Self reference? ever heard of it? Please read

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
So as I start to type this i feel that this is going to be the beginning of a small lecture. Please bare with me as what I want to convey formulates.

Self reference, I am sure many of you are familiar with what this means, but why would I be talking about it, and why would it be relevant to todays life? I will start to address these issues in the words that are to follow.

Self reference in basic terms is like picking a side. A team. It is the point of reference, from your self. We can view this in terms of the NWO versus the people. We are on one side, they are on the other. Hence to someone who is within a mindset or side that wants to further that specific set of goals, spreading aids in africa could be thought of as a positive thing, as it furthers their goals. However evidently to those who are even not fortunate enough to even be aware of the naunces of control throught the world, having aids, is negative.

I want to step back out a little bit further from the picture however, as ofcourse, the point of life, is to live through a game which is real. or at least perceived as real. There is nothing except what the consciousness can experience, to step back even further would be to realise that we are all a part of the same living breathing one. Although experientially it is hard to relate this world to alien technology, and the stuff of dreams. But that is it, it is through the dreams through which you can see, perhaps the innate intergration of all. So back to this whole self reference stuff.

Well the point of this thread is to try to actually have a real reality check. When you fight, you fight because you pick a side, a set of ideas. If you dont fight, there is no fight. The true problem with all of the posters here and even the moderators and even teh site owner and even me. Is that all of us are focusing our energies on the external. without even realising that a lot of self work must be done to step up in the game so to speak. What i woudl like everyone to realise is that to those who oppress you and you then perpetuate hate against, you are enabling a negative cycle.

Let that sink in, there are people and parts of the one consciousness who have seen that the very nature of the game has become deceptive manipulative, perhaps? Well I feel i am losing my self here. perhaps i can add to this thread later.

The topic for discussion is self reference, what it means, and I would like an argument to be placed for the loss of reference. which is the loss of the self or the ego more precisely.

please discuss.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
just a quick thought.

if you hate playing the game dont play it.

many people are hating whilst playing. whats the point? play with love, and in my humble opinion the most powerful healer is laughter.

love the game. that means yourself. that means the nwo the aliens who attack you malevolently in the depths of the night, all of it.

oh dear. I think what i can say i have learnt from this is the difficulties of language. Perhaps all of you know what i am talking about, and that instead of further posts, I could ask all of you to just spend time with yourselves, and just feel.

pass the language barrier. open your energetic channels and transcend fear.

i hope some of this resonates



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Yes.. one world, one love, one voice.

Too bad the nature of man goes against it all.

We are a species that is not happy unless we are looking for the dark angle, or the plot that lurks beneath.

Utopia exists in books and fantasies.

It would be nice to see, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Oops, there I go being negative again....



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This is a great topic and I would encourage you to request a mod move it to the "Philosophy" discussion board.

I like the thoughts of Thomas Szasz in regard to this subject:


The struggle for definition is veritably the struggle for life itself. In the typical Western two men fight desperately for the possession of a gun that has been thrown to the ground: whoever reaches the weapon first shoots and lives; his adversary is shot and dies. In ordinary life, the struggle is not for guns but for words; whoever first defines the situation is the victor; his adversary, the victim. For example, in the family, husband and wife, mother and child do not get along; who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?...[the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed.


By the meaning we give to words, we define a context of their interpretation, and establish malleable boundaries of 'inclusion' and 'exclusion' for that context. This creation of categorical dichotomy is the foundation of Aristotelian determinability, and in a very real way, forms and shapes the world itself.

To define yourself, is to define your environment, and the distinction of yourself from others. When we 'convince' others, we anchor, both establishing and utilizing an implicitly consensual context.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I'm confused by your use of the word "reference" as it means to refer to something. In this case your saying self reference, are you meaning to refer to oneself? The manner of usage doesn't make sense in English.

did you mean reverence?

Not trying to dismantle the topic, just requesting some clarification so that I can follow along and understand



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
like warrenb I'm a little bit thrown off by the term "self-reference" but I agree that what you're talking about is an important topic.

To me, "self-reference" refers to the sort of post-modern literary trope of winkingly acknowledging the author-reader relationship within a work of fiction. For instance, a character in a book picking up a book that turns out to be the book that he's in, without realizing that it is.

But unless I'm missing something, that's not what you're talking about, right?

