Quote:
Originally Posted by
really
Seemingly at first, yes, but notice my emphasis: “...each of which completely ignore the importance of spiritual context.” What you’re saying is really more of a “first impression,” I mean it’s a shallow analysis if you ask me. You’re letting an apparent flaw take your position against it, while also seeming to miss my other points that complement this unfalsifiablitity, perhaps making it easier to understand.
A flaw is a flaw. I realize you are trying to excuse the flaw and play it off as an acting part of the theory, but it is utilizing a flawed premise which cannot be ignored.
Quote:
Do you see the connection with the unfalsifiablility of Being and Existence? I am alluding equally to that. Obviously, Reality itself is not a conclusion from reason – reason says it “ought to be”, but this is about purely “as it is” alone, and that is known pristine in subjectivity.
I am not sure what you are speaking of here. Clarify please.
Quote:
What I am doing is showing the limitations of reasoning. Have you realized that I’m using language to show the limitation of language, and concepts to show the limitations of concepts? This is mostly done indirectly, which is why it is hard to understand. So you ask: How can we speak of it to each other if it exists purely in subjectivity? Well, that is what "concepts" are for! Beside spiritual literature and teachings that I have briefly mentioned (which are unscientific), these are concepts that additionally serve to assert their own limitations.
You are still going on about this Wittgenstein 101 philosophy. Step it up. There is still functionality in language and reasoning in utility. It does not matter in the philosophy of representation if we have utility in reason and justification. Utility is key in communicating philosophies and relative perceptions; it is what we are doing at the moment. I think you may struggle to understand the strength of utility as much as you like to think people struggle with your philosophy.
It does not matter what the representations fail to encompass if we can still utilize their utility. That is all that matters.
Also, the limitations you are trying to address are actually functional variables to seek out the truth and filter out nonsense. Realize that, by grasping onto these "limitations" in a pejorative manner, you fail to see how they are actually significantly beneficial.
Quote:
Let’s analogously say that the ultimate (totality of) Reality is singularly a rectangular piece of paper. When I conceptualize this, by drawing symbols on the paper, I cannot prove that the rectangular paper exists, can I? However, what I do is demonstrate that the drawing is obviously purposeless and useless. More profoundly, I must assume that the paper exists in order to draw. Similarly, the “content” of conceptualization has no purpose in a Context of pure Self-Existence. It only has purpose in relationship to other concepts, of which are, in the case of meditation and contemplation, purported to become subdued and eventually vanish. When I talk about concepts being a limitation, of course, that is a concept. But the purpose and logic arises in relation to other concepts about reality which all pretend that the illogical cannot exist. By that I mean, Reality as it is, is illogical because, ultimately it transcends all reasoning and linear conceptualization.
An elaborate analogy for a premise that is flawed. Something outside of reason and logic can be described as anything. There's no point in directly addressing the example itself if you excuse the analogous character as being outside analogical reasoning.
Quote:
May I ask what you know of defining something as “Absolute”? Can you tell me about any Absolute Reality? I don’t mean to sound condescending if I do, but I honestly can’t see that you understand this. There is, without a doubt, an Absolute Reality. However, the nature of reason itself, as you might say, seems to take on a stance that it can only postulate that something is 98% correct, and it is only applicable to the temporal world of form. Is it not futile in this case, to seek ways of proof, therefore?
You must realize that I give room for absoluteness as always being an imperfect perception of absolute. This is represented by 98% confidence. How are you so confident to say that you could potentially know absoluteness? Are you really so incapable to see how giving this such room is actually a ways to prove things still?
It is completely idiotic to say that, because there is still 2% room for movement, that all over truths must be removed and ignored. This room is for development and evolving, not as an achilles heel. To see it this way is to absolutely fail to understand its perfect efficiency.
Quote:
Reading what I just explained above, this is exactly what I’m not stuck in. It seems that you've contradicted yourself; I’m not trying to "prove" something, but I'm utilizing the limitations of logic in its own description. Utility is what it’s about here, yet it ceases upon recognition of the Divine, as a psychological paradox. So really, it’s something that you may need to reconsider, if you’re going to say irrelevant things like “…but you are neglecting the fact that you are using logic to prove that it is not within logic.” Sorry but I don’t see how this point follows from your last.
You are trying to prove that something is outside of proof by using proof logic. It is not my fault if you cannot admit to this.
Quote:
Actually, I can’t replace it with anything whatsoever, because the nature of an Absolute Truth is all encompassing. In an infinite Reality, what is missing? Therefore, everything that is arbitrary must collapse. Only oneness remains, and that by definition excludes nothing.
Again, it is not my fault if you are trying to use proof logic to prove something is outside of proof and then say that only certain proofs can be outside of proof logic. Really now, categorical logic can be using anything. You really ought to take a logic class to see the true beauty of it. You demonstrate no appreciation of it whatsoever in favor of your own meandering spiritual affinity which seems more like a blocking bias for knowledge than anything. At least logic, at the most confidence, still gives room for being wrong (remember that 2%?).
Quote:
What about psychology – does that fall under a mentalized or scientific framework? Is it in the domain of science? You tell me. I said nothing of materialism. You might be referring to the base quote alone, but that is just one example of that category.
Psychology is scientific and deals with the mind. Come on now.
Quote:
Are you talking about human behavior, war, and contrasting opinions, political/propaganda, etc.? Please be more specific.
No point; your response clearly shows you entirely missed the point.
