Thread: ClouD, Cyclic, DeathCell, really, zeneyes, etc.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Yes yes, we already know you have no fuckin idea what O'nus' point was. There's no need for you to reiterate that.

His point should be we are all subjectively biased including you yourself and Onus himself.

I can perfectly read and or copy and paste what he said and specifically address what he said... But it's already been addressed in previous topics, and the conversation is going nowhere.

Their is no need for you to re-iterate your opinion on what we think, when really you have no fucking idea what's going through my head. Onus' point is pointless. Anyone can easily read what he said and answer it... The point is, their is no reason. No one is gonna change their mind but my fingers will have wasted a lot of time.

Go back to your logic bubble and live your live influenced only by science.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Who knows?

That's what we're trying to find out.

this has got to hold the record for the thread to gather the most replies in such a short amount of time after being created....but then again, I just started posting again after 4+ years....am I wrong?

sup, O'nus! I see you still got the touch to invigorate the human intellect, as always

Originally Posted by DeathCell

His point should be we are all subjectively biased including you yourself and Onus himself.

I can perfectly read and or copy and paste what he said and specifically address what he said... But it's already been addressed in previous topics, and the conversation is going nowhere.

Their is no need for you to re-iterate your opinion on what we think, when really you have no fucking idea what's going through my head. Onus' point is pointless. Anyone can easily read what he said and answer it... The point is, their is no reason. No one is gonna change their mind but my fingers will have wasted a lot of time.

Go back to your logic bubble and live your live influenced only by science.

I think everyone got the "no" the first time, although I gotta say this one is pretty big.

Originally Posted by ClouD

O'nus' point?

Is his point that "ClouD, Cyclic, DeathCell, really, zeneyes, etc."'s are subjectively biased, and 'pointless' to express, or attempt?

Who knows?

This is why you can't get the point. You take a request to ponder someone else's ideas as an attack on your own.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is why you can't get the point. You take a request to ponder someone else's ideas as an attack on your own.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That it can't be propositioned. I understand this.

My point from the beginning is that, if it can't be propositioned, you can't talk about it.

~

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.

Originally Posted by O'nus

really, you are the most selfish person I have met in the most unique way.

You look at the subjectivity of knowledge and yet say then that no one else can know about it nor speak of it? However, you then continue on to discuss it and try to teach it..? How is that possible based on your grounds that it is an unteachable, undiscussable thing?

Here's how it's going so far:
+ Subjective knowledge is the only thing certain
+ Subjective knowledge cannot be expressed
+ Subjective knowledge cannot be taught or discussed

Yet you keep doing it. Why?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why bother expressing or discussing things you believe cannot be expressed or discussed about?

Here's a demonstration:
+ I believe only I can discuss and know of X
+ I discuss X with Y
+ Y does not understand X

See the problem? Why do you keep doing it?

Hope you have fun being lonely.

~

I think that's enough, though there's plenty more if you would even read O'nus' posts.

There is hypocrisy in all of us. We are all human.




What should we do?

Originally Posted by O'nus

*Shrugs and seeks other threads*

~

Hmm...

Bleep blop blip...

You and I... it seems... are at it again...

Oh you!

Won't you ever learn?

It's only ever I...

Here's the crash course...



Pulling Back perspective...



Even further...




ad infinitum...

lol, Cyclic, if those are supposed to be parallel universes - they're not a very good example concerning perception, which cannot even see one universe correctly.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I think that's enough, though there's plenty more if you would even read O'nus' posts.

How is any of that an attack on your ideas?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How is any of that an attack on your ideas?

Sure, I guess this must be purely scientific, just because O'nus said it:

Originally Posted by O'nus

All you have done is proven your intellectual incompetence

You have done nothing but failed as a developing human being.

~

Originally Posted by really

Sure, I guess this must be purely scientific, just because O'nus said it:

I didn't say O'nus has never attacked anyone's ideas, I said that this thread, which is a request to entertain and explain O'nus' ideas is not an attack on anyone elses, as far as I can tell.

I'm not defending him, I'm merely pointing out certain members inability to understand what it is other people believe, even while claiming that the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I didn't say O'nus has never attacked anyone's ideas, I said that this thread, which is a request to entertain and explain O'nus' ideas is not an attack on anyone elses, as far as I can tell.

Ok, I see.

So what do you think "is O'nus' point"; what of his ideas?

Originally Posted by really

Ok, I see.

So what do you think "is O'nus' point"; what of his ideas?

From what I've gathered, O'nus believes that one should only truly believe in that which he/she can be sure of. O'nus seems to argue that the only way to be sure of anything is through empirically gathered evidence. He also seems to think that because of the relative nature of our perceptions, no evidence can be 100 percent trusted, and therefore we can not really be absolutely sure of anything.

