Realism vs. Believing

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
This thread was provoked by an attempt to reply this post.

Another related thread.


First of all, this isn't a philosophy at all, but cold realism. Almost (see the end of the post) nothing should be 'believed' by induction or deduction; if someone tells you that it is bad weather outside, go and see if there really is bad weather there: It's rainy and windy, not bad at all, since the wind refreshens the air and the rain gives moisture to the plants.

Someone comes to you, explaining that there is a god up in the heaven, cunningly explaining why this must be: "For I have seen it." or "Because everything fits so perfectly.", perhaps explaining physical phenomenas attributing those to 'god'. If you believe, you have sold your soul. You don't know if there is a god, you just believe. You'll have to visit the heaven in order to find out; and it might be that you wouldn't find a bearded old man there, who knows?

As soon as you take a belief as a truth, a crack is made in to your identity. One which should have been indivisible (the individual), has begun to break. More you believe, more you break yourself. There might come a day, when the reality contradicts your beliefs; it is a lot rougher ride for the believer than it is for the realist, and it might happen, that the sanity of believer won't survive that day.

One of the fundamental distinctions between the realist and the believer is that the realist lives according the moment (carpe diem) and the believer lives in past and in the future. This causes the believer to be inflexible in varying situations, while the realist maintain flexibility and are more capable of appropriate reaction, required by the situation.

Please bear in mind that this is not an attack against your personal experiences that may be related to spiritual experiences. If you have experienced something that can be considered 'extraordinary' in spiritual sense, that indeed is your subjective experience, not belief. Just be careful, that you won't lightly accept any explanations, that false 'teachers' are offering.

Whatever, there are cases, when believing makes life easier, for example, if someone tells you that this pan is hot, don't touch it - and if it is really hot, it is better to believe. Nevertheless, this need for advice has been terribly abused by religions. People want easy living, they don't want spend their time thinking metaphysical things like origins of the world, so they just adapt a religion. Some people may have had 'experiences' related to spiritual things and are looking for explanation, then one is easy prey for a cunning abuser, the spiritual - often false - 'guru'.

-v




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
very true.

beLIEve - see what's the root of the word?

there is personal freedom of choice and personal experience and that's all there is, basically.

all the rest (including beLIEfs) can be mere constructs of the mind and just be parts of experience loops.

personally I found the "Matrix 5" materials very liberating, especially regarding beLIEfs and experience.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I am deleting my post because the arguements will start soon.

Keeping out of the conversation is better than staying in.


[edit on 23-11-2009 by havok]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


*S&F*

I've been trying to explain this same concept to a couple of other ATSers in a separate thread. I find it utterly amazing that some people can't discern the difference between being open minded to a plethora of possibilities but able to reserve judgment of those possibilities as being absolutely true.

Personal experience alone is certainly the most faulty measure of reality and with six billion people alive today with over a hundred billion people alive through out history all with their own personal contradictory personal experiences, this should be a self evident indication of the faulty nature of personal experience. Yet personal experience for some is held more highly than evidence when seeking truth.

I keep getting called narrow minded, closed minded and argumentative every time I ask for evidence before placing judgment upon something being called absolute truth. Such statements are born of arrogant ignorance, and yet explaining this to them get's you attacked for 'insulting'. I think a lot of people need to practice swallowing their pride when they consider something as true.

Let us not forget that arrogant ignorance of certain 'truths' has led to the death of some who had evidence for what was really true. Galileo is a prime example here and the most fresh in my mind as I just used this example. For years it was assumed to be true and appeared 'self-evident' that the sun revolved around the Earth. Yet this arrogantly ignorant assumption when proven *wrong by evidence*, the discoverer of this evidence against self-evident truths was put to death. It took the church four hundred years to apologize for their arrogant ignorance.

[EDIT FOR CORRECTION]

I wrongly stated that Galileo was put to death by the church. This is what I had been told and I had never before previously bothered to verify what I was told. I received a U2U from someone who corrected me and pointed out sources for me to verify that correction as well as looking it up myself. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest and died while under it.

I suppose this just proves a point. One should not blindly believe what another person states as being true without verifying that what is claimed is actually true.

