|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 21:13:06 GMT
you are correct, those are errors. but i think more often than not people are unaware of them. (and some even unwilling to admit/correct those once they find out about their existence). A life completely void of errors is IMO impossible, so I don't know if there is an "answer" to that. I guess clean living to the best of your ability would limit the errors? As far as I am concerned I try to believe only in things my five senses can experience. Anything other than is nice to "imagine", but I don't put nearly as much stock in it. Whats the point, if my senses cant experience it? If I cant interact with it then why bother with it? maybe. maybe not. thats the point, its hard to know. often one makes error (in judgement, in conclusion, in perception, in interpretation, due to bad/wrong memory and many more reasons) and just never or not for a long time finds out it was an error, even though they had experienced the process or result with their own senses. and you go on living in an error filled reality. now you may ask "is that a problem, if you continue to enjoy such reality?" maybe not. but what if you dont enjoy the reality? And due the fact you are not aware of some of the errors that you may have made that may have a significant impact on your ability to thrive in your reality, you cannot change it. Wouldn't you want to know? so if we go back to my original question and your answer ——> if you believe your reality is a true reality, and at the same time you feel (I am assuming this only based on what you said) you are not thriving in it, wouldnt it be a worthy option to explore, if perhaps how you evaluate your reality could be ridden with some errors that you simply didnt consider before? now the big question is, how does one do THAT, right? one stream of thinking says that a good way to start this process is to consider everything that life throws at you and that causes you to have some negative experience as something that stems from you (as opposed to something external) and look for errors in your perception of reality, that may have caused it. i think thats a very interesting idea. hard to execute though.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 21:15:34 GMT
Lol. Magicians and con men have made their living providing false realities to our senses for a very long time. Nah, those are tricks. I'm talking about real things... like ghosts, LOL! why go for ghosts when you can go to mental illness like schizophrenia where people experience things that are not really there. full on, with their sences. they hear it, they can touch it, smell it, see it, all of it. and its only your own mind that does that. isnt that fascinating? the power of ones mind? this is not to say schizophrenia is fascinating, i empathize a lot with people that have unpleasant hallucinations etc, but it serves like a good example of how powerful human minds are and how weak our ability to distinguish whats real can be. and one doesnt have to be a schizophrenic to experience this on some level.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 26, 2018 21:20:34 GMT
yeah exactly. but what also fascinates me is the blind spots oeole have about themselves. how often do you see it that everybody around a person sees something (usually negative but sometimes also positive) what they dont see. ANd if u tell them also struggle to believe. today I think was the first time I actually felt bad for Trump. I was watching some late night show and they were making fun of him as they often do, and at one point it became so apparent that in certain areas he really has no clue THAT he has no clue about certain things he claims to grasp. it made me sad for him for a brief momentAnd I dont mean this to turn political, it happens to everybody I think, to a certain degree. I think it would be wonderful to be able to see “reality” through someone elses eye. Hey, I think that's really cool that you have it in you to have that sort of emotional reaction. I always felt a little sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer and don't even get me started on Aileen Wournos, "Patron Saint of Martyrdom" i agree what you said in your previous posts about ego playing the main part in politics, i feel the same way. if you felt a little sorry for Jeff Dahmer I highly recommend reading the graphic novel My friend Dahmer or better yet, seeing the movie that came out last year. Its really good, with some superb acting. Its point is not to make you feel sorry for Dahmer, but it shows more of the world he was living in which to me was very interesting to learn about.
|
|
|
Post by Pep Streebeck on Sept 26, 2018 21:20:41 GMT
Reality isn't real. We're living in the matrix. I choose the red pill. You are all a bunch of mindless sheep and I am woke.
I hate people who say shit like that. There's thousands of people making or commenting on YouTube videos and they think "reality is shifting" because they never noticed some nuance in the logo for Bounce fabric softener, or Kit Kat wrappers.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 27, 2018 4:26:09 GMT
Is that all you can come up with? That was a very uninventive not to mention meaningless response. And you used it twice. Three strikes and you're out! Iiiiiiiffffffff yyyyyyooooooouuuuuuuuu sssssssssssssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy sssssssssssssssssooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
That was sort of cute i guess
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Sept 27, 2018 4:41:33 GMT
Hey, I think that's really cool that you have it in you to have that sort of emotional reaction. I always felt a little sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer and don't even get me started on Aileen Wournos, "Patron Saint of Martyrdom" i agree what you said in your previous posts about ego playing the main part in politics, i feel the same way. if you felt a little sorry for Jeff Dahmer I highly recommend reading the graphic novel My friend Dahmer or better yet, seeing the movie that came out last year. Its really good, with some superb acting. Its point is not to make you feel sorry for Dahmer, but it shows more of the world he was living in which to me was very interesting to learn about. I did see that movie last year. I liked it. You could see Jeffrey slowly disintegrating. It was painful to see him getting drunk at school and then all that acting out. I cringed during the shopping mall scene. He had the one guy for a friend, but then he just got too weird and the guy freaked out, which you couldn't really blame him. I thought the father was presented as extremely sympathetic, like he really wanted to make a connection with his son, but it just was not meant to be. The mom was horrible, and casting Anne Heche in the role was apt. I've always found her highly unlikable. The actor who played Jeffrey was good. The part where he fantasized about being held by a man was very sad. The reason why I find Jeffrey Dahmer somewhat sympathetic is because he always seemed so profoundly lonely. I mean like he had zero capacity to form anything close to a normal relationship with another human being, yet he seemed to want that so badly. I don't think he was evil. He just looked so sad. I don't even know how to categorize him. I don't know if I believe in evil or not, but if I did I would say John Wayne Gacy was pretty darn close, and Albert Fish, yee-gods, yes! Ted Bundy was more like a vicious predator, like a great white shark (or at least the common perception of a great white shark). I think that man had killing in his blood.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Sept 27, 2018 5:32:12 GMT
This whole question is why existential philosophy exists.
