Know Thyself?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:03 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

I didn’t say the tree fell. I said that it was an old question, and even that isn’t a statement of fact.

If a dog runs by both of us, it will be dragging many connotations along with it. These will be more than likely different for you and me.

I might see a wonderful animal that is quite possibly loyal and smart. On the other hand, you might see an animal with big teeth and a little brain that is prone to biting people and therefore dangerous.

Dead bird? Knowing you, I might not even look anywhere. I might actually just figure you were teasing me again, and smile at you. “Give me a big break,” I would say with a laugh.

What difference would lying in a comma make? Well the hospital bills would probably be astronomic!

Seriously, this is just a question to point out how little we actually know. When you know how little you know, you know "something" at least. Such a finding could be life altering.

If this were a dream world, which I contend that it is, than it would pretty much fit into my big head, much like my dreams do at night. Or are you teasing me again, Mr. Smarty Pants?

Dreams within a comma, might very well include a feeling of having a personal history. I would then go on to 'dream-know' that I had a dream-history.

The human mind quite naturally tries to protect itself. It might rewrite a chapter of its life, and in so doing redefine itself, simply because of its discontentment with itself, this is neurosis.

But another way of protecting oneself, this time from chaos, is to say that you are in control and therefore responsible for outcomes.

Or judging other as being weaker than yourself could make you feel stronger without actually doing anything.

Ego is a “Wile E. Coyote.”

S9

---------- Post added 10-14-2009 at 03:25 PM ----------

Welcome Bhaktajan,

Of course this would just be finitude and you would be a finite dreamer (AKA ego) in this world.

Next step would to turn your attention onto your own self, looking for "Realization," and thereby find your own “Liberation,” would it not? Are we on the same page here?

S9
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:31 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;97425 wrote:
This is just another method of shirking responsibility for the actions of one's past, and refusing to acknowledge one's potential role in the future. It is not living as an authentic human being.



Not sure why people forget or just don't remember the same as other people. I can get into a family discussion about a particular incident and everyone remembers it differently.

Even if you have a camcorder recording every second of your life, it is only recording a limited perspective. And if you try to put an infinite number of camcorders you would run out of room for anything else. It is the nature of uncertainty in the world we live in.

I just think that humans are limited by who they are at any given moment and because of this will see things differently from anyone else in their lives.

Rich
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:44 pm
@richrf,
Rich,

Yes finitude is a process always seeking to become. So that nothing stays were in was one second ago.

Quote: “If you step into a river (the river of life) you never actually step into the same place twice. Because this river is constantly flowing.“

History is esp. precarious, now that it has become a haven for revisionism. It has almost become an art form.

I saw a movie, where they actual questioned if we had landed on the moon or if it was a big plot.

An actual quote by Nietzche in his later life, and the advanced stages of what they say may have been syphilis, “I wrote a book once.” I kid you not. That was a tragedy.


S9
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:52 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;97451 wrote:
Rich,

Yes finitude is a process always seeking to become. So that nothing stays were in was one second ago.

Quote: "If you step into a river (the river of life) you never actually step into the same place twice. Because this river is constantly flowing."

History is esp. precarious, now that it has become a haven for revisionism. It has almost become an art form.

I saw a movie, where they actual questioned if we had landed on the moon or if it was a big plot.

An actual quote by Nietzche in his later life, and the advanced stages of what they say may have been syphilis, "I wrote a book once." I kid you not. That was a tragedy.


S9


Yes, people keep looking for land where they can solidly perch themselves as the river flows by. We all seek stability and at the same time we are all involved with change. The mind accommodates both as best it can.

Rich
 
Bhaktajan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 01:58 pm
@richrf,
S9, I agree with you.

Richrf, the subjective POV may be skewed by the degree of focused attention ---but aside from that . . . is there not ABSOLUTE(s) that do not change as per peoples subjective POV?

In our state of 'ignorance' we are surrounded by Objective Absolutes. Do you agree?

IE: Since the days of antiquity civilisation has been surrounded by every technological resource and 'yet-to-be' discovered usage of bare natural resources.

