Know Thyself?

@richrf,

Well Ken,

As you probably know, Alexander tried to do more than think about philosophy. He tried to live it. So his attitude towards life was viewable in what he did and how he did it.

He did believe in Fate. (The Fates where the Gods.) So perhaps his understanding of fate was not what present days ideas of fate is.

Now this doesn’t mean by any step of the imagination that he wouldn’t look around before stepping in front of a rapidly passing chariot. It also would not mean that he didn’t prepare.

He must have done something right as he was right there on the front lines, and was still able to last long enough to conquer many areas in his day.

I would imagine that he was good at what he did both as a warrior, a tactician, and a diplomat. A Marshall art is a discipline that requires many long hours and hard work in order to master.

Alex was well rounded in that his teacher was Aristotle, no slouch in his own right. So that although Alex knew the inevitability of death, and perhaps death timetable, (As in “When your number is up, step away from the table gracefully.”), He also believed in living well and developing his own self completely.

So we have a brilliant person, who although his belief system we might not share, wasn’t an idiot either.

As Alexander looked out at the world, much as we do today, He must have seem a great number of tragic events coming down on other people. He may have at first thought, “There but for the grace of God, go I.” This very sight could be over whelming.

You can deal with this in many ways. Refuse to think about it, doesn’t work very well, because it lives right there just beneath the surface with you. If you do look it right in the eye, than you a forced to think about what is the real case in this.

And:

The truth is that some things will of course happen to you. But everything that can possibly happen to anybody will not necessarily happen to you too. In a way, this is a small relief of sorts. The burden is not quite as heavy as it seemed at first sight.

I think if you check ‘your’ logic, or your rewording of what you believe I said, you will find it faulty.

Subjectivity9

@richrf,

kennethamy wrote:

They mean the very same thing. Like, "No one is in the room", and "Everyone is not in the room".

Couldn't "everyone is not in the room" also mean that there's still some one in the room, just not every one? If so, it wouldn't mean the same thing as "no one is in the room".

@richrf,

ValueRanger,

I am afraid I do not understand you.
Can you translate into laymen’s terms.

Thanx
Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94604 wrote:

ValueRanger,

I am afraid I do not understand you.
Can you translate into laymen's terms.

Thanx
Subjectivity9

There may be more value for you if you follow the links and integrate what you can for yourself.

@Subjectivity9,

richrf;94582 wrote:

Yes. I definitely feel that death is inevitable.

But you are still not certain.

richrf;94582 wrote:

However, over time, I continue to get a deeper sense that there is an aspect of me (call it the Hun/Soul) that transcends a physical life.

Yet there is no way to prove or disprove this. Does this mean it is just
as likely that you are deceiving yourself? Issues of faith and belief aside, could
it just be a form of subconscious wishful thinking?

richrf;94582 wrote:

The sleeping state is a good metaphor for the transcendental aspect that is learning without any sense of the physical aspect.

Are you saying that we go somewhere outside of our bodies while we sleep and acquire knowledge that was previously unknown to us?

Subjectivity9;94586 wrote:

TT Man,

Yes, fear is certainly a survival mechanism within the finite world.

But now let us approach fearlessness from another angle. Shall we?

Just what if you were transcendent, or 100% Realized that you were not in fact this body/mind, that ego has been identifying with? Wouldn't this be a form of fearlessness?

Imagine this. You would 'Realize' that nothing could harm you. "Fire couldn't burn you," as it has been said.

Now this is not to say that you would foolishly, being within this manifestation at one level, walk in front of a bus to test out your invulnerability.

Yes, one would hope not. A similar belief in invulnerability worked out rather poorly for The Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900.

Subjectivity9;94586 wrote:

This would be a misunderstanding of circumstances. The body/mind, contained within this dream life much like your nightly dreams, could be busted up, (Ouch!) with dream wounds.

I've never suffered a dream wound . . . at least not one that carried over into my waking life. Have you?

Regards,
Tock

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;94610 wrote:

But you are still not certain.

I am not certain of anything. Everything is what I believe at the moment, and what I have learned is that everything changes/evolves.

TickTockMan;94610 wrote:

Yet there is no way to prove or disprove this. Does this mean it is just as likely that you are deceiving yourself? Issues of faith and belief aside, could it just be a form of subconscious wishful thinking?

