Thread: That's it, I'm done

Originally Posted by Schmaven

It's not the awareness of the problems that makes things not perfect, it's not having the idea that the problems shouldn't be there for it to be what it is.

The perfection comes from things being perfectly what they are, flaws and all. Looking at a tree, you can see it as perfectly being a tree, that has adapted to its environment and grown in ways that depended on the weather and other stuff. Or you can say that it's not perfect, because some branches are shaped weird, or it's missing a few leaves somewhere. But all of those "imperfections" are what make the itself. It is perfectly itself.

I guess it's more a case of people assigning generalized labels to things. If you only have one idea of how a tree should be (I'm just using trees as an example) then all trees will most likely vary from that idea and would not be perfect.

It also depends on the context. For instance, if you designed something with a specific purpose in mind, and the finished product had a flaw and could not do its job, then you could say it's not perfect. The result didn't come out as intended. Or it could perfectly be what it is, and just not work. In that case, it would have the word defective attached to its name and would perfectly be a defective (insert object here)

I do see where the use of the word perfect like this would have some problems, but those problems would be from misunderstanding the perspective from which the word is used. When talking to other people about stuff where that would be a problem, it would be easier to just use other words.

Perfection is the wrong word for what you are trying to describe, so it is better you don't use it, especially considering the connotations it carries. Reality is not perfect because of the inherent problems we have when perceiving it. We can't see all of the light spectrum, we can't observe observe certain phenomena directly, we all experience hallucinations under certain circumstances, and even if you look at things without preconceptions, we all come to different conclusions on our own. There are methodologies to help us discern things more objectively and independently from subjective 'experience', but all in all, perfection is a concept that does not exist objectively.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I agree in that if you can't show something to someone else, it's probably not real. But regardless, if you believe whatever you saw was real, then for your life, in your mind, it was real. I think it's the inability to distinguish between what's in your head, and what's going on for everyone else in the world that lands people in mental hospitals. Their reality is just too different for them to function in society, so they're locked away where they can't hurt anyone.

So... here's a good question for you: What separates a mad-man from a devout religious person? If you trawl enough through the internet, you find all-sorts of people who cling onto religious ideas so much, that they would not be out of place in a mental hospital. In the end, both the madman and the religious person believe in things that cannot be shown to be objectively real, so really, the only thing separating them is whether they can function in society. Both can be considered delusional, but what decides whether they need treatment or not is on whether they pose a physical threat to others.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So... here's a good question for you: What separates a mad-man from a devout religious person? If you trawl enough through the internet, you find all-sorts of people who cling onto religious ideas so much, that they would not be out of place in a mental hospital. In the end, both the madman and the religious person believe in things that cannot be shown to be objectively real, so really, the only thing separating them is whether they can function in society. Both can be considered delusional, but what decides whether they need treatment or not is on whether they pose a physical threat to others.

When people believe something so much, and aren't open to changing what they believe in when new evidence or experiences arise, then it's a problem. People who are devoutly religious do have a lot in common with mad-men, if only they could see it like that, but the second anyone criticizes their beliefs, they stop listening. They're completely unwilling to change.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

When people believe something so much, and aren't open to changing what they believe in when new evidence or experiences arise, then it's a problem. People who are devoutly religious do have a lot in common with mad-men, if only they could see it like that, but the second anyone criticizes their beliefs, they stop listening. They're completely unwilling to change.

Rapture Ready would be a 'perfect' example of this on the intertubes. I warn you though, such levels of delusion will not be found anywhere else, even in mental hospitals.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Perfection is the wrong word for what you are trying to describe, so it is better you don't use it, especially considering the connotations it carries. Reality is not perfect because of the inherent problems we have when perceiving it. We can't see all of the light spectrum, we can't observe observe certain phenomena directly, we all experience hallucinations under certain circumstances, and even if you look at things without preconceptions, we all come to different conclusions on our own. There are methodologies to help us discern things more objectively and independently from subjective 'experience', but all in all, perfection is a concept that does not exist objectively.

Perfection seemed to fit when I was thinking about it, but I agree, it's too confusing to use for that. I wasn't thinking of it as a concept as well. I lose at grammar. But when you don't impose restrictions on the way you see things, you can enjoy them much more. Yes, some restrictions are necessary, but when you're just perceiving things, that's not the time for them.

Edit: Wow, when people take religion to that extreme, it's scary. They're totally trying to live in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Perfection seemed to fit when I was thinking about it, but I agree, it's too confusing to use for that. I wasn't thinking of it as a concept as well. I lose at grammar. But when you don't impose restrictions on the way you see things, you can enjoy them much more. Yes, some restrictions are necessary, but when you're just perceiving things, that's not the time for them.

In the various 'realities' one can be exposed to, whilst restrictions aren't needed to perceive them, distinctions are still required in order to discern between the realities. In fact, Lucid Dreaming is about recognising the dream reality or at least being able to induce it. We recognise the limitations of the waking reality and use these to discern the dream reality. To simply perceive will not achieve this, because without some sort of realisation or questioning nature, you would miss the differences between the two realities. But even when you've discerned them from each other, what is stopping from enjoying either one?

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Edit: Wow, when people take religion to that extreme, it's scary. They're totally trying to live in a fantasy world.

Tell me about it... these people frequently get quoted on FSTDT.com... it is practically the nexus of religious delusion to the nth degree.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In the various 'realities' one can be exposed to, whilst restrictions aren't needed to perceive them, distinctions are still required in order to discern between the realities. In fact, Lucid Dreaming is about recognising the dream reality or at least being able to induce it. We recognise the limitations of the waking reality and use these to discern the dream reality. To simply perceive will not achieve this, because without some sort of realisation or questioning nature, you would miss the differences between the two realities. But even when you've discerned them from each other, what is stopping from enjoying either one?

That is a good point, if you just accept everything as is, you'll be oblivious to dreams. Having distinctions between realities is a good thing. After some thought, what I was trying to say earlier is hard for me to put into words. It's not ignoring the distinctions between things as they are in front of you. It is more of keeping emotions separate from experiences. Not eliminating emotion, but acknowledging it and realizing how it affects how you see things.

