language can never properly represent anything we have ever experienced to another conscious being.)
+ The only way to develop and learn is to come to mutual agreement upon premise 2 and continue living.
+ We can still learn and develop in other matters (ie. physics, biology, etc.) but we must always keep in mind their representative qualities and how flawed they might be.

The question that is left is whether rationality and faith are compatible. That is where I would like to stop.

What do you think...?

~

---

Way less complicated..

So... comes down to two or more individuals discussing the tase of an orange. Two or three who actually have and the rest have not.

For those who have tasted it, there is no need for wordy explanations. Each knows what the other knows despite any words used to communicate that knowing.

For these its a matter of rationality and experience. For the others. it becomes purely a matter of faith in what these 2 or three are telling them, or trying to tell them.

Wouldnt the compatibility itself be subjective among those individuals who have not tasted? Some may have faith and others may not. Each circumstance may very well be diifferent, like a fingerprint.

Where does the discussion go from here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you will find that reason and rationality has always been around. Along with that, irrationality and unreason has paralleled it from the very days of those who worshipped the sun by staring at it all day while those who went to Plato's academy banned those who did not know calculus.



Everything is subjective, and this is what science tries to overcome in order to come close to universal laws and rules of physics. Think of the very basics of science and how they try to rule out the subjectivity of things in order to come to a general consensus of the world around us; systematic observation is so that anyone can repeat the process that the author did to have a subjective experience of their results themself.
Why don't people realise this about science..?



That's the beauty of science - it is always subject to criticism and growth. Irrationality is not. Do you seriously want us to reference everytime the Catholic church has made a change in their plateau? How many times has the pope had to acknowledge scientific explosions? Let's just start by mentioning good ol' Galileo.

Don't forget, it is the irrational people who are jumping to conclude they know everything about the universe. A christian saying that God created everything and is everything is an assumption on the very foundations of the universe and leaves no room for development and only criticism. This is why they are always on the defense from Atheists.



Are you seriously ready to commit to this statement? Would you subject yourself to surgery by someone who claims to have self-taught themself brain surgery for X years with no mentor?

The fact is that schools propogate learning and significant excel intelligence and enlightenment. I don't know how you can say anything more foolish than that we don't need schools unless you believe social anarchy is heaven. The very basis of economy and a political haven rely on education and schools systematise intelligence. To say otherwise is to abolish intelligence and any sort of social interaction.


This whole thing is becoming ridiculous.

Let's simplify the whole matter. I will do my best to simplify my argument as best as possible.

+ Subjective experiences are the only thing we can each, individually, be certain of. (ie. the cogito).
+ We can try to express these subjective experiences, but once the subjective experience has passed, it can never be properly represented again (ie. language can never properly represent anything we have ever experienced to another conscious being.)
+ The only way to develop and learn is to come to mutual agreement upon premise 2 and continue living.
+ We can still learn and develop in other matters (ie. physics, biology, etc.) but we must always keep in mind their representative qualities and how flawed they might be.

The question that is left is whether rationality and faith are compatible. That is where I would like to stop.

What do you think...?

~

---

I don't think you have much of an understanding how the ancient world actually worked. No one stared at the sun all day to honor it, recognizing it's importance and performing rituals involving it does not mean one stared into the sun all day.

You must understand that reason and rationality are subjective subjects. Every culture has a different view on what is rational. It depends on a lot of factors. You in fact just said everything is subjective, that includes schools of science.

The beauty of science is reproducibility, but even with that nothing is absolutely certain. As you yourself said, it changes. That doesn't mean the way the universe works has actually changed, it means our collective knowledge has changed. So it is thus not a fact only a theory.

Rational, Irrational I don't claim to understand the inner workings of everything. As much as I try to increase my functioning and brain capacity I will never understand everything. No one will. And things we believe to be facts today will be nothing more than fiction in 40 years.

I'll say it again since you seemed to miss it.

We don't need Schools. Yes in this day and age I'm afraid without the advent of official education facilities a lot of children would never learn a lot of things.
That is a problem with parenting and society as a whole, I support education and dumping as much tax money as possible into it but their is another way.

