It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Others can experience it the same way, and we can agree upon it by utilizing the shared tools of inquiry available to all. If something is amiss, we can show through the shared tools of inquiry how it is.
As to how I wrote my OP, I thought about a subject for a while then I typed on a keyboard.
You too are implying you know the truth of the matter, however you are wrong.
If you are the product of your imagination, then your imagination is the product of your imagination, which is stupid to say the least. It’s a circular argument, arguments you seems to enjoy, and its not worth getting in to.
Reality is a word we use to denote everything or all things. It is a concept.
Copper conducts electricity. It is proven by the objective fact that copper conducts electricity. You can prove it to yourself through experiment and inquiry, but I doubt you would even bother.
Subjectivity doesn’t imply a self, speaking of turds.
This is a fallacy known as begging the question. You expect to find and have concluded “subjectivity” even before you’ve looked. We’ve looked and all that is there is body.
There is no place in reality where subjectivity meets objectivity.
originally posted by: ketsuko
I think the real question is:
Do you control your emotions or do they control you? I think too many people put emotion in the place of logic and sound reasoning. It's way too easy to do, and we are all susceptible to it. And in today's world it is encouraged. If a thing makes you feel good, it must be good. If a thing makes you feel bad, it must be bad. And of course, once you are programmed to think in those terms, anyone who can manipulate your emotional state can control you.
originally posted by: ancientthunder
Your thoughts and feeling are yours because there is a receiver of those thoughts and feelings, what is that receiver? Generally speaking the receiver has a name and location, a form by which he/she can be identified. We use the body as a form of identification, this body identifies a string of experiences with other bodies. Is that what we are fully/ wholly? I would say no, but it is what we appear to be. Each body appears to be alive and engaged in living everything that is perceived. There is nothing wrong with the mine approach as long as one know that is just a story, it when we fully believe that as a total truth. Then.... we are like a kind of pinnocchio, a foolish. Which we all are at moments of our life, then we are swallowed up by something much larger and the fool is seen and (maybe) at that point a deeper quality can be realized.
You know, I'm starting to think the constituency of ATS, or rather the rabble, doesn't deserve this sort of thread.
Yes, a consensus of subjectivity (experience) shapes our reality. You might consider this to be a consensus of illusion. Now that's a scary thought.
Obviously not everyone perceives things the same way. And really, I would not be wrong to say that the hot ball of fire in the sky we call the sun is not any of those things in the true objective sense. We don't know what the sun is beyond the human construct of it. This applies to everything.
How did your body do it is what I was asking. You can't explain it without invoking a subjective state. Or in your case, convenient "placeholders”.
When I said we are the product of our imagination, I meant the collective we - as in human culture.
You claim the self is an illusion. Illusion requires a self to perceive the illusion. So the illusion perceives the illusion. Circular arguments abound. This is fun.
Yes, a very human concept.
Where are these opinions or preferences inside of your body? What are they made of physically speaking?
You know, I'm starting to think the constituency of ATS, or rather the rabble, doesn't deserve this sort of thread. Many here seem to have some chronic impediment preventing them leaving their ideological comfort zone. Unable to contend with arguments like this, they invariably fall back on the self-same "muh feelings" and "muh sensibilites" described in the OP.
I think there is a difference between the feelings and emotions.I take feelings as physical sensations I notice primarily through my senses, while emotions a representative of how I choose to think about that.It hasn't been easy learning the distinction, I only became aware of this later on in my life.Important to note, it ties into the difference between pain and suffering. LesMis, I think your perspective on this may change down the road.
originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I almost feel as though this thread was directed at me ( And not necessarily by you ). You would have to have known the experience that I had yesterday in order to have consciously directed it at me. But let me relate yesterdays experience and then you will understand why I say this.
When I returned to the shop yesterday after my days work was done. I pulled up to the fuel pump in order to fuel my truck. When I pulled up....... there were no other trucks behind me. Anyway when I got out of the truck the fuel attendant came up and went over a few changes that had been implemented regarding record keeping and such so the whole fueling process ( wash windshield, check oil, etc) that day took a little longer then usual. Well long story short just as I was finishing up another driver behind me had gotten out of his truck and had walked toward the fuel island and yelled something at me about taking too long. I did not hear exactly what he said but whatever it was...was said in an offensive and disrespectful manner.
Well I finished checking the oil and shut the hood and pulled my truck around to it's parking spot. Now let me say that when he first yelled his remark it really didn't bother me too much...but as I was driving around to my parking spot it started bothering more and more until I started to become livid with anger and wanted to go tell the man what I thought before physically attacking him and teaching him a lesson. Twice I got out of my truck and headed toward where he was only to return and settle for just "feeling" angry about it.
Now I know that most of the people will say that I should have went and talked to the man and told him not to ever speak to me like that again. And that may be true...but I can assure you it would not have ended at that.... as I would have told him in a manner that would have surely evoked a rebellious response from him. Which would have evoked a physical response from me.
Now in the end I consoled myself with the thought that at least I "felt" appropriately. And that is where it ended. But I did wonder all the way home whether I had done the right thing or not. And i must say that the consensus of my thoughts were leaning toward "NOT". I feel like I should have went over there and tried my best to teach the man a lesson in the only kind of language that men like him understand " PHYSICAL VIOLENCE". It is probably exactly what him and I both needed...but instead I settled for bad "feelings". What do you think ? Should I have pummeled the man or not ?