Know Thyself?

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;97664 wrote:

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

I adhere to the Juliet principle. In Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, Juliet begs Romeo to change his family name, and asks, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". The same thing can have many different names, but the name does not change the thing. (See my reply in post 419)

@richrf,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

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.

Tell your bosses and their clientele that there is no objective world. Tell the same to the tax man's assessment. Tell that to the girlfriend to explain why their is another girlsfriend in the mix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

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.

Great reknown award winning: movies, novels, paintings, city planning, war stratagem are planned in advanced and purposely includes virtually every "Profond" element possible found on the palate.

Great reknown award winning things are considered as such because they fit the bill as being receptive and recognisable as "Universal" ergo, 'Absolute' 'true-isms'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

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.

If you look at the tabloids vendors lot you'll see what "Society-at-Large" finds [or brainwashed into] universally appealing.

"Absolutes" are truths that are used to build upon larger edifices.

A recipe for Bread is an "Absolute" truth/Fact.
Availible 'Preference(s)' are a luxury of a proper civil construct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

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.

Like the world Bankers? The Euro-exchage-rate?
Like the salary-scale for your expertise?

Like, partially Pregnant?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

4] Daylight.

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

Absolutely dependable so much so you can set your watch by it . . . or you can negotiate a 20 year long banker's loan . . . or even plan to save for your grandkids University costs . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

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

Water purification is an exact Science.
All catagories of an exact science is an example of an Absolute rule of Life/Existance.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by TickTockMan

[to bhaktajan] Thank you for assigning your beliefs to me. How very enlightened.

Many have this tendency, don't you think?

Rich

Since primary school to Uncle Earnie's fiddling about to university to the driving lessons to 'all the girls I loved before to the salesman's barking to the co-workers to adult-education classes to the TV Documentaries to the chat show to the latest Stand-up comedian to the bad food at the local chips shop' ----I have considered how fortunate I have been to recieve knowledge from so many teachers and also how I was entrusted in the position to be a student as best I should [was I? No I was a bad student!] ---all for the love of pursuit of Happiness, and, how to selflessly 'pass it on'.

@Bhaktajan,

Bhaktajan;97677 wrote:

Tell your bosses and their clientele that there is no objective world. Tell the same to the tax man's assessment. Tell that to the girlfriend to explain why their is another girlsfriend in the mix.

For practical purposes we pretend but any discussion will reveal the differences each person holds. School teaches us that there is certainty. Life teaches us the opposite.

Bhaktajan;97677 wrote:

Great reknown award winning: movies, novels, paintings, city planning, war stratagem are planned in advanced and purposely includes virtually every "Profond" element possible found on the palate.

Maybe, but each person views and sees something different. Just observe a discussion about a Shakespeare play, for example.

Bhaktajan;97677 wrote:

Great reknown award winning things are considered as such because they fit the bill as being receptive and recognisable as "Universal" ergo, 'Absolute' 'true-isms'.

This may be your view. Others may have totally different views. Just ask them to convince yourself. The best place to start is to create a thread and state your objective views about anything. And then watch what happens.

Bhaktajan;97677 wrote:

Water purification is an exact Science.All catagories of an exact science is an example of an Absolute rule of Life/Existance.

Probably the least exact of all. Stick around the forum for a while, you will see how many people disagree with your views. Of course, you might feel that yours is the most objective because they are yours. But others will find feel differently. Tough problem to deal with.

Rich

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;97664 wrote:

TT Man,
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.

Where would I go to purchase a mental dog? What would I feed it?

@richrf,

Maybe, but each person views and sees something different. Just observe a discussion about a Shakespeare play, for example.

A Prism reveals the color spectrum hidden within the plain white Light.
http://www.ecboe.org/2120206515401937/lib/2120206515401937/prism.jpg

A color blind person may be at a dis-advantage . . . but the colors are really there objectively.

An art object expresses connotations by dint of its construct. Depending on your level of sophistication ---you will see God in the details or the devil in the details ---it's not a different "art object" on display and precieved differently by each viewer ---it is the Viewers POV that colors what is seen and interpreted as seen according to the viewers' vantage point.

Everyone sees the same plays and words and context ---each viewer 'pays' attention to what individually interests them.

The wardrobe person looks at clothing; The Lighting Technician looks at something else; the director looks and the overall picture; the individual actors pursue their own goals via the text inorder to ellict exacting specific re-actions from other players.

@richrf,

TT Man,

TT: Where would I go to purchase a mental dog? What would I feed it?

S9: How are we going to resolve this problem that is doging us, if in my paradigm of thought is that there is no ‘out there’ or that this ‘out there’ is all just dreaming thoughts, and you on the other hand, like any good materialist, believes that ‘out there’ is all that there is? In some ways, we might as well be speaking in another language without a translator.

