Sorry Yen sir, but when you decide to define a word differently from the common usage, you severely degrade the meaningfulness and intelligibility of your writing. Two possible words that come to mind and fit your description are “emotional” and “irrational”. I’d guess that had you ever checked a thesaurus, you would have come up with at least a half dozen words that would match your meaning , without introducing the metaphysical bias of “spiritual”. I don’t plan to waste my time since I have never seen any evidence of a “spiritual 'world' experience” I say spiritual 'world' its 'cos though we live in the same world but share common 'feelings' differently. I see plenty of evidence for our four dimensional (including time) universe, and recognize that multidimensionality is a good possibility everything I’ve seen/heard related to spirituality is nothing more than fairytale without substance.
Hello Sid, how are you? This thread is about god. What else would fit most than irrational / emotional from the perspective of mind / intellect? We could also have another debate about the universe, space-time continuum or any other scientific topic. (BTW: Ever asked yourself what consequences it really has that light itself doesn’t age?) I don’t want to waste your time. As long as you have the impression to waste your time when reading my post as long you don’t deal with what I have posted. It is actually the only way not to waste any time… I can fully comprehend what you say and I respect your reply. But you try to understand being / the eternal now by thinking. (The present has no time, anyway there is future and past)… Nobody can that. Then your intellect takes its right to be there demanding for evidence referring to past learned patterns (science or wherever they belong to) as a substitute for truth. What I have posted is no relative truth who could have a place in mind / intellect.
Hello Yen sir, good morning! Essence is the mental and virtual component of form. What we consider as essence of man is life itself. And that concept is entirely virtual. Life is an entirely subjective notion. Consciousness is a phenomenon emerging out of material complexity. Judgement of consciousness is based on egotistical subjectivism.
Hello sid. That what you have written belongs to the relation of things. In this regard some terms have different meanings and definitions. Consciousness, life, ego, essence, virtual, mental. There are many more. I cannot say if I agree with your post or not since I don’t know what’s your definition of those terms. But I think that what you name life I’d name life-situation. And some questions come up: Is the subject alive? And if yes life can’t be a subjective notion. Or some other questions. Has a stone consciousness? And is it alive? Well, no matter what you think is right to you, or generally right for an individual. Each individual has to ‘think’ about if there is an absolute beyond our relative world or not. It is so to say another expression for the question: Do you believe in god. To point to the absolute which cannot have any relation will be always an issue for the intellect / mind which relates. To Physics that absolute is light. Spiritualists are using the term consciousness. Others name it absolute spirit. At Hinduism it is Brahman, to Cristians it is god. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some personal words, take them as entertainment, not as a waste of time. You surely know that training of something can result that the individual can get abilities another one does not have, yes even another cannot imagine. Also mental training. Let us assume it is possible to focus awareness there where no thoughts arise. One is able to observe the process of becoming. From the moment where ‘things’ aren’t differentiated to the time where they become their meaning, definition, identification, where time itself becomes. This process is usually unaware, so to say too fast to recognize. And there is cognition before definition. That what I call direct awareness / experience. This can NEVER be understood by thinking!!! It is recognized as absolute truth at once without ‘science’ or other patterns of mind. It is recognized as eternal now which includes anything that ever will happen. It is recognized as event where one becomes its thousand things. It is recognized as one life which shines through any-thing that exists. It is recognized as your inner Self. It is beyond mind because it is ‘before’ intellect. It is beyond time, it has no beginning and no end. It is like you are thirsty and you are drinking ice cold refreshing water. You are fully aware of this moment, but you never can communicate the present event of drinking. All you can communicate is a memory of this event. Anyway you know it. One understands ‘drinking’ by drinking, not by studying it in a university. One understands being by being, not by reading theories of being. You can now have your opinion about, but it will always miss the real thing. For instance one opinion could be: When it requires a special training it is a trained illusion, it is not real, a joke…or whatever. BUT it will be ever interpretations of mind / intellect and it is doomed to ‘judge’ the present with ideas of past and will ever miss its original nature. In other words one ‘will’ know what I know only then when experiencing it. And one will know that the value / truth of it cannot be gotten by thinking. It is not contrary to science and it can coexist to any other studied matter. It enriches life, it unveils the original nature. It brings inner peace. It kills false identification(s) (ego). It makes you be there where real values are, here, now. All this resides beyond mind means is not thought. It is thought / reminded to communicate here and looses its original nature by doing that.
