What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Originally posted by OwenandNoelle
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Great thread!

It’s hard for me to be 100% certain about most things, particularly those philosophical in nature...but I’d be compelled to believe someone’s concept of the “ultimate truth” if he/her she could:

1. Perhaps tell me something about myself that only I would know.

Getting a lot of this sort of thing. I detailed my issue with this question above.

2. Give me the ability to see, even if only temporarily, how he/she perceives the world. So I could possibly come to the same conclusions he/she did. (see the inner workings of the cosmos ect.)

Having information may not involve being psychic or supernormal. Information is just information. He says he has it. He doesn't claim to be extraordinary in any physical manner.

3.Direct new discoveries into our ancient history. And explain with moving images exactly how the Great Pyramids were formed!

This is certainly an impressive individual you've constructed for yourself.

4. Explain complex social interactions convincingly and with really good examples.

Many good sociologist can do this. At least I am impressed with their capacity.

5. Possibly make some obscure though easily verified future predictions

edit on 5-1-2011 by OwenandNoelle because: (no reason given)

That hasn't really worked out in the past as well as anyone has hoped that it would.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Let me think on this, as there's a lot here. I'll get back to you.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by NorEaster

 

1. What forms the basis of all immutable laws of physical structure?

Energy exchange, and the perception of that exchange.

Auditioning?

2. How is this consistency imposed?

Generally speaking it is not "imposed." However, there may occassionally be limits to the ability of any particular observer to choose the nature of their observations. As such, consistency may be "imposed" by one's limits.

oops - this sort of answer would be a red flag.

3. Why - if true chaos is impossible, given the clear existence of pervasive order - are there instances of seeming chaos and brief inconsistencies that have been perceived?

Why do you assume chaos is impossible when you are apparently able to observe instances of it? One would not suggest that stars are impossible, nor view them as "inconsistencies" simply because they're so scarce relative to the vastness of space between them. Why suggest chaos is impossible simply because it is similarly rare?

Chaos is a contextual default - like darkness. If order exists (like when light exists) chaos (like darkness) becomes the relative absence of order (light), as opposed to the presence of true chaos. The indication of chaos is actually the indication that one's perspective is not sufficiently broad. Like a very large tile pattern. It may take hundreds of square feet to fully appreciate the entire pattern, but the pattern is there nonetheless. If you don't back up far enough, the tile pattern would appear to contain random bits included within the rest of what seems organized and consistent. The truth, however, would be that the random bits in that tile arrangement are part of a larger pattern that contains many other smaller patterns.

4. What is the logical nature of a true anomaly?

It is a question of perception. From the peception of a spaceborne microbe, water might be considered anomalous. From the perspective of a dolphin, water is completely normal.

Simply dismissing the notion of the true anomaly doesn't detail the logical nature of it. (hint - I detailed it in my own response to #3) Yes, a true anomaly doesn't exist, however, proving this involves the logical requirement of pervasive physical structure and the kind of reliable consistency that allows for progressive development and structural matrixing and multi-structural sophistication. This would need to be fully detailed.

5. What is the primary impetus for the existence of physical order?

Any given set of rules lends itself to a given set of likely results. If you drop a ball while standing on earth, it is likely to fall. If somebody else drops something that is not a ball while standing on a different planet, it is also likely to fall. Different people, different objects, different planets, yet the result was similar. You can describe this similarity as "order" but in both cases it is simply a likely result of the same rules being applied. In this case, gravity. Your observed universe exhibits a more or less consistent set of rules. Therefore, within that universe, similar, "ordered" results are likely to result.

This answer does not provide the source of this universe's "rules". It doesn't provide the incentive that drives whatever is imposing those rules. It recognizes that these rules are pervasive, but why are they pervasive? Why is anything pervasive? Why does the concept of consistency exist at all?

I have answered your questions. By what means do you evaluate the responses?

I just did. I used simple logical extrapolation. Answer #3 clashed with your response to #4, and you didn't provide a real answer for either 4 or 5.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I did offer the foundation, the mechanism of creation, it's control, motive, and desire or intent of the will, and MO, as well as an applicable test or hypothesis which can be easily understood and applied in full and in mutual understanding and appreciation. Furthermore, the scientific framework I offer, has been coined "Monistic Idealism" (consciosness not matter is primary) as opposed to the "Materialist Monist" pradigm or frame of reference (matter alone is primary). This may be validated relative to each of the quantum pardoxes, in particular Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, that is, only if consiousness itself (Monistic Idealism) may be considered primary, from only one frame of reference, in this case a single photon, non-locally distributed, interacting co-creatively with our free will, thus describing, in the foundational space of nothing, a boundless realm of limitless possibility in eternity, or an inclusion in an eternal creative process - presented I might add, in a liberating framework, which is empowering, and does not require anything in return, not even gratitude, saying only "go and do likewise" or "as I am sent even so send I you",


"What is the truth?" exclaimed Pontius Pilate, turning to wash his hands in a bowl of water.

edit on 5-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo, see I am also fallible! ; )

I'm sorry, but if you actually believe that asking this person a series of philosophical questions would tell you whether he has the truth, then your determination of his possession of the truth likely depends on whether that truth agrees with your truth.

