Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 261 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 88 of 120 < 1 2 ... 86 87 88 89 90 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#42832 - 03/17/12 06:14 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Kyra M Offline
Member

Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 91
There is no need for envy or fear of the future. No need for selfishness. We should look at everyone as the Whole.
Before I go on, I should explain (although you would already know this) that not everyone knows they are part of the Whole.

Andrea: But they still would be?

Yes, but, like an arm that has gone to sleep because some of the circulation has been cut off, they are separate.
Andrea: But you said..?
The arm with the circulation partly cut off has the blood, life force, still circulating. The arm is joined to the body but it feels separate and is not good for the body.
We can still acknowledge that it (those unaware) is part of us but we need to do something about it.

Andrea:I see, make it/them aware.

Yes, rub the circulation back (lol), support, understand. Or, in some cases, keep away.

Top
.
#42835 - 03/17/12 02:05 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: TT
With 7 billion different experiences


Have I missed something in this ramble through subjectivity?

Is there a significance to "7 billion", or is that just a "John Smith"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42837 - 03/17/12 03:03 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
With 7 billion different experiences


Have I missed something in this ramble through subjectivity?

Is there a significance to "7 billion", or is that just a "John Smith"?


If you missed something, or assumed something, it would be according to your own subjective awareness.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42838 - 03/17/12 05:46 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
If you missed something, or assumed something, it would be according to your own subjective awareness.


That's another example of the "physicist's" answer: absolutely right, but totally useless.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42843 - 03/17/12 08:49 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
why totally useless? Wouldn't that just be your belief?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42845 - 03/17/12 09:49 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
It would certainly be a subjetive judgement. You may recall from the occasion on which I posted the "full story" that it is not intended to be taken absolutely seriously.

Isn't there something about many a true word being spoken in jest?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42848 - 03/18/12 01:17 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Each individual takes what they get in life, according to what they desire to make of their life. Subjective as it is, it is also part and parcel to the individual nature of the personality. What one sees as a joke may have meaning within the subtle variances of ones memories or the life experiences that touch values and judgments.

One person may not take your humor within the same subjective memories.
As a friend of mine used to say, "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it." Without being co-dependent an individual should have the freedom to express themselves with the ability to receive expression whether it is in agreement or opposition with objectivity. This would require one to step outside of the subjective box to allow for the objectivity of all points of view from differing points of subjective reference.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42855 - 03/18/12 03:30 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
As David Bohm explains at considerable length, all thought is subjectively linked to personal memories, which must be where its provenance lies. This necessarily raises a serious question as to an individual’s ability to step outside “the subjective box”. How would you know if/when you were outside the box? Indeed, if you were really outside the box, would you be the one doing the thinking?

What do you mean when you talk of objectivity? If our thoughts are subjective, then what we perceive, with those subjective animadversions, as objectivity must be no more than a subjective interpretation.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42863 - 03/19/12 04:53 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
As David Bohm explains at considerable length, all thought is subjectively linked to personal memories, which must be where its provenance lies. This necessarily raises a serious question as to an individual’s ability to step outside “the subjective box”. How would you know if/when you were outside the box? Indeed, if you were really outside the box, would you be the one doing the thinking?

If we use cellular memory and cellular communication as a simple example, we could accept that all cells within the human body share memory, and even tho they are aware of themselves are also aware of the group and a larger consciousness within the grouping of cells that make up the body.
If an individual is aware of the larger body, and while aware of ones self within the dynamics of a collective awareness of reality, it can be surmised that one is capable of stepping into another's shoes (so to speak) when viewing an experience, and relating to alternate ideas.
The practicality of reasoning must allow that all relative experiences are within some kind of box. Even the subjective in the box, out of the box idea is relative to boundaries if any identification with what is accepted as real is understood.
If one can make an assumption that there are many ways to experience something, then one begins to accept the idea that nothing is confined to one particular box but that there are a multitude of boxes. All created by the multitude of individual realities and personal foundations of belief, in association to individual memory, and personal attraction to reference points within the individual memory.
I think there has been some speculation regarding multiple universes and alternate realities within the existence of time space, and that time although experienced as linear is more than likely a point in reference where awareness finds itself making reference to past present and future for the sake of convenience to the ego as it identifies itself, with itself (within the confines of the box).


