can anyone explain to me? and is it different with the term "beauty"?

Internal beauty is to have a beautiful liver, lung, stomach, etc.

Internal beauty is to be a nice person.

---

Some people may say that you have beautiful clothes, or that "you" (person/mask) are beautiful, but do they see that YOU (what you REALLY are) are beautiful?

I think people are most beautiful when they are themselves, when they don't lie to themselves... If all of us could take away our masks, we would all have a similar face. But people first want to try all the different masks... ... ... the sum of all the masks might be the real face.

Everyone is beautiful, and I love them as equals. Even the ones that are hostile and mean. The thing I don't like is when they are hostile and mean, not they themselves, because noone has a reason to dislike me.

Internal beauty refers to virtues one values in the heart and mind of another.

Strange that this thread should come up.

Years ago as a part of my own personal research and the desire to help, I interviewed the female daughter of a friend who had been committed to a psychiatric ward for various reasons one of which was severe depression.
Her sense of personal ugliness was profound. Physically [superficially] she had many features that some would consider ugly due to past suicide attempts [ including jumping from a 4 story building] and obesity [ due to anti psychotic medications ]

Her sense of self disgust was intense and inconsolable.

Any way as the interview progressed I stumbled upon a way of showing her that she was far from ugly and that she too was beautiful.

I took her over to a small bush in the garden outside her ward. The bush had many white flowers on it and I asked her what she saw. She replied in amongst her tears that it was a bush that had white flowers on it and I asked her to describe those flowers to me.

Her first adjective was beautiful. She said "beautiful white flowers"
I asked her "Why did you say beautiful?"
She turned to me and smiled [ for the first time in a long time ] saying that they were beautiful because she could see they were beautiful"
I asked her "If you are so ugly how can you see them as beautiful?"
She couldn't answer so I answered for her.
"For you to see beauty you must be beautiful for the beauty of the flowers is only a reflection of your inner beauty."
Later she would often recount this discussion and always she would smile as she did so. She says that every time she thinks of herself as ugly she only has to look around and see the beauty around her and she knows that she is as beautiful as what she sees. [according to her mom]

The reason I mention this story is that for one to see beauty one must by nature be beautiful and it is this innate inner beauty that is seen reflected in what we witness, the stars, the planet, the moon, all of nature and yes, even the ugly.

Quantum Quack:

Must I be red in order to see red?

Quantum Quack:

Must I be red in order to see red?
actually in a way our consciousness must emulate what it percieves, so to percieve something it must be mimiced as a mirror mimics the light.IMO

However the issue is about beauty and the genesis of beauty.
Where do you think our sense of beauty stems from?
Why do we look at a sunset and sigh or look at the stars and go wow?
How is beauty concieved if there is nothing to concieve it from?

QQ,


I wanted to make a cynical remark earlier ... but refrained.
My point is that the story with that girl may be all nice and everything. But if it took her so little to come to that realization, then shewas a fake and hasn't thought herself truly ugly anway.

Some people who think themselves ugly and say so to others, don't actually consistently think themselves ugly. They are only pretending to be ugly, playing to be ugly. While in fact, they think themselves beautiful, very beautiful, but find it too audacious to actually admit that they think themselves beautiful. Quite proud, they are.

actually in a way our consciousness must emulate what it percieves, so to percieve something it must be mimiced as a mirror mimics the light.IMO

However the issue is about beauty and the genesis of beauty.
Where do you think our sense of beauty stems from?
Why do we look at a sunset and sigh or look at the stars and go wow?
How is beauty concieved if there is nothing to concieve it from?

What pleases us, in any way, what makes us happy, we tend to think beautiful.

Everyone is beautiful, and I love them as equals.
No offence, but are you christian??
Even the ones that are hostile and mean.
Although definately a good ideology by ANYONES standards, im afraid its simply not plausible is it?Im sure you dont actually love everyone thats 'hostile and mean', do you?? :m:

Quantum Quack:

actually in a way our consciousness must emulate what it percieves, so to percieve something it must be mimiced as a mirror mimics the light.IMO

How so?

However the issue is about beauty and the genesis of beauty.
Where do you think our sense of beauty stems from?
Why do we look at a sunset and sigh or look at the stars and go wow?
How is beauty concieved if there is nothing to concieve it from?

I would say that a sense of beauty comes from a sense of value. What one thinks is worthwhile and which is emulated in nature, in manmade things, or in people, even if such a value becomes a subconscious inclination, one finds beautiful. Also, things which seem monsterously greater than us, such as a tremendous mountain, the roaring seas, or a star studded sky, can also provoke a sense of awe and admiration.

QQ,


I wanted to make a cynical remark earlier ... but refrained.
My point is that the story with that girl may be all nice and everything. But if it took her so little to come to that realization, then shewas a fake and hasn't thought herself truly ugly anway.

Some people who think themselves ugly and say so to others, don't actually consistently think themselves ugly. They are only pretending to be ugly, playing to be ugly. While in fact, they think themselves beautiful, very beautiful, but find it too audacious to actually admit that they think themselves beautiful. Quite proud, they are.

water,
she was focussed on her external ugliness, her physical form, her broken and twisted arms, her brain damage, the superficial ugliness that others see.
All I did was show her that beauty is a lot more than that. That the real beauty lies within.......and by all means be as cynical as you like.....

Quantum Quack:
I would say that a sense of beauty comes from a sense of value. What one thinks is worthwhile and which is emulated in nature, in manmade things, or in people, even if such a value becomes a subconscious inclination, one finds beautiful. Also, things which seem monsterously greater than us, such as a tremendous mountain, the roaring seas, or a star studded sky, can also provoke a sense of awe and admiration.

Without any direct proof and not wanting to get into heavy explanations I believe that our sense of beauty is considerably more fundamental in our natures that just a sense of conditioned values. [ just stating my position and belief ]

QQ“ actually in a way our consciousness must emulate what it percieves, so to percieve something it must be mimiced as a mirror mimics the light.IMO ”

PJ:How so?
-------------
In light of recent discussions about reflective awareness etc it isn't easy to explain but I'll give it a go.

To recognise the colour Red we have to sense it and internalise it. To internalise it we must reflect it. Or at least reflect upon it.
Thus to recognise red we have to emmulate or at least simulate what we sense as red. We then process this information by making comparisons with all other remebered colours and words associated and bingo! we recognise it as the descriptor red. Even a colour blind person must emulate what he senses to internalise what he senses.

A bit like when you feel like singing along with a song. You mimic the song and internalise it's meaning. With out emulation or mimicry we can not internalise our sensory experience.

So in a generalised way all we sense is mimiced or reflected within. The more true your mimicry is the greater your objectivity. Unfortunately our conditioning and subjectivity distorts our ability to reflect truely what we sense.

To achieve close to true objectivity we have to be non- participatory in what we sense. In other words no rose-tinting allowed.

The bell analogy:

"We are just bells that resonate to the ambience. Some bells ring nearly true to that ambience some bells are distorted by internal pressures thus render a subjective tone"
"It is when you can resonate without distortion that the sound you make is an objective reflection"

Support for the bell analogy:

There is a famous piece of writing in Sanskrit [ unknown origin] that when translated loosely in English means:

The true teacher can be found be found in the tone [ sound ]
Thus meditations have included bells, and gongs......

Explanation in brief:

When you can hear [ interalised emulation] the sound without embelishment only then is truth available...sort of thing.

Everyone is beautiful, and I love them as equals. Even the ones that are hostile and mean. The thing I don't like is when they are hostile and mean, not they themselves, because noone has a reason to dislike me.


CRUCIFIXOR,


Do you love me?

Do you find me beautiful?

Prince_James,


"“ actually in a way our consciousness must emulate what it percieves, so to percieve something it must be mimiced as a mirror mimics the light.IMO ”

How so?"

Think Plato. Think eternal forms.



* * *


QQ,



"she was focussed on her external ugliness, her physical form, her broken and twisted arms, her brain damage, the superficial ugliness that others see.
All I did was show her that beauty is a lot more than that. That the real beauty lies within......."

Well, maybe she was in a state of shock and therefore more susceptible for what you were telling her.
We could be standing in front of a valley of blossoming bushes and you could be telling me
"For you to see beauty you must be beautiful for the beauty of the flowers is only a reflection of your inner beauty."
all day long, for years -- and it wouldn't move me.
Although I wish something or someone would move me that way.
Maybe I have the devil in me.

Why do we look at a sunset and sigh or look at the stars and go wow?

Because it reminds us of our goal, our lost self ("God")
Why would we want to reach our goal?
Because it is the purpose of all physical things.
Why is it the purpose?
Because that's the purpose we created.
Why did we create that purpose?
Because it was the only perfect purpose.
Why was it the only perfect purpose?
Because it includes everything.

What pleases us, in any way, what makes us happy, we tend to think beautiful.

Why do beautiful things make us happy? Why do we want happiness?

Do you find me beautiful?

What part of yourself do you mean? Your body, your person, or your self? You know, the self is always beautiful, because it is the self of all things, it is God. "Do I think you're ugly? No, I don't think you're ugly. Do I think you're beautiful? I don't think you're beautiful either, I think you're God!"

You know, the self is always beautiful, because it is the self of all things, it is God. "Do I think you're ugly? No, I don't think you're ugly. Do I think you're beautiful? I don't think you're beautiful either, I think you're God!"

Does that hold true for mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, murderers, rapists, violent criminals of all kinds? If not, perhaps your idealism is over-shadowing your good sense.

Baron Max

Does that hold true for mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, murderers, rapists, violent criminals of all kinds?

The body (person) is not the same thing as the self.

The body (person) is not the same thing as the self.

??? so the "body" is the mass murderer and serial rapist, but inside(his self) is a beautiful person???

Baron Max

Quantum Quack:

Without any direct proof and not wanting to get into heavy explanations I believe that our sense of beauty is considerably more fundamental in our natures that just a sense of conditioned values. [ just stating my position and belief ]

Might you be willing to elaborate? I find Aesthetics fascinating.

