Know Thyself?

@richrf,

richrf;94119 wrote:

Others may have rules that I have to recognize.

Do you have any rules of your own?

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;93603 wrote:

Do you want me to explain the Immediate and why mind is slow?

Subjectivity9

Yes. That would be great.

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:52 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;94128 wrote:

Hey TT Man,

I wonder if you are familiar with something called "Situational Ethics?"

Because I do believe that is what 'my friend Rich' is trying to explain to you right here.

What this means is that, you don't have any pat rules written in stone. What you actually do is go with the flow.

Oh sure, you might have some intentions when going into any situation, but these are more attitudinal, like to deal with others as gently and openly as you can, (And heaven knows Rich is a gentle, and well meaning soul), but you also try to first see what is shaking in any situation and then do the best you can within each situation.

Am I tight in this Rich? Perhaps you can elucidate further on this in some way. This is just my thinking on this particular subject.

Subjectivity9

Our posts apparently crossed in the ether . . .

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of Situational Ethics.

"Going with the flow," however, seems a bit of an over-simplification. I think there is a substantial difference between flexibility and amorality which is what I felt that statements such as . . .

richrf;93163 wrote:

No, because I have no idea what is correct and incorrect.

. . . or . . .

richrf;93375 wrote:

There are no rules. And there are no correct ways. There are no right or wrong ways.

. . . seem to be implying.

Or am I inferring incorrectly?

@richrf,

richrf;94119 wrote:

Others may have rules that I have to recognize. That does not mean that I think of things being right or wrong or correct and incorrect. However, I do recognize that others see things differently. So it is a matter of vantage point. If you think of things in a way that are right or wrong or correct and incorrect, then there are rules - from your point of view. I do recognize this.

If there weren't such things as rules then there would not be such things as no rules.

Rich

Hmm. If there weren't such things as Extra-Terrestrial Aliens, then there would not be such a thing as no Extra-Terrestrial Aliens?
:nonooo:

@richrf,

TT Man,

It would be my pleasure to speak on the "Immediate."

When I say the word “Immediate,” (with a capital I.) it is really just one more name for Spirit, much like the “One” and/or “Being.” Yet “Immediate” seems to tell you just a little more about Spirit, for instance that “Being Immediate” is outside of time.

Time is not immediate because it is a process and therefore slower, or not instantaneous. Spirit is All/At/Once.

The Immediate is experiential rather than conceptual. So I want you to look right now, directly at you own consciousness or Awareness. Can you see how immediate it is, even before thought?

If you look really closely you might notice that thought comes only after awareness. I know this is very subtle and some people cannot see this at first.

This very Awareness, your Awarenes, 'IS' Spirit. Thoughts are more like the tail of this comet called Spirit.

Thoughts are really kind/of an 'after thought' or explanation about what has already happened. Or 'Pure Life' happens and then thoughts rush in to explain this to the mind.

Thoughts actually swim in Awareness or the “Immediate.”

Thoughts are like an echo, whereas the "Original Voice is Spirit" or "Is Immediate.”

Someone once said, "Where ever you go, Immediate Awareness is already there waiting for you." : ^ ) Of course the real truth is that 'You are Immediate Awareness."

I hope this helps to explain this a little bit. All questions will be welcome even enjoyed.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:07 PM ----------

Hey TT Man,

I believe that when someone says, "I Have no idea what is right or wrong," it can be taken in a multitude of ways.

(1) You might think this poor fellow is so insane that he cannot be held responsible for his acts in a court of law.
(2) This fellow is a Taoist and realizes that right and wrong are merely conceptual, and we much act according to what is necessary each moment, AKA Go with the Flow.
(3) “To everything there is a season under the sun.” Ecclesiastes. A bit like situational ethics.
(4) I have no idea what is right or wrong. All of the facts aren’t in, yet.

You say going with the flow is rather simplistic. To me painting everything black or white seems even more simplistic. What about gray and hot pink?

Going with the flow calls for a great deal of sensitivity and alertness. We have to plug into our environment and adapt to what is going on around us. But this doesn’t mean that if everyone is killing people needlessly, you just join in like a sheep, or is it a wolf, either. I believe that you can see this.

You might do any number of things. For instance if it were a needless war you might opt to go to jail. You would do this because of who you are and your integrity is part of the equation. You would go to jail even if everyone else believed that it was right for you to go to war.

