Originally Posted By: Kyra M
Hi TT,

Thanks for all that. I can see where you are going with this.

Then being human is intuitive.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M

Well, as humans I don't believe we can understand the 'entire' reality, or Truth.
If being human is limited to the flesh and then being non-existent after the flesh dies, then you would not extend your belief of being human beyond a limited experience of the flesh. It would be difficult to imagine a whole when you are fragmented by the limitations of a single identity of human individuality within such a short space of time.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M

I guess 'Truth' is a misleading word as it seems to denote right or pure.

No it points a finger beyond those restrictions of right or pure, beyond the duality of right and pure and their opposites of wrong and impure. You can blame a word for the limited interpretation of the human intellect, but is it really the fault of the word when it is the mind that takes something and makes it real, right, wrong, inferior, misleading etc...when it is not in fact something that eludes the intellect of another?
Originally Posted By: Kyra M
But my meaning is closer to 'Reality'.

You mean your meaning of Truth is closer to your belief and your experience. Truth not necessarily being limited by your meaning, or your limited belief and experiences, nor being a product of democracy.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M
And there are many Realities.

Actually only One, with the beliefs or projections of belief that are the many interpretations/experiences of it.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M
eg: On a simple level, I really don't think we have the capacity to grasp what it is like for a microbe, an insect or even a dog whose sense of smell is far greater than ours.
Without knowing the extent of human capability I would imagine you could imagine all sorts of thoughts and beliefs.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M
We can 'imagine' what it would be like. And think of this, their truth/reality is as real to them as ours is to us ie: Dogs 'see' their landscape in smells.
You think landscape is a dog concept or that a dog relates to landscapes? Yes you can imagine anything but when it comes down to experiencing reality that is more stable than imagination of reality, then the capacity of the human is far superior to any animal.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M

But if my theory is vaguely correct (and at the best that's all it would be) and we do become aware of being the Whole (see The Concept of the Whole and Threadism) we will understand the entire reality/s.
As long as you or anyone limits the Self/Consciousness to the human experience of the ego that is the constantly shifting imagination and belief, then the following statement is your mantra.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M
I think never in this human capacity.



Originally Posted By: Kyra M
That's not to say you are wrong, TT. But I believe that's what Plato meant when he said we only see the shadows of things. The questions we are then asking, are of these shadows, so truth or the understanding of reality resulting from these cannot exist.

Plato was speaking of the human ego and its fixation on the material world which are shadows of belief. He also had the capacity to see beyond the shadows as others have or he wouldn't and couldn't have made a point to emphasize the illusions of belief without knowing of something other.
Originally Posted By: Kyra M

I believe we can only turn around completely (we can understand some reality/truth if we seek it) or become fully enlightened, when we awake to the Whole.
And so what do you imagine or believe it will take to become fully enlightened, or do you think you could imagine the experience without having the actual experience?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!