You're talking about how the process of defining sides and taking sides shapes and limits our understanding of a problem. Which is a fascinating topic, and something I think is getting a bit of reinforcement from synchronicity here at ATS right now. I hope it continues to gain momentum, because we here ("alternative" thinkers) have the opportunity to step outside of the ways that society defines issues and look at them from a wholly new viewpoint, one that might actually lead to new insight.

Thanks for the thread



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
ok well, firstly yes i do mean self reference and to elaborate on what it means here we go-

self reference like you deduced is referring to something with the reference point of your self. Eg- to decide whether killing people and sucking blood from their neck with fangs is bad, you generally tend to refer to how that would feel to yourself, should that happen. Hence you come to the conclusion that this is bad. However, were you to be a vampire, you would most likely think of someone elses blood, (lets say vampires need to suck blood to live hypothetically) and so as this is necessary to keep you alive you would think of this either as good, or if you were to be an open minded vampire and could see that if another chose to bite your neck, you could deduce biting necks and sucking blood at least has positive and negatives.

Make sense? So to put this in real terms, we are judging what is good and bad with reference to OUR OWN BELIEFS. Now, some of these beliefs are ENTIRELY CHOSEN AND IN SOME CASES UNNESSARY EMOTIONAL CONTROL FACTORS. Next example, for those of you familiar with sport, and chosing a team. Those who support a certain basket ball team, lets say the bulls, who happen to play really badly and lose every game in the season, say that this is really bad, and if they are avid supporters, this will affect there mood and even outlook on reality/perceptions to some extent. If one looks to football in europe, thats soccer for you americans, then if man u win all the time and beat arsenal in every game, the man u supporters would be elated and happy, should they lose they may be frustrated and like a percentage of firm violent hooligan drunk reprobates, choose to go and attack small and helpless dogs, or even the opposing team. Now let us zoom out, all of these actions, from complaining about your teams loss, to jumping and cheering about the others win, is ENTIRELY FICTIONAL.

So all of these events merely happen, because of the in my opinion unwise decision to support a team. But this is free choice. Self reference is like i say, about chosing sides. Now upon coming to terms with the shadow self and not hiding from the hidden parts of your personality you will realise that you can be on every side, but to play the game, you should chose a side, to get more envolved. HOWEVER, should the game get more serious, you should be able to zoom out and certainly to play with love, you must be able to acknowledge and accept the negative AND positive traits of your opposition WITHIN YOURSELF. Lets say quietly recognize.

I would like you to understand whether your side is fictional, ulitmately all should be, but do you play with love, etc etc.

when you connect with the oneness and interconnectivity of the cosmos and the eternal creation, and for those of you who believe in god and satan, do you realise or did you think that ofcourse the creater, created everything, hence the one created so called evil?

If you are scared of a murderer you are scared of yourself. this doesnt mean murder or kill, far from it, it should imply acceptance of the darker sides to your self, slhadow side in most people, as they chose to ignore this part and act so horrified when they see an army member kill someone close range or a guy stab a person in a park.

self reference is the referal of something to yourself, your thoughts and beliefs, i think perhaps it could be defined more as ego reference, but i only say this as most people live through the ego in this day and age.

helpful?

[edit on 8-11-2008 by predisposed]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
anyone like to bounce some ideas off? I feel this discussion is not forming. hopefully it is an interesting one and it can take shape!



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
This is certainly an important topic, and it will definitely get a flag from me.

#

We need to know where we are in this world as a matter of simple survival, and much of our conscious mind is spent locating ourselves.

Foremost, we locate ourselves -- physically.

For example, I know I am in my office, where that office exists with respect to the office door, the restroom, nearest store, the gas station, etc. It is at the very core center of my conscious mind.

Additionally, we locate ourselves – temporally.

For example, I am constantly checking the time of day. Even without a watch, I would be well aware of the weekday, and month I am currently living in. This is also at the core of my conscious mind – always close at hand except at brief instances, such as when I wake up.

So, your topic discusses locating ourselves with respect to groups of other conscious entities, political affiliations, work groups, family members, and religious beliefs.

We locate ourselves – socially and mentally.

#

I am sure all animals have these abilities, and are driven to find themselves, including social standing. I have horses, and it is clear that they have a strong sense of social order. They are constantly fighting for dominance in the herd. That is clear.

Also clear: unlike physical and temporal locations, the social location is very tenuous and difficult to determine. We can only determine our social frame of reference through extraordinary effort. We make a guess, because we really cannot read each other's minds, or feel each other's sensations, and constantly have to readjust and affirm that guess through constant testing.