What I feel is what I feel, for whatever reason at every time. Anything can be an illusion, delusion, belief, anything. I dear say, everyone is full of these possibilities. What one may call proofs are only very strong beliefs, because they think it has been proved. But, everything changes and evolves - even proofs. Alternatively, one can just say that what is IS without resorting to illusions, delusions, or proofs. I prefer the latter.

TickTockMan;94610 wrote:

Are you saying that we go somewhere outside of our bodies while we sleep and acquire knowledge that was previously unknown to us?

Certainly, most people have experienced the process of waking up and understanding something that they had not understood before.

Rich

@richrf,

ValueRanger,

I know you mean well. : ^ )

But sending me off to read link after link isn’t really my idea of a conversation. A conversation IMO is more about comparing what we have learned along the way, and enjoying this process. Do you know what I mean? I don’t mean to offend. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 03:48 PM ----------

TT Man,

Comparing the Boxer Rebellion and transcendence is like comparing apples and oranges. No it is even more off the mark than that, because Transcendence is a whole other dimension and not bound by the earthly laws.

Tell me, if you will, how you define transcendence, so that we can get on the same page. Do you think it is just something we think, or just try to think, but falls flat on its face when put to the test?

: ^ )

There you go again, jumping dimensions. Ha!

You suffer dream wounds within dreams, and in the dream they are very real. They really hurt.

You are like so many others, who believe very strongly that your present waking life dream is definitely not a dream. But what proof do you really have that you won’t wake up any minute, only to find that your ‘waking dreams wounds’ don’t accompany you to this all new, new waking up?

Just because you are not yet aware of something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Just think how limited this world would be if it were limited to what we knew when we were 2 years old. So it is with Spiritual Maturation.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 04:06 PM ----------

Rich,

You are certainly receptive to change, and maybe that is good in a land/dimension where they say that the only think we can depend upon is “change.” Or is it death and taxes? No matter. Our thinking is certainly flowing like a river. Throw in a rock and it rises. And yet, people still believe that they are doing it (the thinking).

Slip them a little LSD and they still think the thoughts unrecognizable from before are still them. Go figure. ; ^ )

Hypnotize them and tell them they are a chicken, and immediately they believe you. This is how the mind works. In the best of times we are all very suggestible. : ^ )

So why is it that everyone walks around so sure that their opinions are the real truth. Are they the blessed, and everyone else is wrong? What’s the chances of that? About like winning the lotto!

I would think in this equation, that thought would be very suspect and questionable for every man, not just the other guys thought.

But that’s just the kind of guy I am. LOL

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

ValueRanger,

I know you mean well. : ^ )

But sending me off to read link after link isn't really my idea of a conversation. A conversation IMO is more about comparing what we have learned along the way, and enjoying this process. Do you know what I mean? I don't mean to offend. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

Is asking me to do more, while you do less, cooperation on your part?

You mentioned suffering by your father's side. Do you lean too heavily upon spirituality, then ask others to provide pragmatic logic, because you're still emotionally hurt?

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

So why is it that everyone walks around so sure that their opinions are the real truth.

Probably because they haven't observed yet how everything that they once thought was true turned out to be otherwise. It is similar with expectations. One may think that they can control what is about to happen, but simple observation would reveal that nothing ever happens as expected.

It reminds me of a philosopher who once, wanting to make a point, asked me "what happens when people see a red light?" Thinking that I would say "stop". Instead I responded that some people turn in a different direction, some people talk, some people try to cross against the red, some people look around to see what the cars are doing ... everyone is doing something different, but no one has actually stopped.

So, we one may think something is true, until someone realizes that whatever it is, ultimately changes. It is a matter of observing it.

Rich

@Subjectivity9,

richrf;94613 wrote:

I am not certain of anything. Everything is what I believe at the moment, and what I have learned is that everything changes/evolves.

You seem fairly certain of this.

When you say, "Everything is what I believe at the moment," what do you mean?
What are you including when you say "everything"?

richrf;94613 wrote:

Alternatively, one can just say that what is IS

One could say this, but it wouldn't necessarily mean anything. Except maybe to serve as an example of redundancy masquerading as profundity.

richrf;94613 wrote:

Certainly, most people have experienced the process of waking up and understanding something that they had not understood before.

