c7ityi_: How can you claim these are relative, when they make assertions that are either right or wrong about reality? If truth is subjective, then my truth, to me, would make your truth BS, would it not? Yet you just said truth was relative and didn't exist beyond subjective notions. Which one is it? So do cult members agree. What's your point? Who are these "teachers"? Quantum Quack: You know, when/if I ever attain to pure truth, I got to admit, you're probably right. I'll be mad that I have no fun anymore! Philosophy is so enjoyable! But, in the end, I'd prefer truth and losing the greatest enjoyment of my life, then falsehood, or half-truth, and enjoyment. I am working towards an end and this end is truth, and when I attain it, I shan't turn it away for amusement. There are other things for amusement. c7ityi_: Yes, you must first know what it means, but once you -do- it becomes an absolute because it is an absurdity to speak otherwise. A more universally graspable aboslute is: A = A. If something does not equal itself, it cannot be itself.
If you don't agree with something, then it's not right for you. You must go your own personal way. Accept no assertion, only because it comes of someone who knows. Even if it is 1000 times more true, so is it, nevertheless, not your truth, so, nevertheless, it is not your experience, and it does not belong to you. Realize the truth, then it belongs to you. Both.
Realize the truth? This whole time you've been saying there is no truth. Truth is a term that denotes an absolute, static reality. You've been saying that there is no absolute, static reality. If you say that truth means an absolute static reality to me, but not to you, then you've basically rendered language meaningless, and thus also communication meaningless and non-existent. The fact that you speak at all, in any language, is in itself a recognition, an assertion of absolutes. Language is composed of objects, subjects, verbs, etc... That there is an object that you speak about asserts the fact that there is an absolute, objective reality. That there is a subject that you speak about, asserts the fact that there is an absolute, objective reality. That there is an action, or state of being verb, which refers directly to an object or subject is an assertion to objective, absolute reality. Anyone who says "I am..." asserts necessarily an absolute objective reality. If you want to posit that, in fact, there is no objective, absolute reality, then you may not speak at all, for to do so is a direct contradiction to the assertion that you make.
The sensation of being is a certitude. Only the sensation, not its form. My sensation of being is the sensation that there is a universe. It means that being is a DUALITY. I say "I am" because I feel in opposition with "what I feel I am not". I feel that the infinity around me is outside me, is not me. This object of consciousness makes me feel "I am". You are not me, and you think the same about me, but we both know that "I am", so the separation is not real. The world which I think is outside me is my unconscious mind. There's nothing in the universe which is not contained in this sensation of being: everything I can experience is a sensation of "I AM". Hence, if I want to be scientific, I must recognize that NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE MYSELF, since the whole universe is MY SENSATION. So, I am obliged to say: "I am not a body". For my body is a sensation among many others, and all of them are included in "I AM". I can't be at the same time matter or body, which are forms of sensation, and the sentient act itself. These are two different persons. I am the consciousness of things, not things themselves.
c7ityi_: How can the sensation come without the form? What proof do you have of the assertion that the reality outside you is part of your unconscious mind? And how have you discerned that it is your sensation? I do not feel the dog, or the tree, or the star, or the computer. Why can you not be a form of sensation and the sentient act itself?
so the "I" can only exist in reflection. The "I" is nothing unless it is the reflection of something. so essentially the "I" is non-existant in itself. Sounds good to me......
Quantum Quack: Whilst the "I" might not exist (the self), could not a thing exist in a vacuum, hypothetically? Just a single rock, for instance, floating in a sea of nothingness?
What you may be failing to consider is that the rocks substance is a reflection of the rocks self. Ha.......... I know the very idea of a rocks self is a little daughting but you started it not me..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The body and the rest of the universe is a reflection of the self. As C7 is trying to say is that we all share the same self and everithing else incuding our memories and knwoledge and actions are simply a refelction of that universal nothing "self" Thus as I said in another thread metaphysically time is absolute. We all share the same nothing [ zero dimensionalism] as the perpective we are looking from...so we are Gods looking out at something. Thus God is nothing [source] but everything is a reflection of him [ including all our memeories and actions etc......
