Quote:
Originally Posted by
really
O'nus you've got to stop ignoring my questions. I put the effort into answering yours, yet you seem to keep dodging mine. Stop responding with more trailing questions and at least consider the point.
Tell you what; I won't even try to make a point anymore. It does not seem you are considering it, so I will just respond directly to yours. You ought to notice a difference.
Quote:
Truth doesn't manifest. Explain how Truth can manifest; was it not present at some point or rather, do you mean that it was not recognized? Considering what I explained; Truth is neither external nor internal yet it is both, thus it is defined as non-dual. It is undefinable and improvable. Non-conceptulizable is probably a better adjective.
You see, I have already considered the idea that the truth is the non-dualistic "manifestation of everything" etc. in all its vague glory. However, I have found that there is much more exuberance in the internal. Something I do not think I can explain to you anymore because you seem to be engrossed in the non-dualistic fantasy. If you think I have dodged your question, it is because I have actually already answered it and simply have no desire to repeat it. I do not have any confidence that you really want to read it anymore.
Quote:
May I ask if "all of us" is therefore describing what is only within? So there would be nobody outside, and therefore there is actually no "outside", and it follows that there is neither an inside, and therefore (if you agree,) your belief set in this concept is indifferent to mine. However, the difference is, in your view, existence precedes essence, in mine; essence is intrinsic to existence. I am talking about subjective awareness; consciousness, whereas you're probably talking about constructed meaning and personal motivations.
I actually think we completely agree here. I could not word it better, really.
Quote:
You're just going off on a tangent now. My post already answers your question. That you need to have a "hallucination" to realize this, is your opinion. I don't need a hallucination; a hallucination is not a greater awareness.
Of course it is not. But we have been over this before. I will try to simplify this, as I have not before;
Think of the reasons why you believe what you believe.
They are subjective.
Think of others who wish to believe what you believe.
Think of others who you wish would believe what you believe.
They cannot, for they must experience it subjectively.
Thus,
There is no reason to have confidence you can actually convince someone yourself of your beliefs. It is a subjective matter. All you can do is present the idea.
However, this is also a stepping stone into something else. My approach is what I would call humanist existentialist. Although, I do not have the confidence in many people in ever attaining a knowledge in it. I wonder how you do.
Quote:
I didn't presume that, but I see that you don't understand its importance or way of transformation. I don't even know what you mean by "spiritual side", especially if I have already pointed out that it is nothing supernatural. And please let me ask again what you mean by supernatural for a third time, because it's important. I consider it as characteristic of something independent or separate from "natural" phenomena or Reality, but the spiritual Truth is not separate from anything, hence it is innate, natural and ever-present. Hence again, there's nothing to negate about pure spiritually or God because of what they represent.
You have to realize that others who do not comprehend what you are talking about will categorize it as "supernatural". You may think it is a misunderstanding, but I am trying to point out to you what Derrik Parfit would call "the further fact".
The further fact is simply that contextual thinking that is beyond our tangible knowledge and perception. It is the concepts that are out of context of what we normally speak of or can know empirically. Anything that we are usually unsure can be categorized into this.
For the very reason that spirits/truth/etc. are not factual is a reason why everything you speak of is a further fact. Because of that, we cannot speak of it beyond anything but subjectivity, even though it may represent more than that.
Quote:
That is a generalization; open your eyes! You seem to miss the articulation that a context is what brings the significance in the first place, so your argument of what is the same while ignoring contexts is obviously irrelevant. You may as well say: "There is no difference between water skiing and boating, because both involve water resistance..." But that's very narrow, even considering your specification of similarities. I've already made other distinctions as well but you don't make any effort to respond to most of them. See the "Problems" spoiler below. E.g. How can they have different contexts while sharing the same "fundamental purpose", which you haven't defined?
The naivete is concerning the understanding of God. I didn't say that you're naive about the purpose of meditating on helping others. However, you don't seem to grasp the point that this isn't what traditional meditation concerns, hence it is more likely classified as a prayer.
It's not arrogance, it's common sense. Spiritual people meditate spiritually. Pilots fly planes. Truck drivers drive trucks. If an atheist meditates spiritually he I think he is naive to its core meaning and structure. The likelihoods of not recognizing this include science - in attempt to disprove the sovereignty and power of true devotion as "opposed" to praying to milk jugs and rocks, for example.