To recognise the colour Red we have to sense it and internalise it. To internalise it we must reflect it. Or at least reflect upon it.
Thus to recognise red we have to emmulate or at least simulate what we sense as red. We then process this information by making comparisons with all other remebered colours and words associated and bingo! we recognise it as the descriptor red. Even a colour blind person must emulate what he senses to internalise what he senses.

Understood, go on?

So in a generalised way all we sense is mimiced or reflected within. The more true your mimicry is the greater your objectivity. Unfortunately our conditioning and subjectivity distorts our ability to reflect truely what we sense.

Understood also.

"We are just bells that resonate to the ambience. Some bells ring nearly true to that ambience some bells are distorted by internal pressures thus render a subjective tone"
"It is when you can resonate without distortion that the sound you make is an objective reflection"

Interesting analogy.

Here's my response:

Whilst we might well have to internalize the experience, yes, and have to draw it into conscious mind, even if the process may be very subconscious. But do we become it, it in any meaningful sense? No. We arise the -thought- of it, understand it, but do we -become- it?

Water:

Think Plato. Think eternal forms.

I do not yet think this is on the same line of thought as Plato's theories.

Well, maybe she was in a state of shock and therefore more susceptible for what you were telling her.
We could be standing in front of a valley of blossoming bushes and you could be telling me
"For you to see beauty you must be beautiful for the beauty of the flowers is only a reflection of your inner beauty."
all day long, for years -- and it wouldn't move me.
Although I wish something or someone would move me that way.
Maybe I have the devil in me.

Why so?

c7ityi_:

Because it reminds us of our goal, our lost self ("God")
Why would we want to reach our goal?
Because it is the purpose of all physical things.
Why is it the purpose?
Because that's the purpose we created.
Why did we create that purpose?
Because it was the only perfect purpose.
Why was it the only perfect purpose?
Because it includes everything.

Upon what foundation?

Does that hold true for mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, murderers, rapists, violent criminals of all kinds? If not, perhaps your idealism is over-shadowing your good sense.
Nobody is born as a rapist, murderer or serial killer. Everyone is born as a little fragile baby, EVERYONE. If one becomes those things, it is because their environment CONDITIONED them to become that. That doesn't mean that they are truly "bad", it just means that they were conditioned to act in a certain way which hides the beauty which was designed and destined to them. We are all just scared children, whose mothers got too old...

Beauty is everywhere. But only the pure heart can see pure beauty.

c7ityi,


Why do beautiful things make us happy?

Because they satiate our hunger for beauty. If we hunger for beauty, this means we don't have it.


Why do we want happiness?

It seems innate to humans to want happiness.


What part of yourself do you mean? Your body, your person, or your self?

Ha.
Where does the body end, and the person begin? What is the person that is not the self?


You know, the self is always beautiful, because it is the self of all things, it is God. "Do I think you're ugly? No, I don't think you're ugly. Do I think you're beautiful? I don't think you're beautiful either, I think you're God!"

... and an ugly god at that.

Nobody is born as a rapist, murderer or serial killer. Everyone is born as a little fragile baby, EVERYONE. If one becomes those things, it is because their environment CONDITIONED them to become that. That doesn't mean that they are truly "bad", it just means that they were conditioned to act in a certain way which hides the beauty which was designed and destined to them. We are all just scared children, whose mothers got too old...

How the hell would you know?
How the hell would you know that I wasn't born a murderer?!


Beauty is everywhere. But only the pure heart can see pure beauty.

And what does it take to have a pure heart?

How the hell would you know?
How the hell would you know that I wasn't born a murderer?!
Well, it's obvious. Just look at children. If you want to make a research about it, go for it. People become the environment they were raised in. If the environment was healthy and happy, they become that. If the environment was sad and desperate, they become that. Everything that you know is based on your life experience, it is founded on you past, on your childhood.

And what does it take to have a pure heart?
Well... it begins with self-love, and it ends with unconditional love. Once you attain pure unconditional love, then you have a pure heart.

PS: Notice that is not necessarily helpful for your survival in the world TODAY. Which is why you don't see that very often...

Well, it's obvious. Just look at children. If you want to make a research about it, go for it. People become the environment they were raised in. If the environment was healthy and happy, they become that. If the environment was sad and desperate, they become that. Everything that you know is based on your life experience, it is founded on you past, on your childhood.

Be careful with such statements. They imply that people CANNOT change, that they are DETERMINED by their upbringing.


Well... it begins with self-love, and it ends with unconditional love. Once you attain pure unconditional love, then you have a pure heart.

PS: Notice that is not necessarily helpful for your survival in the world TODAY. Which is why you don't see that very often...

So you are pipe-dreaming here?

Be careful with such statements. They imply that people CANNOT change, that they are DETERMINED by their upbringing.
Not at all. Their upbringing influence them, but they can choose to be whoever they want. My ENTIRE psychology is based on taking control of your choices. And you must notice that when you are raised in a place, you are influenced ONLY by that place in the beginning, and then you slowly become influenced by the rest of the world as well. But the greatest influences are always the first ones.

So you are pipe-dreaming here?
Why do you ask that?

Not at all. Their upbringing influence them, but they can choose to be whoever they want. My ENTIRE psychology is based on taking control of your choices. And you must notice that when you are raised in a place, you are influenced ONLY by that place in the beginning, and then you slowly become influenced by the rest of the world as well. But the greatest influences are always the first ones.

You seem to be forgetting that those bad environments usually teach people that they have NO CHOICE but to remain as they have been conditioned.


Why do you ask that?

It was a rhetoric question.

Truthseeker:

Well, it's obvious. Just look at children. If you want to make a research about it, go for it. People become the environment they were raised in. If the environment was healthy and happy, they become that. If the environment was sad and desperate, they become that. Everything that you know is based on your life experience, it is founded on you past, on your childhood.

Some take a hardline genetic approach, pointing towards identical twin seperation studies.

??? so the "body" is the mass murderer and serial rapist, but inside(his self) is a beautiful person???

The body is the mass murderer (evolution). The "person" wouldn't be beautiful either, since it's a mental reflection of his body. A person is a mask, it is not the self. The self is impersonal... animals don't wear masks. They are what they are. But they can only express the self on animal level.

A human can be divided into 3 parts:

Material body
Mental body (person)
Self (God... impersonal... will... life... what makes things alive... what makes the seeds grow... what makes the leaves die and live... breath)

Whilst we might well have to internalize the experience, yes, and have to draw it into conscious mind, even if the process may be very subconscious. But do we become it, it in any meaningful sense? No. We arise the -thought- of it, understand it, but do we -become- it?

Do we become it?

We can become the perfect reflection of it or should I say this is what most persons on the so called path of enlightnement attempt to do.
By becoming the perfect reflection of it we have removed all subjective distortions and have resolved the refelction dichotomy.

By becoming a perfect reflection of it the sense of dualism is no longer available. Are you the reflection or the reflection. [ deliberate use of the same word]
When the reflection is absolute and perfect onesness is acheived and you "see" the universe for all that it is and for all that it isn't. You "See" yourself in doing so.

So do we become it?
In absolutum....yes. However to become something you already are is a little paradoxical yes?

For example if one can suspend the distortion of subjectivity one could for instance comprehend all languages. By emulating or truely reflecting the implied meaning that is being projected by the other person. The question: Do you know what I mean(?) would become redundant.
By being aware of your own emulation with out distortion immediately grants omniscience of what you focus your mirror upon. [ in theory at least anyway]

The thing that is so difficult about all this is that to hear [reflect truely] one has to stop talking [ doing]. And it is the ability to stop talking that allows one to truely hear.

No. We arise the -thought- of it, understand it, but do we -become- it?

Please eleborate on the arising of the thought of it.....

It seems innate to humans to want happiness.

Yeah, but why? I think it's because we are not ourselves so we miss ourselves.

Because people identify themselves with their bodies and persons (masks), they think that their complementary half is "outside" them, in another human, which manifests the opposite pole. How could it then be THEIR complementary half. A human belongs to oneself only. To God. They have no families or husbands/wives. Marriage (union) is impossible in matter, it is only possible with oneself.

Where does the body end, and the person begin? What is the person that is not the self?

The body ends in matter and the person begins in the thoughts. The self has no personality because it has all of them. When we know ourselves, we can use any mask.

But why would I want to use a mask instead of showing my true face? Why do people keep defending their bodies, persons (limitations) instead of accepting their infinity. The natural state of being is eternal happiness. People choose "consciousness" instead of "love" (what we are).

... and an ugly god at that.

How can you see yourself in a mirror? I have never seen myself, I only see a mask, a cover of the self, and two eyes, two black holes from where I watch at the world.

How could the "I" be ugly? Impossible! It has no characteristics. It has them all.

c7ityi_ :

The body is the mass murderer (evolution). The "person" wouldn't be beautiful either, since it's a mental reflection of his body. A person is a mask, it is not the self. The self is impersonal... animals don't wear masks. They are what they are. But they can only express the self on animal level.

A human can be divided into 3 parts:

Material body
Mental body (person)
Self (God... impersonal... will... life... what makes things alive... what makes the seeds grow... what makes the leaves die and live... breath)

Proof?

Quantum Quack:

Yet if this perfection reflection is simply a mental thing, it becomes an understanding, but not a transformation. If I perfectly understand "tiger", I do not become the object of Blake's awe and admiration, do I? I would simply have an essential and complete understanding of a concept, nay?

Please eleborate on the arising of the thought of it.....

You are right to speak of a reflection of thought, in that yes, a thought can be conceived as a mental mirror image of the object of thought, but I do not see the necessity for a metamorphosis.

Do you love me?

I love God in you. I love what you really are. See God in everything. Recognize yourself in everything. In reality, people are all alike (like animals are), it's just that they have crucified themselves in matter.

What we don't love is just what we haven't found in ourselves yet.

God has given you a great instrument. Why would you think it's ugly? Do you think that of others too? Maybe you should treat yourself as you treat others, because you are others. You are also one of us. Don't hurt us... :( but I know people can't help it.

I know that we are what we want to be. The will comes from God (what we are). The goal. If you want to be beautiful, it means that your true reality is beautiful, it's just that you have lost yourself in an illusional body.