You might also use foresight, being alert to the signs, as when Don Juan was asked what he would do if someone planned an ambush on him. They expected him so say stuff about being all magical and powerful in his fighting. He simply said, ”I wouldn’t be there.” That was the better part of wisdom.

So you might not know what was ‘Right’, like the Ten Commandments are right or chiseled in stone, but you “sure as hell” would know how you felt and how you were going to act, in other words also flowing with who you are. (Integrity) It is rather complex in this way.

This is like when Thoreau wouldn’t pay his taxes and went to jail, because he didn’t approve of what the tax money would be spent on. Was it right to pay his taxes? Perhaps, but it wasn’t quite that simple was it?

So right and wrong isn’t something you can just write down, once and for all. It is a living thing.

Subjectivity9

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94133 wrote:

Hmm. If there weren't such things as Extra-Terrestrial Aliens, then there would not be such a thing as no Extra-Terrestrial Aliens?
:nonooo:

In this case we are talking about imagination - that which conjures up both.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:24 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

So right and wrong isn't something you can just write down, once and for all. It is a living thing. Subjectivity9

Yes, I very much agree with all you stated in your post. What's more. If one thinks that something is right then one can be quite sure that some else sees it as wrong. Happens on every trade I ever did on the stock market. And that is life.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;94174 wrote:

In this case we are talking about imagination - that which conjures up both.

Rich

B

------
B---- Post added 09-28-2009 at 09:24 PM ----------

Rich

But it still makes no sense to say that. What difference does it make what you are talking about? Anyway, either there are ETAs or there are not ETAs.

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 02:41 AM ----------

TickTockMan;94129 wrote:

Do you have any rules of your own?

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:13 PM ----------

Yes. That would be great.

---------- Post added 09-28-2009 at 04:52 PM ----------

Our posts apparently crossed in the ether . . .

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the idea of Situational Ethics.

"Going with the flow," however, seems a bit of an over-simplification. I think there is a substantial difference between flexibility and amorality which is what I felt that statements such as . . .

. . . or . . .

. . . seem to be implying.

Or am I inferring incorrectly?

Trying to nail Jello to the wall is a daunting task.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

It would be my pleasure to speak on the "Immediate."

When I say the word "Immediate," (with a capital I.) it is really just one more name for Spirit

I once had a co-worker try to convince me of the correctness of his particular branch of Christian religion. When I asked him how I could know if he was right, he told me to "pray about it." When I asked him who I was supposed to pray to if I didn't believe in God, he had no answer.

Is it possible that I am having the same problem with the idea of Spirit? That is, I don't believe it exists as anything other than just as an idea?

For the sake of argument, let's say that I cannot accept the definition of "Immediate" as another name for "Spirit," and see where that takes us.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

Time is not immediate because it is a process and therefore slower, or not instantaneous.

I disagree. I would posit time is the most immediate force in nature, as in the instant our minds take notice of a particular moment, it has already passed, and is already in the past. It is our minds that cannot keep up with time as it passes, nor apprehend time which has not yet occurred. It is our perception of time which is a process and therefore slower, and not time itself.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

The Immediate is experiential rather than conceptual.

Is it possible that it could be both? I had a wasp sting me on my thumb once. The experience of searing pain was immediate. I can also have a conception of the idea of immediacy, abstract as it may be.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

So I want you to look right now, directly at you own consciousness or Awareness. Can you see how immediate it is, even before thought?

Can who see how immediate it is? Who is to be doing the observing of my consciousness? I've asked this many times of many different people, and never gotten a satisfactory answer.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

If you look really closely you might notice that thought comes only after awareness. I know this is very subtle and some people cannot see this at first.

I'll have to keep working on this. As it is, I just keep becoming aware of my thoughts. This is why I have a hard time with meditation. It all seems very paradoxical.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

Someone once said, "Where ever you go, Immediate Awareness is already there waiting for you."

It was Peter Weller in Buckaroo Banzai, and the line was, "Wherever you go, there you are."

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

I hope this helps to explain this a little bit. All questions will be welcome even enjoyed.

My paradigm has not shifted yet, but I'm enjoying the conversation.

Thanks.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

You say going with the flow is rather simplistic.