It also seems like O'nus believes that if one cannot talk about or explain a certain phenomena, then one does not really understand it. With signifigant understanding comes the ability to sufficiently (even if not fully accurately) describe or portray.

As for his point, I believe this is a response to all of the posts claiming that "unless you've experienced what I'm trying to explain, you will never really understand" or if someone doesn't agree then they must just not grasp what is being talked about. I think he is trying to say that his disagreement does not necessarily come from a misunderstanding, but from a fundamental difference in beliefs. Often times I've seen members on this forum, such as the ones that the title of this thread was directed at, claiming that others just are not capable of grasping the 'truth' and if they were capable they would agree with whatever was being said. Whenever I see this going on, it usually means to me that whoever is making these sorts of claims really just doesn't understand what the other person is trying to say.

I think this is similar to the point O'nus was trying to make with this thread.

One way or the other, vague and esoteric ramblings are counter productive and horribly inefficient forms of communication. The purpose of communication is to convey meaning. When you alienate your audience by purposely expressing yourself in a way that people cannot understand, you defeat the purpose of expression. You wouldn't go to a remote part of a foreign country without first learning the language and similarly, you shouldn't speak to a general audience in a way that you know only an isolated group will understand and expect a positive response. When one uses language only familiar to those who share similar beliefs, it doesn't seem like communication is the goal at all, but rather only to sound like an elitist prick.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

From what I've gathered, O'nus believes that one should only truly believe in that which he/she can be sure of. O'nus seems to argue that the only way to be sure of anything is through empirically gathered evidence. He also seems to think that because of the relative nature of our perceptions, no evidence can be 100 percent trusted, and therefore we can not really be absolutely sure of anything.

It also seems like O'nus believes that if one cannot talk about or explain a certain phenomena, then one does not really understand it. With signifigant understanding comes the ability to sufficiently (even if not fully accurately) describe or portray.

As for his point, I believe this is a response to all of the posts claiming that "unless you've experienced what I'm trying to explain, you will never really understand" or if someone doesn't agree then they must just not grasp what is being talked about. I think he is trying to say that his disagreement does not necessarily come from a misunderstanding, but from a fundamental difference in beliefs. Often times I've seen members on this forum, such as the ones that the title of this thread was directed at, claiming that others just are not capable of grasping the 'truth' and if they were capable they would agree with whatever was being said. Whenever I see this going on, it usually means to me that whoever is making these sorts of claims really just doesn't understand what the other person is trying to say.

I think this is similar to the point O'nus was trying to make with this thread.

One way or the other, vague and esoteric ramblings are counter productive and horribly inefficient forms of communication. The purpose of communication is to convey meaning. When you alienate your audience by purposely expressing yourself in a way that people cannot understand, you defeat the purpose of expression. You wouldn't go to a remote part of a foreign country without first learning the language and similarly, you shouldn't speak to a general audience in a way that you know only an isolated group will understand and expect a positive response. When one uses language only familiar to those who share similar beliefs, it doesn't seem like communication is the goal at all, but rather only to sound like an elitist prick.

See that's the difference between people, you and others may consider what we say as incoherent ramblings but we perfectly understand it. And it's not just one of us.

Vague and incoherent just cause you don't understand the subject matter. Just like talking about the innards of a car would make no sense to someone who knows nothing about cars.

Ughh. Are you kidding? He just perfectly explained why no-one takes you seriously. Explain what you are talking about so that we can understand. If you can't, then you don't even understand it yourself.

Originally Posted by Grod

Ughh. Are you kidding? He just perfectly explained why no-one takes you seriously. Explain what you are talking about so that we can understand. If you can't, then you don't even understand it yourself.

So if for example one could not explain exactly how a hurricane works then one doesn't understand it?


I could sit here and try to explain my ideas but no none of you will listen unless I have empirical evidence. So thus we have reached a wall, how can I share my thoughts with people who void anything without a Scientific theory attached.

Anyway what exactly are you asking because this entire topic was not about any ideas but instead about peoples personal views.

And I almost forgot..

UGHH..

"When one uses language only familiar to those who share similar beliefs, it doesn't seem like communication is the goal at all, but rather only to sound like an elitist prick"

The scientific people here and I use that term lightly could fall into the same category of elitist prick.
We are communicating, we understand what we are talking about. We apologize if you can't understand what we are saying but any time we try to explain ourselves we have people running in our face with the scientific method... When we aren't trying to prove anything to science. Maybe some scientist is but thats not my goal.

I don't expect someone who knows nothing about cars to fix my vehicle.

"Often times I've seen members on this forum, such as the ones that the title of this thread was directed at, claiming that others just are not capable of grasping the 'truth' and if they were capable they would agree with whatever was being said."