Their is plenty of material available in this world to facilitate parent sponsored and self-learning. It's just a subjective view of mine.
I spent years and years in the public school system and I learned more from my mother and my own research then going over the same thing year after year. Social interaction does not depend on School systems, walk out your door and find someone. Their are billions and billions of people and you're telling me a school system that is more full of bullying and bullshit because of bad parenting and no one teaching their child right from wrong is the best option for our children? Wake up and smell the coffee beans.

Quote:

---

+ Subjective experiences are the only thing we can each, individually, be certain of. (ie. the cogito).
+ We can try to express these subjective experiences, but once the subjective experience has passed, it can never be properly represented again (ie. language can never properly represent anything we have ever experienced to another conscious being.)
+ The only way to develop and learn is to come to mutual agreement upon premise 2 and continue living.
+ We can still learn and develop in other matters (ie. physics, biology, etc.) but we must always keep in mind their representative qualities and how flawed they might be.

The question that is left is whether rationality and faith are compatible. That is where I would like to stop.

What do you think...?

---

Everything is subjective(Unless we got some people free from their ego hanging around?)haha

You can always describe or try to make things clear to others, that's the beauty of speaking the same language as someone.

You can learn and develop without coming to a mutual agreement. The whole world and spectrum of people will never all agree on one subject. It depends on the culture and people, science tries to explain things in depth it does a good job but is not perfect.

All of our theories are flawed, unless someone here is actually "god" the "one" the beginning and the end?

Of course their compatible, it's called picking and choosing based on your own belief.
I believe in many scientific theories, and I also believe things that can't be reproduced by science that I have witnessed in my own life. That may make me viewed as insane by a select few, but life goes on.


I know the pieces fit, cause I watched them fall away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Way less complicated..
So... comes down to two or more individuals discussing the tase of an orange. Two or three who actually have and the rest have not.
For those who have tasted it, there is no need for wordy explanations. Each knows what the other knows despite any words used to communicate that knowing.
For these its a matter of rationality and experience. For the others. it becomes purely a matter of faith in what these 2 or three are telling them, or trying to tell them.
Wouldnt the compatibility itself be subjective among those individuals who have not tasted? Some may have faith and others may not. Each circumstance may very well be diifferent, like a fingerprint.
Where does the discussion go from here?

---

Exactly!

We are basically forced to come to a general consensus that, although we have labelled these concepts, they do not properly represent their experiences. So.. we must settle for our imagination I suppose and try to learn from there.

I feel like we just hit an intangible wall created by our very own subjective experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I don't think you have much of an understanding how the ancient world actually worked. No one stared at the sun all day to honor it, recognizing it's importance and performing rituals involving it does not mean one stared into the sun all day.

---

If you have as much experience as you say to have, then all I ought to have to mention is sol invictus.

Quote:

---

You must understand that reason and rationality are subjective subjects. Every culture has a different view on what is rational. It depends on a lot of factors. You in fact just said everything is subjective, that includes schools of science.

---

Yes. This is where we'll have to be specific in our differentiations. Let me try to be simple and specific:
+ Rationality: Reasoning that can be repeated and systematic so that any other being can subjectively come to the same experience and conclusion as you did. eg. turning the knob will turn other mechanisms to open the door.
+ Schools subjectivity: Pertinent knowledge is taught as per culture and area parallel to the most important evolutionary needs, etc. This is not so much personal subjectivity as it is culture subjectivity (eg. In India you will likely be taught Hindu history before Christian whereas in America it is the other way around).

Quote:

---

The beauty of science is reproducibility, but even with that nothing is absolutely certain. As you yourself said, it changes. That doesn't mean the way the universe works has actually changed, it means our collective knowledge has changed. So it is thus not a fact only a theory.

---

Firstly, in academia, theory and fact are synonymous. I think you meant to say a hypothesis or guess.

The truth is that science is the best rationality we have as phenomenological beings to reproduce subjective experiences so that we can all share the same conclusions that are common (eg. the rules of gravity, whether they exist or not, are still significantly applicable to all of our lives).

It is like a measuring stick; although the stick that I am using may not exist, nor what I am measuring, I can still utilise how it is being used and the practical value it has to offer me - whatever I may be.

That is the only thing we can be certain of.

Quote:

---

Rational, Irrational I don't claim to understand the inner workings of everything. As much as I try to increase my functioning and brain capacity I will never understand everything. No one will. And things we believe to be facts today will be nothing more than fiction in 40 years.