It is not a generalization. I have already shown you how, even the context, is accounted for in the similarity. Do not try to grasp so tightly on something already accounted for. The difference is null and void. I am not refuting the benefits of either, but I am certainly saying that the further facts involved are completely unnecessary for either to work.
Where you would say that an atheists prayer/meditation is no different than a theists because he unknowingly prays/mediates to God, I say there is no difference because there is no God. However, the problem here is that you make a preclusion on something that has the onus to prove itself. I am not making any presumptuous premise. You are the one now, in fact, that must prove the difference if you are going to make that presumption.
In addition, it seems that you quoted yourself saying something which I have already quelled, not only with my own words, but with scientific journals.
The fundamental purpose of both prayer and meditation is the same; internalized thoughts. In order to really prove that there is a difference between the two, you would have to prove God. Otherwise, the physiology is undeniably the same (and no, it is not the same as watching TV, don't be coy). Also, the psychological responses are the same; attachment psychology both explains the difference in the relational meditation and individual meditation. If you have the desire to learn, you can look it up. But to quote it warrants an entirely new thread due its profound content. We are talking about a lot of research and thinking here. I hope you consider it.
Quote:
Also consider that "spiritual things" are directly related, if not identical, to the discovery of inner power, and more importantly, the real Self. Again, nothing supernatural; nothing to negate - not a shred (within the scope of this argument).
Yes but when you say "real self" you are using a very vague definition that, most likely, only you can really understand. Because of that, how can you really expect to represent it in a discussion?
Furthermore, you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that I agree that spiritual things are the path to the self realization. In my efforts, I try to show that spirituality is actually the stepping stone to existentialism. When one begins to realize that spirituality is actually a facade and meaningless dribble to glorify your existence, then you begin to enter existentialism. However, it is the most depressing step to take and many would never dare to even think of it for their entire life.
Quote:
I'm not understanding this or your point, are you just trying to look smart? Don't expect that everybody understands this right away, so any elaboration on your part would be great.
As I said above, I was giving evidence for my claims. If you need attachment psychology explored, simply ask.
And I am not trying to be pretentious; that does nothing for me and especially nothing for you (which I am more concerned with).
Quote:
Then explain!
I didn't say "nothing can describe the psychological affects" - what? I said there are many OTHER variables/factors that are not provable or detectable, such as prevailing awareness and the power of the intentions. I'd add that many of these actually provide the initial importance.
Either you are trying to rely too hard on variables that are unfalsifiable to save your argument, or you are unwilling to accept how psychology explains and de-mystifies meditation and prayer.
I will make a thread on attachment psychology on your request, but to put it simply in how it would relate;
- Would it not be better for a human being to be able to reap all the rewards of meditation or prayer by simply thinking individually?
Quote:
Obviously not; you can't seem to answer my questions. Is it true that all "feelings" are emotions? What about those feelings that never change, that are unlimited and independent from all harm and force? The Love I'm talking about is not an emotional love that you can study, but it exists as a quality of existence itself. unfortunately there is confusion due to the ambiguity of the term, as "God."
Looks like I cannot speak to you about this. You are locked away in a world of unfalsifiable thinking and "no labels" and "no categorizations" in a world where "not everything is proved before your eyes". It seems I can only make a sarcastic remark because there is nothing I can say to demonstrate the flaws in this argument to you. You do not comprehend the problems of falsifiability and you also ignore the majesty of psychology.
I have already answered the idea of "God" and its ambiguous state around us, all encompassing. You think I am not answering but it seems you just want me to say, "Oh yeah, God is everything, I agree. Non-dual thinking is the best. I was wrong."
What else could I say? It is like speaking to someone who has their eyes glazed over while on LSD and enjoying the spiritual "trip". There is no way to convince them otherwise.
Quote:
That's great, but I remember you've brought this up once before, in a similar situation. I don't think it quite grasps it. There's no triangle in the game here.
I'm not going to explain more about how "R&J" is a childish argument. You get the idea? I already explained about Love in the above paragraph, which you didn't completely address in detail.
*Facepalm*
Quote:
What are you asking? You could be "wrong" about everything until you come to the complete revelation of what Socrates said. It is really about what is real/true knowledge and what is false.
You do realize that what Socrates said includes the idea of GOD?!
Quote:
Sure, ok. I guess you will explain more soon.
