Thread: Doubting my Faith

Originally Posted by Howie

This sure beats Accessing the mystic (regaining a sense of the Sacred)
Matthew Fox & Rupert Sheldrake

Really & O'nus

Would I be going out on a limb to think that you have both seen that?

~ anyways Great discussion!

Haha, no I haven't seen this. What kind of movie is it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can we try starting this again in a thread dedicated to the spirit..? It is becoming really hard to keep track of the conversation and its focus..

~

You don't need my permission, though I'd appreciate if you actually answered my questions in this thread, which are perfectly easy to understand. Realize that, in a discussion, at least answer the other's questions as I have done yours, instead of dropping out. This is discussion.

Having seen your new "Spirit" thread, I'm not going to bother posting, as I'd merely be repeating myself. Fortunately, there are many different perspectives on such a definition, and numerous applications. I'd like to stress, thusly: Meaning arises from Context.

Originally Posted by really

Haha, no I haven't seen this. What kind of movie is it?

If you have not seen it I really would not recommend that you buy it. If you have a source to see it...sure why not. From what I get from watching this was two people patting each other on the back as they are both TOO respectful to one another’s beliefs. Too much beating around the bush. Where as this discussion is in some respects more controversial in nature. Or better yet, more a perseverance for the "truth."

Science and spirituality collide when biologist Rupert Sheldrake and postmodern theologian Matthew Fox, explore the practical aspects of mysticism and the attainment of higher levels of consciousness.

In Accessing the Mystic you will learn how the marriage of science and spirituality can deepen the wonder and mystery in everyday life. Discover comprehensive steps you can take to personally access and experience higher levels of consciousness and a mystical reality that exists inside each of us.

Learn four practical paths (Via Positiva, Via Negativa, Via Creativa, Via Transformativa) that lead to mysticism and how changing consciousness and creating mystical experiences can be a common daily occurrence. Exhilarating ideas and fascinating discussion for both the scientific and spiritually minded.

Originally Posted by really

You refer to the cogito as it is defined "I think, therefore I am." However, this is sometimes summarized as the principle of existence by the awareness of such. For example, just as a double check, my dictionary says: "the principle establishing the existence of a being from the fact of its thinking or awareness." I use it as the bold. Going deeper, without awareness, there is no existence at all. I do not use "I think therefore I am", specifically, because that has been recognized as incorrect in this subject. One does not have to think to be aware, however thinking identifies with being - hence "I am."

The awareness/consciousness of the cogito is facilitated upon use.

I am trying to reconcile this discussion now..

Where you make a distinction between consciousness and awareness, I will say that there is no severe distinction. It is simply that consciousness is the conglomerate of senses while awareness is simple psychological attention. Once the cogito is brought to attention, it is proven. I do not think there is anything more to it than that.

So, in summary, what I have been referring to is this: "I". Not "I am" or "I am that." "I" is a priori to all Reality. You can even see that in Descartes' principle.

Realize that "am" is simply an adjective for "exist". I think there I exist. Or maybe you are just simplifying the cogito by saying that all you have to say is "I"? In that case, I full heartedly agree.

See, "intangible", "formless", "omnipresent", "absolute" are distinctions. These are not possible properties for the mind (excluding intangible), and you already know why. As for energy, as I said, it could be called potentiality, though I don't think that is as easy to understand.

I will argue that the mind is tangible. Without the brain, you have no mind. Without parts of the brain, you lose parts of your mind. This is known truth. I am curious how you rationalize that.

Ok, in what context would this be a possibility? Otherwise, it is purely hypothetical, and thus invalid. You said it is beyond argument, so how is it beyond falsifiability?

No, I am not saying the cogito is beyond falsifiability. I mean to say that it is falsifiable if you cannot state it (be aware).

Yes I can; please revise. The true Self is not made up of memories or the mind, otherwise we could imagine it and remember it, and thus, everyone would be enlightened (so to speak).

I am too argue that the self is nothing more than memories and experiences tied together in a linear sequence of sorts. What are you saying?

If it is a fact, how can it be made false?

Yes, that is the beauty of science - it is falsifiable and able to accept changes and evolution. (Or evolution of knowledge)

Please revise the rest of my post(s), otherwise you are removing a small part of information from the context it is said in, and claiming that it is invalid - which of course, is obvious without any of its relationships; your argument seemingly convincing on its own.

My apologies - I do not intend to straw man you. I am merely ignoring parts that I essentially agree with actually. Believe it or not, I am honestly trying to reconcile or discussion - not "win" it.

The Spirit is essentially beyond physicality, but that doesn't mean it is non-existent. Unless - Do you only believe in a physical universe? The spirit is intangible, simply because awareness is also beyond physicality, and both spirit and awareness are related. E.g. "The spirit of life is being/awareness.

It is scientific fact that there is energy without mass. However, I would argue that that is all that it is - energy. Nothing more. It is surely tied together of all things in a stochastic system - but it is nothing more than that. Chaos. (The academic chaos, that is).

You can say that, but you would not make a good teacher. You have to integrate this with the fundamentals of this subject.

Then maybe you can see my frustration with you.

It really depends on what you want to say about the emotions. E.g. "The spirit of emotions." But emotions have no affect on the cogito. Your emotions do not change who you are - what is essential, in that case.

Emotions have affect on the cogito and consciousness all together. How do they not..? You are emotionally sad, so you think cynically. I don't understand this point..?

You mustn't be very familiar with this topic, are you? No, it is from a recognition of the futility of the mind's inherent reasoning and arrogance, rather than denying it for what it can achieve. Upon this, we give less power to the ego, and more to God. We are humble, and hopefully not idiotic.

When did God come into this..? You are a theist..? I'm really not sure how to reply to this - it feels like another topic.

Really? You know all this!? Oh, O'nus! So, in the big picture, what is life for? Why does existence exist? What is the destiny of humankind? What's the reason behind all Reality?

haw haw

You're not with me here. Existence is here, even prior to thinking itself (thinking has to exist). The awareness is the fundament of existence, however, the mind does not know what is awareness or "who is aware". This is the self-effulgence; the self-evidence, and unfortunately for man, the mind is oblivious to it.

I think you and I are now referring to "existence" differently. What does it mean to you? I am simply referring to the idea of being able to recognize your awareness and that you exist. That is all that I mean. I do not mean all things that are and infinite. This is obviously beyond a single conscious beings capability.

However, it gives insight into how the idea of God comes to be. But this is irrelevant, I suppose...

Reasoning my existence does not lead me to truth of the True Self, that is strongly obvious throughout mankind. I find that your own argument is more like believing in an imaginary friend. It is relative - you think and reason, but you are not God in that sense.

I never said you are God, just that your only tool to the best possible understanding is through empiricism. Anything else gives too much room to "potentials" and not enough room to pragmatism. I'd rather follow a path of utility than a path of "maybe's".

It is defined enough and I happily intuit it. You simply are unfamiliar and find it hard to believe, which is understandable. I see that you really mean "I do not see why I must make the blind leap and believe in an undefined spirit." Sorry, but apparently I'm not helping you with that.

Perhaps you are starting to see my point then, beyond pretentiousness. How can I be familiar with it if the only means to "understand" it is if I already believe in it?

Do you not see how much you grasp onto circular logic?

Likewise, your problem: "I do not see why I must make the blind leap and believe in an undefined cogito. Why should I believe that essentially I am not this body?"

That is what I am saying - you are your body. That is entirely my point. You are nothing more than your body.

I can agree with you that there is an energy in the body - all science supports this. However, I do not make the leap of giving any characteristics or assumptions about that energy because we do not know anything more about it other than that it is energy.

Realize this and that I am not making any assumptions - you are.