I don't see that as an acceptable criteria for honestly determining the nature of what I may have never even imagined to be the truth, but his true nonetheless. Why bother asking this guy anything if you believe you already posses the Truth?

Why waste your time in this thread? Seriously.

Hell, it's folks like you that inspired me to start this thread.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ManInTheMirror
EDIT: I will ask only one question. This question has multiple answers but only one is correct.
There is one thing that every person CAN DO, In order to make this world a better place, if not perfect. What would it be?

I know the answer to this one.

Be the love that's missing in the world, at all levels of the human social grid, including own selves (we cannot love out of a lack of self love) and then, upon the rock of love or the rock of ages, beginning with our own family of origin to include, ultimately the whole of humanity within that family framework of the brotherhood and sistergood of mankind - create a clearing for everyone in the process, of new possibility, and hope for a better world. Self generated love, so great, that it is capable of carrying, like a camel carries water across the desert under a blaring sun, as much sorrow as is neccessary, to produce a smile through those beloved tears of compassion.

Do this, and then you shall be at cause as a force of human history in eternity, no matter how insignificant you may feel your sphere of influence, because there is no power or principality, which cannot be made to cave even under the weight of it's own hubris, relative to such a self reinforcing dynamic as that, beginning with you and me, right now.

Well if love is your answer, this is the wrong one. You would be surprised on how many have answered this question with love. Over 300 people I have asked this question only 9 have answered correctly. I do it as a test, on whom I can trust. Those who use common sense, will be able to answer this question. Those who answer correctly, I know I can trust, because I know that, they know the truth also. And that is, life is surrounded by common sense. So No it is not the correct answer. Not every one can love? This is something every person can do. No matter of love or hate. Keep trying, I give everyone 3 chances.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ManInTheMirror
EDIT: I will ask only one question. This question has multiple answers but only one is correct.
There is one thing that every person CAN DO, In order to make this world a better place, if not perfect. What would it be?

I know the answer to this one.

Be the love that's missing in the world, at all levels of the human social grid, including own selves (we cannot love out of a lack of self love) and then, upon the rock of love or the rock of ages, beginning with our own family of origin to include, ultimately the whole of humanity within that family framework of the brotherhood and sistergood of mankind - create a clearing for everyone in the process, of new possibility, and hope for a better world. Self generated love, so great, that it is capable of carrying, like a camel carries water across the desert under a blaring sun, as much sorrow as is neccessary, to produce a smile through those beloved tears of compassion.

Do this, and then you shall be at cause as a force of human history in eternity, no matter how insignificant you may feel your sphere of influence, because there is no power or principality, which cannot be made to cave even under the weight of it's own hubris, relative to such a self reinforcing dynamic as that, beginning with you and me, right now.

Wow, that is one of the best answers I've read in a long time! Very well written and beautiful!

I shall send some love out to you tonight!

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by OwenandNoelle
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Great thread!

It’s hard for me to be 100% certain about most things, particularly those philosophical in nature...but I’d be compelled to believe someone’s concept of the “ultimate truth” if he/her she could:

1. Perhaps tell me something about myself that only I would know.

Getting a lot of this sort of thing. I detailed my issue with this question above.

2. Give me the ability to see, even if only temporarily, how he/she perceives the world. So I could possibly come to the same conclusions he/she did. (see the inner workings of the cosmos ect.)

Having information may not involve being psychic or supernormal. Information is just information. He says he has it. He doesn't claim to be extraordinary in any physical manner.

3.Direct new discoveries into our ancient history. And explain with moving images exactly how the Great Pyramids were formed!

This is certainly an impressive individual you've constructed for yourself.

4. Explain complex social interactions convincingly and with really good examples.

Many good sociologist can do this. At least I am impressed with their capacity.

5. Possibly make some obscure though easily verified future predictions

edit on 5-1-2011 by OwenandNoelle because: (no reason given)

That hasn't really worked out in the past as well as anyone has hoped that it would.

Hmmm...you’ve raised some excellent points. I guess, I better go back to drawing board --- you’re asking what a seemingly average person, say some person off the street (who is in the possession though of the “ultimate truth”) can say to convince me that his version of the truth is correct.

One of my very few deeply held beliefs is that all of reality is subjective – in other words, my truth might not necessarily be your truth. So your question while on the surface is simple...is actually really complicated. (at least to me lol)

I don’t think there is anything a seemingly average person can say without the benefit of psychic or prophetic wisdom to convince me that he is correct. Which kind of sucks. Moreover, if the truth this person speaks of is so far outside of my belief system or my construct of logical thinking --- I suspect that I’ll immediately dismiss it as crazy talk.

I guess i can only hope that the person’s truth will resonate with me on a deeper level. I know that might seem like a hopelessly new age cop out answer. But as disappointing as this is to admit, I have to say that the only version of “ultimate truth” I am likely to believe is one that I’ve constructed for myself.

Arg! I’ll have to think about your question some more! Great topic and thread though!

reply to post by OwenandNoelle

Thanks, but apparently it was wrong and I'm also all wrong, or so they say..? I did meet all the criteria in my answers, but oh well what can ya do eh?

Seriously, thanks, and me too, and I know it held water, but it's just not everyone's cup of tea I guess..

Originally posted by NorEaster
Hell, it's folks like you that inspired me to start this thread.

Yes, I know.