---

The goal. Our will. The source of energy is not an origin in the past (Big bang theory), but an aim in the future. It's funny how they've got it completely wrong. Matter and spirit...

C7itvi:

Crucified in matter? What is so wrong about matter?

What is illusional about the body?

You are right to speak of a reflection of thought, in that yes, a thought can be conceived as a mental mirror image of the object of thought, but I do not see the necessity for a metamorphosis.
It all lies in dimensionality.
True, a complete metamorphosis is not necessary but a complete awareness of the internal reflection is.
BTW It is not just an intellectual reflection but an entire body reflection including emotions and feelings. Not just a mental image but a full body image.

A bit like saying "Your whole being is the bell from toe to top of your head and it is your thinking that distorts the tone"

Mind is not just mental pictures, mind is everything you are.
hmmmmm......I see I am starting to mimic C7ityi in my words...ha

Quantum Quack:

BTW It is not just an intellectual reflection but an entire body reflection including emotions and feelings. Not just a mental image but a full body image.

So a "feeling of oneness", as some mystics might say, regarding the object?

Mind is not just mental pictures, mind is everything you are.
hmmmmm......

Or is not simply the mental aspect of ourselves, chiefly important in what matters, but still connected with a bodily reality?

Crucified in matter?

Because of our consciousness we have become prisoners of space and time (the opened cube of matter-- the cross)

What is so wrong about matter?

Nothing.

What is illusional about the body?

It does things I don't want to do.

If the universe and matter was "real", instead of sensations in the mind, it would be difficult to extract it from nothing (if extracted from something else than nothing, it is not explanatory at all). But it is only a matter of illusion.

Everything can be said to be an illusion, except the illusion itself-- it is real.

"Illusion" is what it is. The illusions (visible things) have no substance or "definite reality".

An illusion is something that is not what it seems to be.

Like a dream. The things in the dream are not happening in "reality". An illusion is like a "computer game". They can be said to be made of small "dots". Still they make up an entire illusional world, in which we can lose ourselves in. If we really concentrate on a game, we move to the game and this world stops existing. In "reality" we are outside that game. Similarly, what we think is reality NOW is also just a game (or dream) in which we have lost ourselves in.

You know... when we dream, we have no awareness that it is illusional. It feels perfectly real. It is only when we wake up (or if we're half awake) that we see that it was all perceptions. Without this world, there are no dreams. Without the world above this, this does not exist. Dreams within dreams. The reality is presence (nothingness) which is the cause of the infinite dreams.

Nothingness wouldn't be real without the illusions...

All is illusion, and the illusion is real.

An illusion within the illusion:

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7481/vrtg3rk.gif

The universe is made of the mind. Consciousness. We can become more and more aware of this consciousness. It is our own consciousness because it is IN our consciousness. If it wasn't... we wouldn't be aware of it, we wouldn't see it... consciousness separates... and creates individuality, rejecting our infinity...

c7ityi_:

Because of our consciousness we have become prisoners of space and time (the opened cube of matter-- the cross)

What is not space and time aside from nothingness?

It does things I don't want to do.

If the universe and matter was "real", instead of sensations in the mind, it would be difficult to extract it from nothing (if extracted from something else than nothing, it is not explanatory at all). But it is only a matter of illusion.

Here's my metaphysical solution to this:

Existence and nonexistence must beget one another, just as one cannot have short without long. All pairs of such opposites contain within themselves their opposite, so to speak. If one has nothingness, one must by definition, have somethignness. If one has somethingness, one must have, by definition, nothingness. Since one must have both, they are eternal as there can never be a time when one existed without the other.

Everything can be said to be an illusion, except the illusion itself-- it is real.

Does not it cease to be an illusion if it is the only thing which is real?

"Illusion" is what it is. The illusions (visible things) have no substance or "definite reality".

Proof, please?

Like a dream. The things in the dream are not happening in "reality". An illusion is like a "computer game". They can be said to be made of small "dots". Still they make up an entire illusional world, in which we can lose ourselves in. If we really concentrate on a game, we move to the game and this world stops existing. In "reality" we are outside that game. Similarly, what we think is reality NOW is also just a game (or dream) in which we have lost ourselves in.

Yet if all is a dream, then reality's dreamhood is a reality, which still means there is a reality. An illusion may not be what we think it is, but it is -something-.

You know... when we dream, we have no awareness that it is illusional. It feels perfectly real. It is only when we wake up (or if we're half awake) that we see that it was all perceptions. Without this world, there are no dreams. Without the world above this, this does not exist. Dreams within dreams. The reality is presence (nothingness) which is the cause of the infinite dreams.

Nothingness cannot produce anything but somethingness from logical necessity, but is also in turn created by somethingness from the same. If this is so, then somethingness can be said to be the origin of nothingness, and thus you have a circle which invalidates your conception.

The universe is made of the mind. Consciousness. We can become more and more aware of this consciousness. It is our own consciousness because it is IN our consciousness. If it wasn't... we wouldn't be aware of it, we wouldn't see it... consciousness separates... and creates individuality, rejecting our infinity...

In another thread I asked you a question regarding imagining another colour which one has never perceived from the senses. If the mind requires sensory preception, then it requires external reality.

I'd like you to refute my argument presented in the thread "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism". As an Idealist, I'd like to see your defense of it.

c7ityi_,


You are one very interesting poster here!



"It seems innate to humans to want happiness.

Yeah, but why? I think it's because we are not ourselves so we miss ourselves."

It could be so.


"Because people identify themselves with their bodies and persons (masks), they think that their complementary half is "outside" them, in another human, which manifests the opposite pole. How could it then be THEIR complementary half. A human belongs to oneself only. To God."

Agreed.


"When we know ourselves, we can use any mask."

Who are you?


"Why do people keep defending their bodies,"

Because they think they are their bodies (or what they think their bodies are).


"How can you see yourself in a mirror?"

Alright. Thank you for pointing this out.


"How could the "I" be ugly? Impossible! It has no characteristics. It has them all."

Not sure about this.


"God has given you a great instrument."

What instrument?


"Why would you think it's ugly? Do you think that of others too? Maybe you should treat yourself as you treat others, because you are others. You are also one of us. Don't hurt us... but I know people can't help it."

Have I hurt you?


"Because of our consciousness we have become prisoners of space and time (the opened cube of matter-- the cross)"

"Cube"? Do you mean "box", as in "Pandora's box"?


"Everything can be said to be an illusion, except the illusion itself-- it is real."

If I touched you, would the touch not be real?


* * *


Prince_James,


"What is not space and time aside from nothingness?"

That which I wish to be outside of time space, and outside of nothingness.
My desire makes it be outside of those. Where my desire comes from ...


"Here's my metaphysical solution to this:"

Prince, I don't want fancy metaphysical solutions. I've had enough of them.
I want something kind and real.

Beauty generally means symetry and simplicity (even in very complicated forms the symetry and simplicity must be the leading motive (to be called beautiful)). If someone has inner beauty then it means that whatever academic degrees this person posesses he/she is basically (in the basic structures of his/her personality) a simpleton (certainly it is not with contradicting thougths ridden mind as many I see around here are LOL:).

You are one very interesting poster here!

But I'm just yorda..

Who are you?

Who? There is only one Being, and every person, every animal, every plant, and also every planet, every sun is only the instrument of this single being by which it reveals itself. How many Who would there be?

The same self speaks through my mouth as it speaks through your mouth and all living beings. The only difference is that every living being does not know this "self" completely this, so neither can they reveal all of its qualities.

The self doesn't need to evolve, it is already complete, only the body (and person) needs to, so that it can express the self more precisely.

What instrument?

Your body!"

The human body is... a biological computer.

Have I hurt you?

If you hurt yourself, you hurt me... because you are like me

"Cube"? Do you mean "box", as in "Pandora's box"?

No =) ...cube used to symbolize matter in ancient times. And when a cube is opened, it becomes a cross or a T, and the divine self is crucified on its two girders which represent space and time.

But inside the cube is a double tetrahedron. The number 3 means divinity.

If I touched you, would the touch not be real?

It would be real... a real illusion...

Illusion means "something which is not what it seems to be"... like... the world is made of small particles, like atoms... yet we never see the atoms.

What is not space and time aside from nothingness?

Space and time is not nothingness, they are sensations in our mind which we think exist in the outside world. There is no distances and there is no ACTUAL movement in time. They all exist in the illusion, in the mind, as sensations... hence something spiritual (instead of matter: separated stuff)

Since one must have both, they are eternal as there can never be a time when one existed without the other.

Before there was a conscious mind which separated you and the everything, the stuff only existed as things exist on a blank paper before you draw them. At that state, nothing and everything are the same.

Up and down are "opposites". Which was "created" (made visible) first? At the same time by the mind. Illusions. Sensations of gravity and relations to body. Without a relation to ME, there can be no space or time.

Does not it cease to be an illusion if it is the only thing which is real?

But the world is not real, only the illusion is real. The illusion cannot be "an illusion"

Yet if all is a dream, then reality's dreamhood is a reality, which still means there is a reality. An illusion may not be what we think it is, but it is -something-.

That's what I said. "Everything is illusion and nothing is reality"

Nothingness cannot produce anything but somethingness from logical necessity, but is also in turn created by somethingness from the same.

Nothingness is the only reality because if everything stops existing, nothingness takes its place. It is a greater truth. More real. Stronger.

Hi Yorda!

Hi Yorda!

hi... do u think i'm insane? becuz i say such weird things? i wont say it anymore. soon. i wish you would see that you're beautiful because i think you're a nice person. i wish i would be happier. because.... i feel really sad sometimes...

wy are you not my friend? i wont be inane. you can come and play with me sometime if you want. u can borrow all my masks too. but i guess... you're not going back...............................

but i wish youd see the face behind the mask. and... do stuff that makes you happy. and what makes others happy. and the right thing.... without the masks............................................. .................................................. ...................no. that's not what i mean... i dont mean naything.

i think i'm gonna go out for a while and look at the stars. that makes me happy. and... im not going to talk about stuff anymore.

but..... i really... liked.................... being........ dunno

Yorda,


I don't think you are insane.
Maybe this medium isn't the best one for our communication ...


wy are you not my friend? i wont be inane. you can come and play with me sometime if you want. u can borrow all my masks too. but i guess... you're not going back...............................

