A little something that I got from nothing.

reply to post by Geladinhu

How do you not know a world dependent on our existence?

It was here before our own species came about.

If you cease to exist, the world that you perceive will also cease to exist, or do you believe to have some sort of absolute perception that includes the perception of every other points of awareness?

The world I perceived while alive still exists after I die, I see no reason to assume that after the brain stops functioning that the entire universe disappears.

I think you are having difficulties realizing the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. This thread is about subjectivity.

Just because you perceive the universe while your alive doesn't mean it disappears after your dead.

Im not sure what a realistic literalist is. Someone that doesnt believe in subjectivity? Tell me more about your perspective, if you will.

I don't believe that subjective perception is an accurate depiction of reality at large. The universe doesn't require a subjective experience in order for it to exist.

First you need to understand that Im talking about the subjective world and not the objective world to see my point fo having this world constantly end. This constant ending of the world is in actuality the renewal of our ideals and beliefs, or a non-attachment to specific concepts and to the urge to be right.

I get that your talking about the subjective perception, but I don't believe in the subjective experience as if it's a reality of it's own accord. I suppose without that belief I am having trouble understanding what your attempting to say?

See, I think you are understanding everything objectively when its suppose to be understood subjectively. I thought I made this point clear right after I quoted Hendrix on my first post. We tend to understand what he said in an objective sense but I'm proposing that we try to understand it a little bit different from what we would perceive from a fast analysis.

Our brains are part of the objective world and through our brains we experience this objective world which we define as subjective experience. I don't believe in a power of love as if it's some magical aspect of reality, I understand where the emotion of love comes from and what it's real purpose is.

We should show compassion towards everyone. Not because we need to save everyone, but because we need to save ourselves. To be truly compassionate is actually the same as to be truly selfish and vice-versa. This is a really hard concept to grasp, but as I already said, one cultural concept cannot exist without the other one to sustain it and make it real. I can elaborate on this if you need further understanding.

I think you might have to elaborate. I don't think compassion should be shown towards everyone, that takes away from the natural order of things. I don't know, I don't understand what your getting at, putting to much thought into it and it appears contradictory in a way.

Originally posted by sirnex
Just because you perceive the universe while your alive doesn't mean it disappears after your dead.

But we dont have an absolute perception of the world, as you stated yourself that subjective perception is not accurate. Thus what we perceive can be represented as our own unique world that terminates (or simply is transformed into something else) when we die.

I don't believe that subjective perception is an accurate depiction of reality at large. The universe doesn't require a subjective experience in order for it to exist.

What then is required for the universe to exist?

I get that your talking about the subjective perception, but I don't believe in the subjective experience as if it's a reality of it's own accord. I suppose without that belief I am having trouble understanding what your attempting to say?

Yup, we aren't going to be able to formally debate on an argument if we disagree on our most basic assumptions or premisses. I dont even understand how you are able to say that the subjective experience is not a reality of its own accord or that its simply not good enough for us to start our reasoning by, since all our reasoning springs from subjectivity. Your experience is what gives you reason, and your experience is subjective. If it werent we wouldnt be debating about this point.

Our brains are part of the objective world and through our brains we experience this objective world which we define as subjective experience. I don't believe in a power of love as if it's some magical aspect of reality, I understand where the emotion of love comes from and what it's real purpose is.

How can you be so sure that what you experience is the objective world? How do you come to the conclusion that our brains are part of the objective world? Proof is required if we are talking about the objective world, please explain how you came to these conclusions of experiencing the objective world. And logically this proof has to go beyond your own experience or else it would be strictly categorized as subjective in its nature, and that means more then just words and definitions.

Love that is an emotion is the cultural idea that I relate to on my OP. Genuine love is no emotion, it is understanding.

I think you might have to elaborate. I don't think compassion should be shown towards everyone, that takes away from the natural order of things. I don't know, I don't understand what your getting at, putting to much thought into it and it appears contradictory in a way.

To be compassionate might mean to let one suffer and die. Compassion is the practice of genuine love or understanding. To be entirely compassionate is to be one with the nature of things, thus the understanding that death and suffering is part of the all. He who is compassionate abides instead of intentionally interveining.

Well, I might say that your views also seem contradictory to me. But that doesnt really mean much because when you dig deep into the nature of things contradiction, or what most call paradox, is all you find.

Ahhhhhh, Geladinhu!! I see you are playing with your food again. Are you enjoying talking with another aspect of your Self? I am...

Cheers, Love and Grace,

Erik

reply to post by Geladinhu

But we dont have an absolute perception of the world, as you stated yourself that subjective perception is not accurate. Thus what we perceive can be represented as our own unique world that terminates (or simply is transformed into something else) when we die.

I'm talking about subjective perception as in, red is red because it is red. We have instruments that are able to perceive the universe without conscious subjectivity and abstraction to label what is seemingly seen to exist. Red is red because the objective brain interprets a particular wavelength of electromagnetic radiation as being red and the ability of the brain to abstractly think and apply language gives it the label red. An instrument that senses the same wavelength but is devoid of consciousness itself is unable to apply that subjective perception to what it detects and in my opinion would be a much more accurate depiction of reality. It isn't biased by the conscious subjective perception.