~

Lol, Howie. Interesting connection, there.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The awareness/consciousness of the cogito is facilitated upon use.

What do you mean, "use"?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Where you make a distinction between consciousness and awareness, I will say that there is no severe distinction. It is simply that consciousness is the conglomerate of senses while awareness is simple psychological attention. Once the cogito is brought to attention, it is proven. I do not think there is anything more to it than that.

"Once the cogito is brought to attention" - give an example. What attention?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Realize that "am" is simply an adjective for "exist". I think there I exist. Or maybe you are just simplifying the cogito by saying that all you have to say is "I"? In that case, I full heartedly agree.

"Am" signifies being. "I am", implies being identity. To find the True identity, you ask what is "I". However, nothing needs to be stated, proven or thought in order for "I" to exist. Only when it is hypothetically out of context.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I will argue that the mind is tangible. Without the brain, you have no mind. Without parts of the brain, you lose parts of your mind. This is known truth. I am curious how you rationalize that.

The mind is intangible in the sense that it involves certain subjective experience (E.g. thoughts/stories/judgments), and tangible in your context. Whether a mindful function or disorder can be located inside the brain or not, is not my point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I am not saying the cogito is beyond falsifiability. I mean to say that it is falsifiable if you cannot state it (be aware).

Again, I do not have to state the cogito "I think, therefore I am" in order to be aware. I do not have to think to know I exist, or that I am aware either. It is beyond thoughts, a priori to them, as you have agreed. Neither action can be taken in priority, I cannot think that I am aware before the fact, and I cannot speak until I am aware. When I do think however, do I become identified with being (I am the body).

The cogito as thinking is falsifiable, however it is unfalsifiable in the context of awareness on its own ("I"), which is what I have been stressing.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am too argue that the self is nothing more than memories and experiences tied together in a linear sequence of sorts. What are you saying?

Put it this way: What is aware of the memories and witnesses the experience? What is the real identity, if it is not truly the contents of the mind?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, that is the beauty of science - it is falsifiable and able to accept changes and evolution. (Or evolution of knowledge)

That doesn't answer my question. You said it was 100% fact, yet it can be falsified. I think I see how, but do you?

Originally Posted by O'nus

My apologies - I do not intend to straw man you. I am merely ignoring parts that I essentially agree with actually. Believe it or not, I am honestly trying to reconcile or discussion - not "win" it.

I find it hard to believe, if you are ignoring something because you agree with it. Please pay attention, in agreement or not. It could save you some time.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is scientific fact that there is energy without mass. However, I would argue that that is all that it is - energy. Nothing more. It is surely tied together of all things in a stochastic system - but it is nothing more than that. Chaos. (The academic chaos, that is).

"All that it is - energy" is quite broad. How does this relate to what I said?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Then maybe you can see my frustration with you.

I think you just want me to spoon feed you everything and make everything obvious. Quite a paradox, there.

Your frustration is with (my) reasoning and logic. If not, please elaborate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Emotions have affect on the cogito and consciousness all together. How do they not..? You are emotionally sad, so you think cynically. I don't understand this point..?

Do you think your emotions can change what is your true identity? Likewise, does my leg being amputated mean that my identity is lesser? These answers are "yes", thinking that one is the body and the mind.

Originally Posted by O'nus

When did God come into this..? You are a theist..? I'm really not sure how to reply to this - it feels like another topic.

Hello, are you there? What do you think faith indicates, and at that, somebody who encourages it? God comes into this, also because this topic is called "Doubting my Faith", which is inside "Religion/Spirituality!" It is relevant to spiritual seeking.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think you and I are now referring to "existence" differently. What does it mean to you? I am simply referring to the idea of being able to recognize your awareness and that you exist. That is all that I mean. I do not mean all things that are and infinite. This is obviously beyond a single conscious beings capability.

When one is aware, there is not awareness of just the body, it is awareness of existence, whether it is recognized and differentiated or visually ambiguous. There is no existence, physical or not, without awareness.

I do not have to think to know that I exist, that would be contradictory. Thinking comes after the fact, as it falls within that context, and has no power over it in reverse.

If one is interested in spiritual work, he is interested in the True Identity and Spirit of existence - and that is essentially its Context through which it is entirely possible. To understand existence, I do not start thinking and reasoning my way around things - that is arrogant and ignorant. I expand my awareness to the context; "I" is the context of life, not the content of life.

How can I be separated from my universal Source, can you answer that please. "I am" (is) within the Universe and being. I am part of the Whole. "I" however, is beyond the Universe.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I never said you are God, just that your only tool to the best possible understanding is through empiricism. Anything else gives too much room to "potentials" and not enough room to pragmatism. I'd rather follow a path of utility than a path of "maybe's".

Funnily enough, spiritual work is very pragmatic and utilizable. It is, otherwise you would be trying to understand the True Self with the intellect - which will get you nowhere (pardon the pun). The intellect comes after the fact, so it is not necessary to intellectualize everything and rule ones entire certainty of life - which is obviously and subjectively far beyond it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Perhaps you are starting to see my point then, beyond pretentiousness. How can I be familiar with it if the only means to "understand" it is if I already believe in it?

It is rather, to believe in something that is already true. It is unchangeable. What you are asking is, "How can I become familiar with awareness if I can only understand it by believing in it?" Fortunately, it is undeniable, and is self-evident and self-proving. Without any spiritual recognition of such, the term "ignorance" is often used here, because awareness does not stop if you do not consider or notice what it is.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Do you not see how much you grasp onto circular logic?

Thanks for you help.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is what I am saying - you are your body. That is entirely my point. You are nothing more than your body.

First question: Why?

For this to be true (I am the body), you'd generally have make the following assumptions (verbally or not):

- When this body dies, I die.
- There is no reincarnation; there is no karma.
- There is no life in this body, or "spirit" of itself.
- There is no relationship to this body and where it came from. And/Or, I am the body, I may also be an accident of the universe.
- I am.
- I am separate from everything else; the universe is "out there". I am here, you are there.
- I am this body, because I control it; do what it does and think its thoughts. I am the causal agent, I am the self.
- I am different, I am better/worse than others.
- I am (the content of life), I am this, I am that.
- I am not familiar with this, it has no use to me.
- I am also these thoughts. If I think she liked me, she did.
- Therefore, all the things I do not feel, are out there. If I am unhappy, I need to find happiness out there, because I am the body, and so I am separate from happiness.
- The universe put me here, being this body. I know why.
- My awareness is the space inside this skull.
- The spirit does not exist because it makes no sense to this mind. I only believe what I can logically and intellectually comprehend, otherwise it is nonsense.
- Spiritual teachers and spirituality is wrong, because I said so.
- Spiritual teachers speak garbage - Jesus, Buddha, Krishna - all silly people. Why should I believe them? I am more believable; they can't possible know who I am!
- I can own things. That is mine, that is not mine.
- Only physicality is real. The intangible could be a magic fairy or imaginary friend, therefore I ignore it.
- The locus of consciousness follows the body, therefore I am the body. The senses are mine, I can use them to see myself.
- There is only an objective universe, because only that can be measured, demonstrated and understood. All else is quackery.

(While some of the above are the consequences of such a belief, some are the precedences. It does not matter.) Believing one is the body, all of the above generally lead to the suffering of its identification. Sense of the truth of reality is extremely limited. One may seek reality and truth, but unknowingly through the paradigm one's own preconditional perceptions and assumptions. One may seek reality and Truth, but thinking there is something to be found and explainable/demonstrative to all. Actually, the Truth already exists, in fact, it is demonstrating itself this very moment without any effort whatsoever. The term "ignorance" is respectfully used, here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I can agree with you that there is an energy in the body - all science supports this. However, I do not make the leap of giving any characteristics or assumptions about that energy because we do not know anything more about it other than that it is energy.