Quote:
The fact that science can only examine subjectivity makes it no more or less what it is. It is prior to an objective purpose. I’ve tried my best to illustrate that actually nothing can be done in the realm of science to “prove” Divinity. There is a profound difference in paradigms, and even the very “proof” obscures Divine existence. I think that is what you’re missing. I haven’t ignored that at all, in fact, it’s what this thread is fundamentally about. Science may be able to examine subjectivity, but in this context it has no meaning. Pure (Subjective) Reality does not need to be examined in order to exist: It exists forever with or without reasoning, as all reasoning is a limited superposition that cannot actually discover truth, by nature. For one thing, it draws temporary conclusions and facts that are subject to change, thus, by paradigm, it has no way to ever arrive at an ultimate truth. It merely concludes through what is but a reflection of the reasoning itself.
Wrong.
Why bother debating with someone who consistently ignores facts?
Quote:
It follows therefore, that science as a product of the mind, equally has no power to prove anything. It can only prove an arbitrary statement or make a hypothesis (etc), but it can never prove the prevailing Context out of which these notions arise. The flaw is to say that therefore there is no Divine Reality!
*Facepalm*
Honestly, I'm at a loss of words. You establish one premise and then run off on it. Of course, I could analytically debate them all, but they all root from one central premise. You cannot save that premise by reasoning a hurricane of other propositions under it.
Quote:
In this case, yes of course. In a logical context, this would seem invalid. But to spirituality however, this is wisdom itself. You can’t mix the two by saying, “therefore spirituality is invalid,” because that is a one-dimensional understanding. Wisdom is of a higher paradigm then scientific reasoning, and contrary to typical prejudgement, it would not allow for the assertions of “flying donkey angels and dodo bird elephant hybrids,” and simply never has.
Show me any other understanding that you could possibly ever have. I am just curious how you can unpretentiously demonstrate this.
Quote:
I don’t think we need to delve into chaos theory to simply identify the limitation of causality, which lies within reason itself. If you say you have “thought these things,” then what is your conclusion on asking “Why” in the seeking for an Absolute Truth; do you not see the limitation of linear reasoning?
You keep trying to use limitations as a denigration but completely fail in see how it is actually a strength. A strength which your reasoning fails to utilize which is why it is flawed.
Quote:
- The Absolute Truth, i.e. the Divine Truth is intrinsic to Reality, which is perfectly logical. Thus, it follows that it is also intrinsic to, yet not limited to, all things. It is intangible in the sense that all truth is subjective and experiential.
Tautological reasoning is tautological.
Quote:
- Therefore, we cannot know it through science and reasonable mechanisms. We can only know it through what we are, and this means it already exists. At first this sounds self-fulfilling, but it is confirmed by subjective revelation – which by nature holds priority beyond all conceptualization, above any fanciful thought. What has arrived throughout history were explanations and spiritual dialogue, but the revelation is what stood first.
Yes and no. It is still limited in that it begs for conceptualization of that which I address as having none. I am telling you, there is nothing to discover, prove, or look into. It is another paradigm of non-linearity and thus it is beyond space, time, concepts, and areas of study, things, languages and words. It seems to me that you argue against only small issues of my posts; while forgetting about many other concepts I have mentioned. Are you saying wisdom is equivalent to rationality, concerning higher consciousness?
Trust me, it’s laughable that most people don’t! Remember what I’m talking about: self-evident existence. Not a personal belief set or private dream-sequence. This is where Divinity is valid, within Subjective Context – the universal substrate of all experience. If I don’t have to think about it for it to be True, it already exists, and it is intrinsic to existence. This is not only a simple reason, but also a widely accepted historical fact. Back to the fish analogy – If the fish reason that they believe in the water, yet understand it exists with or without reasoning about it, it doesn’t make them naïve and gullible, but wise and aware. It is not a product of reasoning, therefore.
Above is a long rant rooted from a flawed premise. I am not going to bother debating the details extrapolated from a flawed premise. Sorry.
Quote:
Perhaps you should define what his argument is then. Because, according to that video you posted, what "venomfangx's" argues is that God is outside existence. I never said that, I said He is within all things and beyond. He is merely outside reason and logic, by paradigm, and thus, transcendental to ordinary human consciousness. This does not mean God is not immanent.
Yeah, when the first proposition failed (outside of nature) he said what you said (all things) but the response that argues it is still applicable.
You may not think that negates it. But, the truth is, you do not think anything can. You may use that as a reinforcement for the argument. That is, in my opinion, the most stupidest thing any human can, and does do, ever.
I am not going to debate it, just letting you know that I think it is the stupidest mistake humans are capable of; glorifying the unfalsifiable. I have already tried explaining to you why and you completely dig those fingers into the ears. In fact, you accuse me of doing so.
Quote:
What Plato/Socrates thought of the Gods really has little to do with what I am talking about it. The Gods had bodies and interacted with humans, were obviously plural, etc. On the other hand, I know Socrates believed in God, particularly in the relationship of his mission in philosophy and morality, and especially to draw attention to the importance of one’s soul. Nevertheless, I think you need to be more specific with what you’re asking and how it pertains to this thread.
...then why did you bring it up?
Furthermore, I am wondering how you knew anything of Socrates when he never wrote anything?
Quote:
This isn’t about being right or wrong, the thread simply concerns the limitation of reasoning when it comes to the Truth as it is. There’s no way that can change, by virtue of what reasoning is.
As for the book, thanks for mentioning it, I just downloaded it. Sartre says some things that are similar to my arguments, and other things that are quite different. Do you have anything to add?
I never try to be right or wrong but encourage learning and development.
What is the best method to learning?
How is that applicable to your reasoning?
~