Did THIS man awaken in the morning to the "truth"? (pointing now to another, just to be on the safe side)

an excerpt from "The Power of Now" by Exkhart Tolle

Introduction

The Origin of This Book

I have little use for the past and rarely think about it; however, I would briefly like to tell you how I came to be a spiritual teacher and how this book came into existence.

Until my thirtieth year, I lived in a state of almost continuous anxiety interspersed with periods of suicidal depression. It feels now as if I am talking about some past lifetime or somebody else's life.

One night not long after my twenty-ninth birthday, I woke up in the early hours with a feeling of absolute dread. I had woken up with such a feeling many times before, this this time is was more intense than it had ever been. The silence of the night, the vague outlines of the furniture in the dark room, the distant noise of a passing train - everything felt so alien, so hostile, and so utterly meaningless that it created in me a deep loathing of the world. The most loathsome thing of all, however, was my own existence. What was the point in continuing to live with this burden of misery? Why carry on with this continuous struggle? I could feel that a deep longing for annihilation, for nonexistence, was now becoming much stronger than the instinctive desire to continue to live.

"I cannot live with myself any longer." This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. "Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: The "I" and the "self" that "I" cannot live with." "Maybe," I thought, "only one of them is real."

I was so stunned by this realization that my mind stopped. I was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and my body started to shake. I heard the words "resist nothing," as if spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void. It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside. Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.

I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw the image of a prescious diamond. Yes, if a diamon could make a sound, this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light to dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I know, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before. Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at the beauty and aliveness of it all.

That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world.

For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever did could possibly add anything to what I already had.

I knew, of course, that something profoundly significant had happened to me, but I didn't understand it at all. It wasn't until several years later, after I had read spiritual texts and spent time with spiritual teachers, that I realized that what everybody else was looking for had already happened to me. I understood that the intense pressure of suffering that night must have forced my consciousness to withdraw from its identification with the unhappy and deeply fearful self, which is ultimately a fiction of the mind. This withdrawal must have been so complete that this false, suffering self immediately collapsed, just as if a plug had been pulled out of an inflatable toy. What was left then was my true nature as the ever-present I am: consciousness in its pure state prior to indentification with form. Later I also learned to go into that inner timeless and deathless realm that I had originally percieved as a void and remain fully conscious. I dwelt in states of such indescribable bliss and sacdredness that even the original experience I just described pales in comparison. A time came when, for a while, I was left with nothing of the physical plane. I had no relationships, no job, no home, no socially defined identity. I spent almost two years sitting on park benches in a state of the most intense joy.

But even the most beautiful experiences come and go. More fundamental perhaps, than any experience is the undercurrent of peace that has never left me since then. Sometimes it is very strong, almost palpable, and others can feel it too. At other times, it is somewhere in the background, like a distant melody.

Later, people would occassionally come up to me and say "I want what you have. Can you give it to me, or show me how to get it?" And I would sayl "You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." That answer later grew into the book that you are holding in your hands.

Before I knew it, I had an external identity again. I had become a spiritual teacher.

"And you will come to know the truth and the truth will set you free. And, if you are free for my sake (freed for the sake of freedom in eternity), then you shall be truly free indeed!" (JC, paraphrased)

Here it is again (video below), from yet another, where this re-cognition he decribes, the process of which - acceptance of absolute uncertainty and unknowing, making what was otherwise in the realm of an uknown unkown, or what we didn't even know we didn't know (the only place "it" can be found, surely) now brought into the knowable, as truth (in gnosis) - I already made mention earlier, so that the truth might be self evident, easily conveyed and verifyable and testable, that truth being, that we are already in eternity now, and death is only a part OF life, and therefore life itself is of the deathless everlasting variety. However, I don't think it was Adi Da Samraj's gift to impart, in fact I think he tried to steal it! But in the end who cares, so long as it's realized in the fullness of time and history, that we and the creator, as unblemished awareness, find each other, while hurtling headlong into a loving embrace, once the return path is chosen (Prodigal Son) in the fullness of time and history (namely, our own from life to life in samsara).

Who am I? Me I AM the prodigal son, and I've wept tears of sorrow and joy, the tears wiped from my eyes with a smile, and I'm applauded my courage to declare his glory and his eternal kingdom, which is an intimate participative sharing called "koinonia", the sharing of gnosis, the sharing of God's love for us in "eternity now" (already always), through the person of Jesus the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth having found his felt calling, or the wedge he willingly allowed himself to be driven into for all the right reasons, with full and complete, unblemished conscious awareness. It is a marvel and a gift almost too vast to even begin to contempate, almost.. but not quite, it's STILL available, the inherent meaning and significance, for mutual "grokking", and that's what it is, spiritual food for our enjoyment, those given to understand it, who "hear his voice" or the voice of the bridegroom from afar on approach to the door. May he find us with our lamps filled and trimmed! Eh? For sure. May "he" (spirit of truth and life) find us prepared for re-union, so that we can accept God into our mutual dwelling place here on Earth.

I cannot help but end up saying such things, since there is nothing else worth saying and since I'd be willing to make a fool of myself if need be to get the word out, about our true stature and valuation, relative to the supreme value, differentiated and set apart (what a horror) now reintegrated spiritually and without separation (veil lifted), accepted, at long last, where there is rest for the soul (and no I don't mean when we die physically in this body). Peace, of the rock solid variety, which no rains nor heavy winds can bring to ruin, unmoved from age to age, that's powerful.