I think everyone is capable of grasping the truth, people with close minds on the other hand tend to block out what doesn't fit with their model.

I understand and accept science, yet I believe in the possibility of more than what science has proven to be true.

Never believe everything you hear whether it be from a religious community or a scientific community. No one is infallible, no one is 100% correct.. That's basically my only point, instead I have people running at me with burning steaks...

It's called being a doubter and a believer.
Fall to far one way and you're off balance.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I could sit here and try to explain my ideas but no none of you will listen unless I have empirical evidence. So thus we have reached a wall, how can I share my thoughts with people who void anything without a Scientific theory attached.

You mean that you have reached a wall. Why would anyone listen to your ideas if you can't make sense of them? And how else except by science could you make sense of anything?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I understand and accept science, yet I believe in the possibility of more than what science has proven to be true.

So would any scientist worth his salt, or any person with even a shred of honesty for that matter.

We may not all be made equal, so it is possible some things may not be comprehensible to all of us. To get there we all still have to make that journey from ignorance to knowledge. Granted that if you have made that journey it is quiet possible that you and your peers could use some esoteric language to express yourselves and your understandings in a much more accurate fashion. But given the fact that we all have to make all these revelations to get to a certain point of understanding I ask; why has your ability to communicate this knowledge been lost too?

Words carry weight...

Knowledge weighs nothing.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

Words carry weight...

Knowledge weighs nothing.

Meaning? I could see the argument that words/communication at some level may not be needed and possibly even a burden. In the face of true understanding nothing would need to be said. But in the context of this Philosophical board of discussion and conversation, I can't see how that would be relevant.

Originally Posted by Howie

We may not all be made equal, so it is possible some things may not be comprehensible to all of us.

We are all created equally by the universe in the sense that we are all conscious and are living. This is all that is essential; this is one way we are perfect. Our purpose so far is unknown to the majority, to me I intuit that there is greater discerning power than our ego. I would also mention Karma as part of human evolution.





Well Xaqaria, I think that's a pretty accurate depiction of O'nus' overall view; so I'm going to respond as if this were true. I hope he posts again sometime in the thread, whether we're "close" or not. So I will not direct this response at you but of course you are welcome to respond as if it were.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

[From what I've gathered,] O'nus believes that one should only truly believe in that which he/she can be sure of. O'nus seems to argue that the only way to be sure of anything is through empirically gathered evidence. He also seems to think that because of the relative nature of our perceptions, no evidence can be 100 percent trusted, and therefore we can not really be absolutely sure of anything.

It is understandable why the scientific method is a well respected and protected basis for reliable conclusions. What I have done often around the forums is attempt to describe the limitations of "proof", and linear perception itself as the source of illusion and sufferring. You might see me say: "look within", "God cannot be proven; Reality cannot be proven", "truth cannot be written" and "the ego draws lines" etc.

All it really comes down to is the awareness of the limitations of perception. The spiritual aspirant typically understands this, and is willing to detach the value of perceptions and positionalities, which are relative and are not qualities of the absolute - usually called "God", yet by whatever name. The Absolute is the only certain Reality, the essence of consciousness itself. We are all witnessing within the infinite context of Reality; we all are aware, though not with pure awareness.

Even though there is spiritual focus, there are also philosophical/theological influences that are closely related to this understanding. Most of the time, the so called "vague" or esoteric posts are inside the R/S board, which is (in expanded form), called "Religion/Spirituality". Concerning the R/S audience, there seem to be only a few "believers" among many skeptical "atheists". Now in an ordinary ramble, what can be expected in response from the "atheists"? Something like:

1. Continue their ramblings on irrelevant details, i.e. "this is dogmatic vs. this is scientific", or:
2. Become frustrated with the influence and terminology of strong believers, perhaps jumping to the conclusion that they are drugged hippies and have no conception of reality or "how to communicate".
3. "Wow that is interesting!"

The basic reason why I brought up that black and white image. Like O'nus' OP, it displays a set of data that an audience can perceive in their own way. This means, it is open to interpretation, because O'nus has not specifically stated his point, but only listed a few contributing factors that have probably lead him to his conclusion. This is obviously not a very wise act if he is seeking an exact viewpoint to which we have to mirror; especially if he has admitted that he understands the defect of perception.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

[It also seems like O'nus believes that] if one cannot talk about or explain a certain phenomena, then one does not really understand it. With signifigant understanding comes the ability to sufficiently (even if not fully accurately) describe or portray.