Tell me about it... these people frequently get quoted on FSTDT.com... it is practically the nexus of religious delusion to the nth degree.

It's more of a cult than religion. I don't know how people can get involved with that and not know what they're getting themselves into.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

That is a good point, if you just accept everything as is, you'll be oblivious to dreams. Having distinctions between realities is a good thing. After some thought, what I was trying to say earlier is hard for me to put into words. It's not ignoring the distinctions between things as they are in front of you. It is more of keeping emotions separate from experiences. Not eliminating emotion, but acknowledging it and realizing how it affects how you see things.

The point of looking at things from an objective perspective is separating emotion from the perception, removing hints of subjectivity in order to perceive in a manner that can be verified by everybody. Acknowledging the emotion and knowing how it changes perception is something one must understand when contemplating such matters. It is when people rely on emotion to help them understand and perceive the world is when things get tricky, and can possibly lead to problems. I think this may be what really is going on about, but even so, he could be more concise about it.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

It's more of a cult than religion. I don't know how people can get involved with that and not know what they're getting themselves into.

If you look into a fair bit of psychology and social behaviour, you wouldn't be surprised about how people can be easily led on. For example:

Originally Posted by bluefinger

All you are saying is that you can't comprehend this with your mind, though it is pretty much the only thing you have for understanding things and being conscious. You are putting forth completely meaningless concepts and ideas which have no actual relevance to reality. "Throw away your perceptions!" "Letting go of judgements will reveal truth!" all sound like bullshit. What is the point of discussing this when all you do is throw these nebulous concepts at me and have nothing of actual substance to argue from?

Define substance, in the way you say it.

The reason why the mind cannot comprehend the non-linear/infinite, is because, again, it is linear/limited. When something of the infinite domain is understood (non-verbally; without thoughts) - when the incomprehensible has been comprehended, it cannot be explained adequately or be the result of mentation and thus is not a product of the linear mind. What may be understandable at one level is ridiculous to all the levels below it.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

How are you coming to these conclusions though? What are you basing this upon? You build upon symbols but with no context as far as I'm seeing. What is the basis by which you come to the conclusion for these concepts? A straight answer would be preferable.

1. A mature understanding of Spiritual Teachings and Teachers.
2. A humble and honest contemplation and observation of ones subjective experience.
3. A mature and abstract reference of further spiritual confirmations through delicate research; consciousness research; psychology; psychiatry etc.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So no public research material of which I can access? Is the institute an accredited scientific organisation and what sort of experiments has he conducted to come to his conclusions?

It doesn't look like you have read those links on background.

Experiments generally include muscle testing; Applied Kinesiology.

The institute is its own branch of science; it is not typical science. For that reason, a new system has been developed.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Because the Scientist I mentioned performed experiments on the human brain which showed that the decision making process is often decided on the unconscious level before the conscious thought process, and because of that, one can predict ahead of time what decision a person will make, just by observing their brain through EEG. This paints the picture of a deterministic mind, not one that has complete free will. And here's the link to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. And here's an article describing the research in more detail. Hell, because of this sort of research is why we are getting products the like of this being made a reality.

Ok, but how is any of this relevant?

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I think with the "throw away your perceptions" or "let go of judgements" he means that when you just see the world for what it is, and don't have any expectations for it, that you see it for what it is.

Yes this is what I mean. For the serious spiritual seeker, there is no need to settle for the transitory, measly crumbs...

Originally Posted by Schmaven

If you truly see things for what they are, you'd have no reason to kill others or bomb shit.

Yes, and going further within; such Perfection can be overwhelming to the extent that there is no reason to speak; not even to utter a thought...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't think that is what he means. Seeing the world for what it is does not equate to perfection, plus he is still pushing across preconceptions of his own. I see the world for what it is... and it is a nature's world, and not a supernatural one.

Seeing the world for what it Is; overwhelmingly Perfect, is not about definitions and opinions because it is beyond them. You do not See the world for what it Is, otherwise "you" are enlightened. Going higher into the heavens within oneself, the world will melt into a grand Oneness... only harmony Is... the world in all its colors, flys past like the ocean to a fish; Beyond Bliss... Stillness within All Movement...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

There is nothing to suggest anything of the like of spirits or souls or anything like that. From what Science has gathered in terms of knowledge, things seem to work pretty well without the need of supernatural explanations.

Supernatural explanations?

A major issue is, Science can not have compassion or Love.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To him, it might feel real, but that does not mean it is real. I could be seeing Magic Pixies, but if you can't see those same pixies, then you'd think I'm hallucinating or that I am batshit crazy. Why should it be any different with regards to a deity?

You're taking this out of context again.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Seeing things as perfectly what they are equates to perfection. But with that, it's more of accepting things as what they are than ignoring flaws. The flaws and "imperfections" are all part of what makes up stuff.

Yes, what Is - just that. As it Is.

Is.

A seed is a Perfect seed; a sprout is a Perfect sprout; a flower blooming is a Perfect bloom; a dead, shriveled flower is a Perfect dead shriveled flower. All objects and things are Perfect sculptures. That wardrobe is Perfect; Perfect woodcut; Perfect nails; inside it are Perfect clothes... A trash can is Perfect; Perfectly dirty; filled with Perfectly half eaten food; Perfectly growing bacteria. A Perfect weed has Perfectly died or been nibbled on by a caterpillar etc. "Flaws" were products of the mind; hence all the opinions were different...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Perfection is the wrong word for what you are trying to describe, so it is better you don't use it, especially considering the connotations it carries.

It is the closest approximation for mental imagery, such is enough, but it is also limited. No need to mention.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Reality is not perfect because of the inherent problems we have when perceiving it. We can't see all of the light spectrum, we can't observe observe certain phenomena directly, we all experience hallucinations under certain circumstances, and even if you look at things without preconceptions, we all come to different conclusions on our own.

No need for arbitrary, false judgments. This is an indication that what you have described is not Context. Truth does not depend on opinion/relativity.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

There are methodologies to help us discern things more objectively and independently from subjective 'experience', but all in all, perfection is a concept that does not exist objectively.