I think I am afraid to be a friend, to anyone. I'm sorry.


but i wish youd see the face behind the mask. and... do stuff that makes you happy. and what makes others happy. and the right thing.... without the masks......

I will take this to heart.


i think i'm gonna go out for a while and look at the stars. that makes me happy. and... im not going to talk about stuff anymore.

but..... i really... liked.................... being........ dunno

What did you like?


* * *

Fromthedarksea,

If you can't say something kind, be quiet.

Truth seeker,
Beauty is everywhere. But only the pure heart can see pure beauty

He who sees beauty must possess an ugly mind to see such, and he who sees ugliness must possess a beautiful mind to see such. Everybody has a little bit of each; everybody needs a little bit of each. They compliment each other. But this is just the surface, even the devil can pretty up too in my opinion. Believe me I know

Beauty generally means symetry and simplicity (even in very complicated forms the symetry and simplicity must be the leading motive (to be called beautiful)). If someone has inner beauty then it means that whatever academic degrees this person posesses he/she is basically (in the basic structures of his/her personality) a simpleton (certainly it is not with contradicting thougths ridden mind as many I see around here are LOL

Beauty is very subjective, to some abstract art is pretty while its crap to some. I myself have never been a big fan of Jackson Pollock. I will say beauty is the highest grace one can achieve. There is more beauty in watching a 9 year old play baseball than an organized team playing competitively in a televised match. The 9 yr old is enjoying her self, playing effortlessly, not caring a damn about winning or losing; which is why beauty brings us happiness. When you see someone doing something so effortlessly, it draws you in to them. True expression is what is behind everything beautiful.

Ahh.
Internal beauty.

From Clive Barker:

"Everyone is a book of blood. Where ever you open them... they're red."

Beautiful.

The spleen isn't too pretty though. I could do without seeing that.

He who sees beauty must possess an ugly mind to see such, and he who sees ugliness must possess a beautiful mind to see such. Everybody has a little bit of each; everybody needs a little bit of each. They compliment each other. But this is just the surface, even the devil can pretty up too in my opinion. Believe me I know
Do you have any evidence to support that argument?

Beauty is very subjective,
Exactly. Then how can you say the above?

There is more beauty in watching a 9 year old play baseball than an organized team playing competitively in a televised match. The 9 yr old is enjoying her self, playing effortlessly, not caring a damn about winning or losing; which is why beauty brings us happiness. When you see someone doing something so effortlessly, it draws you in to them. True expression is what is behind everything beautiful.
I totally agree with that.

I think I am afraid to be a friend, to anyone. I'm sorry.

Cool down, water. It's normal for "Yorda" to say lots of weird stuff which mean very little after a while. It evolves (remembers) very fast. It has only temporal personalities and thoughts.

What did you like?

Just an illusion. The truth is to never be for or against. The illusion of everything is created when making a difference between "this" and "that".

Proof; Lets take the nearest thing to this topic, which is organization.
He who sees organization must possess an unorganized mind to see such, and vice-versa. They compliment each other. For instance, I walk into a class room and I see the tables and chairs are not arranged. For me to see such thing I must have an idea of what is arrangement as opposed to what is chaos (what I see). We use our chaotic mind to help us identify what is arranged and the arranged mind on what is chaos; think overlapping for better understanding. Draw a straight line with your hands as best as you can on pieces of paper, now decide if it’s straight or not, my bet is it will never be straight given a million tries. But quite amazingly it’s this same mind that invented the ruler. Thus creativity comes out of chaos; in fact creativity is chaos. However the mind is not inside us, it is our environment, and it is the universe that’s chaotic. Somewhere between chaos and "organization" is the notion of beauty and the beast. Beautiful things are a mistake, a flaw, a construction, an expression out of the usual, a representation, and expectations. The joker card is that ugly things too humbly fall under these descriptions. If the universe was divided into half; pure chaos and pure organization if there is ever such things, there will be no creativity going on, not even life. The universe is chaotic but we still see these things in expressions and representations; such is life I guess. My definition of chaos is too much of one particular pattern, that is true insanity.

devils_reject, I already asked you to prove it....

I just proved it with the organization and chaos scenario. Anyway what is beautiful to someone is ugly or less pretty to another. Thus the affiliated object is a fusion of both. If everything was equaly beautiful how will we see any more beauty? How will you see any beauty at all?There you are...you need ugliness. Universaly there is no such thing as beauty or ugliness, more like less beautiful and less ugly. Too much of either is numbing...ouch!

Internal beauty is to have a beautiful liver, lung, stomach, etc.

Very cute, Water!

Water:


That which I wish to be outside of time space, and outside of nothingness.
My desire makes it be outside of those. Where my desire comes from ...

Your wish is neither rooted in logic or reality, simply whim. It thus is impotent to change a thing.

Prince, I don't want fancy metaphysical solutions. I've had enough of them.
I want something kind and real.

Kind? What does kindness have to do with reality? And is not metaphysics real?

c7ityi_:

No =) ...cube used to symbolize matter in ancient times. And when a cube is opened, it becomes a cross or a T, and the divine self is crucified on its two girders which represent space and time.

But inside the cube is a double tetrahedron. The number 3 means divinity.

Who says the number three means divinity and what objective basis do they have for this? And I've never heard of any ancient school using this cube crucifix.

Space and time is not nothingness, they are sensations in our mind which we think exist in the outside world. There is no distances and there is no ACTUAL movement in time. They all exist in the illusion, in the mind, as sensations... hence something spiritual (instead of matter: separated stuff)

You misunderstood me. I meant this: Nothingness is the only thing which is not space nor time. But let me respond to your statement anyway.

Why are there no distances and no actual movement in time? From whence arises imaginary movement and why? And again, you haven't really proven that all that exists is in the mind. Please try to refute my argument presetented in "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism".

What proof do you have for the spirit existing?

Before there was a conscious mind which separated you and the everything, the stuff only existed as things exist on a blank paper before you draw them. At that state, nothing and everything are the same.

Proof? For nothing and something are -diametrically- opposed and to speak of something and nothing being one in the same, is to truly speak of an absurdity. Nothing is the opposite of something, it cannot be the same.

Up and down are "opposites". Which was "created" (made visible) first? At the same time by the mind. Illusions. Sensations of gravity and relations to body. Without a relation to ME, there can be no space or time.

They have co-origination like something and nothing. To have long and short is immediatly to have the other.

You keep on saying "they are illusions". What proof have you that they are?

What is the foundation of thought in your system?

But the world is not real, only the illusion is real. The illusion cannot be "an illusion"

Yet an illusion must have reality, must it not? It must even have an external reality, I'd claim, as why would the mind make illusions for itself? If nothing is there, why would the mind create it?

That's what I said. "Everything is illusion and nothing is reality"

Here's another thing: If nothing is reality, then from whence comes the mind? The mind itself would be illusion if nothing is reality. If the mind is an illusion, not even the mind creates.

Nothingness is the only reality because if everything stops existing, nothingness takes its place. It is a greater truth. More real. Stronger.

This is an absurdity. Somethingness could never cease to be, because it is eternal, as it created nothing and was, in turn, created by nothing in an endless cycle, plus the fact that somethingness has something within it that is objectively eternal, energy (Law of Conservation of Energy).

Fromthedarksea:

In other words, the Universe is forever, right? And matter takes up space.

And that which is between matter is nothingness, right? Such as perhaps the nothingness between galaxies.

Or a frontier of nothingness between pockets of Universes?

Or even the space between subatomic particles?

No. Not at all. There is no nothingness in nature. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Spacetime, gravity fields, electromagnetic fields, energy of various sorts, et cetera, permeate throughout all "empty space".

Regardless. So if matter stops existing and disappears, then what happens? Will nothingness come in to take its place? And if it does, from where does the supplemental nothingness come from to fill in the newly vacated space once occupied by matter?

Matter cannot disappear.

c7ityi_:

Do you have multiple personality syndrome?

Devils_reject:

I will argue from a wholely different perspective (even if I don't necessarily believe what I am saying). We see order because in all things, the Form of that thing exists within it in varying degrees of purity. For instance: You speak of an organized room being seen as organized by the chaotic mind, but chaos should only be able to perceive chaos. Now, since all would say "the chairs are disorganized" in any given room where the chairs are disorganized, does not this lead towards a common perception of something? Something underlying the concept of "organization"? Tell me, can you picture Pure Organization? No, yes? So how do you know it is "organized"? Must you not be perceiving a glimpse of that Pure Organization?

c7ityi_:
I'd like you to refute my argument presented in the thread "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism". As an Idealist, I'd like to see your defense of it.

No wonder you brought up Kant in another thread (don't remember which one).

So to carry this further, how do you prove what is truth? c7ityi_? You're claiming that what we're all experiencing is equivalent to a dream. How then, can I ask 10 people to report what they saw at the same time and place, and get a statistically repeatable response? The same can not be said of 10 people sleeping and dreaming in the same place at the same time (unless they are unusually gifted ;) ).

what is internal beauty?

whats beneath the body? its nothing,but blood stream flowing and system working like crazy to keep you alive. brain cells firing etc. internal beauty is a dreamt of concept. beauty is only by external perception and brain calculation

Cool down, water. .

Nice pun. For one that 'evolves' so quickly, I would expect nothing less. I just hope the game playing is done.

Nice pun. For one that 'evolves' so quickly, I would expect nothing less. I just hope the game playing is done.

If I only knew what you are talking about ...

Who "evolves so quickly"?

Your wish is neither rooted in logic or reality, simply whim. It thus is impotent to change a thing.

Are you saying life is a whim?


Kind? What does kindness have to do with reality? And is not metaphysics real?

My dearest Prince ... may life be kind to you.

If I only knew what you are talking about ...

Who "evolves so quickly"?

I wasn't talking about you, Water.