Yes. I will agree with this. Our brains continue to work on solutions to troubling issues even while we are asleep.
However, I will deny that one can go to sleep and wake up with an understanding or knowledge of something which they have had no previous experience or exposure.

For example, I am not going acquire the knowledge of how to operate any of the controls at the CERN LHC in my sleep. Granted, I might dream that I am operating the controls (although electronics never seem to work correctly in my dreams) but were I to attempt to do so at the actual facility I would likely cause the very planet-killing disaster scenario that some people fear.

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

TT Man,

Comparing the Boxer Rebellion and transcendence is like comparing apples and oranges. No it is even more off the mark than that, because Transcendence is a whole other dimension and not bound by the earthly laws.

One of the things that the Boxers believed was that their Iron Shirt (also known as Iron Vest) Kung Fu training made them impervious to bullets. This proved to be incorrect, much to the relief of the relatively small coalition of foreign troops sent to quell the rebellion. Is this not a belief that would, in theory, not be bound by earthly laws?

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

Tell me, if you will, how you define transcendence, so that we can get on the same page. Do you think it is just something we think, or just try to think, but falls flat on its face when put to the test?

This definition works for me:
----------------
transcendent |tranˈsendənt|
adjective
beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience : the search for a transcendent level of knowledgethe conductor was described as a "transcendent genius."

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

You suffer dream wounds within dreams, and in the dream they are very real. They really hurt.

Yes, but then you wake up and they are all better.

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

You are like so many others, who believe very strongly that your present waking life dream is definitely not a dream. But what proof do you really have that you won't wake up any minute, only to find that your 'waking dreams wounds' don't accompany you to this all new, new waking up?

I suppose I have the same amount of proof for this belief as you have for yours. Isn't that interesting? I think it's fascinating to discuss why we think the things we do, sometimes with no good reason why.

Subjectivity9;94616 wrote:

Just think how limited this world would be if it were limited to what we knew when we were 2 years old.

Are you saying that the physical/material world is dependent on what we know?

Vaya con pollo,

Tock

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;94660 wrote:

You seem fairly certain of this.

No. It is just my present belief based upon what I have observed so far in my life.

TickTockMan;94660 wrote:

When you say, "Everything is what I believe at the moment," what do you mean? What are you including when you say "everything"?

Everything that I am experiencing is what I currently believe. These are my own personal viewpoints - whether it be what I am watching on TV, what I see in an art museum, or what I say to you. What hold for me, only holds for me because my viewpoint/perspective is unique to my own time/space/experiences/memory. One, might say they are a result of my own unique habits.

TickTockMan;94660 wrote:

One could say this, but it wouldn't necessarily mean anything. Except maybe to serve as an example of redundancy masquerading as profundity.

Yes, and this would be your own perspective. Others may agree or disagree or whatever. I have my own viewpoints.

TickTockMan;94660 wrote:

Yes. I will agree with this. Our brains continue to work on solutions to troubling issues even while we are asleep.
However, I will deny that one can go to sleep and wake up with an understanding or knowledge of something which they have had no previous experience or exposure.

Some people wake up with completely new ideas. It is all different for everyone. Someone may have woken up with the idea of how to design the controls of of the CERN.

Everyone is different. And everything is different depending upon how one perceives it.

Rich

@richrf,

Welcome back ValueRanger,

I don’t want to be spoon-fed. I just want to share with you through an amiable conversation. I am sure you have a lot to give us here. We are all special and unique in our own way.

I am merely holding my hand out to you in friendship. If I cannot understand what you are saying to me, then how on earth can we communicate.

If I can’t understand a word of the last thing that you wrote here, the one just before this one of course, how on earth would that be motivating enough to make me look into it further?

Helping my father did not weaken me. It made me strong. I thank you for your kind concern though.

I went on to work with both the physically ill, and the mentally ill for decades, because I had through my own close connection with both of these, developed a certain amount of both compassion and empathy. I was always grateful for these difficult times I had as a child, because they served me well in helping others.

It is a wonderful gift to be given the privilege and capacity to help others, very fulfilling.