Sigh.. I already have.. but you just reply with unfalsifiable arguments. It is like debating with a Freudian.
Quote:
Well that doesn't make sense. You always seem to want to negate the concept of Divinity/God. You need to be more specific now. Answer my previous questions and tell me what the "facade/delusion/lie/etc." is about. You may find similarities in these systems, as you've done with prayer and meditation, but the two arise from different backgrounds.
Yes, you are right - the two have their ideals from different things. This is also like saying love and hate are two different things.
No, you are wrong - I am not necessarily trying to negate the divinity/God, but show how they are not necessary to believe in what you are speaking of.
If a God or Truth is necessary to accept unyieldingly, then you have made a premise on a leap of bounds of truth. You accept that there is an onus to prove it but ignore that and just accept it.
However, I do not do this.
Following that, all the benefits and rewards, all the good things, I can still somehow manage to do. How do you think that is?
Humanist Existentialism is what I utilize. Atheists are completely capable to do all the good and feel all the feelings that any spiritualist does.
Tell me one good thing that a spiritualist can do that an atheist cannot.
Quote:
You're missing the point; you need to look into these things yourself. "One good thing" relatively varies between each person, in this case. If you're trying to believe in God without believing in God, you're just playing conceptual, intellectual games. You're wasting your time. Furthermore, this is not about being "better than" something else, but that you seek "the good" for its own sake, as I've already said, and even you as well.
This paragraph is quite ironic. It seems you are convinced that I have not explored these ideas very well. However, here I am trying to show you how these beliefs I see as a facade into another step of self-transcendence; existentialism. You make the presumption that spirits and God existence based on no reason or justification at all; just explanation. Explanation is all that the desperate have ("I know it!" "It simply is!" "God is non-dual!" "God is unexplainable!").
Quote:
In my faith, God is known as the Divine Reality; I'd define it as the Absolute subjective context through which all Reality arises. To discover this Reality is to therefore discover the Source of all that exists, for the True source must be identical to our nature of Self. As the Creator, Context and Truth that unifies all existence by its nature; all is God and thus is there only one Self. The conclusion and definition rests on the undefinable and timeless. It is not provable or conceptualizable, because it is transcendental to concepts and proof; a priori to all thinking and acting, moving, perceiving and argument, because it is within both existing and not existing; it is Reality as it is; Divine.
All things non-dualistic and unimaginably beyond our world can be conceptualized within our thinking.
You have just used your own mortal thinking and pathetic mortal words to describe something that is apparently immortal, non-dual, and completely profound.
It seems that it ought to be something you ought to be Agnostic about; this divinity is far too superior to us and our sciences and observation can never attest for it.
You take the stance that, in its unfalsifiable beauty, is where it is proven. It is a non-dual entity that can never be justified and that is how it is exists!
However, the vital grave mistake you are making is negligence.
You neglect that it was your own mind that created all this context. It was your self that created and perceived this. It was your self that invents the context of non-duality. It is your desire for self-transcendence that motivated you to be passionate about it. It is your mind that reasoned the existence of the idea of this God. And it is your body that warranted your capability to think of this God.
However, the actual truth is, there is no God. There is no supernaturally divine non-dualistic entity. The actual divine supernatural non-dual entity is YOUR SELF. Your perceptual mind is what you are describing, not a collective unconscious or collective super-unconscious.
You make the step to say that there is a consciousness in all of us as there is energy. That there is a beauty in the idea that we are all a dancing symphony of minds.
However, you neglect the majesty of the idea that we are all a symphony of independent thinking manifestations of that non-dual mind. We work on a chaotic system which streams into manifestations beyond a layman's world of thinking. The chaotic system in which all these independent minds respond and co-exists is what deludes us into thinking it is an independent consciousness existing non-dually.
This video is not going to set any arguments or try to prove anything, I just want you to see the power of working in sync with each other and how it does not require any God or divinity. We work in sync with each other because of our independent and autonomous decisions to do so. Also, it is not just humans that do this! All this do this! It is a majesty that is far too ignored! The majority of humans fail to see the beauty in the power of being lonely! It is our loneliness and drive to be with others, our instinct to survive, and our autonomous thinking that leads us to behave in the most beautiful symphony we could ever see; life!
(YouTube is down at the time of this post, so I am linking directly to the video)
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/st...z_on_sync.html
~