Oil under the ground. Electricity in the copper. Hydro-power in the river. Birds wings in flight. Radio waves in the ether. Health via cleanliness.

And then, conversely ironic: No vegetarians to be found in the prisons. Doctors who eat flesh foods.

Victims pay taxes to maintain their own criminal perpetraitors.

Polititans lying with the consent of the mass media.

Gays complaining about civil rights during war times.

The first step in self-actualisation is confessing how ignorant one is of their own self-maintanance.

Because of the great dis-connect from 'high thinking/simply living' the world must turn to mechanised means to acquire the basic needs of life.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 02:05 pm
@Bhaktajan,
Bhaktajan;97454 wrote:
In our state of 'ignorance' we are surrounded by Objective Absolutes. Do you agree?


I doubt there are objective absolutes but it is possible. I am able to see things only from my perspective and who I am. I think we are surrounded by interactions and every interaction is different. I write a post in one way, you see it in another way, and we discuss it.

Rich
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 02:14 pm
@Bhaktajan,
Bhaktajan;97454 wrote:

And then, conversely ironic: No vegetarians to be found in the prisons.


Is this a fact? If it's not, I would suggest that many of your other statements are false, or at best meaningless, as well.
 
Bhaktajan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 02:32 pm
@richrf,
TT,

Less than 1 tenth of one percent is neglegable.

TT, If you feel that your meat eating does not contribute to wholesale indifference to the human condition there will be many future births where lessons in life will bring you and your comrades closer and closer to this realisation . . . but that will depend on the luck of the draw unless you look outside your self. Actions are more defining of who a person purports to be then armchair speculation does.

Rich,
Your jumping to your conclusions too quickly.
First there is the Objective REAL world . . . then a long time later you showed up to make proclamations on how the world depends on how YOU see it. I think that is called "the frog in the well mentality" [the frog thinks that the expanse of the well is the whole cosmos].

A few Examples of objective absolute are:
1] A movie theatre shows a movie that everyone watches ---the movie is an objective absolute experience. You are considering that you may be distracted by subjective distractions, so that at the end of the movie, you may claim "Hey I don't remember that part". So is life.

2] Beauty. Albeit one's own karma forces one to assume the stratum of the beauty scale that will afford them a bit of "nudge-nudge know-what-I mean".

3] Wealth. If that is what the price tag says then that is what it will cost.

4] Daylight.

5] Water.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 02:46 pm
@Bhaktajan,
Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
TT,

Less than 1 tenth of one percent is neglegable.

TT, If you feel that your meat eating does not contribute to wholesale indifference to the human condition there will be many future births where lessons in life will bring you and your comrades closer and closer to this realisation . . . but that will depend on the luck of the draw unless you look outside your self. Actions are more defining of who a person purports to be then armchair speculation does.



Thank you for assigning your beliefs to me. How very enlightened.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 03:24 pm
@Bhaktajan,
Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
Rich,
Your jumping to your conclusions too quickly.
First there is the Objective REAL world . . . then a long time later you showed up to make proclamations on how the world depends on how YOU see it. I think that is called "the frog in the well mentality" [the frog thinks that the expanse of the well is the whole cosmos].


You see. We both see who I am differently and I probably will disagree with you on who you are. Just different perspectives. But I am not surprised that you think there is an objective world since you had already proclaimed it so.

Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
A few Examples of objective absolute are:
1] A movie theatre shows a movie that everyone watches ---the movie is an objective absolute experience. You are considering that you may be distracted by subjective distractions, so that at the end of the movie, you may claim "Hey I don't remember that part". So is life.


I don't believe so. If you ask people what they saw while watching a movie, everyone will have a different idea. That is why people love to talk about movies and in some cases see one over and over again. GroundHog Day is one of my favorites and I see something different every time I watch it.

Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
2] Beauty. Albeit one's own karma forces one to assume the stratum of the beauty scale that will afford them a bit of "nudge-nudge know-what-I mean".


If you start a thread on this forum about Beauty I think you might be surprised at all of the differing views.

Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
3] Wealth. If that is what the price tag says then that is what it will cost.


Often, one can negotiate. You might see the ending price and I might see it as the beginning price. Car negotiations are but one example.

Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
4] Daylight.


Really can't say when it begins and when it ends. Can you?

Bhaktajan;97464 wrote:
5] Water.


Most people will agree that they are drinking water or rowing on water, however, there may be disagreements at times depending upon what they are drinking. When does water become a sludge?

Rich

---------- Post added 10-14-2009 at 04:25 PM ----------

TickTockMan;97471 wrote:
Thank you for assigning your beliefs to me. How very enlightened.


Many have this tendency, don't you think?

Rich
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 03:35 pm
@richrf,
richrf;97480 wrote:

Many have this tendency, don't you think?

Rich


Yes. I'm glad you are finally coming to your senses and seeing things my way. Which, of course, is the correct way.:sarcastic:
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 04:54 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;97401 wrote:
Pathfinder,

Your question made me think of that old question, "If a tree in the forest falls, and no one was there to witness it, did it actually happen?"

In other words, is any event an actual event that, if anyone were to look at it would be seen in the same by all? Of course not, you have said as much yourself, so how can it hold an implicit truth? Everything we see, and everything that we reason about, actually ends up being pretty subjective in nature. In this way, our thinking creates its own limited truth.

(Now I am not speaking about Ultimate Truth here, that has a different nature altogether.)

The truth is that we don't event know if there is an out there for us, a world that we are actually participating in daily. We may even be lying in a hospital somewhere in a comma dreaming all of our life's events, (AKA truths.) How could we possibly prove otherwise?

Ramana, "We don't actually live in the world. We live in our head." (A favorite quote of mine.)

So how in fact do we know any history, accept for our own personal history, which is a mighty limited pallet and just crammed full of opinion.

S9



Although I do not understand alot of your poetic explanations, I do admit that there is much to think about in what you say.

I do understand the dynamic of subjective peception here, I am just not sure how it applies to this difference between finite and Spirit that you speak of.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 04:57 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;97444 wrote:
TT Man,

If a dog runs by both of us, it will be dragging many connotations along with it. These will be more than likely different for you and me.

I might see a wonderful animal that is quite possibly loyal and smart. On the other hand, you might see an animal with big teeth and a little brain that is prone to biting people and therefore dangerous.


'Connotation' is not the correct word, but I know what you are saying. Regardless, our past experiences with an event or an object in no way changes the observable reality of what is being witnessed. We would both see an animal that would, were it to be illustrated in a child's picture book, be labeled "DOG." Even its particular breed is irrelevant. It is still a dog. Do you agree?

S9[/QUOTE]
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2009 07:21 pm
@richrf,
TT Man,

I looked this up because I am certainly not infallible, and I actually even thank you for trying to help me out in this way, really, as I love to learn. But this is what I found. I do hope this helps you too.

Connotation:
The act or process of connoting.
An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Ah, if life were only that simple, that we could pick up a child’s picture book and straighten out our thinking once and for all, come to total agreement, and end all wars. But alas…

There is actually no such thing as regardless of our past experiences. Everything seems to be colored by these past joys and pains, and it does indeed change our observable reality of what is being witnessed by us.

Some men hate woman, because they never got over how mother treated them.

Some children never learn to swim because they almost drown as a young child.

These psychological scares may not be visible to the eye, but they certainly color peoples lives.

We might recognize a generalized symbol called dog, quite easily. Yet at the same time each dog it unique in character, and of course our minds are capable of understanding so much more than a simple generalized symbol. And thank God for that, too, or we would probably die of boredom.

S9
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 12:23 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;97538 wrote:
TT Man,

I looked this up because I am certainly not infallible, and I actually even thank you for trying to help me out in this way, really, as I love to learn. But this is what I found. I do hope this helps you too.

Connotation:
The act or process of connoting.
An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.
The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.


Yes, but we are not discussing the word 'dog.' We are discussing a dog as a physical thing, or noun. Hence, I stand by my observation that 'connotation' was not the correct word in this instance.

I may be wrong, and if so I hope I will be corrected, but when an object (or a noun) is involved, you as the observer confer a connotation upon it. The object itself does not connote anything. I don't know why your dictionary would suggest that a thing could connote.