Being a Mystic isn’t quite the same as being religious. We do not wrap ourselves in a cloak of comforting beliefs in order to shelter and protect us against living in the real world. If anything a mystic looks more directly at life and his self in order to understand and thereby seek truth.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 08:03 PM ----------

Welcome Zetherin,

Thank you for trying to explain, a little bit, to Ken. He doesn’t always understand exactly what I am trying to say. We may just be like two ships passing in the night. ; ^ )

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94601 wrote:

Now this doesn't mean by any step of the imagination that he wouldn't look around before stepping in front of a rapidly passing chariot. It also would not mean that he didn't prepare.

Subjectivity9

Why would he bother to prepare unless he thought it would make a difference? And, if he believed in fate, then he would not think it made a difference. So, either he did not really believe in fate, or he thought that preparation would make a difference.

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 08:12 PM ----------

Zetherin;94602 wrote:

Couldn't "everyone is not in the room" also mean that there's still some one in the room, just not every one? If so, it wouldn't mean the same thing as "no one is in the room".

Yes. That is right. "Everyone is not in the room" is ambiguous, just as, "all dogs are not brown" is ambiguous. It may mean, "No dogs are brown", or, it might mean, "Some dogs are not brown". Thank you. But is that what Subjectivity was getting at?

@richrf,

Yes Rich,

I guess that has got to be it, like you say. They just aren’t looking close enough, or is it just not seeing? Anyway…

Observation does seem to be the best tool that we have. It seems like as soon as we think we know something, we should quickly wonder just how much of it, is a projection by expectation. In a way, expectation blinds us don’t you think?

Like this cute little quote: “Life is what happens, while we are busy making other plans.”

: ^ )

Control is a funny concept too. Even though we have never really been in control in the past, and often have to admit, as much as we hate to, that we aren’t really in control now, we still continue to believe that control is right around the corner. That tomorrow all of our plans/dreams will come true because we, powerful as we are, control their coming about. Go figure.

Help, I think I am turning into a Skeptic. ; ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 08:38 PM ----------

Ken,

You have to understand this. Fate isn’t lackadaisical. Preparing does make a difference, and so Alexander the Great would be fated to be the kind of person who prepared. He was fated to conquer. So he would be very good at staying alive.

So because he was the kind of leader that he was, and was right out there in front of the attack, his armies would follow him anywhere and fought like demons. This too was fated. Fate is not passive.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 09:14 PM ----------

TT Man,

I am not saying that my physical self is impervious to harm because I am Transcendent. I am saying my Ultimate Self/Spirit isn’t subject to worldly things or harm. I am saying that the Eternal isn’t subject to finitude.

It is in mixing and matching the two realms, finitude and the Eternal, that some persons become confused about how it works.

Yes that was a pretty good definition of transcendence.

Waking up in the morning brings you back to another dream with a whole other set of rules and story line.

However when you go to sleep, you can be a double amputee, and yet in the dream your can run and skip and jump. Same/Same. : ^ ) It is your loyalty to the waking dream that makes you think that it is the important one, or the guy in charge.

It is indeed interesting that we all have such a different take on things. I don’t think we can compare them and say that they are the same though. One of us may be more right.

I think one big difference is that I believe that I have seen yours, this world of finite practicality. I don’t however believe that you have yet witnessed mine, Eternal transcendence. Now I know that you are thinking that is because it is not there. But are you sure?

No I am not saying that the physical/material world is dependent on what we know. I am saying that we limit what we are able to witness because we blind ourselves by what WE THINK we know.

I was told that when airplanes first arrived in Australia the aborigines couldn’t even see them. These machines were too far outside of what they knew.

When I first heard that my mind thought, “Oh, they probably thought they were big birds.” But no, it seems that they really just didn’t even see them. Isn’t that strange?

It made me think. I wonder if ants, us being so big, can actually see us? Don’t get me started. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94672 wrote:

in order to

Truer words.

There's plenty of room for mysticism (even Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs makes way for mysticism, spirit, higher consciousness behavior - as does the link to dialectics I provided, as well as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) in a full, flexible range of order/logic.

There's a powerful reason/logic for logic containing the unknown (mysticism) in the set. How much higher consciousness does an ant, to a dog, to a dolphin, to a human, have beyond basic, logical/ordered survival mode?