So it's the love contained there, which contains the fullness of the treasure of heaven and who but the giver can even give such a gift, as that? This, is why I am a Christian, not by faith, but by reason, and I then leave it up to you if that's by "reason of insanity!"

I am willing to take on the challenge put to the human being by the Lord, by God if it's the last thing I do!

Oh yeah, here's Adi Da on the recognition of TRUE life, and true freedom in eternity, captured in a short video.




So in parting I like to say this, as a sure fire mantra or as an all-inclusive invitation or propostion.
"All the treasure of heaven is in Christ, and, the treasure is his love."

The truth is eternal life and freedom, that's what was hiding in our blind spot, as an opportunity, nothing more, nothing less. Freedom, the freedom to freely love as we are love, and in so doing become a channel of God's peace.


"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me twice... ah, we won't get fooled again."
~ George W. Bush (perhaps...although unlikely, he was good for something and wasn't such an utter moron after all?)

And of course as we all know, there is nothing now hidden which will not be made known and brought to light, so in the final analysis, we have absolutely NOTHING to fear and in truth we are by far more powerful and influencial than we could possibly have ever imagined, not by our own strength or courage or confidence, but by that which comes from above.

"Why do you marvel at these works of mine. You will do even greater things than these."

So what I went overboard here, oh well. I don't mind.

And I don't think or I should say I only hope, that most of the readers do not mind the effort or the activity either. Better to overdo it I think in matters such as these.

Your humble servant in Christ.

Rob Rice

I would like to be called just Rob from now on (will make the appropriate changes to my avatar, to downgrade myself now to mere human status! If you'll have me that is..

Ah but alas that's not even neccessary, you could HATE me, so long as you find YOUR truth, your own "ocean pearl". [And of course I know that you cannot bring yourself to hate me for very long.. and those who do, well then "bring it on"!] JK!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Hello my friend,

By chance, your post was the first I read this morning. What a wonderful way to start the day. You get it!

Truth cannot be found by sharing words. Truth is already within each and everyone of us. It reveals itself when the time is right. I believe the word here is epiphany. Once realised, there is an overwhelming urge to share this truth. The truth IS sharing by nature. Funny how we all seek in our lives the great wise man who will come and answer our questions. From birth we learn that is the way of things. Sometimes in our search for truth it is helpful to just take a long hard gaze at the wise man in the mirror and reflect on our lives and contemplate what meaning we have given others in our brief time here. What truth do we share? Do we find it to be a good truth? Is it the truth we want?

As for your name, well names are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Haven't we all held many in our time here?

I was born Arthur.
I from an early age I was called Ottsie (ahtzi), a family nickname for Arthur.
In highschool I was called Lynch within my circle of metal head friends.
My years in the Corps went by Pete or Petey amongst my friends.
My spiritual journey brought those who called me Little Bear and Tata Ngombe en Toto
And there is a name I only call myself.

Is this not a pattern others shared? Names, what is in them?

I will call you anything you wish, but most of all Friend and Brother.

With Love,

Your Brother

One question for the OP.

1. With 6 billion plus people on this planet all capable of finding their own truth, what is the one truth that will bind them all together?

Originally posted by OwenandNoelle

Hmmm...you’ve raised some excellent points. I guess, I better go back to drawing board --- you’re asking what a seemingly average person, say some person off the street (who is in the possession though of the “ultimate truth”) can say to convince me that his version of the truth is correct.

One of my very few deeply held beliefs is that all of reality is subjective – in other words, my truth might not necessarily be your truth. So your question while on the surface is simple...is actually really complicated. (at least to me lol)

If you look to the back of your hand, and you examine it, what part of it seems subjective to you? What part of it is not consistent and dependable enough to be what it is right now the next time you look at it (in general appearance, utility and broad application, of course)? It's not eternal, but that doesn't mean that it's not real.

Look at the chair you're sitting on. The physical nature of that chair is so stable and objective that the company that manufactured it has an entire production line that spits out chairs just like it all day long. Maybe not the exact same molecules, or the exact same minute particle associations, but there is a level of objective reality that does exist associated with that chair that allows it to maintain its appearance, its physical functionality, and regardless of ones specific perception, its physical identity in relative context with the other stuff that exists as real within the same contextual environment.

This is not you inventing reality. This is you as an integral part of one slice of reality. Maybe just one slice, but real nonetheless. Real is not subjective. By definition, reality is objective. Perception is subjective, not reality.

I don’t think there is anything a seemingly average person can say without the benefit of psychic or prophetic wisdom to convince me that he is correct. Which kind of sucks. Moreover, if the truth this person speaks of is so far outside of my belief system or my construct of logical thinking --- I suspect that I’ll immediately dismiss it as crazy talk.

What I just suggested - was that crazy talk? Was that far outside your construct of logical thinking? If so, then are you being well-served by your own construct of logical thinking? Some people are not very well-served by their devotion to inaccurate beliefs. Not that I am suggesting that yours in inaccurate, but we both know that on this planet of 7 billion people, there are those whose beliefs cause them no end of difficulty due to the fact that those beliefs sinmply do not mesh properly with the real that bases their own physical existence.