---

Perhaps. What do you propose then..? That we abolish all science and preach irrationality? I am arguing for the sense of utility and pragmatism. The fact is the science and political rationality have allowed the world to come to develop as it has. (Let us not argue over whether that is "good" or not but agree that it has developed the world in many more ways than irrationality has).

Quote:

---

I'll say it again since you seemed to miss it.
We don't need Schools. Yes in this day and age I'm afraid without the advent of official education facilities a lot of children would never learn a lot of things.
That is a problem with parenting and society as a whole, I support education and dumping as much tax money as possible into it but their is another way.
Their is plenty of material available in this world to facilitate parent sponsored and self-learning. It's just a subjective view of mine.

---

I'll say it again, since you seemed to not get my point:

Would you trust Brian? Brian has all the resources, proper tools, 30 years experience, and many bodies he has worked with. However, he has done it all by himself and with no other persons input. This is the epitome of your example.

The fact is that he has no criticism upon himself, no feedback, no interaction, etc. How can he be certain that his results are unbiased? How can he even know he has succeded? How can he know whether or not there is more he should learn?

For example, Brian, learning in isolation, may not know of a new method which avoids the necessary lesion that he feels is a fundamental necessity to remove epilepsy.

Quote:

---

I spent years and years in the public school system and I learned more from my mother and my own research then going over the same thing year after year. Social interaction does not depend on School systems, walk out your door and find someone. Their are billions and billions of people and you're telling me a school system that is more full of bullying and bullshit because of bad parenting and no one teaching their child right from wrong is the best option for our children? Wake up and smell the coffee beans.

---

I'd say that you ought to make this judgment once you're out of high school (or a very shitty post-secodary school).

Let's look at your reasoning now:
+ You can learn more from the billions of people in world
+ Schools are full of violence, lies, and pain.
+ You suggest going out to the world for learning as it offers more.

Now for mine:
+ The world contains all the pain, lies, and violence you are referring to.
+ The world contains all the problems and flaws that are possible and you cannot know how to differentiate the good from the bad.
+ Schools are the designated areas for people to come who want to teach and for those who want to learn.

I want to continue, but I am really curious what you response is to this.

~

O'nus you never told me how science has come across the ability to reduce the reducer beyond a reasonable doubt where it needs no further contemplation before moving beyond solipsism. I'm not asking people to take extreme leaps of faith in incomprehensible deities, quite the contrary...

I'm asking people to quiet their mind, turn their lenses around, focus, and reduce the reducer. If one does not do such they simply choose to remain in this communal delusion. And, they are more than welcome to do so.

To me, the only essence of experience worthy of one's full belief is one's self. Without the perceiver there to give each moment it's meaning, supposed rational, and logic there would be none of those terms or concepts found in the outside "objective world". Each concept is as tangible or intangible as the next. It's just a matter of how well we climb the communal ladder of cognitive development and our group belief in each term or concept. You act as if these lingual terms and theories are independent of the perceiver, when they aren't. They were slowly built upon by the meeting of minds... ONLY.

If humanity were but a blip in time and all the cosmos went on without them there would've never been order to seemingly perceive in the universe.

'Ordo ab Chao'

'Order' is a term we give to claimed objective comfortability and patterns we create as societies. 'Chaos' is a term we give to the currently unknown or unpredictable. Just as we can seemingly bring order from the chaos, if we ever-so-slightly change our level of focus at any degree of supposed order it turns chaotic again and we must readjust our idea of order to match. We simply settle for different levels of comfortability within the infinite and claim order when 'order' itself is an entirely subjective concept like all others. As we claim new understanding we simply shift our communal bubble of delusion to suit our new idea of order. 'Ordo ab Chao' comes from the human condition and their unending paradoxical desire for stability and understanding in what they perceive around them. And, that's the beauty and tragedy of man-- to continually and contradictorily try and tame their environment by opposing the 'Chaos' and try to make sense where there was never any outside themselves to begin with.

What's wrong with pointing that out? What's so hard about admitting that you, too, are running around in circles by picking up perceived bread crumbs of your own making?

