The need to fill the void of ignorance

reply to post by Condemned0625


Did my homework, and I put it out there... A slight remodeling of terminology is all. Don't you find language confining anyhow? So is the any place I can find your compilation? Just wondering...

reply to post by Americanist


I don't have a compilation of books or texts, if that's what you mean. The only things I have authored are my own theses in the form of text documents. Are we done now?

reply to post by Condemned0625


It is an interesting thing i have noticed about some perspectives (such as yours), that everything needs to go into something which is presently defined. I find that very interesting, but i also find many of such perspectives are of a very combative and aggressive nature, which makes getting to know it a little difficult. I think people would be more open to discussion, if that is what you are interested in, if you didnt take things so seriously. This is all just an observation from me, no harsh feelings meant. If you really want to discuss perspectives, then many people here would likely be interested. If you simply want to "debate" perspectives, well there isnt much point in that, is there?

I am curious though, and perhaps you will be so kind as to answer, but that is up to you. When you speak so fervently against others beliefs, what allows your own statement of "You cannot know that which is not true nor can you know what you think is true" to be invalidated? You sure seem certain of what you know from my observation, but i have to remember, its the internet. I could be completely misunderstanding what you are saying. Written language can be a lot different, so i always try to remember that.

reply to post by sinohptik


"You cannot know that which is not true nor can you know what you think is true."

By that statement, I am speaking from an epistemological perspective. It is a statement referring to logical truth, whose validity depends only on logic, on the definitions and properties of concepts we ourselves define.

To broaden the spectrum, I'll simplify it:

You cannot know an invalid statement as a fact because it is invalid, rendering it nonfactual. You also cannot know an unproven perspective (or belief) as a fact if it has not or cannot be demonstrated by any means, whether it be non-demonstrated to everyone else or yourself. This is simply objective logic that is based on the way us humans (most humans at least) have conceived it. My signature is simple and straightforward, at least to me.

reply to post by Condemned0625


I didn't hear a bell ring, but I'm able to leave it at that. I'll add one little tidbit though... If you're a good listener, most answers will find you inside rhythm and song.

reply to post by Americanist


I don't listen to music for educational purposes, but a lot of my music makes very good points. As you can tell, I don't listen to any mainstream songs. My profile explains it all.

If you don't understand my signature, study the elaboration I provided. If a bell still doesn't ring, I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time on this. I could have been spending more time doing other things instead of this, but I guess argumentation is in my nature when it comes to subjects like this. I can't help but explain things when a "Euthyphro dilemma" arises. It also frustrates me when deductive and circular reasoning becomes the center of an argument, which happened in this case.

reply to post by sinohptik

The unknown unknown is a wonderful sphere of potential knowing, and therefore I think it's worth exploring and investigating, and for me that makes me happy, but maybe that's just me I don't know.

What's now called Cognitive Relatavism, used to be called Isolate Consciousness, of the "in the scull only" variety, and yet, what is opening up in modern quantum metaphysics, where they're FORCED to explore now, is something else, something both solipsistic AND interdependant both at once, in the most astonishing way.

Thus, if a materialist monist viewpoint, where mind is nothing but an epiphenomenon of matter must be discarded, in order to resolve the quantum paradoxes, that's problematic for the Isolate Consciousness or Cognitive Relativism perspective, and points to the notion that the only opportunity for freedom must arise from a non-local field of possibility (unknown unknown), and only when the choice is made, or at the very moment of decision, does the wave collapse in an apparent actuality. At the very least, this indicates that consciousness, and not matter is primary (Monistic Idealism), and that it is non-locally distributed in some sort of holographic matrix, or an information cloud of sorts, at the most fundamental quantum level, which also involves light as a medium.

The classical mind only view, negates the possibility of free will or freedom. It's all reaction/reasponse only, and this is the purely robot view of the human being, the machine, but no ghost, no freely choosing self, just drives, selfish desires nothing more, no soul, not transcendant "I am" who knows they are, and knows they know etc. which can only terminate in nihilism. Sounds lonely.

Doesn't "jive" with what I think of as felt experience, this way of thinking and seeing. There's more to us and everything than meets the eye, and although we have a hard time producing that and proving it to another person, especially a staunch sceptic, it's still our experience and what we know to be true. Truth cannot be proven any other way but with knowing or gnosis, and I happen to believe that gnosis can be shared in a shared "grokking", since rational thoughts are easily recognized for their validity, against our own felt experience of what's being communicated.

It's ok for someone to push that aside and dismiss it as nothing but your POV if they wish, but it would have to be in preference to something else, and another belief or POV. I think they were right to call that other materialist monist atheist POV "isolate consciousness" because that is simply what it is, and it's based on the fundamental presupposition that consciousness, is strictly an epiphenomenon of matter, while ignoring the quantum paradoxes which suggest something entirely different, that we are much more than who and what we might have thought we were, with our every thought and deed projected on some sort of eternal holographic record, what some called the Akashic Record or what Ervin Laszlo calls the Akashic Field, or the Zero Point Field, from which and through which all existence is moving, like an interference pattern, or a hologram. I guess that's quite the projection, but since it's happening all at once from every angle and perspective already always, and creating reality to begin with, it's not solipsistic, although no less profound in it's implications ie: in a non-local, holographic universe, local matters!