This isn't actually what I said. What I said, or at least what I was hoping would be understood, was that I thought that explaining Situational Ethics as just "going with the flow" was an oversimplification of a largely religion-based theory which, in my admittedly limited understanding of the matter, requires a level of understanding of so-called moral laws in order to make value judgments . . . such as when it is considered morally acceptable to kill another human being.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

Going with the flow calls for a great deal of sensitivity and alertness. We have to plug into our environment and adapt to what is going on around us.

I'll go along with this idea. I often teach a variation of this in my evening job as a martial arts/self-defense instructor. Gavin de Becker has some brilliant things to say about this in his book, The Gift of Fear.

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

You might also use foresight, being alert to the signs, as when Don Juan was asked what he would do if someone planned an ambush on him. They expected him so say stuff about being all magical and powerful in his fighting. He simply said, "I wouldn't be there." That was the better part of wisdom.

No, this is mystical mumbo-jumbo. This is like saying, "TickTockMan, what would you do if the Department of Transportation was going to close the road you usually take to work?" If I said, "I'd take another route," would anyone ooh and ahh about my innate wisdom?

Subjectivity9;94142 wrote:

This is like when Thoreau wouldn't pay his taxes and went to jail, because he didn't approve of what the tax money would be spent on. Was it right to pay his taxes? Perhaps, but it wasn't quite that simple was it?

Fortunately, his taxes were paid by a relative and he only had to spend one night in jail. But I understand what you're saying, and you are correct in your take on integrity.

I just noticed the time. Issues of right and wrong aside, I have to haul myself to bed right now, or my head will be all wrong tomorrow.

Regards,
Tock

@richrf,

Hey Ken,

Life is a river. : ^ )

If you think nailing Jell-O is daunting, try nailing the mighty Mississippi.

Nailing another human, in his material manifestation is much easier. Look what they did to Jesus. They easily made holes in His hands and in His feet, but they couldn’t kill the ‘Whole’ of what He was about so easily.

So yes, you would have to admit that although they killed the man, they couldn’t kill his ideas or His message. That is because He was speaking of something larger than our personal motives.

Jesus was speaking of our Eternal Self, which calls to many (no all) men at a very intimate and deep level.

What He was saying was like a letter from Home.

In fact if you were to kill every single person who had ever heard His message (ideas), and burn all of the books referring to it, and (in these modern times) even wiped clean any signs of it out there on the web (somewhat more daunting), it would just spring up once again. This is because this Ultimate Truth isn’t something that is manufactured in our minds. It is something discovered over and over again within our very selves.

Subjectivity.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94234 wrote:

Hey Ken,

Life is a river. : ^ )

If you think nailing Jell-O is daunting, try nailing the mighty Mississippi.

Nailing another human, in his material manifestation is much easier. Look what they did to Jesus. They easily made holes in His hands and in His feet, but they couldn't kill the 'Whole' of what He was about so easily.

So yes, you would have to admit that although they killed the man, they couldn't kill his ideas or His message. That is because He was speaking of something larger than our personal motives.

Jesus was speaking of our Eternal Self, which calls to many (no all) men at a very intimate and deep level.

What He was saying was like a letter from Home.

In fact if you were to kill every single person who had ever heard His message (ideas), and burn all of the books referring to it, and (in these modern times) even wiped clean any signs of it out there on the web (somewhat more daunting), it would just spring up once again. This is because this Ultimate Truth isn't something that is manufactured in our minds. It is something discovered over and over again within our very selves.

Subjectivity.

Glad it makes you happy. It is nice to have a hobby. I play chess.

@richrf,

Good Morning Rich, : ^ )

One of the things I love most about Tao is that ‘It’ too is a living thing.
(Well not really a material thing.)

A Taoist tries to takes into consideration what Tao is, and (I was going to say models his life after it, but that isn’t exactly right is it?)

Rather a Taoist tries to find his Tao and go along with it. In this way his life doesn’t become a forced thing. He doesn’t spend many hours trying to jamb a square peg into a round hole, ” shouting *&%# IT” in frustration, just because some committee or some priesthood wrote it down somewhere in gold leaf and called it rule #1.

Being ‘right’ is like the weather, if you don’t like it wait. It will change even in your own mind. “Being Right” is a fickle master. : - O

A millionaire friend of mine once said, “In the stock market, when everyone is going in one direction, you can bet your boots they are wrong.”

Or “Buy low, and sell high.” Makes sense doesn’t it, and everyone has heard this. But hardly any, outside of bold few, do it. It takes a strong stomach and nerves of steel.