When you know this, you better understand and become wiser through, such well distributed, well balanced, value metrics.

Like Kegan's Subject/Object model, where older people tend to seek justification for their actions throughout their life's hierarchical stages, you come across more of a sage than a seeker of the most advanced tools to benefit a sustainable humanity.

I easily accept this and thank you for your life's work.

@richrf,

Thank you ValueRanger,

I think I am beginning to get it, with your help. (S9 sings, “I get by with a little help from my friends.”)

I can see that you certainly are interested in chasing down the truth, even the one with the capital T (Signifying Ultimate).

I promise to go off and read a bit about what you are offering to us here, so that I can learn, “Hey its possible, I CAN learn.” ; ^ )

What you present here does seem interesting without a doubt. Also it would be nice, wouldn't it, if I could give you what approaches an intelligent answer about these things, and from my own perspective.

I am familiar with ‘Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs’. In fact I have one of his books on this very topic in my personal library. I agree with what he has said in this area. I also think that our needs just keep going and fuel our search beyond this physical/mental world. I don’t however believe that we have to move away from where we are now standing. This journey is all about going deeper.

Yes, dialectics, I may require some help from you in that area. Although I do presently own a book by Hegel, ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’, which I have been meaning to read.

Perhaps, I will have to rethink logic. I may not have given it its due, esp. after reading Heisenberg.

I do however divide consciousness into 2 separate things. One is 'consciousness of' objects, which is brain dependent. The other is ‘Pure Consciousness’ that depends upon absolutely nothing, at/all, or is complete unto itself and/or is It’s own object…that Being or as "Spirit knowing Spirit as Spirit." Spirit Is the "One" outside of duality.

In this case, even the lowly ant would swim within Pure Consciousness, only manifesting differently than other physical entities, and yet at the same time is entirely equal to man in this way. Go figure. : ^ )

Value metric?

Older people, do on average, feel like they should/need to justify their lives. But that is not so very different from the young folks, busting their butts and trying to prove/feel that in some way they are special, not only to others but also to themselves, is it?

Yes, older people after years of seeking are bound to be a bit more sage like, even if it is simply borrowed and accumulate from other people's words and not necessarily their own personal experience. A Zen master once accused the religious scholar Huston Smith of exactly this problem.

There is a good little article about Huston in the most recent issue of a magazine called Shambhala Sun. (No I am not a Vedantist.) : ^ ) But it is a good little magazine IMO.

Is psychology a vocation or a hobby with you?

Thanx again,

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94683 wrote:

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 08:38 PM ----------

Ken,

You have to understand this. Fate isn't lackadaisical. Preparing does make a difference, and so Alexander the Great would be fated to be the kind of person who prepared. He was fated to conquer. So he would be very good at staying alive.

So because he was the kind of leader that he was, and was right out there in front of the attack, his armies would follow him anywhere and fought like demons. This too was fated. Fate is not passive.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 09:14 PM ----------

TT Man,

I am not saying that my physical self is impervious to harm because I am Transcendent. I am saying my Ultimate Self/Spirit isn't subject to worldly things or harm. I am saying that the Eternal isn't subject to finitude.

It is in mixing and matching the two realms, finitude and the Eternal, that some persons become confused about how it works.

Yes that was a pretty good definition of transcendence.

Waking up in the morning brings you back to another dream with a whole other set of rules and story line.

However when you go to sleep, you can be a double amputee, and yet in the dream your can run and skip and jump. Same/Same. : ^ ) It is your loyalty to the waking dream that makes you think that it is the important one, or the guy in charge.

It is indeed interesting that we all have such a different take on things. I don't think we can compare them and say that they are the same though. One of us may be more right.

I think one big difference is that I believe that I have seen yours, this world of finite practicality. I don't however believe that you have yet witnessed mine, Eternal transcendence. Now I know that you are thinking that is because it is not there. But are you sure?

No I am not saying that the physical/material world is dependent on what we know. I am saying that we limit what we are able to witness because we blind ourselves by what WE THINK we know.

I was told that when airplanes first arrived in Australia the aborigines couldn't even see them. These machines were too far outside of what they knew.