What then is required for the universe to exist?

That sounds like an origins question, and I will never make any claim to understand or know the origins of the universe. I believe there is much left still undiscovered and unknown about any origins theory and I don't subscribe to any origins theory be it scientific or religious. That's the best possible most honest answer I can give anyone on that subject.

Yup, we aren't going to be able to formally debate on an argument if we disagree on our most basic assumptions or premisses. I dont even understand how you are able to say that the subjective experience is not a reality of its own accord or that its simply not good enough for us to start our reasoning by, since all our reasoning springs from subjectivity. Your experience is what gives you reason, and your experience is subjective. If it werent we wouldnt be debating about this point.

I disagree and I believe it's the ability to abstractly think about the subjective experience that muddies the actuality of events occurring in our lives. I think the reasons we do thing's is much more fundamental and involved than what subjectivity dictates.

How can you be so sure that what you experience is the objective world? How do you come to the conclusion that our brains are part of the objective world? Proof is required if we are talking about the objective world, please explain how you came to these conclusions of experiencing the objective world. And logically this proof has to go beyond your own experience or else it would be strictly categorized as subjective in its nature, and that means more then just words and definitions.

Objective reality is defined as reality that exists outside of our minds and subjective reality is defined as reality inside our minds. At least that is my understanding of the terms. The objective reality must inherently exist as the conscious human subjective experience of reality didn't always exist and yet we evolved to exist over time, I see no reason to doubt the objective world.

To sum it up, no I don't think we're special nor do I think we're Gods.

Love that is an emotion is the cultural idea that I relate to on my OP. Genuine love is no emotion, it is understanding.

I disagree, your abstracting and sensationalizing the emotive word.

To be compassionate might mean to let one suffer and die. Compassion is the practice of genuine love or understanding. To be entirely compassionate is to be one with the nature of things, thus the understanding that death and suffering is part of the all. He who is compassionate abides instead of intentionally interveining.

I disagree with your attempt to sensationalize the terms. It's great that we are capable of abstract thought, but sometimes I think we push it ahead to far.

Well, I might say that your views also seem contradictory to me. But that doesnt really mean much because when you dig deep into the nature of things contradiction, or what most call paradox, is all you find.

I disagree, the reason we find contradictions/paradoxes is not because they inherently exist but more because we don't have the right answers.

reply to post by redwoodjedi


Always enjoying! No joy, no doing...just so that the joy can come back!

Originally posted by Geladinhu
reply to post by redwoodjedi

 

Always enjoying! No joy, no doing...just so that the joy can come back!

Oh my! Where and When did the joy go? Did you start making things again? You got bored didn't you?

Cheers, Love and Grace,

Erik

First of all, I wanna thank you sirnex for having this discussion with me. I would be very very sad if no one questioned my ideas.

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm talking about subjective perception as in, red is red because it is red.

What? Im having trouble getting any meaning out of that phrase. I dont relate your explanation to the concept of subjective perception. Seems like you understand subjectivity as being some kind of self-validating circular reasoning which in the end has no value at all? Is that it?

If so, I must disagree. I think subjectivity is the only means for reasoning. If you want to discard subjectivyty, fine. But then we would have to discard reasoning as well. If it helps to understand my point, Im kind of a mystic. I believe objectivity is beyond our capability of reasoning. We are able to experience it, but we arent able to talk about it making perfect logical sense.

If you throw away subjectivity because of its self-validating aspect you would have to also throw away the scientific method which works specifically for self-validation of theories that spring from a subjective experiencer. If indeed we were able to experience and reason on top of the objective world there would be no need for the scientific method at all.
Are you against the scientific method also? If so, why?

We have instruments that are able to perceive the universe without conscious subjectivity and abstraction to label what is seemingly seen to exist.

Do we? What instruments are those? An instrument needs an instrumenteer. It needs someone to use it, someone that has conscious subjectivity and enough abstraction to realize that the instrument is indeed an instrument and can be used to achieve something else. What is the value of anything that is perceived by something that has no abstraction? How would the experience keep growing or evolving?

An instrument that senses the same wavelength but is devoid of consciousness itself is unable to apply that subjective perception to what it detects and in my opinion would be a much more accurate depiction of reality. It isn't biased by the conscious subjective perception.

Whats the use of an accurate depiction of reality if there is no consciousness to actually apply that depiction somehow? That instrument that accuretlu depics reality but isnt affected by subjectivity seems completely useless and not even worth of existing. And still, how would such an instrument even come to existence without consciousness or abstraction to create it?

I disagree and I believe it's the ability to abstractly think about the subjective experience that muddies the actuality of events occurring in our lives. I think the reasons we do thing's is much more fundamental and involved than what subjectivity dictates.