You so fervently believe yourself to be learning and moving forward but where is your proof that you are moving in a straight line other than that line you drew in your own mind and in the minds of those that agree with you? Our lives, like our horizon, will seem like a straight line if we only focus on each baby step we seemingly take across it's vast surface. It's only when we closely inspect the entirety of self do we see the cyclic nature of all that is. Then, our perceived lines become curves which turn back in on themselves as all perfect circles do.

Words, Theories, and Concepts don't exist independent of mind. They are but figments of our communal construct which we choose to believe in or not.

How is that any different from communal delusion we all share?

Something to think about. ;)

Nice post Cyclic. :goodjob2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, it does not make it disappear because it never appeared to begin with. So, in order to actually interact with it, we have to be able to know of it at least. You can say the samething about my imaginary friend or a the flying spaghetti monster.

---

If you include the following sentence of really's, things should be clearer: "The unknown is one with the entirety of the phenomena all humans are collectively witnessing, because it is both what is seen and what is beyond the seen." This, is "All That Is", though humans have blinded themselves from this for survival, so you could say that most only see the objective world. Since I am talking about Reality, the ultimate reality, it excludes nothing. It is universal. In this way did it never begin, nor can it ever end. Your fanciful examples are real, but they generally not objective realities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

You say that science cannot answer your suggestions.

Science = systematic observations, unbiased, logical necessity, and repetitive qualities that allow others to repeat your results. The result to be able to able to empirically view and systematically repeat (via logic) the hypothesis and results that others have come to. For example; I open a door via the door knob because of the mechanics, etc. This all follows by a system of logic and empirical respect to systematic observation.

So.. are you saying that what you are talking about cannot be answered by logic, empiricism, and systematic observation? Are you suggesting that you cannot use rationality and reason to understand what you are talking about?

We must make a leap of faith to irrationality?

---

Relating "scientific understanding" to ones spiritual practice, the answers are "yes" to the above. Hence the sub-practice of surrender. An example regarding a spiritual seeker: For an entire month, spectacular and miraculous things have been occurring that grandly highlight that there is more than just "coincidences". Spontaneous healings, perfect synchronicities and harmony is abundant. Here, scientific reasoning is useless.

Relating "scientific understanding" to "spiritual understanding", is involved with consciousness/spiritual research and advanced muscle testing (Work of David Hawkins Ph.D, M.D), and while it is scientifically validated, many still choose to believe it is pseudo-science. It literally is groundbreaking work, and it enables abstract illustrations of the nonlinear realm for pragmatic use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Keep in mind that you used scientific reasoning to come to your conclusion.

---

Therefore my conclusions can be rationally understood, however they are intrinsically limited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Exactly!

We are basically forced to come to a general consensus that, although we have labelled these concepts, they do not properly represent their experiences. So.. we must settle for our imagination I suppose and try to learn from there.

I feel like we just hit an intangible wall created by our very own subjective experiences.

---

There it is.

:upsidedown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Exactly!

If you have as much experience as you say to have, then all I ought to have to mention is sol invictus.

---

Why are you mentioning Sol Invictus though? It's not like during the Roman emperor they just stared at the sun all day :P Better have some good glasses.

Quote:

---

Yes. This is where we'll have to be specific in our differentiations. Let me try to be simple and specific:
+ Rationality: Reasoning that can be repeated and systematic so that any other being can subjectively come to the same experience and conclusion as you did. eg. turning the knob will turn other mechanisms to open the door.
+ Schools subjectivity: Pertinent knowledge is taught as per culture and area parallel to the most important evolutionary needs, etc. This is not so much personal subjectivity as it is culture subjectivity (eg. In India you will likely be taught Hindu history before Christian whereas in America it is the other way around).

---

That makes more sense, that is Science at it's best.
As long as you understand the sense of schools in different countries teaching different things. I won't even mention how twisted history is in every country including the good ol USA. :P

Quote:

---

Firstly, in academia, theory and fact are synonymous. I think you meant to say a hypothesis or guess.

The truth is that science is the best rationality we have as phenomenological beings to reproduce subjective experiences so that we can all share the same conclusions that are common (eg. the rules of gravity, whether they exist or not, are still significantly applicable to all of our lives).

It is like a measuring stick; although the stick that I am using may not exist, nor what I am measuring, I can still utilise how it is being used and the practical value it has to offer me - whatever I may be.

That is the only thing we can be certain of.

---

I don't believe theory and fact are synonymous, they don't mean the same thing. Facts are something that is true, a theory is a testable reproducible model. Scientists don't consider their theory's to be 100&#37; fact whether they are accurate or not. A theory may be full of facts but it's still considered to be an opinion, some are just almost impossible to prove wrong.

But you go off the planet the rules of gravity are thrown out the window. Or changed.

I'm not dissing science, it's very useful just not the end all. Some things are better left to personal experiences.

Quote:

---

Perhaps. What do you propose then..? That we abolish all science and preach irrationality? I am arguing for the sense of utility and pragmatism. The fact is the science and political rationality have allowed the world to come to develop as it has. (Let us not argue over whether that is "good" or not but agree that it has developed the world in many more ways than irrationality has).

---

I've never said to abolish science so... I've also never preached irrationality. Believing in something, or seeing something yourself that is not reproducible in a Scientific experiment does not mean something is irrational.

I have seen the good science has done for us such as cures for diseases understanding the basics of physics etc.. also sadly formed the nuclear bomb.. You seem to think what we are speaking about is irrationality when it's not.

Quote:

---

ir&#183;ra&#183;tion&#183;al (-rsh-nl)
adj.
1.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.
n. Mathematics
An irrational number.

---

Sorry none of those definitions fit us.

Quote:

---

I'll say it again, since you seemed to not get my point:

Would you trust Brian? Brian has all the resources, proper tools, 30 years experience, and many bodies he has worked with. However, he has done it all by himself and with no other persons input. This is the epitome of your example.

The fact is that he has no criticism upon himself, no feedback, no interaction, etc. How can he be certain that his results are unbiased? How can he even know he has succeded? How can he know whether or not there is more he should learn?

For example, Brian, learning in isolation, may not know of a new method which avoids the necessary lesion that he feels is a fundamental necessity to remove epilepsy.

---

I would not trust Brian, but I also wouldn't want anyone cutting into my body.
You're missing the point of life going on without schools, Doctors wouldn't be as useful.. Since they wouldn't exist. I understand that, but life would move on, people would still be able to form coherent sentences. It's when governments/governing bodies/religious societies control everything and keep information from the people that we have a serious problem.

Or you could drop the whole college body and go back to a more guild type system, where knowledge is taught by those involved in the subject and without the formal title of College. So like I said their are alternatives, it's just in this day and age it's all been wiped out.

Their are ways to form learning systems that are different than our current ones that may even in fact be better than our current ones, you never know.

Quote:

---

I'd say that you ought to make this judgment once you're out of high school (or a very shitty post-secodary school).

Let's look at your reasoning now:
+ You can learn more from the billions of people in world
+ Schools are full of violence, lies, and pain.
+ You suggest going out to the world for learning as it offers more.

Now for mine:
+ The world contains all the pain, lies, and violence you are referring to.
+ The world contains all the problems and flaws that are possible and you cannot know how to differentiate the good from the bad.
+ Schools are the designated areas for people to come who want to teach and for those who want to learn.

I want to continue, but I am really curious what you response is to this.

---

Didn't anyone tell you not to assume things. I'm 21 years old so I've been out of School for quite awhile my friend....

Yes, I know the world is full of pain lies and violence, you're not talking to an invalid that has never stepped through the threshold of his house door.

Doesn't mean that I have to accept it for what it is? Things need to change, whether that means.... (blank)

Schools of this day and age are severely lacking in funding and curriculum in a majority of classes is the same things year after year. You spend years in schools with people of all different "intelligence" levels or learning abilities. And the people with a larger capacity for learning are left behind sitting in classes going over the same thing over and over again because not everyone figured it out as quickly? And then people less able to learn are forever trying to catch up.

That is the fundamental problem with school systems, it's 9/10 times because the parent that had a hold of the child for xx amount of years before school never taught their child the basics of being a well functioning human.

I can tell the difference between good and bad... I didn't need to go to a public school to learn that. My parents taught me that when I was young.

What I'm getting at is.

Parents need to do more for their kids, because their is no reason for people to act the way they do. Except for bad parenting, and no one correcting bad behavior.