When I first heard that my mind thought, "Oh, they probably thought they were big birds." But no, it seems that they really just didn't even see them. Isn't that strange?

It made me think. I wonder if ants, us being so big, can actually see us? Don't get me started. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

Once I went shopping with my wife to buy a dress for her. When we were in the dress shop she exclaimed, "What a lovely A-line dress". I asked, where? She replied, "right in front of you. How can you not see it?"). I replied, "Oh I saw it, all right. But I did not see that it was an A-line dress. I never knew what an A-line dress was". I suspect that what happened in Australia was the Aborigines saw the plane, all right, unless they were blind. But that they did not see that it was a plane. For the same reason that I did not see that the dress was an A-line dress. I am a great believer in Ockham's Razor. A simpler explanation rather than a far-fetched one like they did not see an enormous object in front of them.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94784 wrote:

Once I went shopping with my wife to buy a dress for her. When we were in the dress shop she exclaimed, "What a lovely A-line dress". I asked, where? She replied, "right in front of you. How can you not see it?"). I replied, "Oh I saw it, all right. But I did not see that it was an A-line dress. I never knew what an A-line dress was". I suspect that what happened in Australia was the Aborigines saw the plane, all right, unless they were blind. But that they did not see that it was a plane. For the same reason that I did not see that the dress was an A-line dress. I am a great believer in Ockham's Razor. A simpler explanation rather than a far-fetched one like they did not see an enormous object in front of them.

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 12:00 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;94683 wrote:

It made me think. I wonder if ants, us being so big, can actually see us? Don't get me started. : ^ )
Subjectivity9

This is what I believe is called a false analogy.

I'm not an entomologist, but I'm pretty comfortable asserting that ants can "see" us, assuming the definition of "see" is to use whatever little ant sensory apparatus they possess to perceive our presence, or existence.

I could be wrong. Perhaps you could sit down in an anthill though and let me know what you discover. The same premise could be tested by punching a hornet's nest. I'd try it, but I'm awfully busy today . . .

@richrf,

TT Man,

Okay, maybe that wasn’t a very good analogy. Thanks for pointing that out. I try, just not very hard! : ^ )

Actually, I read somewhere that ants (mostly) locate us by smell. Heaven knows I am not an entomologist either, but I play one on TV.

I did read a fair amount about ants recently, as the fates would have it. Living out here in the country and working in the gardens, the nasty little ants just love to bit me quite a bit and my personal physical system reacted poorly to these bites. The smell of garlic seems to repel them, so I eat like an Italian in the summer. ; ^ )

Punch a hornet HEHEHE; you must think that I am REAL gullible.

I don’t care if the hornets can see me. I can see them. And when I see them, I’m out of here. But that is just the kind of guy I am. Color me gone. ; ^ )

Obviously none of us were there with the Aborigines when those planes first arrived, so we just have to take the authors word or not. My first idea was that they saw it as a big bird too. But the author had said that wasn’t the case.

Your story about the Pygmy makes eminent sense. I have heard stories similar to that myself. In fact I had 2 kittens when living down in Florida that I never once let out of the house, as farel cats would have spread awful disease to them. (There are very many of these poor animals down in Florida.) And I like the fool that I am only made it worse because I couldn’t keep myself from feeding those poor creatures, even though others told me it wasn’t a good idea.)

Anyway, When we moved into the country I was very excited about the great gift that I could give my than grown cats by letting them finally go out and play. Well, you have probably already guessed it. My poor cats both just stood there dumb founded with great big eyes, and never move an inch. It took them months to take slow tentative steps into this new BIG world.

So now we get to this point. You knew it would happen, didn’t you? What exactly did these people, the Aborigine, the Pygmy, and my poor little cats see? We can’t really say for sure, can we? Because seeing is never unadulterated by our own subjective experience, is it? So if an Aborigine sees a big bird, can we say that he actually saw a plane?

Isn’t this similar to how the Mystics describe the illusion of the finite mind, and its seeming incapacity, when it comes to seeing Spirit.