Subjectivity dictates nothing. What does subjectivity dictates? You are being quite contradictory and redundant on that first statement. You believe. Belief is a product of the ability to abstractly think. The subjective experience is made of abstract thinking or beliefs. So you believe that its beliefs that make us believe that we believe unnecessarily?

Objective reality is defined as reality that exists outside of our minds and subjective reality is defined as reality inside our minds. At least that is my understanding of the terms. The objective reality must inherently exist as the conscious human subjective experience of reality didn't always exist and yet we evolved to exist over time, I see no reason to doubt the objective world.

To sum it up, no I don't think we're special nor do I think we're Gods.

I dont doubt the objective world. I just think we are not capable of being logical when talking about it. All our reason is a product of our experience of the subjective world. Most of the time all we experience is the subjective world. The subjective world produces definitions as much as definitions produce subjective worlds. The subjective world is full of concepts, and concepts are full of subjectivity. The objective world is beyond concepts, beyond any kind of filters, beyond any kind of definitions. Because definitions are the separation of things. It delineates boundaries. The objective world has no boundaries thus defies logic that is made of definitions which creates boundaries.

I disagree, your abstracting and sensationalizing the emotive word.

No, Im not abstracting or sensationalizing the emotive word. We can stop using the word love if that is what confuses you. Im talking about inherently different things and one definition didnt come from the other at all. We can stop using the word genuine love and simply change it for understanding. Then love will be simply an emotion as you like to put it. Im talking about two really different things that we now can call love and understanding respectivelly. I think culture is getting you strong on this one, so lets get around culture and use our own words. Compassion is made of understanding. It has nothing to do with the love you know.

I disagree with your attempt to sensationalize the terms. It's great that we are capable of abstract thought, but sometimes I think we push it ahead to far.

Im not sensationalizing terms. Im separating terms because culture made us mix up two very different concepts without realizing so. Two very different ideas are mixed in only one word that is culturally passed on to us. That word is love. But that love has actually two meanings. One is emotion, the other is understanding. Again, its not sensationalizing, its redefining or reconceptualizing.

I disagree, the reason we find contradictions/paradoxes is not because they inherently exist but more because we don't have the right answers.

I equally disagree. The reason we find contradictions/paradoxes is because our reason is not the perfect tool for understanding. Just like trying to draw a beautiful sunset only with a pencil. Something will be missing. I agree that they exist because we dont have the right answers, but these answers are never going to be realized or produced by the mind or by reason, so in a way we shouldnt even call them answers.

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Oh my! Where and When did the joy go? Did you start making things again? You got bored didn't you?

I have a funny relationship with joy and I think you got the source of all the problem right. Sometimes im bored, sometimes she is bored. I come and go, she comes and goes. Really hard to understand it is. This time she invented a really weird game, kind of like hide and seek. She ran away as fast as she could and now she is hiding somewhere. But I can hear her from far away calling my name. Im following her screams, that once in a while get to me. Getting closer each time, although im further from everything else I knew.

Quite an adventure Im living! Doing things slowly again, whenever I hear her calling which is quite random. But thats why I like her so much I think. That randomness fascinates me!

Originally posted by Geladinhu

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Oh my! Where and When did the joy go? Did you start making things again? You got bored didn't you?

I have a funny relationship with joy and I think you got the source of all the problem right. Sometimes im bored, sometimes she is bored. I come and go, she comes and goes. Really hard to understand it is. This time she invented a really weird game, kind of like hide and seek. She ran away as fast as she could and now she is hiding somewhere. But I can hear her from far away calling my name. Im following her screams, that once in a while get to me. Getting closer each time, although im further from everything else I knew.

Quite an adventure Im living! Doing things slowly again, whenever I hear her calling which is quite random. But thats why I like her so much I think. That randomness fascinates me!

Ahhhhhh....You made "joy" a thing! Don't make things!! Soon as you stop, I promise YOU will see that Joy never left and it was/is always/already there and YOU ARE THAT!

Cheers, Love and Grace,

Erik

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Ahhhhhh....You made "joy" a thing! Don't make things!! Soon as you stop, I promise YOU will see that Joy never left and it was/is always/already there and YOU ARE THAT!

Cheers, Love and Grace,

Erik

No, wait! I got confused! I wasnt talking about joy, I was talking about somethig else. I realize now that joy never left. Dont know what I was talking about, but im sure I was talking about something real and that I was making perfect sense. Just dont know exactly the word for the thing that I thought for a moment that was joy. Something that I like and that likes me. Something that likes playing games. And Im not making things, things are making me!!

There you go and there YOU ARE, G!!

My favorite Zen Teacher would tell you if you ever found your mind, to go and wash it with "Don't Know" soap. Makes it clean and shiny like a mirror!!

reply to post by redwoodjedi


That soap is pretty good for washing anything!
You just busted me completely and I was asking myself: What the hell am I doing?

Dont know soap saved the day. Now I can keep always doing thanks to that marvelous invention. Ill keep it always in my pocket for when things get too dirty.

I'm tellin' ya' it's the bestest soap ever! It even get's in all of those hard to reach nooks and crannies. Amazing stuff!