If you want to see the Tao dance, watch the Stock market. My friend also told me this.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Hey William! Thanks for the welcome! Being a skeptic myself, you can put assume on anything I write anyway! lol. What I write has an implicit assume anyway. A lot of words I use that simply mean assume to me are "think" or "believe", although in a paper I am writing I use believe in the sense of justified true belief. But you can be rest assured if I use it in a conversation it simply means assume lol.

And yes Subjectivity9, it was Plato that wrote that about Socrates, as Socrates wrote nothing. Most historians seem to accept that as historically accurate though. And I think Plato's Skeptical Middle Academy was more influenced by Socrates himself rather than Plato, so they must have thought it was true (as much as skeptics can admit to) as well. And much of the early doubters were thought of as mystics, it is said that Pyrrho furthered his own philosophy by talking to early buddhist mystics, although it seems Pyrrho was practicing the suspension of judgment before he met them. And I agree if knowing thyself is only about what you may already know or accomplished, then it is quite a limited vision, there needs to be room for expansion, but it can be wondered if philosophers have thought of this phrase as deeply.

And did I hear a mention of an ultimate truth? As a skeptic I cannot deny there may be one, but I do wonder if we have the ability to recognize that it is the ultimate truth without doubt? Or is doubt a necessary condition?

@richrf,

TT Man,

I too am enjoying this conversation.

“Yes grasshopper.” You are right Spirit, or how our minds try to explain it, doesn’t really exist. I spent multiple years trying to capture Spirit in a net of words, and it simply doesn’t work. And yet…

Why do your think so many ‘masters of wisdom’ agreed that it (Spirit) couldn’t be said, and yet continued to write about it (Spirit)? I don’t imagine it was just because they were fools.

And why do you think these books of theirs have such longevity?

I believe it is because these books/tools serve a purpose that is much needed. I believe these books/words are the “finger pointing.” But what are they pointing at? That is exactly what cannot adequately be said. Words cannot contain it. We must simply look where “the finger is pointing.” (Zen) It isn’t contained within the mind.

Words are such an unwieldy tool in the best of circumstances (more so in speaking of these things,)

I believe to some extent we are speaking past each other, you and I, and getting all tangled up in connotations. And yet from what you are saying, I get not only a strong feeling that we are basically looking at the same thing, but in fact that you are very keen in this area.

Let us get one thing clear from the get/go. I don’t want you to accept anything just because I am saying it. I want you to accept only what you yourself can see.

I am trying to be a Spiritual friend to you, not a dictator.

When you say that time is being “immediate,” in a way you have changed how most people think of time. Time is, usually thought to be, made up of the past, the present, and the future. This is a rather lineal thing, wouldn’t you say?

So when you say time is “immediate,” you have cut out one part of time, the present, and designated it as time. But that is not the 'all' of conceptual time, is it? The present in conceptual time practically doesn’t exist at/all, when you try to grab onto it and hold it. Where exactly do you draw the line between the past, and the present?

“Hold still darn it time, I’m trying to cut you.” Look very closely, if you will. Don’t past and present seem to bleeding back and forth into each other, like the tides of the ocean? The same can be said of the future and the present. Where exactly in the present does the future begin?

So what we actually have here is the Immediate Present simultaneous to time, and not trapped in it. Sometimes Mystics call this Presence so as not to mix up the two. But Presence also contains the connotation of Awareness within It. Some have called this the ”Witness,”

And yes, the ‘Immediate’ is present to nature. Rich would call this very force the Tao. I would call this force Spirit or “Self.” (Incidentally I don’t see Spirit as God, I am not a Theist.)

It is said that concepts live in the past. When the wasp stung your thumb, that was the living experience, BAM, only afterwards did you think about it.

The observer of the mind is the mind. Earthly life is like a dream that contains both action and events, right along with the doer and observer of it all, ego self. Finitude is self-contained.

The observer of Spirit is the Spirit AKA the Self.

These two go on simultaneously to each other. It is a bit like my body cells are being aware of themselves, while my mind doesn’t really attend to them consciously, at least not that I am aware of.

“Who is being conscious?” is a very good question though. Don’t take my word for it. Investigate deeply. The intension to know this answer will pay dividends.

Meditation is not necessary to understanding, even though they get a lot of good press. The mind cannot stop thinking. If you think really well, or deeply, thoughts might even help you. This is what a Jnana does. He uses his mind as his path. (Meditation is the path of Dhyana.)