Cool down, water. It's normal for "Yorda" to say lots of weird stuff which mean very little after a while. It evolves (remembers) very fast. It has only temporal personalities and thoughts.

In a previous post C7...etc. had gone on a ramble which you replied to very kindly. C7.. referred to Yorda in the post I quoted and said the above. Sorry, but I just thought the 'Cool down, Water' was meant as a pun. I thought it was pretty clever. If it was an accident by c7..., well hel*, it was still funny. The rest of my post was just expressing disgust at what I perceived as game playing by pretending to be 'disturbed'. Maybe I was lacking in compassion at that point (which I am usually not). In any case, none of that reply was aimed at you, Water, but at C7...

Water:

Are you saying life is a whim?

No. But to simply "wish that there is something which is not something or nothing" is baseless. Life itself is a physical reality which can either continue or be terminated at any moment.

My dearest Prince ... may life be kind to you.

And to you, darling Water, but we must also realize that reality is neither kind nor cruel but wholely ambivalent. Sometimes there are "crueler" aspects of life we must deal with, sometimes "kinder", but to ask for kindness expecting reality to conform, is to speak ludicrously.

Lucidgirl,



I wasn't talking about you, Water.


“ Cool down, water. It's normal for "Yorda" to say lots of weird stuff which mean very little after a while. It evolves (remembers) very fast. It has only temporal personalities and thoughts. ”


In a previous post C7...etc. had gone on a ramble which you replied to very kindly. C7.. referred to Yorda in the post I quoted and said the above. Sorry, but I just thought the 'Cool down, Water' was meant as a pun. I thought it was pretty clever. If it was an accident by c7..., well hel*, it was still funny. The rest of my post was just expressing disgust at what I perceived as game playing by pretending to be 'disturbed'. Maybe I was lacking in compassion at that point (which I am usually not). In any case, none of that reply was aimed at you, Water, but at C7...

Hm. Yorda's posts might seem confusing, yes. But I've known Yorda like this.



* * *


Prince_James,



No. But to simply "wish that there is something which is not something or nothing" is baseless.

You haven't interpreted my words correctly.
What started off this train of thought was:

What is not space and time aside from nothingness?

That which I wish to be outside of time space, and outside of nothingness.
My desire makes it be outside of those. Where my desire comes from ...

The content of my wish is neither in time-space (as that which I wish for does not (yet) exist in time-space), but it is not nothing either (for I do wish for something).

It is not baseless to wish, or to desire.


Life itself is a physical reality which can either continue or be terminated at any moment.

!
I'm wary of touching this.
Life is a physical reality? Proof ...
Life can be terminated? The material manifestation of life, the body of a living being may indeed be put into a state where it doesn't function in ways it used to, and decay. But I am not sure that living beings can indeed terminate other living being's lives.


And to you, darling Water, but we must also realize that reality is neither kind nor cruel but wholely ambivalent.

Really?
Are you real?
Are you neither kind nor cruel but wholely ambivalent?


Sometimes there are "crueler" aspects of life we must deal with, sometimes "kinder", but to ask for kindness expecting reality to conform, is to speak ludicrously.

What is this reality you are talking about?
Can I get into the car and drive somewhere where reality is? Is this here not reality? Are you not real? Am I not real? Are you not a reality? Am I not a reality?

Water:

You haven't interpreted my words correctly. (...)

The content of my wish is neither in time-space (as that which I wish for does not (yet) exist in time-space), but it is not nothing either (for I do wish for something).

It is not baseless to wish, or to desire.

Ah. My mistake then, yes. Here, let me respond to this:

The content of a wish is not the same as the content of the object. The content of a wish is a mental abstraction, which in turn has some foundation in time/space,. Also the mental abstraction's focus is in time and space.

!
I'm wary of touching this.
Life is a physical reality? Proof ...
Life can be terminated? The material manifestation of life, the body of a living being may indeed be put into a state where it doesn't function in ways it used to, and decay. But I am not sure that living beings can indeed terminate other living being's lives.

Proof? Biology.

What is there else but the material manifestation of life? Do you have proof of a soul, for instance?

Really?
Are you real?
Are you neither kind nor cruel but wholely ambivalent?

By "reality" I meant "existence as a whole, apart from intelligent beings". Intelligent beings can be either kind or cruel to other people, yes. Sorry for using an ambigious term.

Prince_James,



The content of a wish is not the same as the content of the object. The content of a wish is a mental abstraction, which in turn has some foundation in time/space,.

Alright.


Also the mental abstraction's focus is in time and space.

Hm. The mental abstraction's focus may be to transcend time and space ...


Proof? Biology.

What is there else but the material manifestation of life?

This is an ad ignorantiam ...


Do you have proof of a soul, for instance?

Do you have proof of metaphysics, proof that metaphysics is real?


By "reality" I meant "existence as a whole, apart from intelligent beings".

Hm. But this isn't a very useful approach to reality, to say the least.
Intelligent beings are real, are they not?
Intelligent beings also like to communicate with one another, and often take a lot of interest in one another, and so in effect, this communication makes up for a great part of what they consider reality -- do they not?

Why speak of reality as something apart from living beings?
Also, do living beings ever experience existence as a whole?

Water:

Hm. The mental abstraction's focus may be to transcend time and space ...

Yet as such is unimaginable, one could say that the wish's focus is simply illogical, and thus has no reality aside from fantasy.

This is an ad ignorantiam ...

Partially. For whilst we know of physical processes of life and have examples of physical processes, there are no such proofs for the soul. I think it is more a matter of the burden of proof falling on you with that one.

Do you have proof of metaphysics, proof that metaphysics is real?

Logical arguments/proofs, yes. I think I mentioned my metaphysical/cosmological argument of logical necessity being the cause for existence and non-existence's "existence".

Hm. But this isn't a very useful approach to reality, to say the least.
Intelligent beings are real, are they not?
Intelligent beings also like to communicate with one another, and often take a lot of interest in one another, and so in effect, this communication makes up for a great part of what they consider reality -- do they not?

Granted, you are right as regards we being social animals and intelligent beings existing in reality, but what I took from your statement was that you wanted reality as a whole to be kind, in the sense that truth would back up kindness as a universal constant of some sort.

Why speak of reality as something apart from living beings?
Also, do living beings ever experience existence as a whole?

No, since existence is infinite, only an infinite thing could experience it as a whole.

Prince James,


Hm. The mental abstraction's focus may be to transcend time and space ...

Yet as such is unimaginable, one could say that the wish's focus is simply illogical, and thus has no reality aside from fantasy.

Why?
It is in the nature of transcenddence that it is ... transcendent.

How come people have a desire for transcendence?


Partially. For whilst we know of physical processes of life and have examples of physical processes, there are no such proofs for the soul. I think it is more a matter of the burden of proof falling on you with that one.

That we "of physical processes of life and have examples of physical processes" only means that there exists a consensus about how to talk about certian things. This consensus is then deemed "proof".
There is no consensus, however, about the psychological aspects of a living being, so it looks as if there are no proofs for the various claims individual psychological theories make.


Do you have proof of metaphysics, proof that metaphysics is real?

Logical arguments/proofs, yes.

That's right, there are logical arguments/proofs for the reality of metaphysics.
The same with with the soul -- the existence of the soul is usually postulated as an axiom.


“ Hm. But this isn't a very useful approach to reality, to say the least.
Intelligent beings are real, are they not?
Intelligent beings also like to communicate with one another, and often take a lot of interest in one another, and so in effect, this communication makes up for a great part of what they consider reality -- do they not? ”


Granted, you are right as regards we being social animals and intelligent beings existing in reality, but what I took from your statement was that you wanted reality as a whole to be kind, in the sense that truth would back up kindness as a universal constant of some sort.

I do think truth should back up kindness as a universal constant -- in humans. Humans are real.

Who says the number three means divinity and what objective basis do they have for this? And I've never heard of any ancient school using this cube crucifix.

The trinity of God is in many religions. God, the self, is where the know (to know), the known and knower are the same.

The cross has lost its meaning over time. Originally it came from the Atlantean giants.

Please try to refute my argument presetented in "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism".

You've already made up your mind, I don't think I can convince you that it is all in the mind.

What proof do you have for the spirit existing?

The spirit is the "opposite" of matter...

Nothing is the opposite of something, it cannot be the same.

Opposite is a bad word. Instead they should be called complementary halves. They are inseparable. There is no light without darkness. The unity continues to exist between them forever. The negative and positive are exactly the same thing (life), just under different circumstances.

Here's another thing: If nothing is reality, then from whence comes the mind? The mind itself would be illusion if nothing is reality. If the mind is an illusion, not even the mind creates.

Everything in the visible world tries to unite with the invisible, the nothingness. The power to create, to become greater and more united, comes from the negative unmanifested half.

Just look at all the young men and their main purpose: unity. Since they identify themselves with their body, they think the woman is their complementary half even though it is also material. They don't know that their complementary half can never manifest itself ("God" can never be seen) at the same time, otherwise it would mean the destruction of them both, since separation is creation and unity is destruction.

The real marriage, the unity, can only be attained in oneself by enlarging consciousness.

This is an absurdity.

There is no absolute except that there is no absolute.

What is there else but the material manifestation of life?

Life. The power which creates and destroys the manifestations. Shiva and Vishnu. Like the life in a tree which creates its leaves, and the same life (the will to evolve) which creates the trees from seeds.

Do you have multiple personality syndrome?

The self has no personality. Only if you identify yourself with the body, you keep a specific personality, which is just a mental reflection of the body. The self is like water. It has no form. It gains a form if you put it in a form. Still, even if it is in a body, it is still ACTUALLY formless, and when you recognize that, you know that you are neither a man nor woman, and you have no specific personality, because you are the creator of them all.

You're claiming that what we're all experiencing is equivalent to a dream. How then, can I ask 10 people to report what they saw at the same time and place, and get a statistically repeatable response?

Ancient texts tell us that "God" had a dream and the dream was this world. God is the same thing as life. The thing we recognize as self, will or mind in us. Only the bodies separate us, but the formless water, the self, is the same in all of us.