Truth without evidence is not truth, it's faith. A lot of people need to swallow their pride and dismiss their personal experiences before they can begin seeking what is true.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

Personal experience alone is certainly the most faulty measure of reality(Bold by v01i0) and with six billion people alive today with over a hundred billion people alive through out history all with their own personal contradictory personal experiences, this should be a self evident indication of the faulty nature of personal experience. Yet personal experience for some is held more highly than evidence when seeking truth.


Hello sirnex,

While I generally agree with your post, the part I bolded is something where our opinions distincts to a certain degree. We once discussed that specific issue in thread about the two realities, which was about the subjective and objective realities. It is probably due the psychology of human being, that one can experience the reality in various ways, usually in a individual manner and distinct to others.

I see that the personal experience about the reality in the end is in fact the only measure for truth. Finding an general agreement on everything but to most basic matters seems to be impossible for mankind. But my point here was kinda the fact, that one cannot rely on the opinions of others when considering the nature of reality. It is this infant trustfulness on authorities that the OP attempts to critisize.


Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

Truth without evidence is not truth, it's faith. A lot of people need to swallow their pride and dismiss their personal experiences before they can begin seeking what is true.


That is true to a certain extent. However, one can experience things psychologically, that some others seems to be incapable of experiencing. If then someone comes and tell you that you are mad because you experience the things you do, and that is no objective phenomena at all, one might want to disagree. Or one can believe in what has been told and consider oneself as mentally ill and seek for appropriate help.

However, I couldn't agree more with your statement, that "Truth without evidence is not truth, it's faith.", but I wouldn't dismiss personal experiences as they are true.

Thanks for posting, and thanks for the S&F. Your post was again a good contribution. Cheers.


-v



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Duh, I am sorry you feel that way.

Anyway, I am responding your deleted post out of memory and I kinda agree what you said in it.

If your observations about god are your personal experiences, not just some swallowed indoctrination, it is all fine. The original post was made to critisize those beliefs, which originate from stories and experiences of others; you know, like sing along just because it sounds nice - kind of thinking. A choir phenomena could be appropriate expression for that.

Please note, that the original post isn't critisizing one personal conceptions of reality, but those that are offered and accepted.

I guess you talked about having faith is hard in the end of your deleted post.. Forgive the disagreement; for it seems that for most people it seems to be quite easy - and somewhat contrary, the critical observation seems to be the hard part.

Sincerely,

-v



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 



While I generally agree with your post, the part I bolded is something where our opinions distincts to a certain degree. We once discussed that specific issue in thread about the two realities, which was about the subjective and objective realities. It is probably due the psychology of human being, that one can experience the reality in various ways, usually in a individual manner and distinct to others.


Yes, I remember that thread. I don't subscribe to the belief that reality is dictated by experience alone nor do I believe that subjectivity can be viewed as a separate reality in comparison to objectivity as the subjective reality only arises through the workings of the objective world. Without that physical objective brain, there is no subjectivity.


I see that the personal experience about the reality in the end is in fact the only measure for truth. Finding an general agreement on everything but to most basic matters seems to be impossible for mankind. But my point here was kinda the fact, that one cannot rely on the opinions of others when considering the nature of reality. It is this infant trustfulness on authorities that the OP attempts to critisize.


I think the misunderstanding is arising from assumption of appeal to authority arguments. This isn't the case for my point. All truth should be self-evidently true through evidence. If there is no evidence for that which is true in which you can personally verify as true then there is no logical reason to assume it to be true. In the case with personal experience, there is no underlying fundamental experience that can be viewed as evidently true or possessive of evidence for being true. Which is why I state that someone's personal experience can't be used as a measure of truth or what is real. I can't verify your experience, nor can you verify my experience. With that in mind, the inability for each of us to measure and validate the others personal experience is a moot measure of what reality is or what is fundamentally true.


That is true to a certain extent. However, one can experience things psychologically, that some others seems to be incapable of experiencing. If then someone comes and tell you that you are mad because you experience the things you do, and that is no objective phenomena at all, one might want to disagree. Or one can believe in what has been told and consider oneself as mentally ill and seek for appropriate help.