I think my ‘Thyself’ is transcendent of this mind dream all/together or is in a whole other dimension called Eternity, and you, on the other hand, think that your ‘Thyself’ is a developing material being writing his life story?

Are we just going to continue to bark at each other? What would your solution be to this dilemma?

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;97873 wrote:

Are we just going to continue to bark at each other? What would your solution be to this dilemma?

S9

I don't know.

If what you are supposing is correct, that there is no "out there", and that this is all "dreaming thoughts", then I guess the first step would be for one or the other of us to submit to the idea that we only exist in the other's thoughts.

@TickTockMan,

Tick Tock;

There is no "out there." There is no "in there." There is only be-ing.

Humans have the capacity to "show up," to be present, but they don't have the ability because their "false god" is the "Subject-Object" mis(sed)-representation of life. The "subject-object" is only a representation, a semblance, IT IS NOT LIFE! You can spend a lifetime dredging up mountains of evidence to substantiate the existence of the "subject-object" relationship and the people around you can do the same thing, but the "subject-object" will still only be a semblance, a real semblance but still a semblance.

Until you make the "leap of faith" into be-ing what I am saying will only be a hint, something that will gnaw at you and show up as "there must be more to life."

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;97920 wrote:

Tick Tock;

There is no "out there." There is no "in there." There is only be-ing.

Humans have the capacity to "show up," to be present, but they don't have the ability because their "false god" is the "Subject-Object" mis(sed)-representation of life. The "subject-object" is only a representation, a semblance, IT IS NOT LIFE! You can spend a lifetime dredging up mountains of evidence to substantiate the existence of the "subject-object" relationship and the people around you can do the same thing, but the "subject-object" will still only be a semblance, a real semblance but still a semblance.

Until you make the "leap of faith" into be-ing what I am saying will only be a hint, something that will gnaw at you and show up as "there must be more to life."

Dasein

So who are you then, in relation to me?

Does this "leap of faith" require me to believe as you believe? If I believe you, then I don't need faith . . . so what are you talking about?

@TickTockMan,

Tick Tock;

Not too many people have the courage to ask what you are asking.

You are the "ground" you stand on. The "leap of faith" is you leaping into you and not relying on the "subject-object" world to explain you, be-ing. When you get down to the bottom line, you "see" you everywhere.

There is nothing for you to believe and there is nothing for you to have faith in. You have faith in the fact that you are you. Ultimately you discover that you are faith.

That's all there is. You may not "understand" it. But you do know it. That's faith.

One last thing. Spell Guru to yourself out loud. Gee! You are you.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;97936 wrote:

Tick Tock;

Not too many people have the courage to ask what you are asking.

You are the "ground" you stand on. The "leap of faith" is you leaping into you and not relying on the "subject-object" world to explain you, be-ing. When you get down to the bottom line, you "see" you everywhere.

There is nothing for you to believe and there is nothing for you to have faith in. You have faith in the fact that you are you. Ultimately you discover that you are faith.

That's all there is. You may not "understand" it. But you do know it. That's faith.

One last thing. Spell Guru to yourself out loud. Gee! You are you.

Dasein

Does this view that you hold recognize fallibility?

Here's a chant I remember hearing many years ago:

"Owa Tafoo Ly yam."

The more quickly it is spoken, preferably aloud, the more sense it makes!

@richrf,

TT Man,

When people first hear about the Oneness of the Ultimate Self, and pay it enough attention to even ask a question, one of the first questions they ask is, “Which one are we, you or me?” Or they ask another question that is pretty much the same question, “Am I in your dream or are you in mine?” But both of these questions are still tainted with the two-ness of duality, or haven’t been able to look at this from outside of the whole idea of two-ness which is merely confusing the whole issue.

Neither one of our physical/mental manifestations, not TT Man and not S9, is the originator of this dream. (The thing is, this whole idea takes some getting used to.) The very same Ultimate One Self is you and, equally at the very same time, it is me. There is only One Self, and all manifestation fall out of this Self, if you will, much like pollen from a very fertile flower caught in the winds of time.

This Self/flower is fertile with ‘All’ possibility. Or as others have put it, Self is like the hub of a wheel, and you and I are like merely spokes of that same hub. Self is omnipresent as the ‘Living Center’ of every single person, and every single thing. The way that you find this is to seek for your own center.

This is what the Hindus call Atman. But the also say that Atman is Brahman. (In other words, what appears to be my center is actually the center of everything, but not everything as a unity or a cosmos, but everything as an individual self, which is looking at its own self just as you are, one at a time. Does this make any sense to you?

If there is any submitting to do, then I guess you might say that it is submitting to getting really naked of what you think you think know, in order to make room for new possibilities.

The great thing about true mysticism, if it is done correctly, is that it demands to see everything that could possibly be true directly for our own eyes for once in our lives. We are not going to accept anything as being true, if we, (ourselves), don’t experience it or see it directly.