Just curious to say that the physical is that the existence of which there's no ground to doubt ,it doesn't need a proof - for beings like us. Self entails non-self; saying "we only know the self" is vacuous.
You are completely right with that! It is reasoned in the nature of duality. The categorizing intellect which relates to the idea of oneself. Btw: Have you ever asked yourself why 'reasonable' people are demanding for proof and where proof makes sense and where not? Reasonable / unreasonable. And what is a proof, except a long conclusive chain of patterns of thoughts which is 'temporarily long enough' to make one to agree? Not you 'gorski', 'your' nature.
Hey, Mr. Douglas, my kind regards to your Welsh gf... Oh, no, wait, I am the sex addict hereby mentioned... I am losing the plot here, I must be Mr. Douglas then... (Sorry, a little OTT but... )
Wrote; Yen sir, i've a feeling of misunderstanding your ontological term/s or arguments, what do you seem to assume that something which can be imagined is also real. So, since one can imagine either beings e.i unicorns, FSM or imagine two contrary things, this idea would seem to fall apart immediately. Is not it? I would suggest that you need to differentiate between the concept of a spirit, and a spirit.The concept of a spirit/unicorn exists, spirit/unicorns do not. The existence of a concept does not necessitate that the entity, that the concept refers to exists. The issue is how we can form concepts that refer to non-existent things, or indeed, if that is even possible. If you deny the possibility of empty concepts, then you are forced to argue that spirit/Brahman/consciousness/unicorns exist, simply because the concept does.
Hello sid_16, the issue is how we can form a concept that refers to ‘the absolute’ at all without to destroy the totality (absolute nature). It is never possible by relating / thinking... All the scriptures are trying it using hundreds of pages…..but the results are either blind people following dogmas or people denying it as ‘nonscientific’ without evidence or ‘nonsense’. Only to a few it unveils the absolute. A short taste is nicely described as Satori... The mentioned terms I have posted have similarities in concept I called ‘absolute’. The absolute is actually incomprehensible for the intellect, but ‘stunning’ conclusions can be made. The absolute is totalitarian and thus has a sole claim to reality alone. It is 'to nothing related' Any things are illusionary (from the view of an absolute) since they are related to a seemingly separated observer that assigns its existence to a finite body. (When it comes to light its totality is reasoned it the fact that we know it needs 8 minutes from sun to earth (observed by us), but light itself does not age and also has no 'more' space to travel through...also in speed of light + X = speed of light.) If a unicorn itself exists or a concept of it or not does not matter in this regard (both are illusionary here but they can appear to an observer). An instrument (intellect) that is limited due to the way it works (finite and linear) ‘tries’ to make a concept that points to its source. For the intellect such a concept remains something one can believe in or not. This is the ‘condition’ of most ‘religious’ people. This means one allows the existence of ‘the absolute’ by thinking. There is nothing proven or scientific. But how can one ‘know’ about this? The intellect can play with it as it likes (by assigning meanings to it, in other words to relate to…or by creating concepts) There must be some degree of dissatisfaction of one’s life / ideology (suffer) that creates enough motivation. And the motivation must be strong enough to give up old ideologies one is identified with. ‘Something’ is yearning for permanence, certainty and yes peace, why? The ‘truth’ about that will be recognized as that what one IS = self-awareness or not. It is consciousness that becomes conscious of itself beyond of appearance. There is actually never a reason for any fight or discrepancies. Either it remains an unproven concept (nonsense) or 'it' is experienced as reality... one 'becomes' its own proof....
The argument that concepts must have a referent can be reconciled with non-existent imaginary entities if the latter are regarded as composites of things that do exist. E.g, a unicorn is a white horse with a single horn in the middle of it's forehead. White horses exist, as do horns. Similarly fairies are young ladies with wings, and flying saucers are saucers that fly or the consciousness is about the self and it awareness , So there is some merit in this, but can we say with certainty that our imaginations are limited to only producing compound references to things that exist? And if so, how, and why? Are there no truly original imaginary entities?!? The assertion pf something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists only in the mind is arbitrary, and can logically be rejected by anyone who disagrees that 'greatest' may necessarily includes existence.