I think the analogy of the mentally ill is a little ill thought out. The science behind such things as retardation or other mental illnesses is poorly understood at this moment. In some cases these individuals are unable to communicate which is evident for something being wrong in which is why we seek methods for correction. To dismiss and just state that a person in a vegetative state is just experiencing their own reality is erroneous in my opinion.


However, I couldn't agree more with your statement, that "Truth without evidence is not truth, it's faith.", but I wouldn't dismiss personal experiences as they are true.


Personal experiences are certainly true, but only in the sense that the person truly experienced the experience. Yet such thing's as using those experience to validate the existence of God is not truly evident nor true for the rest of humanity. For the religious, God is self evident and personally experienced and thus *true* to them. Yet you and I don't readily subscribe to that truth as there is no evidence for their God any more than there is evidence for an intelligent pink unicorn that created the universe through a bowel movement.

So while the personal experience is true in that it was experienced, it's not true in that it can be a perfect measure of reality at the most fundamental levels. God exists for those who have faith and don't question that faith or seek answers to those personal experiences. If you think of a friend and they call, you could view that as personal experience for telepathy or predicting that they were going to call. You could believe that personal experience is a true indicator for the reality of your magical powers. Yet that one personal experience is viewed as mystical while all the other times you thought of your friend and they didn't call is quickly dismissed and forgotten.

So at which point to we resolve personal experience as good measures of fundamental reality or as faulty measures of reality?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by havok
 

If your observations about god are your personal experiences, not just some swallowed indoctrination, it is all fine.

I guess you talked about having faith is hard in the end of your deleted post.. Forgive the disagreement; for it seems that for most people it seems to be quite easy - and somewhat contrary, the critical observation seems to be the hard part.


Thanks for the consideration. Your words speak great truths.
BTW, they were from personal experiences.

Just seems like people are questioning everything. To me, there is no need to know why or what or when. Just that I am here, living life. Trying to survive. I don't need to know much more than that. Living in today's society is confusing enough.
Humans, only using 10% of our brain, probably can't comprehend it all anyways.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

All truth should be self-evidently true through evidence.


All truth should be. But somehow, science is based on some theories. Which are not truths, but explained phenomena, yet people swear by them. They are explanations. Some are tested, some are just believed because its accepted knowledge. I.E. Galileo and his proven theory.

Theory:
•S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I guess you either have faith, or you don't. That sums it up.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 




All truth should be. But somehow, science is based on some theories. Which are not truths, but explained phenomena, yet people swear by them. They are explanations. Some are tested, some are just believed because its accepted knowledge. I.E. Galileo and his proven theory.

...

I guess you either have faith, or you don't. That sums it up.



From my understanding of science, I don't think they are saying that what they show is absolute fact, only that what those theories predict are observed to occur in nature and that these predicted observations are evidences in favor of those theories. This isn't to state that those theories are facts though as other theories may be developed in which predict natural phenomena with more certainty. This is to my knowledge of how science and theories work at least and is only my opinion based on my understanding of it. Some people may believe in certain theories as absolute fact, but as you said, such forms of belief is nothing more than faith.

My argument is that we need to do away with such faiths in order to seek truth. Like the OP stated, don't just take the word of some perceived higher authority at face value as if it were absolute truth. Review the research yourself, test it yourself and if the perceived truth is evident then it is more probable to be true.

In the case of personal experience, not all personal truths are true for all. If I hit you and you cry out in pain, the subjective reality of being hit causes you pain. Yet if you hit me and I feel no pain, the subjective reality of being hit causes me no pain. These two contradictory subjective realities have a common fundamental causation, the act of being hit.

From there we know that being hit is a common reality that we can both experience. It is the most truest of realities, but the contradictory perceived subjective experience of that common cause are in conflict, what's subjectively true isn't true in the same sense as we are both hit. Therefore, we can't rely on personal experience or subjective reality as an accurate measure of what is fundamentally true.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
 


My argument is that we need to do away with such faiths in order to seek truth. Like the OP stated, don't just take the word of some perceived higher authority at face value as if it were absolute truth. Review the research yourself, test it yourself and if the perceived truth is evident then it is more probable to be true.

From there we know that being hit is a common reality that we can both experience. It is the most truest of realities, but the contradictory perceived subjective experience of that common cause are in conflict, what's subjectively true isn't true in the same sense as we are both hit. Therefore, we can't rely on personal experience or subjective reality as an accurate measure of what is fundamentally true.