Yes, objectively is Perfect; a Cosmos, an atom works just fine... So does gravity... So do asteroids... Perfectly.

Without objective Perfection, there would be no such thing as objectivity.

Furthermore, how else does objectivity exist? You were born with the ability to experience; no use ignoring Subjectivity for the sake of objectivity, for they are both entangled.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So... here's a good question for you: What separates a mad-man from a devout religious person?

[...]

Both can be considered delusional, but what decides whether they need treatment or not is on whether they pose a physical threat to others.

Both can be considered delusional; therefore it is not dependent upon what they believe in, but rather, their prevalent consciousness awareness. One can be religious and not be deluded, and one can be a madman because he was bribed.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The point of looking at things from an objective perspective is separating emotion from the perception, removing hints of subjectivity in order to perceive in a manner that can be verified by everybody. Acknowledging the emotion and knowing how it changes perception is something one must understand when contemplating such matters. It is when people rely on emotion to help them understand and perceive the world is when things get tricky, and can possibly lead to problems. I think this may be what really is going on about, but even so, he could be more concise about it.

Along the same lines as your valued "looking at things objectively", is looking at the mind (how conditions, thoughts and perceptions arise from this reliable/unconditional context beyond them). However, we are discussing the subjective results of changing and reducing its hindering processes. In this way, all people are equal to God, and thus all people experience (if there is no awareness/experience there is no spirit). How the person transforms and feels as a result of subjective experience is dependent on other things; e.g. awareness. What is essential is that there is experience, and so there definitely is a substrate of realization waiting to be found for everybody. See beyond these words:
"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." ~ Jesus

Originally Posted by really

Define substance, in the way you say it.

The reason why the mind cannot comprehend the non-linear/infinite, is because, again, it is linear/limited. When something of the infinite domain is understood (non-verbally; without thoughts) - when the incomprehensible has been comprehended, it cannot be explained adequately or be the result of mentation and thus is not a product of the linear mind. What may be understandable at one level is ridiculous to all the levels below it.

Substance, something that can be substantiated through either evidence or concepts that are familiar with everyone, so people know what the fuck you are talking about.

Also, what is the point of all these concepts that cannot be explained adequately or understood adequately? It seems a bit stupid in my eyes.

Originally Posted by really

1. A mature understanding of Spiritual Teachings and Teachers.
2. A humble and honest contemplation and observation of ones subjective experience.
3. A mature and abstract reference of further spiritual confirmations through delicate research; consciousness research; psychology; psychiatry etc.

Right... okay, that was all I was asking for. However, all this points to is the gaining of knowledge and ideas, and not that whole "letting go" bullshit.

Originally Posted by really

It doesn't look like you have read those links on background.

Experiments generally include muscle testing; Applied Kinesiology.

The institute is its own branch of science; it is not typical science. For that reason, a new system has been developed.

The moment I read Applied Kinesiology, I knew this was bullshit. It isn't an accredited institute and if this guy has to rely on pseudo-science in order to conduct his experiments, then I'm sorry, but I can't this seriously.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, but how is any of this relevant?

Because it goes against the idea of consciousness or freewill being a separate entity with regards to the brain. It shows that freewill is an illusion, and your brain unconsciously decides before you consciously perceive the thought. If anything, it is showing that what we think is consciousness or freewill is directly linked to the brain. And at least the experiments conducted rely on proper science, and not shit like Applied Kinesiology.

Originally Posted by really

Seeing the world for what it Is; overwhelmingly Perfect, is not about definitions and opinions because it is beyond them. You do not See the world for what it Is, otherwise "you" are enlightened. Going higher into the heavens within oneself, the world will melt into a grand Oneness... only harmony Is... the world in all its colors, flys past like the ocean to a fish; Beyond Bliss... Stillness within All Movement...

Like I've said to Schmaven, Perfection is the wrong word for what you are trying to describe, and also, that Perfection does not exist. It is merely a word, a concept.

Originally Posted by really

Supernatural explanations?

A major issue is, Science can not have compassion or Love.

And? What is wrong with Science not needing emotion? If anything, Science is generally motivated towards understanding the Universe and making use of our discoveries for our own good. Though as soon as you rely on emotion to understand the world around you, then you are going to have problems. Your major issue is nothing but a red herring.

Originally Posted by really

You're taking this out of context again.

"Out of context! OUT OF CONTEXT!" "BAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!"

If you are going to cry "Out of context", you better explain how it is out of context.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, what Is - just that. As it Is.

Is.

A seed is a Perfect seed; a sprout is a Perfect sprout; a flower blooming is a Perfect bloom; a dead, shriveled flower is a Perfect dead shriveled flower. All objects and things are Perfect sculptures. That wardrobe is Perfect; Perfect woodcut; Perfect nails; inside it are Perfect clothes... A trash can is Perfect; Perfectly dirty; filled with Perfectly half eaten food; Perfectly growing bacteria. A Perfect weed has Perfectly died or been nibbled on by a caterpillar etc. "Flaws" were products of the mind; hence all the opinions were different...

This sounds so brainwashed and mindless...

Originally Posted by really

No need for arbitrary, false judgments. This is an indication that what you have described is not Context. Truth does not depend on opinion/relativity.

I was highlighting the problem of using the word Perfect here, and also, truth is dependent on relativity! You need a context for a specific truth to hold any meaning. Without some relative distinction, it will not have meaning. Absolutes do not exist.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, objectively is Perfect; a Cosmos, an atom works just fine... So does gravity... So do asteroids... Perfectly.

Without objective Perfection, there would be no such thing as objectivity.

Furthermore, how else does objectivity exist? You were born with the ability to experience; no use ignoring Subjectivity for the sake of objectivity, for they are both entangled.

So much mindless and meaningless words...

Subjectivity and Objectivity are separate concepts, do not mix the two please. And neither are perfect

Originally Posted by really

Both can be considered delusional; therefore it is not dependent upon what they believe in, but rather, their prevalent consciousness awareness. One can be religious and not be deluded, and one can be a madman because he was bribed.

