Thread: That's it, I'm done

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?