Very valid point taken. But, I think 99.9% of people rely on personal experience to have faith in anything. Realism or Believing.

I'm getting that is what you are saying we need to change. I respect your view.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Also to make another view...

Think about ancient civilizations. The Native Americans (or even the Mayans) perhaps.

Their beliefs were soley based on tales told through the ears of every generation throughout their cultures existance, or what their ancestors carved into stone. Maybe those stories may have been altered, or enhanced as generations passed?
We will never know.

That probably holds true to every ancient culture that no longer exists. They believed in what other people told them purely on faith.

Who's to say that someone is right or wrong? Who's to say that they were wrong...

Maybe now is a good time to say that no one really knows. But we strive to sort it out.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by havok
 



Very valid point taken. But, I think 99.9% of people rely on personal experience to have faith in anything. Realism or Believing.

I'm getting that is what you are saying we need to change. I respect your view.


I used to be part of that 99.9%, hell I most likely am still part of that percentage on certain subjects. Yet I think I'm starting to understand thing's a little better now. I don't dismiss anyone's beliefs as not being absolutely true for them, but that I can't accept those beliefs as true to me unless it can be a commonly shared belief for all with evidence supporting that belief.

Like the example given earlier. I can't accept that being hit causes pain because my personal experience of being hit causes no pain, but I can accept the act of being hit as it's a common experience that we can both share as being true.

It's just a matter of shifting how we think about thing's. Rather than blindly following whatever is said or whatever is experienced, there should be a common fundamental to reality that is shared by all. This would include objects without a conscious mind in which to perceive reality or subjectively experience it. We too often stop at only the human factor of what is real.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
This really is a load
Everything is an illusion. Then what is an illusion?
Get off me.
If there is a pan?
Then there is a pan and the pan is hot?
Then you have a pan, the pan is hot and you touch the pan?
Then you have a pan, the pan is hot you touch the pan and you are burned?
Then you have a pan, the pan is hot,you touch the panand you are
burned,
so your Mother picks up the pan and hits you in the head with the pan,
for being so stupid in believing the pan was an illusion in the first place.
Where is your illusion now? The burn and not on your head are they an illusion?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by randyvs]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

So at which point to we resolve personal experience as good measures of fundamental reality or as faulty measures of reality?


I don't know, it's a difficult question at it's bottom.

One could think that subjective experience is valid as long as it really is experienced by the subject, and critically observed and carefully thought through. Subjective experience can become faulty when we are forcing it as a truth to the others: I like apples, apples are good, everyone should eat apples, even if you are allergic to them. Also it is faulty when it is based on errorous induction/deduction.

Little bit about the science. I noticed that on your reply to you described that how science should work. Indeed, science should be objective because it seeks to verify it's observation by the peers. But who are the science? The scientist? The scientific publications? The universities?

It appears that science too can be corrupted by the pervert people as well as the church has been perverted. What used to be a sanctuary of peace, love and spirituality, has become a method of oppression, indoctrination and discrimination. Similar trend is visible on science, as the recent climate research incident and few other cases show.

So in the end, one has to trust on individual observation and experience. It is the only validation and the only measure of reality - as long as it is not corrupted by indoctrinated beliefs and superstitions.

-v



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Originally posted by havok
To me, there is no need to know why or what or when. Just that I am here, living life. Trying to survive. I don't need to know much more than that. Living in today's society is confusing enough.


There is a wisdom in there. Many animals have learned that wisdom, while some humans find it hard to comprehend. Think of a rat, it lives on happily wherever it may be; but some humans quit living and start complaining, while destroying (by drinking, taking drugs, eating too much, whatever) their own lives and the lives of the close ones.

-v



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 



One could think that subjective experience is valid as long as it really is experienced by the subject, and critically observed and carefully thought through. Subjective experience can become faulty when we are forcing it as a truth to the others: I like apples, apples are good, everyone should eat apples, even if you are allergic to them. Also it is faulty when it is based on errorous induction/deduction.