So, what would make you believe one "real" as opposed to another "real"? Would it be its degree of dependable predictability? Would it be the percentage of other people who embrace it as real? Would it be the way that it makes you feel? Would it be due to what a book has stated about it?

Do you realize that for anything at all to achieve and to maintain organized existence - such as the chair you're sitting in - a foundational "real" must exist that is immune to any and all perspectives, perceptions, beliefs, and assertions? Consciousness itself cannot exist without a foundational "real" upon which to rest as it ponders its own existence. After all, if consciousness exists, then it must exist in context with what it is conscious of. That requires a foundational reality for both consciousness and what consciousness is conscious of to share in contextual commonality. If not, then what is consciousness besides a collection of 12 letters that people use to confuse other people?

I guess i can only hope that the person’s truth will resonate with me on a deeper level. I know that might seem like a hopelessly new age cop out answer. But as disappointing as this is to admit, I have to say that the only version of “ultimate truth” I am likely to believe is one that I’ve constructed for myself.

Arg! I’ll have to think about your question some more! Great topic and thread though!

It's a good question, and that's why it vexes me as well. True discernment is like good judgment. The highest function of human intellect. So high a function that it can seem as if intellect isn't even involved.

reply to post by NorEaster

Auditioning?

Even if I'm not, the means by which responses are evaluated is significant. Like I mentioned a few pages back, an awful lot of the questions proposed so far could very easily be answered by totally random people pulled off the street.

oops - this sort of answer would be a red flag.

Ok. Why? Merely because you happen to not like it? Again...how to evaluate responses is important. The answer I gave is completely consistent with some schools of thought. Are you dismissing the answer simply because you don't personally happen to believe it? If so, then are you really looking for "truth" or are you simply looking for validation of what you already believe?

Consider the possibility that we might be wrong about some things we think. Do you want your questions and your evaluation of answers to be capable of withstanding the possibility that you might be wrong about things you presently believe? Or are you simply seeking validation of existing beliefs?

This answer does not provide the source of this universe's "rules". It
doesn't provide the incentive that drives whatever is imposing those rules.
It recognizes that these rules are pervasive, but why are they pervasive?
Why is anything pervasive? Why does the concept of consistency exist at all?

You did not ask for these things. You asked for the driving force behind physical order. You also appear to have misunderstood the answer that was given. These "rules" are not necessarily pervasive. Every universe may have its own rules. This should have been clear when I specified that your universe exhibits a set of rules, and that within that universe those rules generate more or less consistent results.

If the question you really intended to ask was, "who makes the rules in the universe that I observe?" then the answer would be: you do, within the limits of your ability to make rules.

Five fixed questions to address all cases might not be sufficient. As demonstrated here, it's very easy to respond to answers with several more questions. Consider the scope of what you are attempting. Imagine trying to ask only 5 questions that would confirm even something very simple...like whether a person was born in this country. What five questions could possibly confirm such a thing? How are five questions going to be able to confirm whether a person has an accurate understanding of the nature of the universe?

dismissing the notion of the true anomaly
doesn't detail the logical nature of it.

You might consider looking up the words "logical" and "true" in a dictionary. Your usage seems peculiar.

I used simple logical extrapolation.

No. I saw no extrapolation and little logic. To be blunt, what you're doing appears to be roughly the equivalent of a christian asking who your savior is, and if you don't say Jesus, then obviously you must be wrong.

What's your goal? Is it to find questions to confirm the "truth" of another's claims, or it is to find questions that check for self consistency within those claims...or is it to check if those claims are compatible with your current assumptions?

Originally posted by IAMIAM

One question for the OP.

1. With 6 billion plus people on this planet all capable of finding their own truth, what is the one truth that will bind them all together?

edit on 6-1-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

That Truth is like bacteria.

Bacteria is considered to be many strains of single cell microbes that collect within (literally) everything, and function to either promote survival or impose elimination - as the case may be. Scientists performed some experiments a while back and discovered that isolated bacteria responded to the introduction (within a separate isolated chamber containing the same strain of bacteria) of an anti-bacterial agent, producing defenses for that anti-bacterial agent. These were bacteria cells that had never been exposed to this agent, and yet they adjusted to this agent after their compatriots had been exposed within their own isolated environment.

This made some researchers assume that the bacteria under attack alerted the others via (who knows) some unknown means of communication. Primitive telepathy perhaps? Of course, that's absurd to suggest, but still, why would the isolated bacteria be affected by the exposure of other isolated bacteria to an anti-bacterial agent? A few of the researchers began getting a cold feeling as a new potential crept up on them.

Maybe bacteria isn't many strains of single cell microbes that collect within everything? Maybe bacteria is the largest single organism on this entire planet, and the physical structure that it has is just very different than what we've come to believe as unitary physical structure? Suddenly, the battle to keep up with bacteria's ability to counter anti-bacterial medicines and chemical agents isn't so mysterious after all? If addressed as one enormous host organism, one that we all live off and feed when we finally stop living, then maybe our effort to fight bacteria is what doesn't make sense.