For some people this whole idea if so frightening that they will say, “Forget it, I’m out of here,” and quickly wrap themselves in everything they have ever known. This is like dying to everything we ever knew, in a way.

Of course there are those of us that have taken this bold step before you, and who will cheer you on, and even try to give you hints about what they have found to be true. But this is a personal journey, of you into your very self, a solitary journey, an adventure. This is an intimate journey of one small insight after another, until you find the Holy Grail, Your very own Self.

The Buddha said, “Don’t believe anything that I have told you, just because I have said it. Look for and find it, yourself.”

S9

@TickTockMan,

Tick Tock;

When you stumble and fall do you pick yourself up and go on?

Along with what I wrote earlier that's all you need to know.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;97969 wrote:

Tick Tock;

When you stumble and fall do you pick yourself up and go on?

No. It is a physical impossibility to pick oneself up, unless you
are using some sort of system of pulleys.

When I stumble and fall, I just get up. Sometimes if I am having a hard time getting to my feet, someone helps me up.

Dasein;97969 wrote:

Along with what I wrote earlier that's all you need to know.

Dasein

Which part? The part about not needing to have faith because there is nothing to have faith in except the faith in myself that I am faith?

@TickTockMan,

Tick Tock;

All of the above.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;97980 wrote:

Tick Tock;

All of the above.

Dasein

Got it.

But who are you to tell me this?

---------- Post added 10-16-2009 at 05:19 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;97962 wrote:

TT Man,
tainted with the two-ness of duality,
S9

Why is duality a bad thing?

---------- Post added 10-16-2009 at 05:24 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;97962 wrote:

The great thing about true mysticism . . . . We are not going to accept anything as being true, if we, (ourselves), don't experience it or see it directly.

Mysticism, as you seem to be describing it, seems to have much in common with Empiricism, or at least, what I understand constitutes Empiricism.

@TickTockMan,

Tick Tock;

It doesn't matter "who I am", it only matters that you "get it" for you and that you keep moving forward.

You thinking/be-ing is the only one that matters in your quest. Whether you "get it" from Heraclitus, Parmenides, or the homeless man on the corner, you are the one thinking/be-ing and your "self" is the only one you have to answer to.

Dasein

@richrf,

TT Man,

TT: Why is duality a bad thing?

S9: Duality isn’t a bad thing in itself. It is only a problem child when you don’t “Know Thyself,” and think that you are duality or the ego self. Then duality is suffering.

Buddha: “Suffering Is.” The first Noble Truth.

When you fully realize that your not dualities child, living is more like virtual reality or play.

TT: Mysticism, as you seem to be describing it, seems to have much in common with Empiricism.

S9: Yes it does. Excellent, grasshopper. ; ^ )

The only thing difference is (And I am not expert on Empiricism by any stretch of the imagination), that Empiricism does go to such an extreme as to jump off the edge of the earth, (AKA transcendence.)

Are you very familiar with Empiricism? It would be fun comparing them.

S9

@Twistedgypsychil,

I know Thyself very well and im not sure i like what i found,but i can promise you one thing,on my next go round i damn sure aint looking in the mirror that close again.

@richrf,

TT Man,

In speaking with a friend, who is more of an Academic Philosopher than myself, I was informed that my previous answer to you was not as correct as it could have been. He said, in fact, that my mysticism was closer to what is he calls, extreme Idealism.

So if we were to compare two paradigms, these two (Idealium and Transcendental Mysticism) would be the most likely candidates to do this with.

I am not an Academic Philosopher, as I studies medicine and psychology at university.

My friend tells me that I am, more of what is often called, a natural philosopher, in this sense, that it is my way of being (character) and not merely a learned thing, or an accumulation of other people's ideas.

This is not to say the learning is a bad thing, it is not. I highly respect my friend's education in this area. I do hope, myself, to pursue philosophical learning more in the future.

S9

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 09:27 AM ----------

Manfred,

If you look closely at any joke, or most humor, you will find a seed of wisdom nestled there, in it. : ^ )

M: I know Thyself very well and im not sure i like what i found.

S9: Perhaps not liking our selves is the motive force behind all becoming, or this wish for constant improvement. (Sometimes discussed as not liking MY situation, meaning I don’t like MY role in this production.)

It is also, in most likelihood, the budding stage of most mystics starting out on the path towards enlightenment, this belief that what we see ourselves to be is just not enough.

Our present lack of love for our manifestation of self in this moment creates a lack satisfaction and denies us peace of mind.

M: But i can promise you one thing, on my next go round i damn sure ain’t looking in the mirror that close again.

S9: Too late, once you look in this spooky mirror, the cat is out of the bag. (And have you ever tried to put a cat, who didn’t want to go, back is a bag? I strongly advise against such a blood battle.)

; ^ )

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know