Subjectivity can't be both a good measure and a bad measure. It should either be or shouldn't be. As with the case of coincidences like the thinking of a friend and he calls example, that subjective experiences could induce one to think they have extrasensory powers. For that person, that subjective reality was truly experienced to the best of their knowledge of how it was experienced, but the fundamental reality behind that experience involves the dismissal of all other times they thought of their friend and he didn't call.

This is why I won't even accept my own subjectivity anymore as a measure for what is real. Subjectivity can be very faulty and in a lot of cases it can outright lie to you about what is real. It isn't so much as was it really experienced in my opinion, I accept that people think they experience such things. It's more due to the faulty nature of subjectivity.


Little bit about the science. I noticed that on your reply to you described that how science should work. Indeed, science should be objective because it seeks to verify it's observation by the peers. But who are the science? The scientist? The scientific publications? The universities?


I honestly don't know how to properly answer that question so I'll give it my best go. I think the method itself in seeking evidence before placing a theory as an absolute fact is decent enough, but the subjective biased opinions of the scientists can in some cases muddy any real search for answers or allow certain evidences in the contrary to be overlooked or just outright dismissed.

Take the origins of the universe question for example. The religious community just assumes that God exists and bases this truth upon nothing more than personal experience. There is no evidence for it, but at the same time there is no evidence against it. So they use this lack of evidence against a God as proof of a God coupled with their personal experience for a God. This example isn't science, but shows that the subjectivity of it is faulty, in my opinion at least.

When we look at science, it too works with assumptions. If redshift is a constant then we can extrapolate backwards and it appears as if the universe was created at one specific moment. Yet this also assumes that the universe even had a beginning. That biased subjectivity allows scientists to overlook that they are working with nothing more than assumptions. When we observe the cosmos, it doesn't fit those assumptions unless we invent more assumptions to make that observation fit the previous assumptions.

I think the whole of all problems we're facing is due to giving in to subjectivity as a measure of truth. Yet this shouldn't be the case as subjectivity is contradictory when we involve just one more person. It's only true for you because only you experienced it. It isn't true for all things because not all things are even able to experience anything at all period. It's like assuming reality is only able to exist if there is a conscious observer to measure reality. If I recall correctly, isn't that the anthropocentric view?


It appears that science too can be corrupted by the pervert people as well as the church has been perverted. What used to be a sanctuary of peace, love and spirituality, has become a method of oppression, indoctrination and discrimination. Similar trend is visible on science, as the recent climate research incident and few other cases show.


I certainly agree, which is why I think we need to do away with subjective personal experiences as a measure of reality and truth and focus on only what is evident for all things as a measure of reality and truth.


So in the end, one has to trust on individual observation and experience. It is the only validation and the only measure of reality - as long as it is not corrupted by indoctrinated beliefs and superstitions.


I disagree. If you trust your individual experience that being hit causes pain while disregarding that for someone else they don't experience pain then you lose focus of what is fundamentally true. What we can learn from that example is that we don't understand the effect caused by hitting as well as we individually thought and that we need to look into the matter more. If it isn't true for us both then it isn't fundamentally true at all, the only truth involved there is that our experience of fundamental reality is different, but rather than going by that experience alone, let's figure out *why* it's different. Why is the fundamental truth of hitting causing a different subjective experience. We know that this one cause is not unique to experience alone and that we both experience the cause, but the experience of pain versus no pain is unique to us and not fundamental.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

As with the case of coincidences like the thinking of a friend and he calls example, that subjective experiences could induce one to think they have extrasensory powers. For that person, that subjective reality was truly experienced to the best of their knowledge of how it was experienced, but the fundamental reality behind that experience involves the dismissal of all other times they thought of their friend and he didn't call.


That is exactly the case. One has to be very careful when interpreting personal experiences not to draw quick conclusions. In two or few cases of your example it would be a rash decision to conclude that one is having extrasensory capabilites; but should it keep repeating itself constantly, then one should be entitled to draw such conclusion.

I might have been incoherent in explaining my view of the subjective experiences. By that, I don't mean rash conclusions drawn from out-of-context phenomenas, but rather the subjective conclusion of careful observation.

But I certainly understand what you are referring to. Nevertheless I encourage you to trust more on your subjective observations, you might have that feeling unless no one else has
Denying subjective experiences altogether might be dangerous to one's integrity, and end up in psychological inbalancies that can result in neurosis.