I see Truth (big T truth) as akin to this notion of bacteria. If True, then it is absolutely pervasive, and is as much a part of human ecstasy as it is a part of structural engineering, and in the same general percentage of contextual presence. Testing the objective aspects of Truth is the only means of testing that Truth. Ecstasy is a magnificent aspect of Truth, but how testable is it? One person's ecstasy in not the same as another person's ecstasy. One person's inspiration is not the same as another person's inspiration. One person's experience of gnosis is not another's experience of gnosis. These beautiful and transcendent aspects of Truth are simply not testable aspects.

It's the meat and potato aspects - structure, consistency, logical juxtaposition - that carry the load for all the more glamorous things that reality has to offer. These are the things that we need to consider when allowing a version of Truth to present itself for our consideration.

The one fact that would - if embraced by every human being on earth - unite them all in common experience, would be that there is only one version of "real". We each may possess our own experience of that real, but that real is objective and immutable, regardless of how it is perceived.

If the entire human race could possibly allow this to be Truth in their visceral sense of what is true, then they would inevitably demand to be allowed to know what the objective criteria is to honestly determine what that "real" is. What derails people is that they've come to the unsettling realization that what they feel they must believe is daily contradicted by what they can't help but to know. This has caused reality itself to seem subjective. Given that, nothing is dependable anymore. Not truth, not morality, not honor, not integrity, not anything.

A bald-faced lie becomes just another point of view.

One "real". The one that actually exists and that set the foundation for all that has since emerged in withering complexity and sophistication. That one "real" - the Truth. Convince them that it does actually exist, and that it can be determined, and then let them work it out from there.

Originally posted by NorEaster
One "real". The one that actually exists and that set the foundation for all that has since emerged in withering complexity and sophistication. That one "real" - the Truth. Convince them that it does actually exist, and that it can be determined, and then let them work it out from there.

There is no one "real" my friend. Real is what we create. When one is born, he knows nothing of this existence. He begins to learn of it, more specifically, he begins to learn what past generations have created of it. What he experiences from birth will create within him his very own idea of what reality is. With his newly created reality, he will shape the reality of his own future generations.

Reality is a blank canvass, black void. Imagine being born without senses. You have no sight, no hearing, no feeling, no taste or smell. What would existence be to you?

For deep thinkers who believe it would be what ever you imagine, your dead wrong. You haven't learned or experienced anything to form an imagination yet. Your whole existence would be spent in a blank slate, knowing nothing. You would not even be aware that you had been born yet. You are life energy doing nothing.

Now suddenly your senses are restored to you. You can hear, feel, see, taste, and touch! Would it not be terrifying? Perhaps it would be joyful! What makes the difference?

The difference would be whether it brought you pleasure or pain, sensations that up until now you were not aware of. Everything you experience with these new senses will shape your reality, all based on pleasure or pain.

This is the importance of creating a world of love. It is not for ourselves that we labor. It is for our future. Everyone has gone through this scenario I have painted and will return to that senseless state again, to forget, and try again.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by NorEaster

 

oops - this sort of answer would be a red flag.

Ok. Why? Merely because you happen to not like it? Again...how to evaluate responses is important. The answer I gave is completely consistent with some schools of thought. Are you dismissing the answer simply because you don't personally happen to believe it? If so, then are you really looking for "truth" or are you simply looking for validation of what you already believe?

Consider the possibility that we might be wrong about some things we think. Do you want your questions and your evaluation of answers to be capable of withstanding the possibility that you might be wrong about things you presently believe? Or are you simply seeking validation of existing beliefs?

Let's look at your answer -

How is this consistency imposed?

Generally speaking it is not "imposed." However, there may occassionally be limits to the ability of any particular observer to choose the nature of their observations. As such, consistency may be "imposed" by one's limits.

Consistency is obviously imposed. The evidence is overwhelming that consistency exists, and there's no way to defend the notion that consistency is a default response to the emergence of existence. After all, consistency eventually fails, which completely debunks the notion of it being a default response. Therefore, if not a default response, then it is imposed upon the natural default, which is inconsistency.

This isn't thesis-level logic. This is rudimentary extrapolation. A man possessing the Truth would not suggest that consistency is not imposed upon physical structure - regardless of the universe involved. By the way, why are you stranded in one universe or another? Who mentioned universes in that question or the one before it? Again, logical extrapolation. Determining the direct ramifications of the answer given.

This answer does not provide the source of this universe's "rules". It
doesn't provide the incentive that drives whatever is imposing those rules.
It recognizes that these rules are pervasive, but why are they pervasive?
Why is anything pervasive? Why does the concept of consistency exist at all?

You did not ask for these things. You asked for the driving force behind physical order. You also appear to have misunderstood the answer that was given. These "rules" are not necessarily pervasive. Every universe may have its own rules. This should have been clear when I specified that your universe exhibits a set of rules, and that within that universe those rules generate more or less consistent results.

If the question you really intended to ask was, "who makes the rules in the universe that I observe?" then the answer would be: you do, within the limits of your ability to make rules.

You brought up the notion of rules - so I commented on your introduction of rules by suggesting that you've introduced the notion of rules without suggesting the source of those rules. Whatever comes into existence does so due to being brought inton existence. I didn't ask about rules in the original question, but I was interested in your mentioning them. I guess I wanted the point it out in my response.