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

What do you mean when you talk of objectivity? If our thoughts are subjective, then what we perceive, with those subjective animadversions, as objectivity must be no more than a subjective interpretation.
When it comes to states of consciousness, and beliefs within what we accept as states of consciousness we can accept that the subjective and objective awareness in the experience of reality is changing within us all of the time. Of the known states of consciousness which are waking, sleeping and dreaming, we know our subjective and objective experiences are different. In sleep the mind and body are not very active. In dreaming the body is less active than when it is awake and the mind is also less active than it is when awake tho more so in deep sleep. In waking the mind and body are both active, more so than in sleeping and dreaming and that sets the stage for a different experience. In higher states of consciousness or even in the known states the mind is alternately engaging different parts of the brain for different functions, and in some instances is engaging more of the brain where intuitive and cognitive functions are more enhanced.

Bohm insisted that if he could not experience what he was talking about, that it strained his sensibility in the acceptance of theory as fact. He was driven by his need to find a connection to physics within the senses and their abilities to comprehend and experience reality.
This is what studies in consciousness have focused on since before the writings of Vedic sciences and their testimony to consciousness and awareness.

Objectivity necessarily includes expansion of conscious awareness. One cannot remain isolated in individual belief and be objective. One cannot remain within any identity of isolation within a collective body of humanity and not experience expanding consciousness.

This is not to say an individual cannot choose to be stupid or ignorant of reality, but evolution as it is accepted is an energetic that tears at the awareness of isolation and stagnation of beliefs, and it kills all of those that will not progress.

Objectivity is not such a far fetched reality and it does not limit awareness. Instead it is our beliefs in reality and ourselves that limits objectivity and reality.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42865 - 03/20/12 02:24 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
One of the disadvantages of the concept of boxes is that it promotes that fragmentation of thought, and possibly of reality, that militates against any understanding of wholeness. Even in its most fundamental form there is a dichotomy inherent in the boxes idea. It seems all too easy to slip from talking of a box as a purely subjective thing,(the box within which each individual might think), on the one hand, and a box which encloses a particular mind set or trend of thought on the other. These two are obviously quite different.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42866 - 03/20/12 04:24 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
One of the disadvantages of the concept of boxes is that it promotes that fragmentation of thought, and possibly of reality, that militates against any understanding of wholeness. Even in its most fundamental form there is a dichotomy inherent in the boxes idea. It seems all too easy to slip from talking of a box as a purely subjective thing,(the box within which each individual might think), on the one hand, and a box which encloses a particular mind set or trend of thought on the other. These two are obviously quite different.

Contrast often exposes what is not, so what is, can be unveiled within the illusions.
Wholeness (relative to human ideals) is often prescribed and accepted by those who limit themselves from a lack of cognition and experience.

Tho it begins with an individual point of reference there are those who are drawn to those with loud voices as the authoritative point of reference, and subsequently the individual box is placed within the box of the group mindset.
Saying there are no boxes within the humans egoic tendency to follow beliefs, wouldn't take away any belief that is promoted as real.

Free will is never taken away or diluted. Each individual chooses thru the reality of the ego, to box itself into paradigms and limitations. There is always a choice.

You've heard of the Milgram experiment? It revealed that even when sensibility was present and one knows differently, anyone will succumb to the pressure of the authority outside of themselves because of a fear to make a choice that goes against the authority.
A serious lack of self worth exists within the psyche of most individuals and that box is promoted by the parents and educational systems who believe comparison and scales of measure are necessary to box humanity into meting out success and failure, or good and bad.