Name of a book by Jon Kabat-Zinn: Wherever You Go, There You Are. (Probably been said many times. But thank you for trying to help me. Maybe your guy said it first.)

But that is certainly true of Awareness or Presence. No matter how fast you run, you can’t outrun it. : ^ )

So your paradigm isn’t shifting. Ha!

I could say that, “I can only plant the seed, all smugly.” But then you would probably want to punch me, and we can’t have that, can we? : ^ )

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

I hope I'm not butting in on what has already been discussed. From my experience there seems to be a something which is beyond words. From my studies of skepticism, there are countless pieces why consistency in various forums (truth and etc.) is inconsistent for logic. At first instinct, one may thing consistency is what is at fault, but it could very well be logic that is at fault. Many philosophers in the past have considered pure mathematics as the ultimate form of logic, but as Godel's theorem shows, there is no complete set of axioms that describes all of mathematics, while being consistent with each other. So there appears to be a desire of many to have something that establishes consistency but logic fails them in this case, and thus their eyes are set beyond logic which could be grouped as "spirit". And Godel was this way, he spent a lifetime, before going crazy, trying to establish the existence of god (and thus possibly establishing the necessity of spirit).

@richrf,

Glad 2 see you back, Absolution,

I just love skeptics, they are such a breath of fresh air. : ^ )

Plato was obviously a great mind in his own right. But so often it makes me sad that people like Socrates didn’t put pin to paper, or that we have to rely on translators of persons like Ramana or Nisargadatta even though they were alive in our own times.

Plato’s Skeptical Middle Academy sounds quite interesting. Pyrrho sounds intriguing as well. I must admit to not knowing much about either one. However I certainly would appreciate your telling us a little about them, esp. as it pertains to this conversation. (Part of the reason I came to this forum was to learn and to motivate myself to widen my horizons esp. in philosophy.) Off I go running to Google again. ; ^ )

I am highly influenced or lean towards mainly the Advaitist. But I find that the Vedantists have a good understanding in the more psychological.

“Suspension of judgment” is a fine way to say it. That is what receptivity is all about. The more naked you can be the better.

I have a very wise friend who said, “Throw everything away. When you are done, what you have, throw that away too.” What you find that you cannot possibly throw away is ‘Pure Self’ or ‘Knowing Thyself.’ Expansion, contraction, or even progress, throw them away too. Remember the story about passing through the eye of a needle.

I am not sure most people know that this was a place/entrance to an ancient town, this eye of the needle. It seems that you had to remove everything you were carrying off your camel back in order to fit through and enter that town. We too must throw off all of our baggage.

Ultimate Truth isn’t the best ‘subjective truth’ or opinion like a cosmic contest. Ultimate Truth is this Naked Truth.

Oh yes you will certainly recognize it. (Naked Ultimate Truth.) Up until ‘Perfect Self Realization,’ which is also perfectly obvious, I would suggest to everyone they keep ‘Doubt” as their constant companion. Doubt should not include however a refusal to look and to remain open to what you are looking at.

Could you tell us a little bit about what you have been looking at lately as it pertains? I for one would be grateful. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 02:20 PM ----------

Absolution,

I would never think that you were butting into any conversation that I am on. :^ )

These are not e-mails or PM. The more the merrier is my opinion, just makes a richer soup.

I'll be back to you on the rest of what you have writing. It looks like I am going to have to put on my thinking cap with you. LOL

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94241 wrote:

If you want to see the Tao dance, watch the Stock market. My friend also told me this.

Subjectivity9

Yes. This is my experience. With the stock market, there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect, or rules that can be applied. One just plays it - from the gut - if one wants to. Otherwise, there are other, less stressful things to do in life.

Cya,

Rich

@Subjectivity9,

Since we can, let's go back in time to one of my initial posts on this particular thread and, just for grins, approach the idea of Spirit from a different angle:

TickTockMan;93564 wrote:

I did my time in the metaphysical ring starting some 30 years ago or so when someone loaned me Casteneda's "Teachings of Don Juan." Since then I've read many volumes of quaint and curious lore and found most of them to be somewhat lacking in physical usefulness, as far as my actual day-to-day activities are concerned.

The question I would ask, then, is "of what practical use is all this Spirit business? From a physical, utilitarian standpoint . . . what good is it? Why should I be bothered with it? This is less a question of "what is it," than of "so what?"