I would also say that humans are completely distinguished from animals in their social order because we have LANGUAGE, which is absolutely necessary to orient ourselves to the degree we do.

Without understanding where we exist with respect to each other socially, cooperation is completely impossible, and no advance or complex society could be formed.

#

My major posit is as follows:

When our communications fail, we degenerate. Just like my horses. We kick and bite at each other to establish dominance, which is the only social order they are capable of. But if we execute our communications clearly, we cooperate to achieve incredible things.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
I like the thoughts of Thomas Szasz in regard to this subject: To define yourself, is to define your environment, and the distinction of yourself from others. When we 'convince' others, we anchor, both establishing and utilizing an implicitly consensual context.


Really excellent reference, Ian. Thanks!



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by predisposed
 


Isn’t this a discussion about morality and ethics?

To me morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior" [1] is about what a group thinks what is appropriate, like when going out not to end up in the boy’s bed or how long you are supposed to wait until remarrying again or maybe what to wear on Sundays.

Morality depends on certain groups. Each group has its own codex of morality. So it could mean to be a morally guy, to act towards a certain codex of honor like we find it with groups of mafia. In this world it is a binding of honor to kill if the boss tells you to do so.

Morality is not only adapted by education, by family values, it can also change during lifetime depending on groups, companies, friends you belong to.

So morality is about acting in the right way according to the opinion of a human, a group etc.
My morality can be completely different than the morality of other people.


In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
[2]

But what would ethics mean?
Can morality be ethical or can ethic be morally?

In my opinion morality must not necessarily be ethical. Ethics is more about good and bad, something very universal. Maybe what the OP would describe as self reference.

When bringing up my son I detected that you have to teach children morality, teach them appropriate behavior, what society expects them to be, to act. Usually you don’t have to teach them about ethics, They know what is right, they know what is wrong, even if they sometimes do wrong things just to test how far you would allow them to go.

Ethics usually is beyond tradition beyond history. Ethics is kind of everlasting.

In some countries of the world death penalty is still common legal usage. So it is morally to send a murderer to death. But ethically speaking I think it is wrong to kill somebody no matter if it is legal by law (death penalty) or illegal (murder). To kill a human being is ethically spoken wrong to me!

Maybe it is just my feeling. A feeling which is part of my soul, my inner self which won’t change even if the world changes.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
you guys have completely missed the point, well the last few pointers.

this is purely about taking a side, a stance. believing what is good and evil, and this can only be taken by reference to your self.

try and think a bit more about the topic, because the last few posters are drivellingly far from the point.

this is about your beliefs. why you think something is as it is, is because of you NOT because of what it is.

you think fluoride and toxins in our food is bad, because of the side you are on, not because of what is being done.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
and on the subject of moralitiy and ethics, that is exactly the point. morality and ethics are self referential.

why is stealing bad? why is murder bad? why is eating a human baD? well if you were a great white shark, by reference, eating you wouldnt be bad, it would be food, stealing wouldnt be bad if you were a magpie?

reference is the subject, this is the valuation of something in reference to a different self. or yourself when you assume different viewpoints.

ultimately this post is to discuss why nothing is good or bad or right or wrong depending on the viewpoints or points of reference you assume.

if you are truly open minded and lose your ego referenced opinions/viewpoints you will realise good and evil, right and wrong do not exist. they are just opinions from a point of reference.

lacking intelligent response here. ..



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
just another little unintelligent response dear!
please don.t mind my humble try but i have to otherwise i might suffocate.

who tells you what side you have to take? you? society? parents? education?
usually you don.t stand up and claim: "here i am and i use to decide this way ……"
you have to learn about it, right?
some might be in your inner self.


it is always a way to interprete attributes. what i would consider to be right or good isn.t necessarly right or good in any case, it could be also considered bad somehow,.
some people call it shadows, attributes you consider as somehow bad, by misinterpreting them.
i.g. being tough might be not appropriate for a lady but very helpful when discussing about rising of wages or getting a certain apartment.