Since Einstein has said anything is relative science has moved away from the totality of things (appearance). (Although I think most of the scientists are still too coward to go this way) As conclusion a ‘more universal’ concept has to transcend and to include the ‘lower’. This ‘ends’ in totality again. The one and only! One can say Einstein presumes god (totality). To say this ‘end’ is the only reality is the best concept. Also to say anything that is related to me (my idea of myself) is considered to be illusionary. (The concept that would be more universal would have to include me AND the world and to transcend the ‘old’.) Individuals are assigning different values / different degrees of reality to objects depending on their idea of oneself. Since this idea is constantly changing there is no ‘real’ value of things. We know to individuals the objects that are perceived through the senses appear to be more real than pure imaginations, yes. We also know that perception works the way that we perceive finite objects, even because individuals are usually identified with a finite object (body) AND we can perceive our body through our senses! This reasons the degree of ‘reality’ of objects perceived through senses. “Are there no truly original imaginary entities?!?” So isn’t the question: Are there any real? Become things more real when one can compare and identify them with another illusion? Familiarity creates reality. We should better speak like a horse or tree is as real as my body. And a unicorn does not exist as physical object. (OK one can create a sculpture of a unicorn) but this has no end what about GE made by a biologist
What if tonight as I fall asleep I have a dream of a Unicorn?Even I can see it, hear it, smell it, touch it, or taste it if I wanted to, and after the dream is over I even leave with a memory of my experience. Similarly, the experience you're sharing might be real to you but not for me or others. It was real in the form of a brain-idea, but not real in the form of a physical (Unicorn) animal running around. If we allow that there is something incredibly hot, this does not means that it would be contradictory to say that there is also something incredibly cold. I've been studying the difference between descriptive and explanatory (explicative) language for a long time.Science does not "describe" reality. Science explains reality. We need to learn this difference. Science explains the world, of "how". Science does not describe the world, of "why". Philosophy and religion are much more apt and useful to describe the world and the "whys".
I wanted to avoid with intent to talk about ‘dreaming’ hence I spoke using common sense. (I wanted to be careful not to annoy you, because I actually like it to talk with you) The degrees of reality that are assigned are only dependent on the idea of oneself. When you are dreaming you have another identity (you are identified with your dream body). To this idea a physical dream body unicorn can appear running along on a meadow. Identify /ty comes from idem = same and facere = to make I can live with the differentiation of to describe and to explain (even though science is also describing, but is not satisfied with it alone), but not with ‘the reality’. Science is explaining a reality, but not the reality. Einstein said that himself that any appearance is illusionary. That means this reality is changing with myself. Science tries to appear independent of the particular individual and propagates to be objective and unbiased, real, but that is actually impossible. This is no issue one just needs to make clear (determinate) to what one relates that a communication can have a mutual basis. To this basis is usually agreed tacitly. The basis is estabished so to say... Science denies 'feeling' as a reason for progress and as a reason of to know 'the how' (imagine 'feelings' as a reason given in a publication, lol). But saying this science fools itself. Feelings just have not a verifiable basis. But everybody working here (research) has intuition and gut feeling as driving force. Science is explaining ‘the how’ relative to the scientist’s idea of being, in short relative to the scientist. How else should it be possible? But this thread has the claim to transcend the common idea of oneself. (There is no god (old man) with a beard in heaven commanding / controlling us) In other words god does either not exist or if god exists god does not exist relative / separated to (from) us. And referring to your other thread: “Re-Evaluate Your Entire Existence”..btw a nice thread..... When watching the sky at a clear night what do you feel? ‘What’ is impressed of the infinite expanse, the incomprehensible space? What is stunning? The universe or is it in fact your nature? When you say the universe is out there, then you have to say it fits in your head (mind). Is in/outside imagination or reality? In other words how can there be reality 'outside' alone?
It doesn't really matter. I personally don't buy any organized religions bumpkis. BUT if a god that created one was all knowing, then it would know what you're gonna do before you do it. That's predestiny, which negates free will. Even without any gods injected into this discussion, free will is an illusion. We operate within the parameters of our genetics. Don't believe me? If you're straight, make the conscious decision to sleep with the same sex. Bet ya can't do it. Our "free will" is very narrow in scope.