But while maintaining the importance of subjective experiences, I also recommend to objectively observe one's experiences, beliefs and attitudes. This is the narrow path, that so many are unable to roam.

-v



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 



That is exactly the case. One has to be very careful when interpreting personal experiences not to draw quick conclusions. In two or few cases of your example it would be a rash decision to conclude that one is having extrasensory capabilites; but should it keep repeating itself constantly, then one should be entitled to draw such conclusion.


I'm not even sure if repeating subjective experiences should ever be taken at face value. Again, with the phone example, if the subject is only counting those times in which he is thinking of his friend as that repeating experience it's still faulty as he would still be discounting all other times he thought of his friend and they didn't call.

We can apply the same thing to a clock. I know there are a few threads on ATS about 11:11, I'm not sure what the significance is as I never bothered to read them. Yet it seems readily apparent that this same "magical" coincidence is subjectively occurring despite repeatability. They see these coincidental occurrences of that number sequence by discounting the hundreds to thousand other number sequences they see on a daily basis.

I agree we have to be careful with interpreting subjectivity, but equally careful with repeated subjectivity. Subjectivity has this weird trait where some cases only exist as true for the subject, but some cases can be shared unknowingly through suggestion. I suppose that would be hypnosis, auto-suggestion and maybe a form of mass hysteria.


I might have been incoherent in explaining my view of the subjective experiences. By that, I don't mean rash conclusions drawn from out-of-context phenomenas, but rather the subjective conclusion of careful observation.


I understand, but many others don't which is why they readily credit subjective personal experiences as a true indicator for what is real. Even the act of objectively interpreting personal subjectivity may lead to a faulty measure of reality. It is of my opinion that reality is real for all things and if that reality isn't fundamentally shared amongst all things then it isn't true of all reality.


But I certainly understand what you are referring to. Nevertheless I encourage you to trust more on your subjective observations, you might have that feeling unless no one else has Denying subjective experiences altogether might be dangerous to one's integrity, and end up in psychological inbalancies that can result in neurosis.


I think it's the other way around, trusting in subjectivity leads to neurosis, I cite the religious community as evidence lol.


But while maintaining the importance of subjective experiences, I also recommend to objectively observe one's experiences, beliefs and attitudes. This is the narrow path, that so many are unable to roam.


I think that's what I'm attempting to do now, I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I don't really know how I can objectively measure my subjective experiences and determine if those experiences are fundamentally true for all things in the universe.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 



Originally posted by v01i0
Denying subjective experiences altogether might be dangerous to one's integrity, and end up in psychological inbalancies that can result in neurosis.


I think it's the other way around, trusting in subjectivity leads to neurosis, I cite the religious community as evidence lol.


Yes, for sure it works that way around also. Perhaps the certain equilibrium is the best approach to maintain the peace of mind: To trust one's personal experiences, while carefully comparing them to the those of others and to reality in general.


Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

I think that's what I'm attempting to do now, I'm not entirely sure to be honest. I don't really know how I can objectively measure my subjective experiences and determine if those experiences are fundamentally true for all things in the universe.


Understood and agreed. Perhaps the objectivity is gained through the careful inquiry of subjective experiences. Perhaps it is best to guestion all and everything, as you mentioned before. But then again, there is the chance of pit-fall of constant uncertainty, which can end up in total indecisiveness. It truly is a narrow path, almost comparable to the rope-dancing, which Nietzche so vividly desciped in his Thus spoke Zarathustra.


Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0
 

We can apply the same thing to a clock. I know there are a few threads on ATS about 11:11, I'm not sure what the significance is as I never bothered to read them. Yet it seems readily apparent that this same "magical" coincidence is subjectively occurring despite repeatability. They see these coincidental occurrences of that number sequence by discounting the hundreds to thousand other number sequences they see on a daily basis.


11:11 is an interesting phenomena considering the issue at hand. It might be that the subjective mind sees what it is inclined to see, thus disregarding - as you properly pointed out - the multitude of other times it perceives during the day.

In the end, questioning oneself, one's motives, emotions, observations and so forth might just be the best way to maintain objectivity; it is almost like seeing oneself from a 'higher perspective'.

-v





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant