Originally Posted by SolSkye
I fail to see how putting an easy label or package on something so vast and in-comprehensive is even possible.
Are you saying that we should not label the universe "the universe" because it is so vast and in-comprehensive??
I am not simply saying that the self (at my finite level of understanding and perception) is the only thing to exist. I am saying that everyone and everything at any moment, is the true self manifest. It makes the coupled letters S. E. L. F. pretty hard to wrap your head around, don't you agree? There is always a place where you can start-- your 'self'. However, wiping your hands free of something by cataloguing and filing it away like an overdue library book by titling it 'solipsism' and giving it no more thought isn't giving the concept, or your 'self' for that matter, enough credit. So, let's not sell our selves short, shall we?
So, you're saying that I should not try and see the difference between what you are talking about compared to Solipsism because that would deem it a label?
We call the universe the unvierse and that does not take away from its majesty. Same with the human psyche, sex, love, etc.
What you are saying here does not seem to do your philosophy good justice.
Conversely, why do you consider everything separate of you? Where exactly do you draw the line of self, and why? I fail to see a line... please show me one, if you know something I don't.
Are you asking me to necessarily point out where you and I separate? For the sake of brevity, our thoughts are simultaneously different. You rely on opposites so heavily but in recognizing opposites you must also note that if there no such thing as opposites then everything would be the exact same and there would not be a diverse universe as we would all collectively be one object. However, that is not true and the most you can argue here is that we all have a combining nature such as a self, soul, energy, etc. Although, manifestly, everything is different. Even if you believe in a universally binding variable, it manifests differently in each object.
Other than fear, I can't see a reason how or why anyone would deny it being true.
So I should believe you because if I do not than I am fearing something..? I fail to understand what I would be fearing.
Everyone came from someone, who came from someone, who came from someone, who came from the earth as the same clean slates, which came from swirling gases, which came from a single point in space. You can look back through history like a mirror, and see your implicit connection clear as day. Why deny it still existing through to the eternal moment as it is right now? String theory doesn't, and there is more and more evidence and credence pushing towards an actual string theory each day.
This is intriguing. In the first part here you make reference to the law of conservation of energy where energy is inevtiably passed on from generation, object, to object/generation. Then you make the leap to say that this never really happens and that we are always the exact same energy? As I said before, even if we are all binded by some universal energy, we are still all manifestively different. If it were otherwise, then you and I would share the same consciousness and would not be having this debate.
I get the feeling you may take the leap here and say that we are the same consciousness. If that is so, please explain how as I can cleary see that we do not by simply experiencing my consciousness. Manifestive consciousness and experiencing consciousness are two separate things; even in dualistic theory.
The perceiver is integral in the sense that, without the perceiver there would essentially be nothing there to perceive even though there is undeniably something there. We are the universe giving itself meaning.
This is confusing. Maybe you can see my problem with your theory here. In the former part you imply that there is 1 perceiver but then say "we are the universe...".
Either way, it seems like you are fringing here at arguing "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I don't think we share the same exact same perceptions, so much as, we are each a one-sided story being told from all different angles. Subjectively speaking, the story may seem very different, but it never actually changes. I have learned to look at and accept myself through the varying kaleidoscope eyes of everyone and everything.
Right, we all experience different things. Opposites do exist and varying experiences do exist. You're contradicting yourself now. If there were no opposites, then opposing experiences or opinions would not exist; but they do. Things do change, if things did not change, then our world would be collectively whole and linear.
I don't look at the fly as this separate mysterious entity, more of something we are all a part of, and perpetually forget. Even though, it pervades through every breath you take, every baby you make, and every cookie you bake. It is all-encompassing in each moment... for it is the moment and everything in it. There is no way to prove it wrong because in order to do so, you'd have to blatantly deny the simple truth of the eternal moment by purposefully and subjectively falling short of it.
What is the eternal moment? What is it that pervades through all of us?
Arguing by analogy or arguing from experiences does not properly explain your theory nor give it justice. More importantly, it falls short to enlighten anyone else besides yourself.
~
|
|
Bookmarks