(If schools are full of violence and lies why do we want to subject our children to that on a daily basis, let the idiots keep content to themselves. If we are lucky they'll kill themselves and leave the earth to us who appreciate life.)
(College experience is not even comparable to a High School experience, people in college have to pay to be their kinda get rid of a lot of bad seeds)

Life is not being crammed into a building with 200+ strangers with more mental problems than an insane asylum. Sorry I refuse to look at my life as such.

I'll be more specific

Quote:

---

+ You can learn more from the billions of people in world

---

Billions of religions, ideas, concepts to learn. Plenty of scholars around the world willing to teach and learn from.
College is great, you can learn a lot their. But you can also go many other places temples, studios, etc to learn.

Quote:

---

+ Schools are full of violence, lies, and pain.

---

I hear about it on TV all the time, in the paper. School shootings, beatings of homosexuals, rape of girls by football teams...

P.S. I wrestled in High School so if you think I had a serious problem with anyone you're very wrong, anyone who fucked with me would be knocked out. Karma my friend. :)

Quote:

---

+ You suggest going out to the world for learning as it offers more.

---

After learning the basics of life I think it's important to experience the world, outdoors not only being stuck in rooms with peers for hours upon hours 5 days out of the week. People coming out these day have no "WORLD" experience. First you can listen to ignorant Americans talk about whatever and have no idea what their talking about and no respect for other countries.(Have you seen what I speak of? Like disrespect for Muslims). Than you have all these protections for children, why can't parents teach their children how to protect themselves? You can't say swears the children might hear it, you can't show violence the kids might see it. You can't talk about sex you're child might become a whore. A child shoots up a school lets blame Grand Theft Auto and Marilyn Manson but it's really the parents that are to blame.. I watched violent movies, I played violent video games, listened to Heavy Metal and Rap music full of drugs and violent and sexual references... Yet I've never killed or raped anyone.... It's amazing. No needles in my arm but I do got a blunt lit.

Quote:

---

+ The world contains all the pain, lies, and violence you are referring to.

---

I'm afraid it does, but better to experience first hand and not all concentrated into one place at once. Constantly day after day for some people. I don't say getting rid of School systems, they need a huge re-tooling.

Quote:

---

+ The world contains all the problems and flaws that are possible and you cannot know how to differentiate the good from the bad.

---

I'm unsure what you exactly mean... without School we can't know good and bad?? That's not true. I knew not to steal, hit people for no reason, or be rude all before going into public schools....

I also am I very good judge of character..... Being able to read people is something I pride myself in...

Quote:

---

+ Schools are the designated areas for people to come who want to teach and for those who want to learn.

---

They are designated areas and hopefully the teachers want to teach.. but do all the children in public school want to learn?? Not even in college does everyone seem eager to learn...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

O'nus you never told me how science has come across the ability to reduce the reducer beyond a reasonable doubt where it needs no further contemplation..

---

This is the ad reductionum infinitum. The only thing we can reduce to in this respect is the cogito.

As logical and rational as this may be, I argue that we still make practical use of all the other things and thoughts. Even if all things are false and cannot truly represent what we subjectively experience, we still need to live.

What is the alternative..?

Everything is false = kill yourself..?

Obviously not..

Quote:

---

I'm asking people to quiet their mind, turn their lenses around, focus, and reduce the reducer.

---

Why? I question myself all the time, I am asking for others to other knowledge and input on their subjective experiences of other topics. I am not asking to argue over the futility of discussions because of subjective flaws.

Quote:

---

To me, the only essence of experience worthy of one's full belief is one's self. Without the perceiver there to give each moment it's meaning, supposed rational, and logic there would be none of those terms or concepts found in the outside "objective world". Each concept is as tangible or intangible as the next. It's just a matter of how well we climb the communal ladder of cognitive development and our group belief in each term or concept. You act as if these lingual terms and theories are independent of the perceiver, when they aren't. They were slowly built upon by the meeting of minds... ONLY.

---

Exactly. I have been saying this the whole time.

Quote:

---

What's wrong with pointing that out? What's so hard about admitting that you, too, are running around in circles by picking up perceived bread crumbs of your own making?

---

Because it doesn't have to mentioned in every damn topic of discussion! This is like asking "why?" after saying everything. While I am aware of this and try to survive and move on from it, we do not need to speak of it in every discussion.