That superstitious mindset is what drew into creation the religions of the world to try and heal the illusion, but what started out as a reveal of spiritual insight, was twisted by superstition. What remains of the original teachings that inspired religion is now hidden within boxes of dogma and illusions of fear.

The box begins at home and is taught in schools and perpetuated in society. If there was a way out of the box it would have to find acceptance by the majority before it would take hold in the home and in the educational system.

Until then, anyone who goes against the box is chastised for jumping outside of the box.
You see it here and you see it everywhere in life.
All it takes is one person to rub another the wrong way and all the accusations of ignorance and stupidity come out to stomp out all possibilities of intrusion into the neat box of current acceptance in beliefs.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42869 - 03/20/12 07:15 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Saying there are no boxes within the humans egoic tendency to follow beliefs, wouldn't take away any belief that is promoted as real.


Saying there are no such boxes would be to deny the evidence of intellect and perception. Allowing such boxes to rule one’s thinking is where the “evils” you mention tend to make an appearance.

Using the concept of boxes in such a way as to promote fragmentation is distinctly unhelpful unless one is trying to score points in an argument, rather than conduct a meaningful discussion.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42870 - 03/20/12 08:28 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
BTW, without going back through 88 pages, I have a feeling this thread might put Godwin's law to the test.

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42873 - 03/21/12 01:27 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Saying there are no boxes within the humans egoic tendency to follow beliefs, wouldn't take away any belief that it's promoted as real.


Saying there are no such boxes would be to deny the evidence of intellect and perception. Allowing such boxes to rule one’s thinking is where the “evils” you mention tend to make an appearance.

Using the concept of boxes in such a way as to promote fragmentation is distinctly unhelpful unless one is trying to score points in an argument, rather than conduct a meaningful discussion.
Well this is where the reverend and I found frequent disagreement.
When one takes their idea of reality and wraps it with their idea of what is meaningful, a box is created.

He and I never agreed upon the acceptance of controversy within dialogue as normal. He always felt that any threat to the humble opinion "took" something from the dialogue, rather than enhancing the reality of individuality and the diversity of approach to an idea. His idea(of humility) and mine differ greatly.

As he was inclined to draw the attention to himself, his isms and his personal bibliography, his hopes seem to include a kind of projection of an elevation in thought and belief, that would become benign within the controversy of differing beliefs and opinions. He seemed to want to seek the ultimate scientifically supported ism to stand clear of any world of spiritual controversy and to define unity and enlightenment within relative terms. This is spiritualism and enlightenment in a box.

Obviously, in order to see thru the conflicts of personal realities and find commonality, one would have to accept the fact that belief often puts limits upon perspectives, and that all perspectives are but different angles of approach to any subject that may have many diverse outcomes within the varying approach.

Trying to be co-dependent is useless because it limits ones self expression due to a fear one might upset another. If one does not have freedom of expression, one is also not free to listen to all expressions because one fears the opposing thought or the feelings that come with any challenge to the personal belief system.

If expression is limited to another's personal judgments of acceptability, then there is going to be a lack of communication, where all thoughts and ideas are directed within certain terms and conditions. In this there is no humility because there is no ear to listen, but instead an ear directed and closed in focus to agree with what is held within the personal belief system.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
BTW, without going back through 88 pages, I have a feeling this thread might put Godwin's law to the test.

Godwin's Law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Now you've created a segue..

I think the contrast of extremism is always going to come up when one wants to make a point toward an invasion of personal freedoms or fear of being invaded by an opposing thought or belief.

In the reality of all things. Hitler and the Nazi party was an outpicturing of emotional frustration and the need to put blame upon someone or some system for the woes of personal and political experiences. That whole episode was the result of a collective consciousness pushing the outward reality into the manifestation of what was being carried within the psyche's of all who were living in that era.

If we want to be inclusive of the whole then we must include everyone in the creation of the whole. Otherwise we are going to divide ourselves into what the religions have decided is real, in the promotion of the empirical God who creates (out of jealousy and anger) a world where we must suffer in order to become subservient and pliable to the will of circumstance.