To be free, truly free, we'd have to release from that (materialist monist) viewpoint, and embrace the unknown in absolute uncertainty, or what I call the "holy of holies" or the domain, of limitless possibility or the unfolding present moment, which is conditioned more by the FUTURE, via imagination, than it is past learned behaviors, and thus the domain of novelty, creativity, and therefore the possibility of life, and humor, and love freely expressed, and the true self, also freely expressed, without fear or condemnation.

But I disgress as I realize this isn't everyone's "cup of tea" you could say.

reply to post by Condemned0625


Thank you for the reply, and simplification. I really can be stupid sometimes, can make the whole "science" thing a little tricky.

Your logic will only take you so far. Best of luck breaking past it, friend. Try it, if for nothing else than to simply expand your perspective of things. Dont worry about your mind falling out! The huge part of our experience is beyond what our mind can comprehend. You are missing out on so much. If there is even the smallest fraction of a chance i am right, that makes it 100% possible, neh? So, give it an actual shot, really. Your being is so much greater than your mind, even materially. I was once where you are. I was not able to see the glory of all that is because of my arrogance, and i hate to see something similar (it was arrogance for me, i dont know you) happen to another system. When i realized i couldnt even comprehend the distance to the stars (as one can comprehend to distance to a near tree), or even what happens every continual moment in my own body, i found logic and reasoning to be severely lacking as the entirety of understanding this experience. Every word spoken and thought conjured to figure "being" out did nothing but take me one step further away from it. It is, truly, a matter of perspective. But also of "being," because that my friend, both of us are.

We meet in eternity, nonetheless.

Perhaps i have shed some light on this ones views. Perhaps you dont personally care, but it might have been aimed somewhere else anyway. Can never figure out these quantam laser sights

reply to post by sinohptik


I'm not "missing out" on what you think I am missing out on. If it doesn't matter to me, I'm not really missing much. That's my decision.

reply to post by Condemned0625


You are indeed correct, and i can only speak from my own perspective. I wouldnt have looked into it any further when i was in a similar position to yours either. But who knows, maybe you will lead the way with logic and reason into a new age.

Best of luck brother/sister!

reply to post by Ralphy


All that we call "knowledge" today will be the quant little "beliefs" others scoff at in the future. It's happend in the past. Hubris to assume that we hold a special position of "knowing" when all the other pretenders to that same title were climbed over to get to where we are now.

It's ALL belief in the end.

I believe everyone is at different stages of learning, mentally and spiritually. I also think it is very important for us to "realize" that other people are at different stages and most likely have other views and beliefs on reality. I think what we as people have to do, is "accept" what other people believe and strive for our own individual advancement. It is fine to lend a helping hand to someone who asks for guidance, but never try to change someone. Ignorant people are also at their own stages of development/learning, so trying to shoot them down is not helping either party, as your not helping the ignorant person learn, and often you reverse your own advancements by stooping to lower levels to make points. Anyways to cut a long story short, can't we all just get along and help each other learn and advance as a species?

Peace 2 all

reply to post by Hazz-14

Acceptance is one of the highest forms of love, and you're right, but sometimes it's a very tricky balacing act, but I'm willing and apologize wherever I might have gotten out of line, and to anyone I might have hurt or offended in any way. It's difficult, and challenging, and these are things we're all struggling through. It's always so paradoxical I've found when you start getting close to hitting the nail on the head, and so you can injure your own thumb alot.

What's that saying, every time I point my finger, there's always some damn fool at the end of it.. (self).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Yeah i totally agree. This is something we're all struggling at, and even the best of people can get frustrated and say/do something they normally wouldn't, and this is where the acceptance part is very important. If both sides of the party realize and accept, the situation can be taken as a learning post and be forgotten about with no hard feelings. I know it sounds weird, but if someone ever verbally abuses you, cuts you of in a car, or some other act that gets your blood boiling, just let it be. Realize that that person is at his/her own stage and just accept. It's amazing how connected you feel when you love all and judge none. And yes, we all slip up sometimes, but if you catch yourself and correct yourself you'll be just fine.

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Subatomic particles don't need to be conscious to perform their functions. You're talking about something that's not even in the realm of science. That's like saying my keyboard has a consciousness...