Move on.

Quote:

---

You so fervently believe yourself to be learning and moving forward but where is your proof that you are moving in a straight line other than that line you drew in your own mind and in the minds of those that agree with you?

---

I learned how to put in an exterior door today whereas yesterday I did not know of this. The same can be said about philosophical thoughts and how I apply them to myself.

If you're moving in circles, that's your own problem derived from your bias and blinkers. The only thing we can argue here is the flaws in all things and then say that you might as well not try to learn anything or discuss anything because nothing is properly represented so why bother trying to discuss anything at all when you are perpetually coming to the same conclusion?

In that respect, life is pointless.

Quote:

---

Words, Theories, and Concepts don't exist independent of mind. They are but figments of our communal construct which we choose to believe in or not.

---

They can exist in utility. I don't know why no one is seeing how this functions.

While lingual terms are obviously irrepresentative of what they are referring to, we can come to general consensus on what they are generally referring to. Nothing more than that. I know you can comprehend this, but for some reason I think you believe me to be ignorant of this.\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Since I am talking about Reality, the ultimate reality, it excludes nothing. It is universal. In this way did it never begin, nor can it ever end. Your fanciful examples are real, but they generally not objective realities.

---

Here's how we demonstrate your irrational reasoning; what can prove you wrong?

I believe we have spoken of this already, but if you can't demonstrate this, then there is no reason to discuss what you are speaking of any further because you have framed it in a perfectly unfalsifiable fashion that makes it pointless to even try arguing or discussing.

Quote:

---

Spontaneous healings, perfect synchronicities and harmony is abundant

---

What are you referring to..? You do realize that these miraculous things are still statiscally probable and have no meaning. I have yet to see an actual reference to a miracle but, hey, if you can do so, then you've done something the Catholic church has failed to do ever.

Quote:

---

Relating "scientific understanding" to "spiritual understanding", is involved with consciousness/spiritual research and advanced muscle testing (Work of David Hawkins Ph.D, M.D)

---

This seems like another topic.. Elaborate..?

Quote:

---

Therefore my conclusions can be rationally understood, however they are intrinsically limited.

---

Oh I see.. the limitations of subjective expression.. I see what you're saying here and unfortunately this is the very problem at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathCell

That makes more sense, that is Science at it's best.
As long as you understand the sense of schools in different countries teaching different things. I won't even mention how twisted history is in every country including the good ol USA.

---

If you really believe me to be ignorant of this, then you are the presumptious one.. lol.

Quote:

---

I don't believe theory and fact are synonymous, they don't mean the same thing. Facts are something that is true, a theory is a testable reproducible model. Scientists don't consider their theory's to be 100% fact whether they are accurate or not. A theory may be full of facts but it's still considered to be an opinion, some are just almost impossible to prove wrong.

---

Uhm.. This is a bit of a confusing paragraph. Can you specifically define fact, theory, and hypothesis then? Because I get the impression from this paragraph that you might struggle.

Quote:

---

I'm not dissing science, it's very useful just not the end all. Some things are better left to personal experiences.

---

The point of science is to make it subjectively reproducible. In other words, so that others may have the same subjective experience that lead to your conclusion. Thus, making a personal experience of the incident. Do you not realize that you just argued for science..? This just demonstrates to me that you may not understand the foundations of scientific endeavour.

Can you define it as well...?

Quote:

---

Believing in something, or seeing something yourself that is not reproducible in a Scientific experiment does not mean something is irrational.

---

Actually, that is exactly what is called "imaginary". I believe I see a pink elephant, but I have no reproducible evidence for it. Am I rational..?

Quote:

---

Sorry none of those definitions fit us.

---

Can you demonstrate the rationality of subjective arguments in every discussion then please?

Quote:

---

I would not trust Brian, but I also wouldn't want anyone cutting into my body.
You're missing the point of life going on without schools, Doctors wouldn't be as useful.. Since they wouldn't exist. I understand that, but life would move on, people would still be able to form coherent sentences. It's when governments/governing bodies/religious societies control everything and keep information from the people that we have a serious problem.