Sorry, the Devil made me do it. ; ^ )

Let us remember that, for a long time man thought the earth was flat. If you had told them that the earth was round then, they might have thought you were absurd. Feeling something is absurd may actually mean that we are simply not quite ready to see it as it is. Don’t you think?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 03:49 PM ----------

Ken,

Yes I first thought that, too. : ^ )

Please see what I wrote to TT Man on this very topic, because it would only be duplication if I wrote it all again to you. But I meant it as an answer to you too, as I was thinking about what you had said as well.

Ockham’s Razor is indeed a good rule of thumb in most cases, I agree.

But let us remember, there is always the exception to the rule. We can’t just throw all of these exceptions away out of convenience. When we say something is far fetched, we may be prejudicing our self against seeing something new or different. We have to question our selves, “Am I being reasonable, or simply being hardheaded? After all, farfetched seems most often, and almost always, to apply to the other guy’s ideas, doesn’t it?

When I worked with the mentally ill, I was amazed at how just a few chemicals one way or the other could change ones thinking. Perspective can do the very same thing. The Aborigines perspective was miles away from our own, and this technological age. Don’t you think that this changes the whole playing field?

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94800 wrote:

TT Man,

Okay, maybe that wasn't a very good analogy. Thanks for pointing that out. I try, just not very hard! : ^ )

Actually, I read somewhere that ants (mostly) locate us by smell. Heaven knows I am not an entomologist either, but I play one on TV.

I did read a fair amount about ants recently, as the fates would have it. Living out here in the country and working in the gardens, the nasty little ants just love to bit me quite a bit and my personal physical system reacted poorly to these bites. The smell of garlic seems to repel them, so I eat like an Italian in the summer. ; ^ )

Punch a hornet HEHEHE; you must think that I am REAL gullible.

I don't care if the hornets can see me. I can see them. And when I see them, I'm out of here. But that is just the kind of guy I am. Color me gone. ; ^ )

Obviously none of us were there with the Aborigines when those planes first arrived, so we just have to take the authors word or not. My first idea was that they saw it as a big bird too. But the author had said that wasn't the case.

Your story about the Pygmy makes eminent sense. I have heard stories similar to that myself. In fact I had 2 kittens when living down in Florida that I never once let out of the house, as farel cats would have spread awful disease to them. (There are very many of these poor animals down in Florida.) And I like the fool that I am only made it worse because I couldn't keep myself from feeding those poor creatures, even though others told me it wasn't a good idea.)

Anyway, When we moved into the country I was very excited about the great gift that I could give my than grown cats by letting them finally go out and play. Well, you have probably already guessed it. My poor cats both just stood there dumb founded with great big eyes, and never move an inch. It took them months to take slow tentative steps into this new BIG world.

So now we get to this point. You knew it would happen, didn't you? What exactly did these people, the Aborigine, the Pygmy, and my poor little cats see? We can't really say for sure, can we? Because seeing is never unadulterated by our own subjective experience, is it? So if an Aborigine sees a big bird, can we say that he actually saw a plane?

Isn't this similar to how the Mystics describe the illusion of the finite mind, and its seeming incapacity, when it comes to seeing Spirit.

Sorry, the Devil made me do it. ; ^ )

Let us remember that, for a long time man thought the earth was flat. If you had told them that the earth was round then, they might have thought you were absurd. Feeling something is absurd may actually mean that we are simply not quite ready to see it as it is. Don't you think?

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 03:49 PM ----------

Ken,

Yes I first thought that, too. : ^ )

Please see what I wrote to TT Man on this very topic, because it would only be duplication if I wrote it all again to you. But I meant it as an answer to you too, as I was thinking about what you had said as well.

Ockham's Razor is indeed a good rule of thumb in most cases, I agree.

But let us remember, there is always the exception to the rule. We can't just throw all of these exceptions away out of convenience. When we say something is far fetched, we may be prejudicing our self against seeing something new or different. We have to question our selves, "Am I being reasonable, or simply being hardheaded? After all, farfetched seems most often, and almost always, to apply to the other guy's ideas, doesn't it?

When I worked with the mentally ill, I was amazed at how just a few chemicals one way or the other could change ones thinking. Perspective can do the very same thing. The Aborigines perspective was miles away from our own, and this technological age. Don't you think that this changes the whole playing field?

Subjectivity9

I think it is important to distinguish between: seeing an X, and seeing that it is an X.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know