Beneath the social mask we wear every day, we have a hidden shadow side: an impulsive, wounded, sad, or isolated part that we generally try to ignore. The Shadow can be a source of emotional richness and vitality, and acknowledging it can be a pathway to healing and an authentic life. We meet our dark side, accept it for what it is, and we learn to use its powerful energies in productive ways. The Shadow knows why good people sometimes do "bad" things. Romancing the Shadow and learning to read the messages it encodes in daily life can deepen your consciousness, imagination, and soul.
source

back to ethics and morality:
you might consider murder and killing bad! you have been educated like that!
or eating a human is considered bad in western society, but there are societies where i isn.t bad.

it is just a point of view.
each attribute is useful - just depending on your point of view.

even if you are educated that way, taught by society, human is always able to change her point of view. you are able to learn and adjust to your enviroement.

i would consider: an attribute is bad to me, because i consider it to be bad or good.
because i want it to be tis way.

but each is useful, and i only can judge something to be bad when i have choosen my viewpoint on good.
so stealing can be good, if i get food to survieve. everything is considered good which helps life to live to survive which is the strongest impulse in everything

no food - starving death bad

stealing food surviving life



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
I have actually just written in the last couple days huge, long posts relating to this issue. At least kind of, I dont know how far you are willing to take "self-reference." My experience is that Oneness as a concept is ok with most people as long as it remains merely skin deep.

Part of my own philosophy is that the way to change the world is by an internal process of "Self recognition." I argue that everything you see in the external world is a reflection of what is going in within you. All chaos, all hatred, all love, and beauty as well.

And, that the way to change what you see is to go inward, finding those elements within yourself and to accept them unconditionally, (love them) and by doing so, the concept of Self acceptance eventually is extended "outward" (apparent reality view) until there is nothing that is not included.

It asks you to change your point of "Self reference" as you call it to become all encompassing, but then it asks you also to stop "Self rejection" which is what I feel is the root of all apparent conflict or "evil."

Sorry, I am too tired to elaborate more. I have already written a Russian novel on the subject today, but I am pleased to see your thread.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Ok well i would agree with you, aand like to add a little for those willing to respond.

My intial posting was concerning taking a team and how your opinion is in relation to yourself. If you take a detached perspective then nothing is good or bad. Universal indifference.

So to achieve a state of peace and harmony on the soul and physical level, one must remove the state of (in simple terms) joy and sorrow that results from a positive or negative event. This will upset the equilibrium or serenity state. SS. Now this means, in laymens terms, if your dog dies, you dont care and detach emotionally, if you win the lottery or get a hole in one, you dont become happy or excited.

So how does this work, well, you can maintain the SS by differing your perceptions and hence reality. this leads on to what you mentioned. I will firstly say that the basic perception when a dog or loved one dies, is focusing on the loss and sadness. However to maintain the SS one can remain focused on the beauty of the life, the friendship and the fact that the dog can be freed from its physical life and to effectively accept it, with no reaction, except indifference and hence the resultant peacefullness within can be maintained. Likewise in the event of a positive event. This is very hard to achieve and takes work. It is not easy to switch off these emotional triggers that we learn and copy from our parents. However the reward is great. An eminance off peace and harmony will resonate about your being with a great readiness if you free yourselves of the shackles of learnt emotion.

It depends how you want to live your life, but to attain this state is to be ready to voyage macro dimensionally, and to free yourself from the physical realm. It takes work, and is only for the serious voyager, who takes spirituality and the meta-physical realms seriously as a life work, not a occasional past time.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Self reference and a conversation I heard on a bus and the ultimate ability of humans is to recognise their self reference and then to account for it and then to move on. Are we talking about self reference at a chimpanzee level?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


at a chimpanzee level. well unfortunately yes. Many humans are at the same level as the apes.

would you care to elaborate. to have the ultimate perspective to view your life and self from a third perspective is to be free from pain worry and such like.

please go on redled. and share what ur tripping on bro!!

big up to the psychonaut



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by predisposed
reply to post by redled
 


at a chimpanzee level. well unfortunately yes. Many humans are at the same level as the apes.


As a 'psychonaut,' we all are.



would you care to elaborate. to have the ultimate perspective to view your life and self from a third perspective is to be free from pain worry and such like.


Nah, it was just a conversation I overheard in a bus.


please go on redled. and share what ur tripping on bro!!


Does that avatar lead to false conclusions about my charachter?


big up to the psychonaut


I'm really just stoned......



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
my friend. as a pot head you classify as a minor risk taking psychonaut, but a nautical psyche venturer non the less. yes ur avatar is misleading, and if u just puff da erb. then me bredrin, ur missing out on the sacred truths.

so. your elaboration has been unhelpful.

the bus. yes well thats great. got the pizza delivery on speed dial?

seen.

ok so anyways
can u elaborate?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join