Once we become self aware of our own participation in the creation of the opposing thought, we can find utility and form in approaching it and rising above it, rather than fighting with it or giving it power over us where we continue to hold that fear within and re-create it time and time again in the reality of personal experience.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42874 - 03/21/12 03:18 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
His idea(of humility) and mine differ greatly.


What is true humility if it is not readily accepting the truth about oneself?

Quote:
In the reality of all things. Hitler and the Nazi party was an outpicturing of emotional frustration


I believe that a study of the child rearing techniques prevalent in pre-WW11 Germany would provide all the needed to support that view.

BTW, it's almost 3 weeks since Rev posted last. Anyone know if he is OK?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42875 - 03/21/12 04:10 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

What is true humility if it is not readily accepting the truth about oneself?

Which is?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42876 - 03/21/12 12:31 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Are you asking me to define truth, or are you looking for something more personal?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42877 - 03/21/12 03:38 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Are you asking me to define truth, or are you looking for something more personal?
Where does one look for the truth about ones self? And is the Truth relative to personal opinion?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#42883 - 03/22/12 06:40 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Where does one look for the truth about ones self?


One could start by looking inward; but then there is a school of thought that maintains that we see ourselves reflected in others. Of course, if one accepts the idea of the wholeness of the cosmos, there is no limit to where we might look for truth about ourselves.

What is truth?
Obviously this is a question that has, famously, been asked before. Unless/until it might be established that we are capable of any perception that is completely objective, and not interpreted by our subjective memories and pre-conceptions, the whole concept of truth must be more than a little influenced by subjectivity, as far as our understanding of it goes.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#42886 - 03/23/12 12:37 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Where does one look for the truth about ones self?


One could start by looking inward; but then there is a school of thought that maintains that we see ourselves reflected in others.

The inward direction of the subtle senses does not exclude the outward movement of the senses into the relative. It is the inward journey where the awareness becomes familiar with that, which is common in everything that is experienced as the outward reflection of that.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Of course, if one accepts the idea of the wholeness of the cosmos, there is no limit to where we might look for truth about ourselves.

Generally speaking all relative truths can be returned to the absolute, and all relative truths can be traced to the absolute. One can find what they think they are or what they think they are not, by searching within the relative reflections of ones beliefs. Or said another way, anyone can find what they are looking for when the mind is carrying an idea or a thought of what is real, because the mind influences the relative.
However there is something which is not contained within any relative experience but is still within all relative experiences.
That absolute is loosely intimated within the quote you use as your signature.

"An infinite, unchanging reality exists hid behind the illusion of ceasless change." The idea that it is unchanging, points to the absolute value that it has above and beyond all ideas and changing relative values. When one becomes aware of that, as the true nature of ones Self, a greater objective viewpoint is seen and experienced. It would be like standing on top of the world with a clear view of what is below, rather than being at tree level where your vision only goes to the objects (tree lines) which are in front of you, blocking the rest of the world behind that line.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

What is truth?
Obviously this is a question that has, famously, been asked before. Unless/until it might be established that we are capable of any perception that is completely objective, and not interpreted by our subjective memories and pre-conceptions, the whole concept of truth must be more than a little influenced by subjectivity, as far as our understanding of it goes.
The subject of enlightenment and the treatises written by those who discuss this very idea explore this reality with similar understanding and experience. Without the awareness being established in something other than relative values, and an identity with the temporary housing in which consciousness experiences its reflection as the physical body, it is impossible to be objective.

There are texts that go into great depths regarding the objective awareness that is available in higher states of consciousness than waking dreaming and sleeping.

True humility does not find itself within relative ideals but in the awareness and ongoing experience that there is absolutely NO separation with anything or anyone, and that everything is intimately connected.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
Page 88 of 120 < 1 2 ... 86 87 88 89 90 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.