Water:

Why?
It is in the nature of transcenddence that it is ... transcendent.

How come people have a desire for transcendence?

Transcendence itself is a shaky concept, rooted in many unproved assertions and, I'd assert, in contradiction with reality. What cannot be placed in either one of the two categories of reality, namely, somethingness and nothingness?

People desire for transcendence because people desire a lot of ill-thought out things. People might desire pink bunnies, or purple unicorns, but it does not mean these exist. Desires can be baseless, rooted in phantasical notions, which are always a mockery of reason.

That we "of physical processes of life and have examples of physical processes" only means that there exists a consensus about how to talk about certian things. This consensus is then deemed "proof".
There is no consensus, however, about the psychological aspects of a living being, so it looks as if there are no proofs for the various claims individual psychological theories make.

A consensus? No. Empirical proof is not a consensus, but a fact rooted in observation. We do not claim that it is true out of consensus, but come to consensus because it is true.

Yes, psychology is a yet demi-scientific field that has not provided conclusive proof of all things, though signs pointing towards a physical origin of the mind seem to be most prevalent, although even I concede there is a possibility that the mind is something more ethereal.

That's right, there are logical arguments/proofs for the reality of metaphysics.
The same with with the soul -- the existence of the soul is usually postulated as an axiom.

It cannot be rightfully justified as an axiom, due to the fact that it is not self-evident, nor do we find proofs of its existence in everything we see around. An axiom must be fundementally true and incapable of being refuted, with its opposite being an absurdity. It is not absurd that the soul does not exist, nor is it self-evident.

I do think truth should back up kindness as a universal constant -- in humans. Humans are real.

Why ought we be kind?

The trinity of God is in many religions. God, the self, is where the know (to know), the known and knower are the same.

Actually, only Christianity envisions the Supreme God as a trinity. Hinduism has a lesser trinity, but they are considered only the highest manifestations of Brahman, and prime aspects of reality, namely, Creation (Brahma), Sustainment (Vishnu), and Destruction (Shiva).

The cross has lost its meaning over time. Originally it came from the Atlantean giants.

Okay, this is going to require the UTMOST proof. You have to give me some proof that: 1. Atlantis existed. 2. Giants existed. 3. They said this and you have some solid proof of this, like an archaeologically verified finding dated to 10,000 BC.

You've already made up your mind, I don't think I can convince you that it is all in the mind.

I am a philosopher, if you have proof that can utterly defeat mine, I shall concede. If there is one thing I am not, is dogmatic for the sake of dogmatism. I only am "dogmatically truthful".

The spirit is the "opposite" of matter...

Actually, I would argue that nothingness is the opposite of energy/matter. In what way is this spirit as such? And do you have any proof beyond what you feel is an opposite connection? Also, do you have a means whereby the spirit can impact reality that does not run into the Mind-Body Problem of philosophical dualism?

Opposite is a bad word. Instead they should be called complementary halves. They are inseparable. There is no light without darkness. The unity continues to exist between them forever. The negative and positive are exactly the same thing (life), just under different circumstances.

Whilst I don't like to nitpick, you made an error there: Whilst there may not be any light without darkness, darkness exists without light, for darkness is a "base state" whilst light stems from something.

Now, to strike at your main point: I agree that they are "complimentary halves" in the sense that reality is cleft in twain into "somethingness" and "nothingness", but whilst they may be complimentary to one another in that manner, they are also polar opposites. To be nothing is to be the exact opposite of something and vice versa. Their unity is only a unity of opposition and mutual-creation through that opposition, not one of harmony and "one and the sameness". The only trait they share is being part of reality.

Everything in the visible world tries to unite with the invisible, the nothingness. The power to create, to become greater and more united, comes from the negative unmanifested half.

Upon what foundation do you make these claims?

Just look at all the young men and their main purpose: unity. Since they identify themselves with their body, they think the woman is their complementary half even though it is also material. They don't know that their complementary half can never manifest itself ("God" can never be seen) at the same time, otherwise it would mean the destruction of them both, since separation is creation and unity is destruction.

Unity is destruction? Yet you said that existence and nonexistence were unified a few minutes ago, no? Why then is not everything destroyed?

Ontop of that, identification with the other sex as "another half" is appropriate due to the fact that sexually male and female -are- opposites and naturally are made for eachother in that manner.

The real marriage, the unity, can only be attained in oneself by enlarging consciousness.

How does one do this?

There is no absolute except that there is no absolute.

This statement is contradictory. If there are no absolutes, but the statement itself is an absolute, one cannot even demonstrate the principle you hold to be truth.

Life. The power which creates and destroys the manifestations. Shiva and Vishnu. Like the life in a tree which creates its leaves, and the same life (the will to evolve) which creates the trees from seeds.

Where is this power? What proof do you have for its existence? Does not DNA programme the cells to make the leaves?

Again, it seems more like you're degenerating to a Scholastic Aristolean notion, or even a Nietzchean metaphysical Will to Power.

The self has no personality. Only if you identify yourself with the body, you keep a specific personality, which is just a mental reflection of the body. The self is like water. It has no form. It gains a form if you put it in a form. Still, even if it is in a body, it is still ACTUALLY formless, and when you recognize that, you know that you are neither a man nor woman, and you have no specific personality, because you are the creator of them all.

I would argue that the personality develops from a mixture of "ease of action" (natural attributes provoking natural inclinations) plus social interaction. But I ask this: How does the self have no form? If it has no form, how is existant? And is there not a difference betwixt a created personality and a naturally born personality?

Ancient texts tell us that "God" had a dream and the dream was this world. God is the same thing as life. The thing we recognize as self, will or mind in us. Only the bodies separate us, but the formless water, the self, is the same in all of us.

Ancient texts also speak of many superstitions and absurdities. Ancient texts are no more valid than modern ones by virtue of being ancient.

Okay, this is going to require the UTMOST proof.

Why does it require proof?

You have to give me some proof that: 1. Atlantis existed. 2. Giants existed. 3. They said this and you have some solid proof of this, like an archaeologically verified finding dated to 10,000 BC.

The Atlanteans didn't live 10.000 BC anymore, at that time they were already extinct (by their free will). The Atlantis sank 850,000 B.C. and most of the giants drowned along with their civilization.

So. What kind of proof do you expect me to give you? There is not physical proof for everything. What proof do you want me to give you if all proof is since long gone and destroyed?

But I know that there is no absolute proof of anything. We can only make things sound rational, and I guess I could, but it would take too much energy. You should find the "evidence" yourself.

But ok.

You know that we people are of various sizes, both physically and mentally. There have even been people who are taller than 2.5m. Is it not rational that they have inherited their size from an ancient human race which made children with primitive humans from where our race came? Why are some people so much ahead of their time? Socrates. Hermes. Tesla. Da vinci. Michellangelo. Jesus. Moses. Krishna etc.

Why are there so many stories about giant humans? Where does the Zodiac come from? What does it mean? Who invented Yoga?

Why are there religions? Scriptures which tell things which people even today cannot understand (though people have corrupted parts of the teachings) Why did some cultures evolve so drastically, like the Sumerian and Aztecs? From where did they get their information from. How did they find the 10 planets? Who was their teacher?

The early descendants of the Atlanteans who inherited their omniscience.

Of course. You might wonder how I know that the "giants" and Atlantis existed.

I am a philosopher, if you have proof that can utterly defeat mine, I shall concede.

I don't know. It sounds more like a fight. A fight between two children. Two bi-polar particles...

"You're wrong! No YOU'RE wrong! YOU are! Ok, you are always 1% more wrong than I am, hahahaha! You're always 100% more wrong! You are! No, you are! etc!"

The only difference is that "adult" people have evolved and created more and more advanced and complex arguments (which are still no closer to the truth, which is "infinity")

That's what discussion is. An endless loop which leads nowhere. The endless arguing can only stop if one side matures and disconnects by no longer defending oneself, saying nothing and leaving the cycle of arguing.

The infinity cannot be "reached" by going further and further in that spiral, it can only be attained taking by a rest... being in neutral, in the center of the arguments.

When arguing, we're usually trying to convince ourselves of something instead of the other one... even though it is subconscious.

Actually, I would argue that nothingness is the opposite of energy/matter. In what way is this spirit as such?

Nothingness is the "creator" of the spirit and matter (see the trinity?)

Whilst I don't like to nitpick, you made an error there: Whilst there may not be any light without darkness, darkness exists without light, for darkness is a "base state" whilst light stems from something.

You made an error by assuming that errors exist. Instead, there exists just different perspectives and ideas, from which none are more or less true.

Darkness also stems from something. It may be hard to understand though, since they are "opposites" and humans live in duality. Up and down are also opposites, just like light and darkness.

Nothingness is not the same as darkness. Nothingness is the base state, darkness is a result of duality between conscious mind and the outer world. If I, the mind, wasn't there to observe the darkness, it wouldn't exist. Instead there would be nothingness.

Religious scripts tell us that consciousness (mind) is "light".

How does one do this?

It is only a matter of time.

This statement is contradictory. If there are no absolutes, but the statement itself is an absolute, one cannot even demonstrate the principle you hold to be truth.

You just demostrated it by not believing in it.

Where is this power? What proof do you have for its existence? Does not DNA programme the cells to make the leaves?

The power is in the presence where there is no physical existence, hence it can create, and it is the cause, since only a completely immaterial, invisible thing can be a cause of something.

The proof for its existence is you. Tell your arm to lift and it will lift itself. The same power rules the atoms, but in that case, it is not conscious.

The proof is also seen when you plant a seed on the ground and a tree grows.

DNA is a physical, visible, thing. First you have to explain how DNA comes into being, and if you find something beyond that which requires explanation for its existence you have to explain that too, until you "find" the Indestructible "thing" that creates life and everything...

You would soon find "yourself" in a sub-atomic, going deeper and deeper, until you realize that you are looking at your own mind, and that's why everything seems chaotic: things being at many places simultaneously, things having no substance, "particles" traveling as easy in space as in time, particles communicating without delay etc.

Quantum physics should not be true just on sub-atomic level, but it should be true for the whole universe, if it was correct... The two different physics today are in complete contradiction with each other, but they will later be placed by metaphysics.