Quantum Quack: How is it a reflection of its self? Yes, but this claim is pretty much...eh, well let's not go into what I'd call it completely. But if you have any validation for it, put it on the table and let's see.
dunno. why not? you think it sounds weird because you identify yourself with your body. Don't you think it's weird how such "perfect" and complex things like insects.. birds... fish... humans... can evolve by some kind of "laws"? what makes the laws the way they are? it's like there is some kind of a will to evolve, to imitate... and this will creates bodies for itself.... unconsciously... what else would it be?... we all have a self in us. you consider me as "not me" and i consider you as "not me"... still we consider ourselves as "i am".... ... we're the same self... just in different bodies.... If you would feel yourself as everything. If you would be conscious of everything you would be unconscious. you don't feel the dog, tree, nothingness.... because it is the ever remaining goal of the consciousness. Maybe you can if you want to. I don't feel myself as my body. Like I said, I've never seen myself when I've tried to see myself in a mirror. I think the body is just an instrument I use, I am not it... and "non-existence" is the only thing which is "real"... presence... it has no duration... so in that state... matter and energy are not visible... the presence creates the visible things... it is the goal which the visible things are trying to reach... there's a "thing" in us and in rocks also..... we recognize it as the "self" because we're advanced and aware and stuff... like a shadow, that's what the vedas say i think. or... the self is fire, and the physical universe is like the heat of the fire... a consequence...
c7ityi_: If there is no form to provoke the sensation, how can a sensation exist? And I don't find it hard to imagine this evolution at all. There was a exponetially high amount of possibilities possible, we only got one set. In the future, who knows what we'll have? And is there a need for a "will to evolve"? No. The blind chance works just fine, not to mention there is no proof for this "will to evolve". Your "I am" and my "I am" is completely different. We are refering to different entities. You are refering to you, I am refering to me. "If". Save that is an impossiblity and does not exist. Unless you can show otherwise? That is where you and I differ, I suppose. I am perfectly capable of seeing myself in the mirror. Save this seems demonstratably wrong, considering the nature of thought.
Don't you think it's weird how such "perfect" and complex things like insects.. birds... fish... humans... can evolve by some kind of "laws"? Not at all, please take the time to understand evolution and you'll not think it weird either. What IS weird are those who believe an invisible being waved his hand and *poof* created the universe. what makes the laws the way they are? It just happens to be the way everything in the universe works. No big woop. If you really want to know, take the time to learn, you'll be glad you did. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The theory of evolution doesn't explain why things take the form they take, it doesn't explain why things evolve, it doesn't explain how, "why" the first "living" thing came into being. The so called "explanations" are not enough for me. Humans observe the effects and deny the causes. They observe how a seed grows and they think they understand why it grows and why it after a time stops growing. They always think they're right. They don't undertand what a cause is. They dig deeper and they think they have reached an explanation when they reach the other side of the endless spiral of knowledge. They will never explain the cause if they only observe. What is visible is the result of a cause. I don't like you. Your pride, I hate it!
God doesn't play dice. "Chance" is an escape word for those who don't understand. Nothing is a chance.
c7ityi_: What is better: To make up a "cause", as you do, or to simply look at what is there and state what is? Would you agree that is what you do? Make up a cause?
The theory of evolution doesn't explain why things take the form they take, it doesn't explain why things evolve, it doesn't explain how, "why" the first "living" thing came into being. If you don't anything about evolution, how can you say that? It does explain, take the time to find out, don't be lazy. The so called "explanations" are not enough for me. So, to understand how things work is not enought for you? What is enough for you? They don't undertand what a cause is. And you do? Aren't you human as well? I don't like you. Your pride, I hate it! What you don't like is the fact that you are too lazy to learn something and would much rather wallow in fantasy, isn't it? God doesn't play dice. "Chance" is an escape word for those who don't understand. Nothing is a chance. That's your fantasy and you sinking deeper into it.