Who is we? Are you only referring to the people who are unsure? You're referring to objective knowledge, right?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Realize this and that I am not making any assumptions - you are.

~

Realize: that is your opinion.

Originally Posted by really

What do you mean, "use"?

Once you say the cogito, you proved it true.

"Once the cogito is brought to attention" - give an example. What attention?

The attention you are giving to reading this sentence right now. This is consciousness attention/awareness.

"Am" signifies being. "I am", implies being identity. To find the True identity, you ask what is "I". However, nothing needs to be stated, proven or thought in order for "I" to exist. Only when it is hypothetically out of context.

I completely agree. My only point was that in saying "I" you prove that you exist. That is all I am really saying. I just realized that you were about to start arguing me about something I do not hold, lol.

The mind is intangible in the sense that it involves certain subjective experience (E.g. thoughts/stories/judgments), and tangible in your context. Whether a mindful function or disorder can be located inside the brain or not, is not my point.

I disagree. There are far too many studies to show how the mind is directly facilitated by the brain and only the brain. Your mind can be facilitated to think many things based on how the brain operates. There can be no proof of such of anything further than this and anything further is an assumption with no proof or reason other than "there must be" or "I think so".

Again, I do not have to state the cogito "I think, therefore I am" in order to be aware. I do not have to think to know I exist, or that I am aware either. It is beyond thoughts, a priori to them, as you have agreed. Neither action can be taken in priority, I cannot think that I am aware before the fact, and I cannot speak until I am aware. When I do think however, do I become identified with being (I am the body).

Oh ok. I see the point you are making, I think. You are saying that simply being aware is all you need to be to prove your existence..? Right..? If that is the case, I, of course, agree.

The cogito as thinking is falsifiable, however it is unfalsifiable in the context of awareness on its own ("I"), which is what I have been stressing.

Keep in mind that the statement must be subjective and must contain a relative I. Your cogito is independent of mine. Does this help alleviate the problem?

Put it this way: What is aware of the memories and witnesses the experience? What is the real identity, if it is not truly the contents of the mind?

The contents of the mind being the brain. Facilitations of senses and reflections are all correlated to neural activity. Reductionism and materialism. I would love to say that there is more to our mind than that, but the fact/truth is that there is no proof nor reason to think otherwise other than a desperate reaching to the intangible and unfalsifiable.

That doesn't answer my question. You said it was 100% fact, yet it can be falsified. I think I see how, but do you?

I only said the cogito is 100% fact - that is all. Any scientific facts can, at best, be 98% (p=.05) fact.

"All that it is - energy" is quite broad. How does this relate to what I said?

You were saying that the spirit is beyond physicality. I was adding that there is proof of energy without mass (without physicality). However, that is all that it is - energy. There is no characteristics or evidence of anything further. You add the assumptions that there is and yet say it is my opinion of such..?

Do you think your emotions can change what is your true identity? Likewise, does my leg being amputated mean that my identity is lesser? These answers are "yes", thinking that one is the body and the mind.

Yup.

Hello, are you there? What do you think faith indicates, and at that, somebody who encourages it? God comes into this, also because this topic is called "Doubting my Faith", which is inside "Religion/Spirituality!" It is relevant to spiritual seeking.

I think this part is a residual of our digression.

I do not have to think to know that I exist, that would be contradictory. Thinking comes after the fact, as it falls within that context, and has no power over it in reverse.

So, all a thing has to do to exist is to be aware of its existence? I'm not arguing anything here, I just think we fundamentally agree.

If one is interested in spiritual work, he is interested in the True Identity and Spirit of existence - and that is essentially its Context through which it is entirely possible. To understand existence, I do not start thinking and reasoning my way around things - that is arrogant and ignorant. I expand my awareness to the context; "I" is the context of life, not the content of life.

I am getting the notion that the way you use "spirit" is the same way I use "humane". I treat people "humanely" in the same way you treat people "spiritually". However, I will only focus on the apparent and what I can know and facilitate.

For example, I have dealt with post-traumatic stress disorder victims. Far too many times have they been under the impression that God is torturing them or that their spirit is tainted. By alleviating these worries through, essentially arguing spirituality, they have come to be able to live regular lives.

How would you tackle this issue? Asserting that they ought to purify their soul of their ills? Realize that, in my attempts, the idea of spirituality is part of the purification as it can easily come up again with the idea of "karma".

Which happens often.

How can I be separated from my universal Source, can you answer that please. "I am" (is) within the Universe and being. I am part of the Whole. "I" however, is beyond the Universe.

If you are aware of what I refer to the static realm as, then we might agree here. I simply will not make any assumptions about it other than it is obviously radically different than our world.

Funnily enough, spiritual work is very pragmatic and utilizable. It is, otherwise you would be trying to understand the True Self with the intellect - which will get you nowhere (pardon the pun). The intellect comes after the fact, so it is not necessary to intellectualize everything and rule ones entire certainty of life - which is obviously and subjectively far beyond it.

Carl Jung said the opposite and he was one of the greatest psychological spiritualists ever (he did coin the term synchronism). His assertion was that you must first realize your intellectual self in order for your spiritual self to come to rise to awareness.

The rationale was that you must be intellectual in order to understand your fellow man and your self and the flaws in "rationalizing" everything.

Is this pertinent to your objection?

It is rather, to believe in something that is already true. It is unchangeable. What you are asking is, "How can I become familiar with awareness if I can only understand it by believing in it?" Fortunately, it is undeniable, and is self-evident and self-proving. Without any spiritual recognition of such, the term "ignorance" is often used here, because awareness does not stop if you do not consider or notice what it is.

I am starting to understand your stance more, I just do not see why you call it a "spirit" and not simply "energy" and all other ethical doctrines associated as "humane" rather than "spiritual".

For this to be true (I am the body), you'd generally have make the following assumptions (verbally or not):

- When this body dies, I die.

Yup. Without the brain, there is no more of your consciousness or awareness. Your energy might persist, but what it does and how it interacts is obviously beyond how our consciousness is facilitated.

- There is no reincarnation; there is no karma.

Yup.

- There is no life in this body, or "spirit" of itself.

No, I would simply say that it is energy; kinetic energy. I would no attribute it with anything further though.

Realize that I am mostly doing this because I refuse to make any assumptions. With more research and understanding (or reasoning), then I will.

- There is no relationship to this body and where it came from. And/Or, I am
the body, I may also be an accident of the universe.

There are no accidents and we are directly related to where we came from. I full heartedly support evolution. If you do not see how this is relevant to evolution, then you are ignorant to its plateau.

- I am.

yes..

- I am separate from everything else; the universe is "out there". I am here, you are there.

Yes.

- I am this body, because I control it; do what it does and think its thoughts. I am the causal agent, I am the self.

I would say it is an interaction - not just one sole variable.

- I am different, I am better/worse than others.

Come on now, this is not the case. As Shakespeare said, "There is no good nor bad, but thinking makes them so".

- I am not familiar with this, it has no use to me.

lol obviously not... do I need to elaborate?

- I am also these thoughts. If I think she liked me, she did.

Wrong. I have asserted too many times that the consciousness is subject to many flaws. Don't be coy now, you're better than that.

- Therefore, all the things I do not feel, are out there. If I am unhappy, I need to find happiness out there, because I am the body, and so I am separate from happiness.

Also untrue. Positive psychology easily asserts that the power of the mind is great and can easily make itself feel happy upon will alone. All I need to do to prove this is mention the placebo effect.

- The universe put me here, being this body. I know why.

No, we don't know why. I never said that.

- My awareness is the space inside this skull.

Yup.