The name, or word, "Hollywood" denotes a particular zip code or physical location in California, but connotes (or can connote) romance and glittering success, or sleaziness and narcissism, depending on your point of view.

A dog running down the street is not in the act or process of connoting, or even dragging connotations with it, for that matter. It's just a dog running down the street which, as was my point all along, is something that anyone should be able to agree upon were they to witness such an action.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 12:36 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;97562 wrote:
Yes, but we are not discussing the word 'dog.' We are discussing a dog as a physical thing, or noun. Hence, I stand by my observation that 'connotation' was not the correct word in this instance.

I may be wrong, and if so I hope I will be corrected, but when an object (or a noun) is involved, you as the observer confer a connotation upon it. The object itself does not connote anything. I don't know why your dictionary would suggest that a thing could connote.

The name, or word, "Hollywood" denotes a particular zip code or physical location in California, but connotes (or can connote) romance and glittering success, or sleaziness and narcissism, depending on your point of view.

A dog running down the street is not in the act or process of connoting, or even dragging connotations with it, for that matter. It's just a dog running down the street which, as was my point all along, is something that anyone should be able to agree upon were they to witness such an action.



Words connote. We can divide the connotations into two kinds. a. the literal connotation. E.G. "Dog" literally connotes four-footed animal, who barks, is a mammal, and is carnivorous. And figurative (non-literal) connotation. E.G. friendly, loyal, companion. These are the social connotations in the West, anyway. And then, there are individual connotation depending on the individual's experiences with dogs.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 02:28 am
@richrf,
what if we are talking about le chien? Does that alter the reality of the animal?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 08:25 am
@richrf,
TT Man,

You have just pointed out what Rich has been saying right along. Two people can grab the very same dictionary to make their point, and they actually come off seeing two different things. I thought that definition was obvious, as I imagine you did, and yet they weren’t the same obvious, were they?

Ah yes, but IS a dog a physical thing, a material object? Some might disagree. They might say that everything is in fact purely mental, much like a dream.

Or as Ken might say, “Trying to get people to agree, is a little like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.”

Or like you might say, “Yes, but what color Jell-O?

Actually we are not discussing dogs. We are discussing perception, are we not?

A dog isn’t a noun either in your literal way of seeing things, at least in this particular discussion. A noun is a word. Dogs are not just words. Two can play this sick little game.

; ^ )

I repeat; I don’t believe that anything is a pure observation free of all that we personally embellish it with. Without these embellishments we wouldn’t survive, because we do not react completely from instinct.

In other words, when a chld burns himself with fire, it is no long just pretty and red, it is an 'OUCH!'

Now animals seem to live in a world where they are more reliant upon a recognition/reaction cycle. But man only does this some of the time and only in a solitary fashion. As soon as he begins to communicate, he taps into a more wordy universe, one chock full of connotation.

(Yes I am going to continue to use that word (connotation), as I am not convinced that you are correct in your assessment. But I am open to further proof if this pleases you.)

Obviously Hollywood existed just fine before there was such a thing as a zip code. So a zip code is not intrinsic to a Hollywood, and the land it rests upon once was Mexico, not California. So the sands, they shift.

I would disagree. A dog running is a process of running or movement from one destination to another. Not to mention that the dog’s body is a living process constantly changing and adapting, therefore two terms with which to generally sum it up, anatomy and physiology.

It is the human mind that is dragging around connotations granted. But let us remember that are two items included in this event. There is a dog running, and there is a viewer viewing. This viewer is just riddled with his personal ideas, connotations, emotional responses, which he pastes on this poor unsuspecting dog in a matter of seconds.

If agreement is so DOG-gone easy, how come you didn’t agree with my definition of connotation?

S9
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 08:38 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;97583 wrote:
what if we are talking about le chien? Does that alter the reality of the animal?


I don't understand your question. What does "alter the reality" mean? (But see my post #421).
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2009 08:42 am
@richrf,
Pathfinder,

Interesting.

Would you like to elucidate further on your point, please?

You don’t want me to start with my evil connotations and ruin TT Man’s day do you?


; ^ )
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 05:11:19