Subjectivity9;94260 wrote:

Why do your think so many 'masters of wisdom' agreed that it (Spirit) couldn't be said, and yet continued to write about it (Spirit)? I don't imagine it was just because they were fools.

And why do you think these books of theirs have such longevity?

I believe it is because these books/tools serve a purpose that is much needed. I believe these books/words are the "finger pointing." But what are they pointing at? That is exactly what cannot adequately be said. Words cannot contain it. We must simply look where "the finger is pointing." (Zen) It isn't contained within the mind.

I believe it is because most humans have a desperate need to believe that there has just got to be more than just this temporary existence. Even the fire and torment of a physical Hell might seem preferable, to some, than the utter obliteration of self in the void of infinite nothingness.

Subjectivity9;94260 wrote:

When you say that time is being "immediate," in a way you have changed how most people think of time. Time is, usually thought to be, made up of the past, the present, and the future. This is a rather lineal thing, wouldn't you say?

Subjectivity9

I'll have to get back to you later on some of these other ideas. Sadly, I'm at work and my boss has given me a pile of new projects to deal with. The nerve!

@richrf,

It can be argued that knowing yourself is directly proportional to transformational software/hardware relationships, that correlate with the latest, greatest, tool advancements.

If knowledge is an evolutionary feedback process, then thought/software processes, tempered by balancing/proportional emotions, empowers genetic hardware toward the most adaptable, reproducible set.

You may have interacted with people that believe that evolution and justified splits in the species, are solely predicated upon major leaps in technological tool sets. And since accelerated returns maps consistently with said dynamics, seeking proportional software to obvious advancements in genetic hardware, is apropos.

@richrf,

Well TT Man,

‘Situational Ethic” Wiki, (It basically states that sometimes other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served.
The type of love he is specifically referring to is 'Agape' love. Agapē is a term, which comes from Greek, which means absolute, universal, unchanging and unconditional love. This means that all the other laws are only guidelines to how to achieve this love, and thus they may be broken if the other course of action would result in more love.)

Paul Tillich once put it: "Love is the ultimate law.”

I interpret this love, in my way of seeing it, as a basic good will.

The book, ‘Gift of Fear’ sounds very interesting. Got anything from this book that you particularly liked and could share?

Very often you can see an event coming before it happens. This is because there is a confluence of things/events in the present moment actually pointing towards it happening. If you are attentive and alert enough you can see these multiple reasons for the event coming about.

It is said that people who are Spiritual advanced often have different kinds of ESP. But I wonder sometimes how much of that can be attributed directly to their observant attitude of living? So this more practical ability may not magic at/all. If you are particularly sensitive, you may even pick up signs in the environment that other people simply overlook, a little like "the calm b/4 the storm."

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 08:39 PM ----------

I agree Absolution,

There is most certainly something, which is beyond words.

Because logic starts with an original premise it could never have the flexibility of starting from the point of “Not knowing.” This is a real drawback when dealing with anything that is entirely new. Spiritual experience comes at us from “out of left field” refusing to be caged by previous knowledge.

I am not conversant in how pure mathematics works. A friend told me once, that math can be elegant at times. But it is my personal feeling that all of nature, when studied closely enough and in vivid detail can strike one with AWE and admiration. Even the human mind is certainly a marvelous machine not easily duplicated.

I think that the need or desire of many persons to establishes consistency may have multiple reasons. One reason is most likely the fear that grows out of a lack of control. But another must surely be the wish to understand. I think too, there is a general fear of chaos.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 09-29-2009 at 09:25 PM ----------

TT Man,

Practically speaking:

I can’t speak for everyone, but “Knowing Myself” or what some have called “Self Realization” has made my daily life more smoothly running. I used to be plague by dissatisfaction at my very center. I couldn’t find any way to erase this.

I used to ask too much of everything in my life. I would ask my mate figuratively to fill me up, and to make me happy. I would ask my daily tasks and amusements to fill the emptiness within me and take away the pain of pure existence. I would ask my thoughts to take away my fears and longings. And so on.

Now my life is as smooth as a baby’s bottom. I see who I am, and in so doing I see who I am not. I don’t expect my animal life to be more than what it is, and because of this it is more like playing.

Emotionally I am more in charge as well. It used to be that emotional thoughts could torment me. It could say things to me like, “Your mate is going to die,” and scare the ‘b-jesus’ out of me. Now I am enough. I don’t lean so heavily on others.