- The spirit does not exist because it makes no sense to this mind. I only believe what I can logically and intellectually comprehend, otherwise it is nonsense.

Wrong. Once the spirit has sufficient reason or proof, then I will know of it. Realize that I refuse to believe in anything unless it has an abundance of proof and reasoning. Otherwise, I might as well go back to the Captain Howdy kid.

- Spiritual teachers and spirituality is wrong, because I said so.

Shut up.

- Spiritual teachers speak garbage - Jesus, Buddha, Krishna - all silly people. Why should I believe them? I am more believable; they can't possible know who I am!

Quit being childish. You and I both know I am not saying that.

- I can own things. That is mine, that is not mine.

Only by association and territorial "rights". Nothing more than that, it is obviously a fundamental variable of societal propriety.

- Only physicality is real. The intangible could be a magic fairy or imaginary friend, therefore I ignore it.

I have already asserted many times that there is energy without mass and that there is a static realm. Please read what I am saying before saying such ignorant things.

- The locus of consciousness follows the body, therefore I am the body. The senses are mine, I can use them to see myself.

I think that is actually a slogan for most of cognitive science.

- There is only an objective universe, because only that can be measured, demonstrated and understood. All else is quackery.

Qualitative reality is far too powerful now in science. I myself am pursuing a qualitative paradigm. The qualitative paradigm is easily scientific and logical. Thus, what you said here is bunk.

Who is we? Are you only referring to the people who are unsure? You're referring to objective knowledge, right?

Of course. You can easily subjectively assert anything you damn well please. Hell, if you want, you can consider yourself God. Roman Emperor's did it, what's stopping you? You can subjectively be whatever you like. Too bad that, objectively, you are not even half of what you will subjectively assert.

I must note that I am not absolutely objective. I just stated above that subjectivity is very important and have made an entire other thread to demonstrate my stance that interaction is the most important factor in knowledge. Do you not agree? Or are you saying that subjectivity and introspection is the the only path to "truth"? Does not my understanding of "truth" prove this incorrect?

Realize: that is your opinion.

Are you not making assumptions of what is facilitating our world without any objective proof? You can subjectively spew forth as much as you want, but if it is not objectively true, then it is not different than your imagination.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Once you say the cogito, you proved it true.



The attention you are giving to reading this sentence right now. This is consciousness attention/awareness.

Right ok, that's pretty simple. Yes.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I completely agree. My only point was that in saying "I" you prove that you exist. That is all I am really saying. I just realized that you were about to start arguing me about something I do not hold, lol.

No, I wasn't, we're both on the same wavelength here. The only exception is the need for proof at all.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I disagree. There are far too many studies to show how the mind is directly facilitated by the brain and only the brain. Your mind can be facilitated to think many things based on how the brain operates. There can be no proof of such of anything further than this and anything further is an assumption with no proof or reason other than "there must be" or "I think so".

I'm not saying they're different, but that there are both tangible and intangible parts, which is quite obvious - subjective and objective.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh ok. I see the point you are making, I think. You are saying that simply being aware is all you need to be to prove your existence..? Right..? If that is the case, I, of course, agree.

Yes, included that while you "think", there is a strong, inherent tendency to identify with the thinking and assume that one is the body. Again, "I [am the body]." - attached.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Keep in mind that the statement must be subjective and must contain a relative I. Your cogito is independent of mine. Does this help alleviate the problem?

What problem? I'm talking about one identity. However, all identities are interconnected throughout the universe.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The contents of the mind being the brain. Facilitations of senses and reflections are all correlated to neural activity. Reductionism and materialism. I would love to say that there is more to our mind than that, but the fact/truth is that there is no proof nor reason to think otherwise other than a desperate reaching to the intangible and unfalsifiable.

Exactly, there is no proof or objective reason to believe in the spirit of "I" because it is self-evident as the perfect certainty of Reality. That is why there are numerous spiritual truths and foundations of this, unchanging throughout the many generations. The two primary Truths are eternal life, and unifying bliss.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I only said the cogito is 100% fact - that is all. Any scientific facts can, at best, be 98% (p=.05) fact.

Ok, but that still doesn't answer my question. Sorry.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You were saying that the spirit is beyond physicality. I was adding that there is proof of energy without mass (without physicality). However, that is all that it is - energy. There is no characteristics or evidence of anything further. You add the assumptions that there is and yet say it is my opinion of such..?

Yes, it is your opinion that these are assumptions, because you're clearly unfamiliar with them. Saying there is no evidence frankly doesn't mean anything. There is no evidence, aside from the absolute evidence - to which we are blind to. Paradoxically, we are agreeing that it is there, and that it is 100% fact, which is quite humorous.

This is the absolute context of life, and it has nothing to do with finding a reason to believe in it or making logical experiments, because, they are related to the content of life. The spirit of life, or the essence of life, is a generality and it is not specific - which is why you will not find it until you inquire "the big picture;" the certainty that you exist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, all a thing has to do to exist is to be aware of its existence? I'm not arguing anything here, I just think we fundamentally agree.

Yes, and this begs for nothing as it needs nothing. There is nothing to prove and no reason to explain what is already entirely obvious (except spiritual teachers, who generally teach about "waking up" to it).

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am getting the notion that the way you use "spirit" is the same way I use "humane". I treat people "humanely" in the same way you treat people "spiritually". However, I will only focus on the apparent and what I can know and facilitate.

For example, I have dealt with post-traumatic stress disorder victims. Far too many times have they been under the impression that God is torturing them or that their spirit is tainted. By alleviating these worries through, essentially arguing spirituality, they have come to be able to live regular lives.

Interesting...

Originally Posted by O'nus

How would you tackle this issue? Asserting that they ought to purify their soul of their ills? Realize that, in my attempts, the idea of spirituality is part of the purification as it can easily come up again with the idea of "karma".

All suffering is from ignorance; believing what the mind believes. Blaming God or fearing Him in any case is but facilitated by illusion, and being succumbed by the minds temptations and addictions/pay-offs of every conceivable kind of suffering.

As for what I'd do to help, I'd vaguely be loving towards them and care for them. Treat them well, treat them as myself. I'd help them understand why they are confused, and that they have the power to be happy and well. Though, this is hypothetical and general until I understand a case fully in its context.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you are aware of what I refer to the static realm as, then we might agree here. I simply will not make any assumptions about it other than it is obviously radically different than our world.

The static realm?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Carl Jung said the opposite and he was one of the greatest psychological spiritualists ever (he did coin the term synchronism). His assertion was that you must first realize your intellectual self in order for your spiritual self to come to rise to awareness.

The rationale was that you must be intellectual in order to understand your fellow man and your self and the flaws in "rationalizing" everything.

Is this pertinent to your objection?

Yes, it agrees with what I am saying; I don't see how that is the opposite. It is one thing to be aware of the mind and its limitations, it's another to become enslaved by it in its every demand and flaw.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am starting to understand your stance more, I just do not see why you call it a "spirit" and not simply "energy" and all other ethical doctrines associated as "humane" rather than "spiritual".

Spirit is the essential life and existence, it is united with All as One. Being humane is but one quality of integrous, spiritual awareness of life.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yup. Without the brain, there is no more of your consciousness or awareness. Your energy might persist, but what it does and how it interacts is obviously beyond how our consciousness is facilitated.



Yup.



No, I would simply say that it is energy; kinetic energy. I would no attribute it with anything further though.

Realize that I am mostly doing this because I refuse to make any assumptions. With more research and understanding (or reasoning), then I will.



There are no accidents and we are directly related to where we came from. I full heartedly support evolution. If you do not see how this is relevant to evolution, then you are ignorant to its plateau.



yes..



Yes.