DNA creates the leaves? That's like saying that clouds create the rain. It is not the whole truth. The cause is much deeper, continiously creating, on a completely immaterial level. It is not "in" space and time. It creates space and time. Like an object between two mirrors, it sends infinite illusional opposing images of itself.

When we try to "observe" the world, we cannot understand the cause. Have you ever "seen" a cause? An origin is not a cause. The cause can be understood by studying the presence.

Again, it seems more like you're degenerating to a Scholastic Aristolean notion, or even a Nietzchean metaphysical Will to Power.

It doesn't really matter what it looks like. You and I observe the world from different perspectives.

When you observe something, you are in a dualistic state (since what you are and what you see are two different things), but if you ARE something, you are in a monistic state of divine oneness.

But I ask this: How does the self have no form? If it has no form, how is existant?

I already compared it to water, which exists and also has no form.

And is there not a difference betwixt a created personality and a naturally born personality?

I don't know about that since I have no personality.

Ancient texts also speak of many superstitions and absurdities.

It depends on who reads it. And if they really contain a few absurdities (which they do), what does it matter? Who would believe in something absurd and wrong? Who wouldn't recognize that the source of the absurdity is different than the source of wisdom? Only the fanatics and the ignorant.

Ancient texts are no more valid than modern ones by virtue of being ancient.

They contain the truth about everything to the Initiates, but not to ordinary people. The whole thing may even seem absurd to them because of their lack of experience.

Ancient texts "should" indeed be more primitive (since we were supposedly less evolved) but they seem to be side by side with modern knowledge, and in the eyes of the Initiates, they rise much above modern knowledge.

c7ityi_:

Why does it require proof?

All statements require proof on this level. You are making claims of something which happened in the past and claiming it is -truth-. How do I know what you're saying is truth? It is really outlandish.

The Atlanteans didn't live 10.000 BC anymore, at that time they were already extinct (by their free will). The Atlantis sank 850,000 B.C. and most of the giants drowned along with their civilization.

Sorry. My Atlantean dates were a bit off, then. Please present some evidence from 850,000 BC or before, please.

So. What kind of proof do you expect me to give you? There is not physical proof for everything. What proof do you want me to give you if all proof is since long gone and destroyed?

So how do you even know this is true if there is no proof left?

But I know that there is no absolute proof of anything. We can only make things sound rational, and I guess I could, but it would take too much energy. You should find the "evidence" yourself.

You're making a claim that is supposed to bring all of us to wisdom. Atleast explain yourself fully.

You know that we people are of various sizes, both physically and mentally. There have even been people who are taller than 2.5m. Is it not rational that they have inherited their size from an ancient human race which made children with primitive humans from where our race came? Why are some people so much ahead of their time? Socrates. Hermes. Tesla. Da vinci. Michellangelo. Jesus. Moses. Krishna etc.

No, it isn't rational. It does not stand to reason that one has to inherit from another species these traits, for from whence did they derive their traits? It's just a blind guess if there is no proof, no more valid than me saying there are people in the centre of the moon.

Why are there so many stories about giant humans? Where does the Zodiac come from? What does it mean? Who invented Yoga?

People looked at extremely tall men like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson as giants of their age, and they were hardly over 6 feet tall. Some people have a natural propensity for great height. Giants could just be people who naturally grow taller, just as people of negro ancestry are, on average, taller than people of oriental ancestry.

Where does the zodiac come from? Greek mythology rooted in stars forming vague shapes similar to something one person, or a group of people, knew of. it is like looking at clouds. I've seen the vague silhouettes of turtles, cars, guns, horses, everything in the clouds.

Yoga was likely invented somewhere in India, possibly in the INdus Valley Civilization, by people experimenting with various techniques and getting results they organized in a highly complex system based on semi-scientific findings.

You have to realize this: Even if another species or aliens or whatever gave us these systems, one would have to ask from whence did they create them? Just shifting it "to another species" solves nothing.

Why are there religions? Scriptures which tell things which people even today cannot understand (though people have corrupted parts of the teachings) Why did some cultures evolve so drastically, like the Sumerian and Aztecs? From where did they get their information from. How did they find the 10 planets? Who was their teacher?

10 planets? Last I checked, there were only 9? And ontop of that, the ancients did not know about anything past Saturn, I do believe.

Why are there religions? I have a theory of ecology shaping our conceptions of religion. Primative societies, living in a world governed almost exclusively by nature, see God in everything. When primatives tbegin to develop a bit more civilization. they start focusing on man a bit more and develop polytheism, which sometimes ends up as monotheism when one God is considered supreme to another. AFter this, when you you reach a certian level of civilization, philosophy begins to develop and the notion of philosophical theology begins to develop, which in likely also comes along with Atheism. Philosophy and atheism grow with the development of civilization, as the world starts to become wholely under man's control in one's daily life. For instance, I live in the city. My trees and mountains are great skyscrapers. All around me the works of man, not of nature, predominate. It most surely impacts many of my conceptions of God through shaping the cultural mindset.

What are these things which scriptures tell us that "we still cannot understand"?

The Egyptians and Aztecs hardly developed "so drastically". They developed rather steadily until they reached a level of civilization, and came upon times befitting certain things, to develop along certain lines, or in their case, great builders.

The early descendants of the Atlanteans who inherited their omniscience.

The Atlanteans had omniscience, now?

Of course. You might wonder how I know that the "giants" and Atlantis existed.

Definitely.

I don't know. It sounds more like a fight. A fight between two children. Two bi-polar particles...

It does not satisfy my ego (much) to simply "win a debate". I prefer truth over victory.

The only difference is that "adult" people have evolved and created more and more advanced and complex arguments (which are still no closer to the truth, which is "infinity")

What is this truth of infinity?

The only difference is that "adult" people have evolved and created more and more advanced and complex arguments (which are still no closer to the truth, which is "infinity")

That's what discussion is. An endless loop which leads nowhere. The endless arguing can only stop if one side matures and disconnects by no longer defending oneself, saying nothing and leaving the cycle of arguing.

See Plato's "Gorgias" for a recorded instance of a fruitful debate. Heck, read any of his dialogues for an example of that, though I like Gorgias the most as Socrates doesn't really "win".

When arguing, we're usually trying to convince ourselves of something instead of the other one... even though it is subconscious.

Arguing helps to reenforce my beliefs when they are found to be true, but actually destroys them when they are not.

Nothingness is the "creator" of the spirit and matter (see the trinity?)

How?

You made an error by assuming that errors exist. Instead, there exists just different perspectives and ideas, from which none are more or less true.

Darkness also stems from something. It may be hard to understand though, since they are "opposites" and humans live in duality. Up and down are also opposites, just like light and darkness.

Nothingness is not the same as darkness. Nothingness is the base state, darkness is a result of duality between conscious mind and the outer world. If I, the mind, wasn't there to observe the darkness, it wouldn't exist. Instead there would be nothingness.

This is not so, I am afraid. Light is rooted in photons, elementary particles which are perceived as light by humans, whilst darkness is the absence of said photons. An absence is a "baser" state, though I did not mean to insinuate that darkness is "nothing" or on the same "base level" of nothing.

Up and down -are- opposites, yes, I agree completely. But light and darkness are not. Light is produced from photons, darkness is just the absence of light, issuing itself from nothing at all, as it is what matter/energy "returns to" when photons are not striking it or being emitted by it.

Okay, here's a problem I see with this notion of there'd be nothing if our conscious mind (or consciousness as a whole) didn't exist: From whence comes consciousness, then? How would nothingness produce this consciousness if nothingness is all there is? And again, as I have asked you before: How does the mind conceive of any thought without first gaining this idea through sensory preception and thus requiring an external object? Can you imagine a totally different colour? One which is not part of the visible spectrum, but completely different and not a shade of a prior colour? A "blorgi" or "quor"?

Religious scripts tell us that consciousness (mind) is "light".

We can think of this in a metaphorical sense. Intelligence makes sense, sheds light, upon what would be just things existing.

It is only a matter of time.

Oh? How/why is expansion/enlargening of consciousness imminent?

You just demostrated it by not believing in it.

How? I actually assert there are MANY absolutes. A = A is one that is really easy to speak of.

The power is in the presence where there is no physical existence, hence it can create, and it is the cause, since only a completely immaterial, invisible thing can be a cause of something.

Demonstrate that which is immaterial and indivisible, aside from nothingness which itself requires somethingness to exist?

The proof for its existence is you. Tell your arm to lift and it will lift itself. The same power rules the atoms, but in that case, it is not conscious.

Yes, the same powers lift atoms, because my brain functions on electricity.

The proof is also seen when you plant a seed on the ground and a tree grows.

DNA is a physical, visible, thing. First you have to explain how DNA comes into being, and if you find something beyond that which requires explanation for its existence you have to explain that too, until you "find" the Indestructible "thing" that creates life and everything...

You would soon find "yourself" in a sub-atomic, going deeper and deeper, until you realize that you are looking at your own mind, and that's why everything seems chaotic: things being at many places simultaneously, things having no substance, "particles" traveling as easy in space as in time, particles communicating without delay etc.

Quantum physics should not be true just on sub-atomic level, but it should be true for the whole universe, if it was correct... The two different physics today are in complete contradiction with each other, but they will later be placed by metaphysics.

DNA creates the leaves? That's like saying that clouds create the rain. It is not the whole truth. The cause is much deeper, continiously creating, on a completely immaterial level. It is not "in" space and time. It creates space and time. Like an object between two mirrors, it sends infinite illusional opposing images of itself.

Two words: Emergent Behaviour. Different laws develop at macroscopic levels of existence due to the emergent behaviour of things coming into relation with other things. Two hydrogen atoms bonded to oxygen creates a compound we call water, which is neither hydrogen nor oxygen, but the synthesis of them both in proportion to their presence in a combined whole of H2O. When you combine further into the higher structures, you get even more complex behaviour. The laws of elasticity are no more inherent in the universe than the laws of electromagnetism, nor more less, simply that the laws of elasticity derive from emergent behaviour, just as electromagnetism does.