Errr... no, just no. It depends on whether they are deemed a threat to their own well-being and also to the well-being of others. If one cannot function properly in society, the you are put into a mental hospital in order to receive treatment to try and make you be able to function in society. Which I explained...

Originally Posted by really

Along the same lines as your valued "looking at things objectively", is looking at the mind (how conditions, thoughts and perceptions arise from this reliable/unconditional context beyond them). However, we are discussing the subjective results of changing and reducing its hindering processes. In this way, all people are equal to God, and thus all people experience (if there is no awareness/experience there is no spirit). How the person transforms and feels as a result of subjective experience is dependent on other things; e.g. awareness. What is essential is that there is experience, and so there definitely is a substrate of realization waiting to be found for everybody. See beyond these words:
"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." ~ Jesus

Do not rely on subjectivity to form your awareness. The problem with this whole nebulous concept you've been pushing, is that it has no actual meaning or bearing with reality. To me, it is no better than what the people in Rapture Ready are trying to do, trying: to live in their own fantasy world. Concepts like God or Perfection or even Absolutes, are not indicative of anything we've catalogued and analysed about reality. And even then, Perfection is such a boring concept. Who'd want a perfect existence?

You rely on the subjective, but do not question with the objective. You have no understanding of the problems of subjectivity, and generally have wrapped around a number of concepts that have no bearing with reality.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Substance, something that can be substantiated through either evidence or concepts that are familiar with everyone, so people know what the fuck you are talking about.

"Unfortunately", the world population is not enlightened, therefore if anyone is interested in it they are going to have to listen to the "enlightened" carefully. This is one reason why the path of enlightenment is most difficult, arduous and challenging, because it basically involves surrendering to the Unknown.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Also, what is the point of all these concepts that cannot be explained adequately or understood adequately? It seems a bit stupid in my eyes.

The same "point" of any explanation, however these words just happen to be more exposed as limited, and are serving as mere catalysts. E.g. "Red" is an identification with the color "red". It is quite difficult to describe without referencing with the memory or with other abstract characteristics - for example "hot". By nature, words are ultimately only useful to describe and form sentences.

It becomes quite arduous and hypocritical to even start arguing that, what cannot be explained is pointless to explain.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Right... okay, that was all I was asking for. However, all this points to is the gaining of knowledge and ideas, and not that whole "letting go" bullshit.

"Letting go" happens to be part of the knowledge of practice. Prejudgments are useless.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The moment I read Applied Kinesiology, I knew this was bullshit. It isn't an accredited institute and if this guy has to rely on pseudo-science in order to conduct his experiments, then I'm sorry, but I can't this seriously.

I'm sorry blue; not my problem.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Because it goes against the idea of consciousness or freewill being a separate entity with regards to the brain. It shows that freewill is an illusion, and your brain unconsciously decides before you consciously perceive the thought. If anything, it is showing that what we think is consciousness or freewill is directly linked to the brain. And at least the experiments conducted rely on proper science, and not shit like Applied Kinesiology.

Consciousness is not freewill or illusion, but rather Subjectivity and intrinsic awareness; unconditional to what that contains. This becomes more apparent with its own "elevation of consciousness/awareness".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Like I've said to Schmaven, Perfection is the wrong word for what you are trying to describe, and also, that Perfection does not exist. It is merely a word, a concept.

No reason to be pointed out, already been covered.

There is no reason to argue about existence, either.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And? What is wrong with Science not needing emotion? If anything, Science is generally motivated towards understanding the Universe and making use of our discoveries for our own good. Though as soon as you rely on emotion to understand the world around you, then you are going to have problems. Your major issue is nothing but a red herring.

Another issue, thinking that Love through higher awareness is an emotion. This Love is not an emotion, rather spiritual Love is a way of being in the world; a way of living rather than something personal and usually glamorized with vanity.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If you are going to cry "Out of context", you better explain how it is out of context.

Explain again? You are taking this out of context by assuming that, just because God/Reality seems to fall into the "category" of a subjective "not-disprovable/nor provable", means that it is equivalent to a "magic-pixie". Yet the Context of God/Reality can never be compared with a "magic-pixie". Likewise, someone who observes a car park cannot assume that all car-spaces will be occupied in any period by cars. Although a pig may arrive and sleep in a car-space, it does not mean it must have four wheels or headlights.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

truth is dependent on relativity! You need a context for a specific truth to hold any meaning. Without some relative distinction, it will not have meaning. Absolutes do not exist.

[...]

Concepts like God or Perfection or even Absolutes, are not indicative of anything we've catalogued and analysed about reality.

I am talking about ultimate Context/Universe itself. E.g. for the absolute Truth "Is/Be", there are then smaller truths of "was", "wasn't", "soon won't be" and "soon will be" (from "soon" arise "sooner" and "no sooner" etc). Likewise, Eternity allows for "past" and "future" with reference to "now". Higher Truths, are the context for the smaller relative ones, correspondingly higher dimensions allow for relative ones. While it is true that there may be a "star", it is generally true that there may be "light", but it is absolute that there is "energy". Beyond all the movement there is Stillness, beyond all the sound is Silence.

These concepts are inherently produced via the dualistic, linear, ego/mind. To calm it quietly is thus to slowly reveal non-duality.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Subjectivity and Objectivity are separate concepts, do not mix the two please. And neither are perfect

Nuclear Physics shows otherwise, I thought you would have been aware of this. This Universe is an entangled, holographic cosmos.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Errr... no, just no. It depends on whether they are deemed a threat to their own well-being and also to the well-being of others. If one cannot function properly in society, the you are put into a mental hospital in order to receive treatment to try and make you be able to function in society. Which I explained...

I can't see where "Errr... no, just no" fits into this, in regard to my response.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Do not rely on subjectivity to form your awareness.

[...]

To me, it is no better than what the people in Rapture Ready are trying to do, trying: to live in their own fantasy world.

Awareness, however recognized, is the substrate of subjectivity. Without it, obviously there is going to be no awareness; no subjectivity.

It is not a fantasy if it entirely replaces what can produce fantasies. Hence its possible name of "Ultimate Reality".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And even then, Perfection is such a boring concept. Who'd want a perfect existence?

Not a matter of opinion; rather a natural tendency. Whoever/whatever is interested in unconditional Perfection, Truth and Bliss is basically the one who is interested in Self-Realization.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You rely on the subjective, but do not question with the objective. You have no understanding of the problems of subjectivity,

This, in this context, is fundamentally because; a) Objectivity does not give useful/essential answers, b) What else does awareness have to rely on? c) How else is objectivity verified (relatively)?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You have no understanding of the problems of subjectivity,

I do, hence through the process of transcending these seeming problems through re-contextualization.

Originally Posted by really

"Unfortunately", the world population is not enlightened, therefore if anyone is interested in it they are going to have to listen to the "enlightened" carefully. This is one reason why the path of enlightenment is most difficult, arduous and challenging, because it basically involves surrendering to the Unknown.

Surrendering to the unknown is pointless, because what does such an act bring us? More unknowns? A futile exercise...

Originally Posted by really

The same "point" of any explanation, however these words just happen to be more exposed as limited, and are serving as mere catalysts. E.g. "Red" is an identification with the color "red". It is quite difficult to describe without referencing with the memory or with other abstract characteristics - for example "hot". By nature, words are ultimately only useful to describe and form sentences.

It becomes quite arduous and hypocritical to even start arguing that, what cannot be explained is pointless to explain.

Red is identification of perception to wavelengths of light of around 650nm to 700nm or so. At least one can apply objective definitions to certain perceptions because our eyes and brain interpret certain activations of neurons affected by such wavelengths of light to represent a certain 'colour'. At least I can define the concept of red with something that can be verifiable with everyone else.

Originally Posted by really

"Letting go" happens to be part of the knowledge of practice. Prejudgments are useless.

Knowledge of practice? Right...

Originally Posted by really

I'm sorry blue; not my problem.

It is if you are trying to use that as a source for your knowledge. Perhaps you should question it more critically.

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness is not freewill or illusion, but rather Subjectivity and intrinsic awareness; unconditional to what that contains. This becomes more apparent with its own "elevation of consciousness/awareness".

Consciousness is the by-product of mathematical interactions within a complex network of neurons. It is not a separate entity or something that can be quantified as of yet, but from what Neuroscience has achieved so far, there is nothing to suggest that such qualities are separate from the brain.

Originally Posted by really

Another issue, thinking that Love through higher awareness is an emotion. This Love is not an emotion, rather spiritual Love is a way of being in the world; a way of living rather than something personal and usually glamorized with vanity.

Redefining words for bullshit award?

No, just no. Love is an emotion, no matter how you try to redefine it. |:

Originally Posted by really

Explain again? You are taking this out of context by assuming that, just because God/Reality seems to fall into the "category" of a subjective "not-disprovable/nor provable", means that it is equivalent to a "magic-pixie". Yet the Context of God/Reality can never be compared with a "magic-pixie". Likewise, someone who observes a car park cannot assume that all car-spaces will be occupied in any period by cars. Although a pig may arrive and sleep in a car-space, it does not mean it must have four wheels or headlights.

Magic Pixies and God are still comparable for the fact that each rely on subjective means to 'substantiate' their existence. Both are meaningless concepts when you apply them to the real world.

Originally Posted by really

I am talking about ultimate Context/Universe itself. E.g. for the absolute Truth "Is/Be", there are then smaller truths of "was", "wasn't", "soon won't be" and "soon will be" (from "soon" arise "sooner" and "no sooner" etc). Likewise, Eternity allows for "past" and "future" with reference to "now". Higher Truths, are the context for the smaller relative ones, correspondingly higher dimensions allow for relative ones. While it is true that there may be a "star", it is generally true that there may be "light", but it is absolute that there is "energy". Beyond all the movement there is Stillness, beyond all the sound is Silence.

These concepts are inherently produced via the dualistic, linear, ego/mind. To calm it quietly is thus to slowly reveal non-duality.

Umm, no. Movement requires a frame of reference in order to distinguish movement, and sound is the consequence of vibrations of air that our ears detect and our brains interpret. There is no absolute in what you are trying to paint. FUCK you are mindless...

Originally Posted by really

Nuclear Physics shows otherwise, I thought you would have been aware of this. This Universe is an entangled, holographic cosmos.

What has nuclear physics got to do with the concepts of Subjectivity and Objectivity? Nuclear physics deals with the interactions of particles and atoms at the atomic and sub-atomic level. It has nothing to do with Subjectivity.

Originally Posted by really

I can't see where "Errr... no, just no" fits into this, in regard to my response.

People can still hold potentially dangerous beliefs and still not end up in a mental hospital for the reasons that they do not pose a serious threat to those around them. However, we have seen cases where despite these beliefs causing the deaths of people/children in their care, we still do not see anything being done to put them into a mental institution. The difference is whether one will act passively or aggressively upon these delusions.

Originally Posted by really

Awareness, however recognized, is the substrate of subjectivity. Without it, obviously there is going to be no awareness; no subjectivity.

It is not a fantasy if it entirely replaces what can produce fantasies. Hence its possible name of "Ultimate Reality".

Relying on subjectivity is the problem, not negating it completely. Comprehension skills, learn them.

Originally Posted by really

Not a matter of opinion; rather a natural tendency. Whoever/whatever is interested in unconditional Perfection, Truth and Bliss is basically the one who is interested in Self-Realization.

More like self-deluding, to be honest. Leave all that critical thinking and logic behind and wrap yourself around that fluff.

Originally Posted by really

This, in this context, is fundamentally because; a) Objectivity does not give useful/essential answers, b) What else does awareness have to rely on? c) How else is objectivity verified (relatively)?

Objectivity does give us useful answers and essential ones, ones which do not rely on a person's subjective experience, and thus can be confirmed by anyone. Do not play down the significance of objectivity.

Originally Posted by really

I do, hence through the process of transcending these seeming problems through re-contextualization.

Ergo, you find excuses?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Surrendering to the unknown is pointless, because what does such an act bring us? More unknowns? A futile exercise...

Not being logically sure what lies behind a door does not mean there is nothing behind it. Listen to "those" who call from the other side of it, they can teach you how to unlock it. However, you're going to have to leave a lot of things behind, and you're going to have to be a good listener if you want to open this door.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Red is identification of perception to wavelengths of light of around 650nm to 700nm or so. At least one can apply objective definitions to certain perceptions because our eyes and brain interpret certain activations of neurons affected by such wavelengths of light to represent a certain 'colour'. At least I can define the concept of red with something that can be verifiable with everyone else.

Once again, you get lost in the irrelevant details. Describing "red" without referring to further abstractions and memories (results from other mentations); measuring it with points of reference against a scale; using linear perceptions and arbitrary selections; even using words - as I have demonstrated, does no further give one a taste of "red". They are merely descriptions and measurements which are not actually what is being measured.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It is if you are trying to use that as a source for your knowledge. Perhaps you should question it more critically.

Another blanket statement. One should not make such an assumption as if I haven't questioned it or used it as my only source.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Consciousness is the by-product of mathematical interactions within a complex network of neurons. It is not a separate entity or something that can be quantified as of yet, but from what Neuroscience has achieved so far, there is nothing to suggest that such qualities are separate from the brain.

Just like looking toward a window; seeing light, and assuming light is the by-product of the window. You probably don't know that there is a sky at beyond it, nor that it shines through the window quite easily. E.g. remote viewing does not mean that the brain "teleport's" to view into the future or on the other side of the planet, but rather, the infinite field of consciousness just shifts perception from the primary focus in the brain to the non-linear realm beyond it.

Another analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTx...eature=related

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Redefining words for bullshit award?

No, just no. Love is an emotion, no matter how you try to redefine it. |:

You're not familiar, I can guess that right away. This Love, is obviously not typical love which you have limited yourself to seeing. "No, just no." can be identified as ignorance; denial.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Magic Pixies and God are still comparable for the fact that each rely on subjective means to 'substantiate' their existence. Both are meaningless concepts when you apply them to the real world.

Again, you miss the point. Spirit does not need to be applied to the world, because it already is, whether you are aware or not (does not imply that the world can determine it). It is a matter of learning about how the spirit and the world are not the same (at a typical level of awareness). You do not use a telescope to search for somebody's interest in astronomy. You do not ask a builder how to build self-esteem.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Umm, no. Movement requires a frame of reference in order to distinguish movement, and sound is the consequence of vibrations of air that our ears detect and our brains interpret. There is no absolute in what you are trying to paint. FUCK you are mindless...

Ok, I'll post examples based on your response. A frame of reference is absolute when making references. The space for particles is absolute and required for sound to travel; the particles themselves are absolute in their vibrations. The blackboard is absolute in that it stands unaffected in regard to chalk drawings; the canvas is absolute in that it allows paintings. Energy is absolute in that it cannot be created or destroyed. Freedom is absolute in that one can even doubt their own existence.

The Youtube analogy above can also be used.

Taking these relative examples, going up to the top of the ladder; brings the understanding that higher dimensions hold absolutes beyond the lower ones; Truth which does not depend on circumstance, relativity or opinion - Truth which is within all things, and beyond (actually, without it, there would be no substrate for relatives and transitory content).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What has nuclear physics got to do with the concepts of Subjectivity and Objectivity? Nuclear physics deals with the interactions of particles and atoms at the atomic and sub-atomic level. It has nothing to do with Subjectivity.

No? Not even the double split experiment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Originally Posted by bluefinger

People can still hold potentially dangerous beliefs and still not end up in a mental hospital for the reasons that they do not pose a serious threat to those around them. However, we have seen cases where despite these beliefs causing the deaths of people/children in their care, we still do not see anything being done to put them into a mental institution. The difference is whether one will act passively or aggressively upon these delusions.

And hence the difference in the prevailing level of consciousness/awareness. It is one thing to worship God and fight for good; it is another to worship God and see all as already good, without any fights.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Relying on subjectivity is the problem, not negating it completely. Comprehension skills, learn them.

My point was, that there is nothing to rely on apart from the awareness itself. Having low awareness, your life and choices are dominated by emotions and violence; having a higher awareness, you look out to the world curiously with questions; having a higher awareness, you know that the world does not have answers, having a higher awareness, you understand the essence of life; having a higher awareness, you are beyond life, ad infinitum.

You could then say, you are not "having" awareness, but being as awareness.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

More like self-deluding, to be honest. Leave all that critical thinking and logic behind and wrap yourself around that fluff.

Desert Nomad ~ "I've never been to the beach - what's so amazing about water? Leave all this land behind you; immerse yourself in dripping wetness... How boring and delusional... to be honest."

Prejudgements are useless...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Objectivity does give us useful answers and essential ones, ones which do not rely on a person's subjective experience, and thus can be confirmed by anyone. Do not play down the significance of objectivity.

Not talking about objective matters. Just because it is reliable to describe how a bird grows does not tell me what it is to grow as a bird; a bird only knows (if that) and this can be verified by nothing but the bird itself. Watching people do things does not indicate anything about what they think apart from what is seen (if that); so appearances are not enough; even to observe thoughts/neurological response I presume does not indicate what someone is thinking (in a more particular context rather than highlighting brain regions or sections).

Only you generally know why/how you feel; what it relatively looks like in the external world is another reputation that is an illusion. E.g. someone can blame you for forgetting something, but until they find out what the truth is to be you, they are prone to frustration of your "external".

Even this knowingness, is relative to ones level of consciousness. E.g. to be asleep, dreaming is to not know identity. But to be enlightened is to know the very identity and essence of life/growth as a quality of conscious awareness.

Science and objective essentials are useful in the logical world, however, they are useless beyond the world in the non-linear domain. Who knows when we will stop discovering, naming, quantizing, coloring, and clarifying sub-sub-sub-atomic-particles.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Ergo, you find excuses?

Depends how honest you are with yourself. I keep finding excuses to argue with you, despite what I know about the ego. One day, I might just surrender it all with relieving laughter...

Originally Posted by really

Not being logically sure what lies behind a door does not mean there is nothing behind it. Listen to "those" who call from the other side of it, they can teach you how to unlock it. However, you're going to have to leave a lot of things behind, and you're going to have to be a good listener if you want to open this door.

It is silly to think that there is only one metaphorical door, and also to think that whatever is behind that door is the same thing for everyone else. If you've had experiences with dream doors, you'd realise that the same door, if opened and closed repeatedly, can produce differing results to where it leads. Surrendering to the unknown is a folly task that gains you nothing in return, only more unknowns. Knowledge comes from making the unknown into the known, from understanding the unknown rather than surrendering to it. This is the difference between you and me. I seek to understand the unknowns, you simply surrendered to them.

Originally Posted by really

Once again, you get lost in the irrelevant details. Describing "red" without referring to further abstractions and memories (results from other mentations); measuring it with points of reference against a scale; using linear perceptions and arbitrary selections; even using words - as I have demonstrated, does no further give one a taste of "red". They are merely descriptions and measurements which are not actually what is being measured.

It isn't irrelevant, because most people perceive light of 650-700nm to be of the colour red. Those who are colour-blind cannot distinguish certain colours from the other, and thus have trouble detecting subtle differences in shades of red from greens, due to the way the retina cells detect light. This lack of perception and the consequent measurement of light allows us to define the colours we see.

Originally Posted by really

Another blanket statement. One should not make such an assumption as if I haven't questioned it or used it as my only source.

If your sources (note: plural) have to rely on pseudoscience like Applied Kinesiology in order to 'further' their 'research', then I think my assumption applies. Still, apply a more critical line of thought upon it.

Originally Posted by really

Just like looking toward a window; seeing light, and assuming light is the by-product of the window. You probably don't know that there is a sky at beyond it, nor that it shines through the window quite easily. E.g. remote viewing does not mean that the brain "teleport's" to view into the future or on the other side of the planet, but rather, the infinite field of consciousness just shifts perception from the primary focus in the brain to the non-linear realm beyond it.

Another analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTx...eature=related

I don't see how that analogy applies to that case in particular. You've gone off on a tangent there and not really dealing with my point in hand. Current research on the brain has revealed that consciousness, or at least so far, elements of our consciousness are heavily influenced by unconcious processes.

Originally Posted by really

You're not familiar, I can guess that right away. This Love, is obviously not typical love which you have limited yourself to seeing. "No, just no." can be identified as ignorance; denial.

You talk about Spiritual Enlightenment, and not really love. Love is an emotion. Get over it.

Originally Posted by really

Again, you miss the point. Spirit does not need to be applied to the world, because it already is, whether you are aware or not (does not imply that the world can determine it). It is a matter of learning about how the spirit and the world are not the same (at a typical level of awareness). You do not use a telescope to search for somebody's interest in astronomy. You do not ask a builder how to build self-esteem.

The Spirit is an unquantifiable concept, which again, cannot be substantiated outside of subjectivity. Please stop throwing red-herrings at me.

Originally Posted by really

Ok, I'll post examples based on your response. A frame of reference is absolute when making references. The space for particles is absolute and required for sound to travel; the particles themselves are absolute in their vibrations. The blackboard is absolute in that it stands unaffected in regard to chalk drawings; the canvas is absolute in that it allows paintings. Energy is absolute in that it cannot be created or destroyed. Freedom is absolute in that one can even doubt their own existence.

The Youtube analogy above can also be used.

Taking these relative examples, going up to the top of the ladder; brings the understanding that higher dimensions hold absolutes beyond the lower ones; Truth which does not depend on circumstance, relativity or opinion - Truth which is within all things, and beyond (actually, without it, there would be no substrate for relatives and transitory content).

Nothing is absolute. We can only know within practical and applicable terms, but in terms of absolute, there is no such thing. Quantum Physics kinda highlights just that...

Originally Posted by really

No? Not even the double split experiment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Fail attempt at using Physics to prove a point. Wave-Particle duality does nothing to entangle Subjectivity and Objectivity, so nice non-sequitor. If you know about photovoltaic effects, you'd know that photons act as both particles and waves, to the point that you can shine light through a double slit and project the same light onto a suitable metal plate, and you'll notice not only the light being refracted, but also the light causing a photovoltaic effect on the metal (all within the same experiment). I've likened such a behaviour to a water-droplet, a droplet containing both a particle form whilst capable of containing a wave function on the surface.

Electrons experience the same phenomena, and yet we know these to be particles.

Originally Posted by really

My point was, that there is nothing to rely on apart from the awareness itself. Having low awareness, your life and choices are dominated by emotions and violence; having a higher awareness, you look out to the world curiously with questions; having a higher awareness, you know that the world does not have answers, having a higher awareness, you understand the essence of life; having a higher awareness, you are beyond life, ad infinitum.

You could then say, you are not "having" awareness, but being as awareness.

Little sense to be found there, and from what I could gather, it is a brainwashing exercise. Answers are there for those who seek them, and it is all present in the world. Knowledge is the means to collect those answers, and the means to further our understanding. Throwing that out because of some superfluous enlightenment does not appeal at all.

Originally Posted by really

Desert Nomad ~ "I've never been to the beach - what's so amazing about water? Leave all this land behind you; immerse yourself in dripping wetness... How boring and delusional... to be honest."

Prejudgements are useless...

Better analogy:

The Mystery Box. Who knows what's inside? It could a holiday, or the keys to your new car. Nobody knows, unless you take the box. Find out what's inside!

Originally Posted by really

Word salad

Eh, I grow weary of this conversation...

Originally Posted by really

Depends how honest you are with yourself. I keep finding excuses to argue with you, despite what I know about the ego. One day, I might just surrender it all with relieving laughter...

I have chocolate biscuits... and coffee... I could argue all day if I wanted to... it's fun to do so...

Being honest to myself isn't hard... it is being honest to others that is much harder

Personally, I think really is making sense with his argument. With consciousness, you can't really take an objective perspective, because being such a subjective topic, you will not get anywhere objectively. I think the enlightenment he's talking about is having a better understanding of yourself and as a result, with the world around you.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I have chocolate biscuits... and coffee... I could argue all day if I wanted to... it's fun to do so...

lmao

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Personally, I think really is making sense with his argument. With consciousness, you can't really take an objective perspective, because being such a subjective topic, you will not get anywhere objectively. I think the enlightenment he's talking about is having a better understanding of yourself and as a result, with the world around you.

Eh, I don't think that is the case. Subjectively, you can only look into yourself. Objectively, you can only look beyond 'yourself' in the sense of an 'experience'. The world beyond you can only be truly understood when you look at it beyond the Subjective and into the Objective. To rely on one over the other is to lose focus.

It's not relying on one over the other, it's more of getting a better understanding of one, then using both.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

It's not relying on one over the other, it's more of getting a better understanding of one, then using both.

I kindly disagree. There is only so much the subjective can tell you, and it only really speaks about you. To understand the world and universe, you need Objectivity. To understand yourself, you need Subjectivity. I perceive really being way too focused on the subjective, and ignoring the objective, whilst I admit, I am the opposite. To me, I find the world and universe vastly more fascinating and intriguing through the methods of Science, than through some spiritual 'drivel'. But that's me...

I think the universe is very interesting when looking at it scientifically. There is so much that can be modeled and explained to the point where it is overwhelming. Thermodynamics was one of the coolest classes I've ever taken. The subjective can sometimes sneak into your observations if you're not careful, which is why I think understanding your own subjectivity more in depth will allow you to keep the two apart easier. There is a big difference between what you can think about things, and what those things actually are. But the tricky part is that if you're not careful, you might use some of your subjectivity when arriving at conclusions.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I think the universe is very interesting when looking at it scientifically. There is so much that can be modeled and explained to the point where it is overwhelming. Thermodynamics was one of the coolest classes I've ever taken. The subjective can sometimes sneak into your observations if you're not careful, which is why I think understanding your own subjectivity more in depth will allow you to keep the two apart easier. There is a big difference between what you can think about things, and what those things actually are. But the tricky part is that if you're not careful, you might use some of your subjectivity when arriving at conclusions.

This is where I totally agree. You always have to be inherently self-critical and sceptical, otherwise the danger of subjectivity affecting your conclusions is too great. In that respect, there is no harsher critic than yourself.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

This is where I totally agree. You always have to be inherently self-critical and sceptical, otherwise the danger of subjectivity affecting your conclusions is too great. In that respect, there is no harsher critic than yourself.

Exactly. I think you can also take it a step further than just being self-critical and skeptical. By fully understanding yourself, you can see emotions and subjectivity being just a part of yourself, but you also see the world objectively as what it is, without any pre-judgements affecting your observations.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

Exactly. I think you can also take it a step further than just being self-critical and skeptical. By fully understanding yourself, you can see emotions and subjectivity being just a part of yourself, but you also see the world objectively as what it is, without any pre-judgements affecting your observations.

I think that comes with the scepticism though. Knowing you can't trust your perception/experience/self, and thus you must carefully analyse not only your results, but the conclusion as well.

Oh well, I'm too tired to think any more... so I'm off to bed before my mind melts

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ed_cracker.php

No more pandering to religious people. This is the breaking point. I really thought the 1st world countries were beyond this, that some form of common sense had been instilled in us. Apparently I was wrong.

I know there are a lot of extremely intelligent religious people, and there are a lot more extremely stupid religious people. Either or, the fact remains: Faith is a disease and needs to be ended (obviously by reason, logic, and talking with religious people, not by violence, although Bill Donahue really needs to kick the bucket).

This may sound extreme and I think 99% of the people here will think this article is ridiculous as well, but let's think about it:

Is an invisible sky-daddy who we talk to telepathically and controls every bit of human destiny less ridiculous that transubstantiation?

Is a man/god being sent down to heaven to die for the sins we inherited from 2 supposed beings at the beginning of time more rational than Eucharistic desecration?

Is a loving, perfect god who let's 4/5th's of the world's population burn in a lake of fire for not giving them sufficient evidence for his existence and/or putting them in a geographic location that caused them to be raised in the wrong religion any less insane than actually thinking a cracker turns into the flesh of a god/human?

I used to think Hitchens and Dawkins could come down kind of hard on the religious, but they aren't coming down hard enough. This medieval stupidity needs to end.

(Okay, so it's melodramatic, but I feel exactly like PZ Myers, i.e. beyond words irritated).

Instead of trying to end religion, why don't you try to change religion? Do atheists offer any form of moral teachings,? Or a community where people can gather? This thread would only anger theists.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Instead of trying to end religion, why don't you try to change religion? Do atheists offer any form of moral teachings,? Or a community where people can gather? This thread would only anger theists.

Religion teaches us to be moral? lolololololololol

Societies dictate how we define our morals, not religions. Religions are used to justify or object to the societal norms of morality, but either way, it ain't religion that is responsible.

It isn't about whether Atheism provides us with moral teachings, it is about whether we need religion at all in order to be moral. If for some, the only reason they obey the laws of the land because of the threat of eternal damnation, then who is the more moral person? The atheist who abides the laws and is good under his own volition, or the religious person who keeps in line for fear of eternal damnation and in hope of eternal reward?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Religion teaches us to be moral? lolololololololol

Societies dictate how we define our morals, not religions. Religions are used to justify or object to the societal norms of morality, but either way, it ain't religion that is responsible.

It isn't about whether Atheism provides us with moral teachings, it is about whether we need religion at all in order to be moral. If for some, the only reason they obey the laws of the land because of the threat of eternal damnation, then who is the more moral person? The atheist who abides the laws and is good under his own volition, or the religious person who keeps in line for fear of eternal damnation and in hope of eternal reward?

I think society has a major role in defining our morals. But some religious views do provide people with their own set of morals, without the threat of eternal damnation, but rather with the desire to make the world a better place. I think many religions go about it wrong by trying to make people follow rules out of fear. Not all religious people are slaves to the system though.