So, let's look again at your answer -

5. What is the primary impetus for the existence of physical order?

Any given set of rules lends itself to a given set of likely results. If you drop a ball while standing on earth, it is likely to fall. If somebody else drops something that is not a ball while standing on a different planet, it is also likely to fall. Different people, different objects, different planets, yet the result was similar. You can describe this similarity as "order" but in both cases it is simply a likely result of the same rules being applied. In this case, gravity. Your observed universe exhibits a more or less consistent set of rules. Therefore, within that universe, similar, "ordered" results are likely to result.

You decided to introduce the universe in your answer, which was not featured in the original question. I had no intention of limiting the scope of the question to the confines of any specific contextual environment, and certainly not the limited area of a universe. Again, you answer did not address the actual question as it was posed.

You have alluded to the notion that there is no primary impetus for physical order. That each relative confine is free to bring its own version of order into existence. If this is true, then what is the foundational environment that hosts these many and varied confines? And how can all these confines co-exist if they don't share a fundamental version of physical order? I love that we have digital technology so interwoven into our daily lives, because it's always available to be used as an example when needed.

If one computer has (let's say) Windows 98 as its operating system, and the computer's owner goes out and buys Windows Office 2007, what do you think will happen when he tries to install it? Nothing, of course. That software package is inconsistent with the platform provided by Windows 98. The two programs can't co-exist, and that's not even the same thing as two software packages that simply don't interface with one another on the same computer. These two literally can't exist on the same computer. Not at all.

This is what two completely, or even somewhat, different versions of physical order would result in. Not just the inability to interact, but the absolute inability for both to exist. Physical order is based on a sub-structure, and when you dig down to the very bottom of reality, what you find as the sub-structure is what all that exists shares with all else that exists. Regardless of what form of existence it takes. Everything that exists has to share this common version of physical order, or it simply can't physically exist.

Reality is not malleable. It simply is what it is. Contextual juxtaposition can cause relative reality to emerge, but that's not what I'm referring to. When I used the word "primary", I indicated that I was not referring to contextually generated brelative reality that may or may not contain this physical order. A man who was trying to dodge such a clear and fatally unambiguous answer might attempt to adjust the premise of the question, and limit it to (let's say) a universe. Not saying that you were intentionally doing this, but this is what I would challenge his answer with.

Five fixed questions to address all cases might not be sufficient. As demonstrated here, it's very easy to respond to answers with several more questions. Consider the scope of what you are attempting. Imagine trying to ask only 5 questions that would confirm even something very simple...like whether a person was born in this country. What five questions could possibly confirm such a thing? How are five questions going to be able to confirm whether a person has an accurate understanding of the nature of the universe?

I would've walked off on him over those 5 answers. I commented on them here as a matter of respect for you. I wouldn't have bothered if presented with that actual scenario. Those answers would've told me exactly what I need to know.

dismissing the notion of the true anomaly
doesn't detail the logical nature of it.

You might consider looking up the words "logical" and "true" in a dictionary. Your usage seems peculiar.

There is a difference between an anomaly and a true anomaly. An anomaly can simply be a perceived anomaly. Not anomalous at all. A true anomaly has been verified as being truly anomalous. I thought that was clearly stated.

The logical nature of something is not its physical nature, or the nature of its impact on your perception of it. It is the relative relationship it has with the immutable structure that it is (or should be) an integral aspect of. The truth about reality is that all that exists is fully connected and supported by all else that exists. Nothing stands alone. The logical nature of something is the full connection it has with whatever else connects to it or is affected by it. It's the sum total of that existential presence.

I used simple logical extrapolation.

No. I saw no extrapolation and little logic. To be blunt, what you're doing appears to be roughly the equivalent of a christian asking who your savior is, and if you don't say Jesus, then obviously you must be wrong.

hmmm I hope my explanation here has helped you understand how I see things and why I saw your answers as I did.

What's your goal? Is it to find questions to confirm the "truth" of another's claims, or it is to find questions that check for self consistency within those claims...or is it to check if those claims are compatible with your current assumptions?

My goal? To try and better understand how people think. To try and be a better thinker myself. To take the most important question of all - Can the Truth be determined? - and present it here for consideration. Simply asking "Can the Truth be known?" would only get me Eckart Tolle quotes and videos, and frankly, I think that guy's an idiot. I want to see if there is anyone on this board who - if presented with this puzzle - would actually know how to solve it. Or at least filter out the really well versed and well prepared gurus and shamans that are bumping into each other all over town during Happy Hour.

Other than that, I've been having fun.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by NorEaster
One "real". The one that actually exists and that set the foundation for all that has since emerged in withering complexity and sophistication. That one "real" - the Truth. Convince them that it does actually exist, and that it can be determined, and then let them work it out from there.

There is no one "real" my friend. Real is what we create.

See, now this is as far as you'd get with me. The rest would just be a person talking.

Elemental logic just plain demands a fundamental real. You can't build your church on air. Well, you can try, but....