I would say it is an interaction - not just one sole variable.



Come on now, this is not the case. As Shakespeare said, "There is no good nor bad, but thinking makes them so".



lol obviously not... do I need to elaborate?



Wrong. I have asserted too many times that the consciousness is subject to many flaws. Don't be coy now, you're better than that.



Also untrue. Positive psychology easily asserts that the power of the mind is great and can easily make itself feel happy upon will alone. All I need to do to prove this is mention the placebo effect.



No, we don't know why. I never said that.



Yup.



Wrong. Once the spirit has sufficient reason or proof, then I will know of it. Realize that I refuse to believe in anything unless it has an abundance of proof and reasoning. Otherwise, I might as well go back to the Captain Howdy kid.



Shut up.



Quit being childish. You and I both know I am not saying that.



Only by association and territorial "rights". Nothing more than that, it is obviously a fundamental variable of societal propriety.



I have already asserted many times that there is energy without mass and that there is a static realm. Please read what I am saying before saying such ignorant things.



I think that is actually a slogan for most of cognitive science.



Qualitative reality is far too powerful now in science. I myself am pursuing a qualitative paradigm. The qualitative paradigm is easily scientific and logical. Thus, what you said here is bunk.

Sorry, I meant "you'd have to assume", as in, "the people who believe this." Not you, specifically. That is why there are many things in there that I would not think are applicable to you, respectively. I hope you get my point, anyhow. This is generally what humans believe; it is our nature.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course. You can easily subjectively assert anything you damn well please. Hell, if you want, you can consider yourself God. Roman Emperor's did it, what's stopping you? You can subjectively be whatever you like. Too bad that, objectively, you are not even half of what you will subjectively assert.

Lol! I have no idea where this came from....

Originally Posted by O'nus

I must note that I am not absolutely objective. I just stated above that subjectivity is very important and have made an entire other thread to demonstrate my stance that interaction is the most important factor in knowledge. Do you not agree? Or are you saying that subjectivity and introspection is the the only path to "truth"? Does not my understanding of "truth" prove this incorrect?

The point is, truth is subjective. Yet, at some stage it is both subjective and objective (non-dual). Truth is, relatively for you, exactly how it is now. Universal Truth is, differently, spiritually the same for every being in existence.

To seek the ultimate truth of "I", introspection, meditation and contemplation are very helpful.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you not making assumptions of what is facilitating our world without any objective proof?

No, because "what is facilitating our world" (spirit) is not actually an objective matter to begin with. This, in the typical sense that it is out there to be measured. It is within, within us all. Nowhere is it not.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You can subjectively spew forth as much as you want, but if it is not objectively true, then it is not different than your imagination.

Lol... I think you like using that phrase a lot, "spew forth". It's quite funny.




Anyway, I'm not going into the imagination argument again. Simply, I have no capacity to imagine, hence the humble core of spiritual work.

It's pretty funny, people read a few things here and there and they think they are experts in what they are talking about. No such thing as experimenting it yourself, use google and you are as smart as a guy with a PHD!

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

It's pretty funny, people read a few things here and there and they think they are experts in what they are talking about. No such thing as experimenting it yourself, use google and you are as smart as a guy with a PHD!

Who are you talking about? I want you to realize that I go through a lot of trouble to try and get resources that I can share online. Most of my reading and knowledge comes from actual books, articles, and database journals which I cannot share with you or you need a subscription to read. Also, if it helps at all, I am on my way in a MD-PhD program in psychology. Does this not give my words some credibility?

Sometimes it seems that, no matter who you are or what you do, nothing said is never as powerful as subjective truth. Even when it is profoundly demonstrated how unreliable it is.

Originally Posted by really

No, I wasn't, we're both on the same wavelength here. The only exception is the need for proof at all.

I wasn't saying you need proof. I think you know that it is pretty intuitive. Even for a mouse.

I'm not saying they're different, but that there are both tangible and intangible parts, which is quite obvious - subjective and objective.

I am realizing that the problem is you take subjective knowledge and apply it to the objective world. This cannot work. You try and understand the universe via subjective means.

What problem? I'm talking about one identity. However, all identities are interconnected throughout the universe.

Realize that identities are reliant upon memories and consciousness. Without other individuals, do you have as full an identity? Do you have an identity at all if you have nothing else to interact with? All forms of identities that you might attribute the "truth" with are merely subjective means and cannot objectively define it. This is the issue at hand.

Exactly, there is no proof or objective reason to believe in the spirit of "I" because it is self-evident as the perfect certainty of Reality. That is why there are numerous spiritual truths and foundations of this, unchanging throughout the many generations. The two primary Truths are eternal life, and unifying bliss.

You just used truth objectively by saying that spirituality has truths. Why do you do this? Stop it. You use the word differently than it is intended. Why do you give no room at all for objective truths? Why do you blind yourself entirely with subjectivity?

You don't know everything.

Ok, but that still doesn't answer my question. Sorry.

Yes it did. You simply read me wrong. I only said that the cogito is 100% true and still falsifiable. Any scientific fact is not 100% true. It can only be 98%.

Yes, it is your opinion that these are assumptions, because you're clearly unfamiliar with them. Saying there is no evidence frankly doesn't mean anything. There is no evidence, aside from the absolute evidence - to which we are blind to. Paradoxically, we are agreeing that it is there, and that it is 100% fact, which is quite humorous.

Right, they are my opinion and I am unfamiliar with them because they are your opinion that you are trying to apply to objective reality. Subjectivity cannot comprehend objective reality unless it takes other subjective experiences into play. For example, meditate all you want over what that smell is, but you will never be able to clearly identify what the smell is until you ask me, "Hey, what incense are you burning?" and I say "satya". You may subjectively sit there and concentrate with all your subjective might, but you will, at best, come up with an arbitrary term for what you can call it and never be able to come to understand where it come from and what its properties are (ie. objectivity).

This is the absolute context of life, and it has nothing to do with finding a reason to believe in it or making logical experiments, because, they are related to the content of life. The spirit of life, or the essence of life, is a generality and it is not specific - which is why you will not find it until you inquire "the big picture;" the certainty that you exist.

Your "big picture" is different than all others. Stop generalizing your opinion.

Yes, and this begs for nothing as it needs nothing. There is nothing to prove and no reason to explain what is already entirely obvious (except spiritual teachers, who generally teach about "waking up" to it).

Realize that all "teachers" teach "waking up". It is arrogant. Everyone of every belief assumes that, with the right discussion and argument, you can make someone "open their eyes to the truth" bullshit. It is all the same analytical games and yet everyone is convinced they know "the truth".

But, of course, I would not understand it unless I really believe it, right?

All suffering is from ignorance; believing what the mind believes.

So I can strap you down and cut off your limbs and you think you can meditate the pain away? I can tell you that the mind is powerful, but the body is also very powerful. They interact beautifully.

The static realm?

Ignore that...

Spirit is the essential life and existence, it is united with All as One. Being humane is but one quality of integrous, spiritual awareness of life.

Why do you call it spirit and not energy and chaos theory? Energy and chaos theory do this and without any "special" attitude about themselves.

The point is, truth is subjective. Yet, at some stage it is both subjective and objective (non-dual). Truth is, relatively for you, exactly how it is now. Universal Truth is, differently, spiritually the same for every being in existence.

Truth may be, objectivity can be recorded. There are planets, no matter how subjectively you believe otherwise. Oh yeah, there's also a sky.

No, because "what is facilitating our world" (spirit) is not actually an objective matter to begin with. This, in the typical sense that it is out there to be measured. It is within, within us all. Nowhere is it not.

Again, your applying subjective thinking to objectivity. This is not compatible as subjectivity cannot do this - it is an illogical impossibility. Your subjective truth cannot be applied to everything.