Summing up, I would say that my life is no longer a burden.

How do you see your life? Speak of what comforts you, and how and why,if you will. Thanx : ^ )

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Yes all of the earliest fore runners of skepticism wrote nothing. To me it kind of feels if they were forced to write something all they would write was "I don't know." Luckily all of them tended to have followers during their times who would write down what they say, unfortunately that is lost in history, although the works of Sextus Empiricus provides a great account of it.

So the middle academy of Plato were pretty much debaters. That is all they did is debate everything, and what ended up happening is they debated issues to the point each side appeared equally convincing, and they suspended judgment on which side was correct. And they figured they could do this for everything. The funny thing is all of the leaders of this academy never wrote anything either! But these days philosophers in epistemology tend to come up with reasons why debates seem irresolvable in the academic skeptic fashion, and it is the form of skepticism that is most debated in current philosophy journals. But Pyrrho and Socrates, .... it think ... , where the type who simply said they don't know and don't really need a justification for it besides lack of experience, so modern philosophers pretty much don't disagree with that. I think I might post a paper I found on the forum one of these days that looks at the irresolvability of debates and everyone can discuss it. It had a bit of impact on me when I was formulating assents to skepticism.

Most people who work with math can find it elegant or beautiful at times. Especially if a complicated problem turns into a simple solution, then they proclaim it is beauty. Mathematicians really do find beauty in simplicity.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

Well TT Man,

'Situational Ethic" Wiki, (It basically states that sometimes other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served.

Are there conditions where love could be best served by killing?

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

The book, 'Gift of Fear' sounds very interesting. Got anything from this book that you particularly liked and could share?

Interestingly enough, your next quote could have been taken directly from de Becker's book.

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

Very often you can see an event coming before it happens. This is because there is a confluence of things/events in the present moment actually pointing towards it happening. If you are attentive and alert enough you can see these multiple reasons for the event coming about.

In The Gift of Fear, de Becker discusses such things pre-incident indicators for violent acts, and strategies for recognizing unwarranted paranoia versus actual danger signs that our brains are picking up. In the self-defense classes I help teach, these are the primary aspects of the book that I use . . . environmental awareness and the recognition of danger signals that will help one avoid having to use physical force at all. But just in case, I also teach people how to seriously damage a human body with minimal effort.

I've seriously over-simplified the book, as de Becker also discusses the psychology of criminals, from stalkers to would-be presidential assassins to societal attitudes that engender criminal/victim mentalities and etc. It's a fascinating read. It's been a few years since I read it though, so I may need to revisit it. If you're interested in what de Becker's all about, check out his website: www.gavindebecker.com.

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

It is said that people who are Spiritual advanced often have different kinds of ESP. But I wonder sometimes how much of that can be attributed directly to their observant attitude of living?

Virtually all of it, I would say, as I don't believe in ESP. And I don't think being "spiritually advanced" has much to do with it either. I've dealt with some real meatheads who are remarkably intuitive about their environment. Like animals, really.

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

So this more practical ability may not magic at/all. If you are particularly sensitive, you may even pick up signs in the environment that other people simply overlook, a little like "the calm b/4 the storm."

Yes. This can be summed up very easily: Keep your eyes open. Listen. Pay attention.

Subjectivity9;94331 wrote:

How do you see your life? Speak of what comforts you, and how and why,if you will. Thanx : ^ )
Subjectivity9

I find the fact that I'm going to die one day very comforting. Liberating, really. This knowledge of mortality is what makes each moment something to be appreciated. Notice that I did not say "enjoyed," for attempting to enjoy every moment of life is a fool's errand. Absolute acceptance of death has not made me fearless, but it has certainly put fear in its place. I'm willing to try a lot more things now with far less hesitance, which is not to say I am impulsive and foolhardy. I still wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.

Also, I really like Hayou Miyazaki's Spirited Away.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;94371 wrote:

I find the fact that I'm going to die one day very comforting. Liberating, really. This knowledge of mortality is what makes each moment something to be appreciated.

TT,

As you can see, your faith that there is no transcendental existence (there is no way of knowing one way or another) has given you purpose. We all create beliefs in order to suit our own way of viewing life. Some people believe in transcendental lives and this gives purpose. Others believe otherwise, and this gives purpose. I don't think it is possible to escape beliefs so best to respect each other's.

Rich

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know