You somewhat misunderstood or misinterpreted my notion of the very non-esoteric fact that you can only experience the world through aware perception. The shared reality can be objective, but there is no way to make it "mind independent" for each particular perciever. Each last detail goes processed through you, so I am not saying that mind produces the Universe, but that what we cannot see outside this filter, but without it there is nothing for us - the Universe doesn't exist (for you) without your conscious awareness of it. So, anyone trying to tell you the big truth should be able to communicate it beyond this "limitation" and use some other means of communication from anthropomorphic ideations, expressed through thoughts, words... or you might be only dealing with a technologically superior person, not the one holding the big Truth.
But you asked it that way. I don't think even hypothetically it would work that way.
We should rationally stick with science for explaining the mechanism and not making a mistake of believing that our partial discoveries in that way explain the world as it is. Enjoy the ride in awe would be my answer, explore and discover and don't believe anyone who claims s/he can tell you the secret of "all there is" in words.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MrVortex

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrVortex

 

Sort of a Gnostic way of seeing things. No workable questions then. No sweat.

Nope. If the person knows "THE TRUTH" it must be self revelatory and evident beyond doubt. Any additional explanations should be obsolete or it is not the complete truth. It is quite possible that we cannot comprehend it at all, but I doubt logical debate with such a "truth holder" would bring you anything more than circling around in loops of argument. And think of it that way - anything you can form as an ideation is limited by your perceptual apparatus - each last detail of the world must be processed by you or it doesn't exist (for you) - so can you really "recieve" the complete "Truth" that way? Or must you abandon this "filter" if it is possible at all?

Yep, you can say Gnostic, but you limit my enquiring position with a label that doesn't explain it completely and I wouldn't do that to myself or anyone else.

Okay...not Gnostic then. How about unaware of the fact that reality exists as a concrete and not as an abstract premise? The fact that you can even dismiss reality as a construct of the human mind should be proof that beneath your esoteric musing lies a consistent and reliable matrix of extremely rigid redundancies that allow you to exist - let alone consider the nature of that existence. Without that completely definable structure, you would not exist. It's a simple as that.

I'm not looking to debate the nature of reality. I'm looking for a suite of questions that would force anyone who claims to KNOW "the Truth" to prove that he knows at least part of "the Truth" before allowing him to blather on about more esoteric aspects of "the Truth." The actual immutable nature of physical structure seems like it would have to be part of "the Truth", since everything that we are, as corporeal thinking beings, depends on that physical structure. We know enough about it to be able to verify pretty much any new information he might have. And, there are very definite areas of physical existence that we just don't know, and that scientists just haven't been able to make sense of. That's where I'd start with this guy.

I reject the lazy notion that reality can't be known, or that a person's head would explode if presented with the overview of how physical existence is laid out. That just sounds like the intellectual equivalent of cracking a beer and turning on the Cartoon Network.

You somewhat misunderstood or misinterpreted my notion of the very non-esoteric fact that you can only experience the world through aware perception. The shared reality can be objective, but there is no way to make it "mind independent" for each particular perciever. Each last detail goes processed through you, so I am not saying that mind produces the Universe, but that what we cannot see outside this filter, but without it there is nothing for us - the Universe doesn't exist (for you) without your conscious awareness of it. So, anyone trying to tell you the big truth should be able to communicate it beyond this "limitation" and use some other means of communication from anthropomorphic ideations, expressed through thoughts, words... or you might be only dealing with a technologically superior person, not the one holding the big Truth.
But you asked it that way. I don't think even hypothetically it would work that way.
We should rationally stick with science for explaining the mechanism and not making a mistake of believing that our partial discoveries in that way explain the world as it is. Enjoy the ride in awe would be my answer, explore and discover and don't believe anyone who claims s/he can tell you the secret of "all there is" in words.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MrVortex

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by MrVortex

 

Sort of a Gnostic way of seeing things. No workable questions then. No sweat.

Nope. If the person knows "THE TRUTH" it must be self revelatory and evident beyond doubt. Any additional explanations should be obsolete or it is not the complete truth. It is quite possible that we cannot comprehend it at all, but I doubt logical debate with such a "truth holder" would bring you anything more than circling around in loops of argument. And think of it that way - anything you can form as an ideation is limited by your perceptual apparatus - each last detail of the world must be processed by you or it doesn't exist (for you) - so can you really "recieve" the complete "Truth" that way? Or must you abandon this "filter" if it is possible at all?

Yep, you can say Gnostic, but you limit my enquiring position with a label that doesn't explain it completely and I wouldn't do that to myself or anyone else.

Okay...not Gnostic then. How about unaware of the fact that reality exists as a concrete and not as an abstract premise? The fact that you can even dismiss reality as a construct of the human mind should be proof that beneath your esoteric musing lies a consistent and reliable matrix of extremely rigid redundancies that allow you to exist - let alone consider the nature of that existence. Without that completely definable structure, you would not exist. It's a simple as that.

I'm not looking to debate the nature of reality. I'm looking for a suite of questions that would force anyone who claims to KNOW "the Truth" to prove that he knows at least part of "the Truth" before allowing him to blather on about more esoteric aspects of "the Truth." The actual immutable nature of physical structure seems like it would have to be part of "the Truth", since everything that we are, as corporeal thinking beings, depends on that physical structure. We know enough about it to be able to verify pretty much any new information he might have. And, there are very definite areas of physical existence that we just don't know, and that scientists just haven't been able to make sense of. That's where I'd start with this guy.

I reject the lazy notion that reality can't be known, or that a person's head would explode if presented with the overview of how physical existence is laid out. That just sounds like the intellectual equivalent of cracking a beer and turning on the Cartoon Network.