Anyway, I'm not going into the imagination argument again. Simply, I have no capacity to imagine, hence the humble core of spiritual work.

The capacity to imagine is exactly what spirituality is - because there is absolutely no objective proof to it.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I wasn't saying you need proof. I think you know that it is pretty intuitive. Even for a mouse.

Right, good.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am realizing that the problem is you take subjective knowledge and apply it to the objective world. This cannot work. You try and understand the universe via subjective means.

I was pointing out that there is the intangible, subjective mind that we cannot grasp with science. We can only generalize it with the objective part it may relate to in the brain; its sections/functions etc. Likewise, analyzing the objective universe is much different to contemplating ones awareness of it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Realize that identities are reliant upon memories and consciousness. Without other individuals, do you have as full an identity? Do you have an identity at all if you have nothing else to interact with? All forms of identities that you might attribute the "truth" with are merely subjective means and cannot objectively define it. This is the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that one does not know his true identity, as he identifies with thoughts and memories. The real identity is not dependent on these externals.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You just used truth objectively by saying that spirituality has truths. Why do you do this? Stop it. You use the word differently than it is intended. Why do you give no room at all for objective truths? Why do you blind yourself entirely with subjectivity?

You don't know everything.

You see, in non-duality, there is both and neither subject nor object, as both are one. Do you understand what this means?

"I", is not a blind assumption of subjectivity, in fact its the irreducible means by which Reality exists at all. It is neither a projection, nor an imagination. It is the Truth. You cannot deny it or remove it. Argue it, ignore it; it exists.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes it did. You simply read me wrong. I only said that the cogito is 100% true and still falsifiable. Any scientific fact is not 100% true. It can only be 98%.

I think it is unfalsifiable. How can you falsify awareness? Without awareness, there is nothing to falsify and nobody to "do" it!

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, they are my opinion and I am unfamiliar with them because they are your opinion that you are trying to apply to objective reality.

Still it is your opinion, lol. You're just going by appearances, an opinion, a perception.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Subjectivity cannot comprehend objective reality unless it takes other subjective experiences into play.

Comprehending Reality has nothing to do with concepts or guessing the name of a smell correctly. It is beyond the mind; the mind cannot Truly do it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

For example, meditate all you want over what that smell is, but you will never be able to clearly identify what the smell is until you ask me, "Hey, what incense are you burning?" and I say "satya". You may subjectively sit there and concentrate with all your subjective might, but you will, at best, come up with an arbitrary term for what you can call it and never be able to come to understand where it come from and what its properties are (ie. objectivity).

Sorry, but that's a bad example. Meditating on ones own identity is different than intuiting what a smell is called. Nevertheless, it is given an arbitrary name, as "Satya" or "Incense 5000".

Spiritual reality is not about this, nothing to do with objective definitions, nouns, adverbs, measurements, scales, etc. There is no special terms or codes. It is nothing linear, it is not of the mind. The mind is transcended, into the nonlinear, hence why the Truth cannot be spoken.

Meditating on "a smell" is out of context to begin with, thus. Are you trying to compare the ultimate truth with guessing what a smell is called?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your "big picture" is different than all others. Stop generalizing your opinion.

The "big picture" is the grand context of Reality, it is "I". "I" is essentially the same for everybody, universal and non-dualistic.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Realize that all "teachers" teach "waking up". It is arrogant. Everyone of every belief assumes that, with the right discussion and argument, you can make someone "open their eyes to the truth" bullshit. It is all the same analytical games and yet everyone is convinced they know "the truth".

Real teachers are not arrogant, please do not generalize. It is the ego that is arrogant; it is the ego that may project its arrogance. Generally, real teachers are beyond their egos.

Originally Posted by O'nus

But, of course, I would not understand it unless I really believe it, right?

You will not understand it if you haven't done any research; are skeptical, or follow no path and don't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So I can strap you down and cut off your limbs and you think you can meditate the pain away? I can tell you that the mind is powerful, but the body is also very powerful. They interact beautifully.

The majority of human suffering is self-created by the mind and its defects. A lot of clinical studies report that many illnesses and allergies are self-created, too. They can be transcended with the mind, and thus, healing takes place.

Having limbs cut off is obviously an extreme example, which is uncommon in the lives of spiritual seekers. Pain may be felt, but the mind can find ways to ignore it or cease resisting it, so healing can become more rapid.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ignore that...

Please, if you mention something, I hope you can explain it or illustrate why it is relevant at least.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why do you call it spirit and not energy and chaos theory? Energy and chaos theory do this and without any "special" attitude about themselves.

Different context. Different words; meanings. It, as it Is, is nameless anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Truth may be, objectivity can be recorded. There are planets, no matter how subjectively you believe otherwise. Oh yeah, there's also a sky.

Thanks for listening...

You cannot record spiritual awareness or the non-dualistic, non-linear Truth. It is prior to recording, and it is not out there to be recorded. Furthermore, there is nothing to record. It is not objective, it is not exclusively subjective either. It is a subjective revelation on where the objective and the subjective are one and the same.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Again, your applying subjective thinking to objectivity. This is not compatible as subjectivity cannot do this - it is an illogical impossibility. Your subjective truth cannot be applied to everything.

Not only cannot it be applied, but there is nothing to apply. It is already entirely existent, everywhere. It is Reality itself, and beyond. This is an illogical possibility; actually it is an illogical existence.

My subjective truth, is beyond subjectivity, It is also yours within. We are indifferent.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The capacity to imagine is exactly what spirituality is - because there is absolutely no objective proof to it.

~

The incapacity to imagine spiritual Truth exists, because it is beyond all proof, all mind and its imagination, reason and objective specifics. Thus, it is everywhere present, it is "I". It is Reality itself.

Originally Posted by really

I was pointing out that there is the intangible, subjective mind that we cannot grasp with science. We can only generalize it with the objective part it may relate to in the brain; its sections/functions etc. Likewise, analyzing the objective universe is much different to contemplating ones awareness of it.

We can grasp the subjective mind - this is what cognitive science is. A simple google of heuristics will show you that there is a science of how people reason.

You do not give the mind as much credit as it deserves. Realize that science is completely contingent of the mind and the mind is a tremendously powerful tool that you are trying so hard to limit by saying that there are things we can never grasp.

The issue at hand is that one does not know his true identity, as he identifies with thoughts and memories. The real identity is not dependent on these externals.

What is the "real identity" then?

You see, in non-duality, there is both and neither subject nor object, as both are one. Do you understand what this means?

Elaborate. I do not know what you mean by it.

"I", is not a blind assumption of subjectivity, in fact its the irreducible means by which Reality exists at all. It is neither a projection, nor an imagination. It is the Truth. You cannot deny it or remove it. Argue it, ignore it; it exists.

I agree with that.

I think it is unfalsifiable. How can you falsify awareness? Without awareness, there is nothing to falsify and nobody to "do" it!

That was my point. Do you not realize that being falsifiable adds to the validity of something...?

Comprehending Reality has nothing to do with concepts or guessing the name of a smell correctly. It is beyond the mind; the mind cannot Truly do it.

If the mind can not truly know it, understand it, nor imagine it, then how are you speaking of it in the first place?

Spiritual reality is not about this, nothing to do with objective definitions, nouns, adverbs, measurements, scales, etc. There is no special terms or codes. It is nothing linear, it is not of the mind. The mind is transcended, into the nonlinear, hence why the Truth cannot be spoken.

It is funny how you limit the minds ability but then attribute it with such transcendent ability. If the mind is transcendent and capable of nonlinearity, then how is it not able to grasp "the truth"?

Meditating on "a smell" is out of context to begin with, thus. Are you trying to compare the ultimate truth with guessing what a smell is called?