Here's something to think over: Infinity is both infinitely large and infinitely small. One can never reach either. That which is indivisble cannot exist, it can only not-exist, or be part of nothingness, but nothingness is not more inherent than somethingness.

You're never going to reach this level of immateriality which you speak of. The immaterial does not actually create a thing but somethingness, which in turn creates nothingness. They are mutually creative which makes them non-created and, in fact, eternal.

When we try to "observe" the world, we cannot understand the cause. Have you ever "seen" a cause? An origin is not a cause. The cause can be understood by studying the presence.

Since I've answered this before, but it seems you don't think my answer valid, perhaps you might explain a bit?

It doesn't really matter what it looks like. You and I observe the world from different perspectives.

True, we do.

When you observe something, you are in a dualistic state (since what you are and what you see are two different things), but if you ARE something, you are in a monistic state of divine oneness.

Actually, I am a Pantheist, too. I quite assert that I actually everything, but I also recognize that there is difference. I share the qualities of "somethingness" with all things, I am composed of energy which comprises all things, and I inhabit spacetime (which itself is energy) like all things. Am I seperate from other things? Of course. On a macroscopic level, I am most assuredly seperate from all things, inhabiting different areas in infinity.

I already compared it to water, which exists and also has no form.

No -fixed- form in most cases, but no form? Let's take three molecules of water and drop them on a flat surface. They will flatten out until all three of them are on the same level. Water - and all liquid - is ultimately flat, and that is what "seeking the lowest level" is for water, a return to that flatness, having no means whereby it might support itself in another shape. Gas is similar to a rarified form of water, where the molecules are light enough to escape to a certain level out of the gravity, but you'll note they form a flat surfaced sphere around the earth, also.

I don't know about that since I have no personality.

I would argue by the very fact that you speak to me now, grew up in a culture, and approach things in certain ways, that you have a personality.

It depends on who reads it. And if they really contain a few absurdities (which they do), what does it matter? Who would believe in something absurd and wrong? Who wouldn't recognize that the source of the absurdity is different than the source of wisdom? Only the fanatics and the ignorant.

True, we can use what is good, discard the rest, but it does not stand to reason that these ancient texts are exalted truth, because they are just as prone to error as any other source. Just as a wise man can be a fool in other ways, so too can a document that holds some wisdom have some absurdity, but that absurdity speaks poorly against both nonetheless. What I am saying: Just going to an ancient text, or going by what an ancient text says, does not mean it is right. It must be proven right before considered right.

They contain the truth about everything to the Initiates, but not to ordinary people. The whole thing may even seem absurd to them because of their lack of experience.

Ancient texts "should" indeed be more primitive (since we were supposedly less evolved) but they seem to be side by side with modern knowledge, and in the eyes of the Initiates, they rise much above modern knowledge.

That's basically a fancy way of saying "those who know, all ready know". Initiates all ready take the beliefs as truth. Of course they are going to think that it is true if they all ready think it is true!

Most ancient texts do -not- stand side by side with modern knowledge. They are filled with absurd notions that are contradicted by more evolved logic and science. The believers ancient beliefs are all ready convincd that they are right, so surely they see it as being "superior", but it does not mean that they are in any objective sense.

Prince_James,



Transcendence itself is a shaky concept, rooted in many unproved assertions and, I'd assert, in contradiction with reality. What cannot be placed in either one of the two categories of reality, namely, somethingness and nothingness?

People desire for transcendence because people desire a lot of ill-thought out things. People might desire pink bunnies, or purple unicorns, but it does not mean these exist. Desires can be baseless, rooted in phantasical notions, which are always a mockery of reason.

Oh. First of all, the lines aren't sharp between what is reasonable and what is not.
Imagine a continuum:
at one end are the most reasonable desires,
then the moderately reasonable ones,
and then those that seem unreasonable.

But reasonability is a relative term. What is unreasonable in one context, may be unreasonable in another. For example, it is not reasonable to sit down and read a book when your house is on fire all around you, but it is reasonable to sit down and read a book on a nice and calm Sunday afternoon.

This same principle of the relativity of reasonableness seems to apply in all cases. It is just that we are used to designate a certain state of reasonability as default or normal, and it seems that in Western society, this state is that of peace and plenty; people tend to judge everything form this perspective: what adds to peace and plenty is reasonable, what takes from it, is not reasonable.
What exactly the state of peace and plenty is, is quite arbitrary though. What an Andean farmer considers peace and plenty would to a Westerner be utter poverty and demise, for example.

Secondly, our mind is capable of thinking of any two or more things combined, this is one of its primary characteristics. It is this ability that enables us to plan and invent.
When this ability is employed in ways that are presently deemed useful (in whatever way) by the observer, we call that rational thinking or reasonability (the termonology varies from theory to theory, but I hope we can get along).
When this ability is employed in ways that aren't deemed useful by the observer, then that is called irrationality or fantasy.

It all depends though what and whose criteria are used to determine what is reasonable.


A consensus? No. Empirical proof is not a consensus, but a fact rooted in observation. We do not claim that it is true out of consensus, but come to consensus because it is true.

There exists a consesus about the connection between a particular observation and a claim.
All cause and effect relationships as science presents them are theoretical constructs, inferences. We accept them because they are reasonable (for our criteria in a given context).


It cannot be rightfully justified as an axiom, due to the fact that it is not self-evident, nor do we find proofs of its existence in everything we see around. An axiom must be fundementally true and incapable of being refuted, with its opposite being an absurdity. It is not absurd that the soul does not exist, nor is it self-evident.

Without a mind (and the mind is always conditioned with a particular knowledge), nothing is self-evident. With a mind (particularly conditioned), only some things are self-evident. This is the crux of it all.



Why ought we be kind?

To some people, that we ought be kind is self-evident ...

Water:

But reasonability is a relative term. What is unreasonable in one context, may be unreasonable in another. For example, it is not reasonable to sit down and read a book when your house is on fire all around you, but it is reasonable to sit down and read a book on a nice and calm Sunday afternoon.

This same principle of the relativity of reasonableness seems to apply in all cases. It is just that we are used to designate a certain state of reasonability as default or normal, and it seems that in Western society, this state is that of peace and plenty; people tend to judge everything form this perspective: what adds to peace and plenty is reasonable, what takes from it, is not reasonable.
What exactly the state of peace and plenty is, is quite arbitrary though. What an Andean farmer considers peace and plenty would to a Westerner be utter poverty and demise, for example.

I would agree with this, save for the fact that that which is illogical is -always- unreasonable. It is an absolute of unreasonableness. If transcendence is illogical, which it seems to be as nothing which can be does not fit into the category or existence or non-existence, then it is always unreasonable.

Secondly, our mind is capable of thinking of any two or more things combined, this is one of its primary characteristics. It is this ability that enables us to plan and invent.
When this ability is employed in ways that are presently deemed useful (in whatever way) by the observer, we call that rational thinking or reasonability (the termonology varies from theory to theory, but I hope we can get along).
When this ability is employed in ways that aren't deemed useful by the observer, then that is called irrationality or fantasy.

It is only irrational if it is truly anti-reason, fantastical only if far-fetched.

There exists a consesus about the connection between a particular observation and a claim.
All cause and effect relationships as science presents them are theoretical constructs, inferences. We accept them because they are reasonable (for our criteria in a given context).

I would disagree. We accept them because to not accept them would be to try to refute reality.

Without a mind (and the mind is always conditioned with a particular knowledge), nothing is self-evident. With a mind (particularly conditioned), only some things are self-evident. This is the crux of it all.

I would argue that self-evidence is beyond conditioning. All rational creatures accept it once demonstrated, regardless of conditioning. But yes, self-evidence is rooted in the mind, but it is a quality which due to its self-evidence is inherent in what one is dealing with. A = A would still be so without a mind.

To some people, that we ought be kind is self-evident ...

I wouldn't claim that. Kindness doesn't have a self-evidence in and of itself. People value kindness for various reasons.

Prince,


Do you think that the universe is rational, that the environment is poses for humans is rational?

So how do you even know this is true if there is no proof left?

"PHYSICAL" (although nothing is physical) proof may be hard to find, but the history of the universe and human thoughts are written in astral light. Everything exists in the present, also the past and future.

It's just a blind guess if there is no proof, no more valid than me saying there are people in the centre of the moon.

But there are no people at the centre of the moon. It's not a blind guess, I know it! "The dryland is not a myth, I've seen it!" - Kevin Costner, Waterworld.

Giants could just be people who naturally grow taller, just as people of negro ancestry are, on average, taller than people of oriental ancestry.

Yeah, but what is the reason the people of negro ancestry are taller? Goliat, in the Bible, was a giant. David beat him because he had giant wisdom instead.

Where does the zodiac come from? Greek mythology rooted in stars forming vague shapes similar to something one person, or a group of people, knew of. it is like looking at clouds. I've seen the vague silhouettes of turtles, cars, guns, horses, everything in the clouds.

Ridiculous :) The Egyptians also had a Zodiac, and they existed before the Greeks. From whom did the Egyptians get it from? It is said that the Egyptians got knowledge from the Atlanteans.

The Zodiac expresses a great truth which is no longer understood today. All the animals there are special, and chosen carefully. Actually, the Zodiac includes the 4 elements. When simplified further, it becomes Yin and Yang. The lion is "fire". When "fire" is converted into an animal form, it becomes a lion.

Yoga was likely invented somewhere in India, possibly in the INdus Valley Civilization, by people experimenting with various techniques and getting results they organized in a highly complex system based on semi-scientific findings.

You're starting to sound like a semi-intelligent biased pseudo-christian from Lemuria.

...I'm just kidding with you.

You have to realize this: Even if another species or aliens or whatever gave us these systems, one would have to ask from whence did they create them? Just shifting it "to another species" solves nothing.

It does solve things, because they were more evolved than us. They weren't like us. They had no war, they had very little technology. They didn't argue like this. All life was about love.

Where did the Atlanteans get their knowledge from? From the same source as all knowledge comes from. From our self. Later, we will also get that knowledge.

What are these