This is partly an assumption, since there is no possible way that the phenomena of enlightenment can be expressed; hence "beyond all description and understanding." Therefore, if anything, what is really being expressed is the concepts themselves and not the actual revelation. This is really the core of all subjective issues in regard to these discussions. Essentially, your intuition and faith guides you with the spiritual concepts that have little tangible or objective hold.

However, it is more true that there is lack of understanding, if typically someone believes in God but has no describable concept of God at all. At this point the mind probably has done no rational exercise and blindly accepted an idea according to religious glamorization/ecclesiastical authority. Even so, the two contexts are difficult to confuse with each other, as an example the people of the latter may even "condemn in the name of God".

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As for his point, I believe this is a response to all of the posts claiming that "unless you've experienced what I'm trying to explain, you will never really understand" or if someone doesn't agree then they must just not grasp what is being talked about. I think he is trying to say that his disagreement does not necessarily come from a misunderstanding, but from a fundamental difference in beliefs. Often times I've seen members on this forum, such as the ones that the title of this thread was directed at, claiming that others just are not capable of grasping the 'truth' and if they were capable they would agree with whatever was being said. Whenever I see this going on, it usually means to me that whoever is making these sorts of claims really just doesn't understand what the other person is trying to say.

This is true and usually represents a stubborn position in either of the persons. Interestingly, much spiritual information concerning other beliefs is mutually benign and does not exclude things from view. The person shouldn't press beliefs as such, and I apologize if this is how it has appeared on my part. Usually I continue my arguing for its own sake, as the members involved seem to like the challenges. But I'd never deliberately intend to "convert" somebody, as it might be called.

What is actually attempted to be expressed, is usually that there is a way through every error, and every form of doubt and fear. That since all fear and uncertainty is a byproduct of the ego and hence an illusion. At the time the person gives their illusions strength and "validity" does the suffering seem real. Even conceptual skepticism is useless.

With forgiveness does the definition of compassion and mutual understanding become clearer. I really hope, we do not see ourselves as "better" or greater than others, as if some sort of "spiritual-ego" has been adopted. This is actually quite hypocritical, and at this stage would the ego is still the dominant actor in ones life, yet the persona is exposing itself to truth.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

One way or the other, vague and esoteric ramblings are counter productive and horribly inefficient forms of communication. The purpose of communication is to convey meaning. When you alienate your audience by purposely expressing yourself in a way that people cannot understand, you defeat the purpose of expression.

In addition to what I have said above, it is probably no longer a smart idea to post much of this information in most areas of DV Lounge. Perhaps it is best saved for "Help" or "Extended Discussion", if any.

As far as I know, I can bluntly state that there are two esoteric/poetic threads; one of them is overall quite safe in the Artists Corner. They are kind of like dream journals in the way they are threaded.

It is helpful to be aware, that there is no cause of "alienation" or "misunderstanding". This is most probably the consequence of replying to someone who themselves are alien to the information without the responder being aware of such. An easy problem to encounter in a forum.

Why do people argue in R/S if they are not open or "ready" for the contextual understanding itself? It is like me walking into a candy store and demanding/debating all the candy that's on display while my blood sugar is dangerously high. I think it's just skeptic-juice.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You wouldn't go to a remote part of a foreign country without first learning the language and similarly, you shouldn't speak to a general audience in a way that you know only an isolated group will understand and expect a positive response. When one uses language only familiar to those who share similar beliefs, it doesn't seem like communication is the goal at all, but rather only to sound like an elitist prick.

It is quite rare to have a content and happy discussion with people about the truth of R/S. Honestly, there is no literal exclusion. There is the awareness of appropriateness or suitability, but in hot cases, I can see the possibility that people can see why the spiritual perspective is overlooked rather than why it is agreed with, this is because it occurred in my life.

Another thing, I think there's more of an "elitist" problem in the general audience than in particular. There are far too many people who swear and project harsh opinions upon others who seem to "oppose them". Really, these are the people who I'd generally see as offensive to others. Yet, from my own perspective, they have no effect on me at all.


Overall, this problem seems to be a paradigm issue; there seems to be a fragmented contextual awareness, perhaps in both sides of the argument. However, to exist as a human being, this is a natural tendency.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You mean that you have reached a wall. Why would anyone listen to your ideas if you can't make sense of them? And how else except by science could you make sense of anything?

So would any scientist worth his salt, or any person with even a shred of honesty for that matter.

I make perfect sense of my ideas. If you want to ask a specific question about my beliefs or ideas by all means ask.. But that has not been the sentiment of this topic.

Their are ways to make sense of things without science, not everyone is a scientist or involved in the science field and they still somehow make sense of things.. Science helps explain things, especially the more complicated of processes.. But people can explain how a wheel rolls without needing to be taught by science..

"why has your ability to communicate this knowledge been lost too?"

Feel free to ask questions.