Not my point.

The "big picture" is the grand context of Reality, it is "I". "I" is essentially the same for everybody, universal and non-dualistic.

Are you taking a stance of fundamental subjectivity in saying that "I" is the one truth, the whole truth, and all encompassing?

Real teachers are not arrogant, please do not generalize. It is the ego that is arrogant; it is the ego that may project its arrogance.

Unfortunately, any teacher you refer to has an ego. Thus, any teacher can easily be arrogant. My point was that you ought not to say that your teachers are different because they are teaching people to "wake up" because this is what countless teachers, of many different things, claim to do.

You will not understand it if you haven't done any research; are skeptical, or follow no path.

Is this another way of saying that I will not understand it unless I already believe it?

Beat around the bush as much as you want, it is plainly obvious this is your foundation for your beliefs. Although, I am sure that is just my opinion, correct?

The majority of human suffering is self-created by the mind and its defects. A lot of clinical studies report that many illnesses and allergies are self-created, too. They can be transcended with the mind, and thus, healing takes place.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to stop the pain from being on fire or regrow a limb from meditation. I fully acknowledge the power of the mind. However, there are certainly more things at play than just this. The mind is significantly dependent on the body. In fact, it is of my opinion, due to no other reason otherwise, that the mind is the body (brain).

Having limbs cut off is obviously an extreme example, which is uncommon in the lives of spiritual seekers. Pain may be felt, but the mind can find ways to ignore it or cease resisting it, so healing can become more rapid.

If you can find a source in which the mind spontaneously regrew a limb, then I will take this into severe consideration. However, until then, realize that there are limitations to how much control the mind has over things. Without the brain, there is no mind. Without parts of the brain, there are significant cognitive deficits. Why are you ignoring this?

Please, if you mention something, I hope you can explain it or illustrate why it is relevant at least.

It was simple conjecture and I mentioned to you already that I made another thread dedicated to it and you chose to ignore that. Thus, I am encouraging you to continue to do so.

You cannot record spiritual awareness or the non-dualistic, non-linear Truth. It is prior to recording, and it is not out there to be recorded. Furthermore, there is nothing to record. It is not objective, it is not exclusively subjective either. It is a subjective revelation on where the objective and the subjective are one and the same.

Is this not just speaking of opinion or personal thoughts? Cognition?

Not only cannot it be applied, but there is nothing to apply. It is already entirely existent, everywhere. It is Reality itself, and beyond. This is an illogical possibility.

So.. you are saying that everything is composed of subjectivity? Or, are you saying that everything is made up your vague mesh of subjectivity and objectivity?

You have no firm grounds to offer anyone but yourself. If this belief system of yours is entirely subjective and revealed through personal revelation, then why are we talking?

My subjective truth, is beyond subjectivity, It is also yours within. We are indifferent.

Right.. keep continuing with the vague references. Obviously you cannot speak of what you are talking about.

The incapacity to imagine spiritual Truth exists, because it is beyond all proof, all mind and its imagination, reason and objective specifics. Thus, it is everywhere present, it is "I". It is Reality itself.

And because it is beyond all these things, you have absolutely no reason or incentive to believe in it nor anything associated with it besides personal conjecture.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

We can grasp the subjective mind - this is what cognitive science is. A simple google of heuristics will show you that there is a science of how people reason.

You do not give the mind as much credit as it deserves. Realize that science is completely contingent of the mind and the mind is a tremendously powerful tool that you are trying so hard to limit by saying that there are things we can never grasp.

Science can only go so far. I give credit to it, in the context of worldly matters. I give credit to the winner of the race, but only in the context of the race.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What is the "real identity" then?

Exactly. What is it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Elaborate. I do not know what you mean by it.

Look it up. Your turn now.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I agree with that.

Ok, great That is essential.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That was my point. Do you not realize that being falsifiable adds to the validity of something...?

Explain how it is unfalsifiable; before you argued the hypothetical (or perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "cogito").

Originally Posted by O'nus

If the mind can not truly know it, understand it, nor imagine it, then how are you speaking of it in the first place?

I am not enlightened. I speak of it conceptually, as everything else. To not be able to speak of it, as it is, is a different paradigm (E.g. nobody to speak to; nothing to talk about).

To speak about it as an enlightened teacher, however, there is no need to think/reason about it, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is funny how you limit the minds ability but then attribute it with such transcendent ability. If the mind is transcendent and capable of nonlinearity, then how is it not able to grasp "the truth"?

It's not capable, that's the point. The mind is linear.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you taking a stance of fundamental subjectivity in saying that "I" is the one truth, the whole truth, and all encompassing?

Yes, realize it, and you're Home. Unless, you think you're separate from the universe?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Unfortunately, any teacher you refer to has an ego. Thus, any teacher can easily be arrogant. My point was that you ought not to say that your teachers are different because they are teaching people to "wake up" because this is what countless teachers, of many different things, claim to do.

No, there is no ego in the context of enlightenment. That's the whole point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is this another way of saying that I will not understand it unless I already believe it?

Think about it, please. What are beliefs? What are they composed of?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Beat around the bush as much as you want, it is plainly obvious this is your foundation for your beliefs. Although, I am sure that is just my opinion, correct?

My beliefs are centrally focused on the certainty to which I do not understand. We've agreed, "I" is beyond belief and rationalization.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to stop the pain from being on fire or regrow a limb from meditation. I fully acknowledge the power of the mind. However, there are certainly more things at play than just this. The mind is significantly dependent on the body. In fact, it is of my opinion, due to no other reason otherwise, that the mind is the body (brain).

Yeah, and we experience the senses, not the body. One is not the body, one thinks he is the body according to the mind, but the mind is fallacious.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If you can find a source in which the mind spontaneously regrew a limb, then I will take this into severe consideration. However, until then, realize that there are limitations to how much control the mind has over things. Without the brain, there is no mind. Without parts of the brain, there are significant cognitive deficits. Why are you ignoring this?

Because this is irrelevant. Discovering "I" is not about re-growing limbs (I didn't say that) or reasoning with the mind. It is not about cognition; there is no linearity of existence.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It was simple conjecture and I mentioned to you already that I made another thread dedicated to it and you chose to ignore that. Thus, I am encouraging you to continue to do so.

Don't vaguely mention something from another thread unless you can patiently elaborate. If it is relevant to this thread, explain.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is this not just speaking of opinion or personal thoughts? Cognition?

No, speaking of Reality, its totality as "I". Prior to thoughts, Prior to awareness.

Originally Posted by O'nus

So.. you are saying that everything is composed of subjectivity? Or, are you saying that everything is made up your vague mesh of subjectivity and objectivity?

In the end, Reality is completely subjective. To understand the Source of this, it is not "out there" or measurable. Only you can search for it, while it is lost. Nobody can find it for you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You have no firm grounds to offer anyone but yourself. If this belief system of yours is entirely subjective and revealed through personal revelation, then why are we talking?

Even if you are incorrect, we are talking because we are in a discussion forum. Yes?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right.. keep continuing with the vague references. Obviously you cannot speak of what you are talking about.

How do you interpret it?

Originally Posted by O'nus

And because it is beyond all these things, you have absolutely no reason or incentive to believe in it nor anything associated with it besides personal conjecture.

~

Ok. I should not believe in Reality (in its totality), because...?

So why do you believe in existence, or for that matter, is there any reason to believe in the cogito of awareness? Does one have any power existence to disbelieve it?

I think we have actually agreed with each other anyway. Same thing, different words, lol.

Ok.. before I continue this tremendously long discussion, I must ask one pertinent question. It is a simple yes or no question:

Are subjective truths the only means to knowledge?

I don't think I am wording this right.. I would normally wait and re-edit, but I just want you to know that I stopped here to really contemplate how to best ask you what I am really intending...

If subjectivity is the only thing you can be certain of, should you try and objectively understand your environment?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ok.. before I continue this tremendously long discussion, I must ask one pertinent question. It is a simple yes or no question:

Are subjective truths the only means to knowledge?

When it all comes down to it, I'd say yes. To find the inner Truth that does never change, it is known Truly. It is known forever, when it is beyond that which may contradict it.

In the context of matters that are not about subjectivity, I'd say no. A different system of knowledge is used.

Originally Posted by O'nus

If subjectivity is the only thing you can be certain of, should you try and objectively understand your environment?

~

Not if one intends to inquire the subjectivity. Studying the world will get you nowhere in that case (excluding spiritual studies/teachers, which are not the within objective limits).

Originally Posted by really

When it all comes down to it, I'd say yes. To find the inner Truth that does never change, it is known Truly. It is known forever, when it is beyond that which may contradict it.

In the context of matters that are not about subjectivity, I'd say no. A different system of knowledge is used.

Not if one intends to inquire the subjectivity. Studying the world will get you nowhere in that case (excluding spiritual studies/teachers, which are not the within objective limits).

Okay. This easily reconciles a lot then. We agree on this major premise. With this said, I don't really understand how you and I differ.

..I'm having trouble finding it. My only inclination is your affinity for "spirit".

What do you think...?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Okay. This easily reconciles a lot then. We agree on this major premise. With this said, I don't really understand how you and I differ.

..I'm having trouble finding it. My only inclination is your affinity for "spirit".

What do you think...?

~

Well, for starters, are you seeking Enlightenment?

Originally Posted by really

Well, for starters, are you seeking Enlightenment?

Of course I am!

However, your definition of it is entirely different than mine! It will always be from person to person. I worry that your enlightenment, that you have lived through, is something you expect everyone to be "inclined" to.

My enlightenment is; further understanding of myself and the world.

Self-actualization is an easy task - but what do you do after reaching that? What do you do after accepting that there is no reason or purpose in life? You arbitrarily make your own. Mine is to objectively understand reality and it has been very rewarding and beneficial in all means possible.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course I am!

However, your definition of it is entirely different than mine!

Then you're not seeking Enlightenment, you're seeking another kind. You know what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It will always be from person to person.

If it is your own personal definition, then yes.

Originally Posted by O'nus

My enlightenment is; further understanding of myself and the world.

Self-actualization is an easy task - but what do you do after reaching that?

What is "Self-actualization?"

Originally Posted by O'nus

What do you do after accepting that there is no reason or purpose in life?

Depends by what means you're saying that, paradoxically. You could say that to seek God, or you could think it before committing suicide.

Originally Posted by really

What is "Self-actualization?"

Oh my, you have not come across this before? Perhaps I will make a separate thread to regard this.. This is a major concept that I think you and I are clashing on.

Depends by what means you're saying that, paradoxically. You could say that to seek God, or you could think it before committing suicide.

I meant on the premise of existentialism.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh my, you have not come across this before? Perhaps I will make a separate thread to regard this.. This is a major concept that I think you and I are clashing on.

Oh, no. Don't worry about it, I understand. I just don't think it was ever mentioned here before, that's all.

But clearly you have different intentions, as I had expected. Nevertheless, I hope you find ultimate happiness.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I meant on the premise of existentialism.

~

Yeah. Well, I guess I didn't need to answer that then, as you already have.

Originally Posted by really

But clearly you have different intentions, as I had expected. Nevertheless, I hope you find ultimate happiness.

You and I know it is not something you find.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You and I know it is not something you find.

~

Yes, I'm glad you understand that, it is quite important.

Likewise, happiness and love are not subject to the scientific paradigm of reasoning. I hope you see my implication.

Originally Posted by really

Yes, I'm glad you understand that, it is quite important.

What I mean by that though is likely different than you. I have no medium of being happy other than will alone. I find it all the more empowering to know that, even in a world devoid of spirit (arguably; this is beyond my point right here), you can control your emotions and thoughts. Because of that, even if there is nothing out there, we know we can willingly choose to be happy.

Likewise, happiness and love are not subject to the scientific paradigm of reasoning. I hope you see my implication.

Yes they are. But you will immediately see it as a punitive minimalising of the subject matter.

"Oh! There's a science of that? Of course.. what garbage science is"

Science does give room for a lot more than you give it credit for. Consider, the psychology of love:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love

Does this not take a lot into consideration?

Is this a bad thing? What do you think it is used for..? It is used for therapeutic purposes! To help people understand their relationships! As much as subjective meditation is useful, so is empirical and objective methods!

Take the eclectic approach. I hate to say this to you, but open your mind to all possibilities instead of just one! Have you considered that the subjective paradigm can also be blinding to the eclectic paradigm...??

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What I mean by that though is likely different than you. I have no medium of being happy other than will alone. I find it all the more empowering to know that, even in a world devoid of spirit (arguably; this is beyond my point right here), you can control your emotions and thoughts. Because of that, even if there is nothing out there, we know we can willingly choose to be happy.

Yes, there is nothing "out there". I'm glad you are looking within and accepting responsibility at least.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes they are. But you will immediately see it as a punitive minimalising of the subject matter.

"Oh! There's a science of that? Of course.. what garbage science is"

Science does give room for a lot more than you give it credit for. Consider, the psychology of love:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love

Does this not take a lot into consideration?

While it is interesting, it is yet another interpretation and use for the word. Thus, a different meaning. Meaning arises from Context. In the context of spirituality, it is useful to realize that Love is the essential way of being in the world and not an abstract description of the love that is between two people in a relationship. Unconditional Love, for example arises from forgiveness and compassion; including the devotion to become Loving for its own sake. There is much less up to reason, here.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is this a bad thing? What do you think it is used for..? It is used for therapeutic purposes! To help people understand their relationships! As much as subjective meditation is useful, so is empirical and objective methods!

Take the eclectic approach. I hate to say this to you, but open your mind to all possibilities instead of just one! Have you considered that the subjective paradigm can also be blinding to the eclectic paradigm...??

~

No, because it is irrelevant. If you understand why a paradigm is incompatible and blinding to another, it is often because it irrelevantly unrelated to begin with. I can see what you're saying, but you're mixing contexts around again.

Originally Posted by really

While it is interesting, it is yet another interpretation and use for the word. Thus, a different meaning. Meaning arises from Context. In the context of spirituality, it is useful to realize that Love is the essential way of being in the world and not an abstract description of the love that is between two people in a relationship. Unconditional Love, for example arises from forgiveness and compassion; including the devotion to become Loving for its own sake. There is much less up to reason, here.

Oh my.. how do you expect to talk about anything if you are just going to say that everything is a subjective matter and can never be discussed and cannot be labelled with language, blah blah blah..

When it gets down to it, people want advice and help and psychology offers through this in very effective means.

Furthermore, I hope you realize that the explanation you gave of unconditional love is parallel to the psychology explanation.

Give science more credit before you just play it off.

Take the eclectic approach. I hate to say this to you, but open your mind to all possibilities instead of just one! Have you considered that the subjective paradigm can also be blinding to the eclectic paradigm...??

No, because it is irrelevant. If you understand why a paradigm is incompatible and blinding to another, it is often because it irrelevantly unrelated to begin with. I can see what you're saying, but you're mixing contexts around again.

I MOST CERTAINLY AM!

You have just demonstrated you absolute ignorance to the eclectic paradigm.

When you realize that the best way to understand a diverse, profound, and dynamic is with an equally diverse, profound, and dynamic approach - then you, sir, will "wake up".

~