---

You don't think doctors would be useful if it weren't for school? People are still sick regardless of academic institutions.. what are you talking about..? Even without educational institutions, there would still be people who try to experiment and work on the human anatomy, and people would seek their help.

Quote:

---

Or you could drop the whole college body and go back to a more guild type system, where knowledge is taught by those involved in the subject and without the formal title of College. So like I said their are alternatives, it's just in this day and age it's all been wiped out.

---

What's the difference..? Can you define the difference between the two? They both seem like institutions to facilitate learning.

Quote:

---

Their are ways to form learning systems that are different than our current ones that may even in fact be better than our current ones, you never know.

---

Of course. There are many ways to learn and some ways are better for others. Are you saying because there are alternatives, that we ought to just hand out licences to anyone who claims to have had taught themselves brain surgery? ie. Brian.

Quote:

---

Didn't anyone tell you not to assume things. I'm 21 years old so I've been out of School for quite awhile my friend....

---

I can tell by what you are arguing for. You must be under the impression that anyone in university is a pompous person, so I am worried that I am arguing against a bias.

Quote:

---

Schools of this day and age are severely lacking in funding and curriculum in a majority of classes is the same things year after year. You spend years in schools with people of all different "intelligence" levels or learning abilities. And the people with a larger capacity for learning are left behind sitting in classes going over the same thing over and over again because not everyone figured it out as quickly? And then people less able to learn are forever trying to catch up.

---

Better that the developmentally challenged be in an education system then have no institution at all to go to. Are you suggesting that the challenged ought to not go to school at all and be home-schooled 100%..? This would circumvent the plethora of social skills that even the challenged ought to learn.

Quote:

---

That is the fundamental problem with school systems, it's 9/10 times because the parent that had a hold of the child for xx amount of years before school never taught their child the basics of being a well functioning human.

---

What are we talking about now..? The irresponsibility of parents..? Uhm.. I'll just agree with you here but I think we'll both agree that these circumstances are different across many situations, etc.etc.

Quote:

---

I can tell the difference between good and bad... I didn't need to go to a public school to learn that. My parents taught me that when I was young.

---

That's good.. this debate is a big tangent.. I'm going to try and simplify this now.
School system:
+ Useful for facilitating learning.
+ Although flawed, is still better than not having it
There. I think we can agree on those terms and continue on the main topic..? The alternatives to above is simply isolating everyone and eventually moving to a very segregated society. Right..? I think you're worried that I believe school to be the biblical plateau to enlightenment whereas I see it mostly as a facilitation and means to certify individuals for careers. For example; you would be much more relieved to know that a university certified Mike to do your brain surgery because he has had 10 years of practice under many other trained professionals and then certified by a counsel than Brian who has been completely self-taught.

What do you think...?

These long posts are getting really irritating... someone please see what I am trying to say.. lol *Crying*

~

I couldn't keep up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I couldn't keep up

---

I don't blame you...

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Here's how we demonstrate your irrational reasoning; what can prove you wrong?

I believe we have spoken of this already, but if you can't demonstrate this, then there is no reason to discuss what you are speaking of any further because you have framed it in a perfectly unfalsifiable fashion that makes it pointless to even try arguing or discussing.

---

Can you prove experiential Reality wrong - the totality of everything?! This is the very thing I am referring to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What are you referring to..? You do realize that these miraculous things are still statiscally probable and have no meaning. I have yet to see an actual reference to a miracle but, hey, if you can do so, then you've done something the Catholic church has failed to do ever.

---

Well that could lead to another large discussion. So, for another example: Consider that surrender removes psychological "obstacles", which are essentially the blocks of inner happiness, and are not always predictable or understandable in typical social contexts. Spirituality (and its practice) recontextualises them, resulting in spontaneous states of happiness and peace. Some parts are suprisingly logical, while others definately are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

This seems like another topic.. Elaborate..?

---

I guess I should post this in zeneyes' "What is Consciousness" (R/S) topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Can you prove experiential Reality wrong - the totality of everything?! This is the very thing I am referring to!

---

Well that's not a proposition that can be categorically or logicall represented.. so no. But this is just as strong as asking me to draw a four sided triangle.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

Well that's not a proposition that can be categorically or logicall represented.. so no. But this is just as strong as asking me to draw a four sided triangle.

~

---

Isn't my point obvious? I don't understand.