You're limiting yourself to our level of consciousness. There are lower levels and higher levels just because we do not fully understand them in terms of our consciousness does not mean they are not conscious on thier level.

reply to post by hawkiye


Do yourself a favor and find the word in a dictionary. Once you've done that, return and tell me that you've read the definition and understood it. Excuses like "But that's a limited understanding of it" or "But there's lower and higher levels" are not going to work with me. If atoms were self-aware, we would have figured that out by now or at least we'd be close. However, when many atoms are together to form an organism with a brain, that can be called consciousness, but it doesn't mean each particular atom is conscious or aware of itself. Once quadrillions or more of atoms are placed together to assemble a body, they are the building blocks of your brain and allow the existence of consciousness as a whole, not individually. Lower consciousness can be microorganisms, higher can be ultra-dimensional extraterrestrials or something of that sort. I'm sure that most people would disagree if someone said "There are lower levels of consciousness and I think atoms and subatomic particles are aware of themselves, therefore this rock is conscious." That statement is not only incorrect but absurd.

Some people ought to pick up and read a book called "The Self Aware Univerrse" by Amit Goswami, which puts forth a very convincing case that consciousness, not matter, is primary, and that mind cannot be viewed stricly as an epiphenomenon of matter, the proof of this being in the only possible resolution to the quantum paradoxes, and so the scientific framework is there. This would suggest that all reality IS conscious, at some level or another, regardless of how counter intuitive that may appear at first glance.

And some people should actually look for evidence instead of believing everything they read in a book. The universe and reality itself as a whole consciousness? There's just as many gaps in that as there are in the concept of gods. Seems very similar to a christian argument, without any proof to support it. Maybe someone should write a bible about it and assert it as much as they can without proof. "In the beginning, the unobservable, invisible external consciousness created the heavens and the Earth." Does that sound good? How about this: "In the beginning, an impossibly infinite entity created everything and gave all things in reality consciousness, even rocks."

There's no "universal mind" that we can tap into. New Age is purely belief.

The New Age movement is a non-religious Western spiritual movement that developed in the latter half of the 20th century. Its central precepts revolve around "drawing on both Eastern and Western spiritual and metaphysical traditions and then infusing them with influences from self-help and motivational psychology, holistic health, parapsychology, consciousness research and quantum physics"[2] in order to create "a spirituality without borders or confining dogmas" that is inclusive and pluralistic.[3] Another of its primary traits is holding to "a holistic worldview,"[4] thereby emphasising that the Mind, Body and Spirit are interrelated[1] and that there is a form of Oneness and unity throughout the universe.[5] It further attempts to create "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality"[6] and thereby embraces a number of forms of science and pseudoscience. The scientific community has debunked many New Age beliefs.

The scientific community has debunked many New Age beliefs? That doesn't surprise me.

New Age Wiki

reply to post by Condemned0625

Hang on, it depends on how you define new age, and those quantum paradoxes are real. What it's saying (Monistic Idealism) is that the ground of all being, is consciousness.

I used to be an atheist, but I kept an open mind "free from CONTEMPT, prior to investigation, a surefire recipe for keeping a man or woman in everlasting ignorance" (Herbert Spencer, scientist, paraphrased).

You don't need to try to go out of your way to try to discredit me with links to new age stuff, that's not neccessary.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Are you implying that I'm restrained by contempt? Believing something without evidence is ignorance. I am merely rejecting it because it is not supported. You're doing the same exact thing as a religious person would; claiming without proving. If you can't prove it, don't claim it.

By the way, why are you using a quote from an agnostic scientist?

Agnosticism

Spencer's reputation among the Victorians owed a great deal to his agnosticism. He rejected theology as representing the 'impiety of the pious.' He was to gain much notoriety from his repudiation of traditional religion, and was frequently condemned by religious thinkers for allegedly advocating atheism and materialism. Nonetheless, unlike Huxley, whose agnosticism was a militant creed directed at ‘the unpardonable sin of faith’ (in Adrian Desmond’s phrase), Spencer insisted that he was not concerned to undermine religion in the name of science, but to bring about a reconciliation of the two. Starting either from religious belief or from science, Spencer argued, we are ultimately driven to accept certain indispensable but literally inconceivable notions. Whether we are concerned with a Creator or the substratum which underlies our experience of phenomena, we can frame no conception of it. Therefore, Spencer concluded, religion and science agree in the supreme truth that the human understanding is only capable of 'relative' knowledge. This is the case since, owing to the inherent limitations of the human mind, it is only possible to obtain knowledge of phenomena, not of the reality ('the absolute') underlying phenomena. Hence both science and religion must come to recognize as the 'most certain of all facts that the Power which the Universe manifests to us is utterly inscrutable.' He called this awareness of 'the Unknowable' and he presented worship of the Unknowable as capable of being a positive faith which could substitute for conventional religion. Indeed, he thought that the Unknowable represented the ultimate stage in the evolution of religion, the final elimination of its last anthropomorphic vestiges.

An excerpt on Herbert Spencer's position. You claim to know of a universal consciousness, but even he might disagree with you due to his 'Unknowable' scenario. I agree with him.