Simple answer is I just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Sept 27, 2018 17:16:11 GMT
This whole question is why existential philosophy exists. Simple answer is I just don't know. you see i didnt necessarily mean it as a probe into existential philosophy but more into human ability to observe/learn/interpret/use information correctly (by correctly I mean in line with verifiable reality). I have partnered up with one organization that is promoting that critical thinking is included as an obligatory subject in secondary schools (in Europe) as I am more and more convinced that in this day and age it becomes naturally much harder to interpret things as close to (verifiable) reality as possible and be free of as many bias as possible. With the boom of access to information (which is a great thing of course) and the amount of data coming at people from so many sources every day, I think its an absolute must that education includes this as a whole subject that is taught. examining whether we exist, live, and the chair we sit on is or is not real is a whole different field/issue that I am not particularly interested in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 1:20:25 GMT
I'm not really sure what the question means when it refers to "your reality". I guess it means my views, beliefs, etc?
In which case I vote that my reality is the objective reality. I strive to make it so, which seems close enough.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 1:27:26 GMT
All of our personal realities are probably more subjective than we truly realize. The universal, objective reality is something independent and separate from that.For those who are truly aware and observant, their subjective reality and the true, objective reality overlap sufficiently to allow them a rewarding and satisfactory existence. Alternatively, is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream? Great point Ant. However, from my understanding, within\without, without\within is all one and the same. There is NO separateness and it is all interconnected. All there is, is the one and the whole and the complete.
It is all a projection and when we sleep, we then wake up from a dream, and when we are awake, are we really dreaming and wake when sleeping? It is all space inside the circle and space outside the circle. There are no lines, or barriers or borders and what we see as objective, is really sourced from what we perceive as subjective and vice versa. It is all our own creation and our own doing. Complete—as in whole—awareness of this is what empowers us.
May I ask if you consider your personal understanding to be objective or subjective? And how can you tell the difference?
It occurs to me that we have a great many "what ifs" to choose from, but precious few "what are"...
If I've successfully been able to make the difference between the two clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 2:04:27 GMT
"We" cannot even know that "we" exist. We may be simulations in a computer program, or some other product of an alien computer or mind that don't "exist" in the physical sense that we regard as reality. Or all of "you" may be a product of my imagination.
I have always taken issue with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 2:06:00 GMT
May I ask if you consider your personal understanding to be objective or subjective? And how can you tell the difference?
It occurs to me that we have a great many "what ifs" to choose from, but precious few "what are"...
If I've successfully been able to make the difference between the two clear.
My personal understanding could be classified as 'subjective', because it is born out of my own belief system, but what is then born out that that, is what I create as to what is then seen as 'objective' reality. It begins with the belief, which is born of the mind—and where is this?—and then forms into what we label objective reality, which is sprung forth from the mind, because that is where the seed was planted from the get go. That is why I see it all one and the same.
There are NO 'what ifs', because they haven't happened and 'what ares', are what is whole and one and complete and in the present. Everything is just what it is, without the mind placing a label or tag on things and above all else judgement. Well, I must admit that my personal belief system, such as it is, is considerably different.
Although I'm not without some sympathy for the view of the interconnectedness of all things.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 2:26:36 GMT
Well, I must admit that my personal belief system, such as it is, is considerably different.
Although I'm not without some sympathy for the view of the interconnectedness of all things.
We need to each own our own belief system and see how that works for us within our lives. Personally, I prefer the term emphatic, although that could just be semantics, over sympathy. I feel that sympathy lies more with being attached and taking on other stuff when its not really ours. It can also appear phony and born of victimhood. Empathy allows us compassion and also allows us to be detached from the preciousness that others and ourselves can also project. To take full and complete responsibility for our lives, it all starts with us, from what we choose to identify as self and the fixed notion of who we think we are. The word "sympathy" adequately describes my attitude to that specific belief system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 2:34:17 GMT
"We" cannot even know that "we" exist. We may be simulations in a computer program, or some other product of an alien computer or mind that don't "exist" in the physical sense that we regard as reality. Or all of "you" may be a product of my imagination. I have always taken issue with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Nonsense. Nonsense? Your thoughts don't exist?
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 2:37:26 GMT
The word "sympathy" adequately describes my attitude to that specific belief system. For sure. It is your own belief system. And does interconnectedness really need sympathy or empathy, when it is just about seeing everything working within its rightful and dutiful place, or above all else serving its purpose for what it is? I look at interconnectedness as awareness, or becoming alive and awake. I view the presence of life - be it simple, complex or intelligent - as an irrelevant and unimportant consequence or side-effect to the existence of the universe - or just possibly - the multi-verse.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 28, 2018 2:59:51 GMT
None of it. There may be objective reality. The problem is our brains are not set up to perceive any of it. The shapes and colors we see don't exist. Same for the sounds we hear. The smells, etc. The most brilliant physicists alive literally know nothing. Same for the wisest Tibetan monk or whoever is capable of the most profound and transcendental meditation. They literally know less about the universe than the most anemic amoeba floating around in the dark at the bottom of the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 3:24:48 GMT
I view the presence of life - be it simple, complex or intelligent - as an irrelevant and unimportant consequence or side-effect to the existence of the universe - or just possibly - the multi-verse. I feel it is ALL relevant within our journey. How we choose to deal and treat one another and nature is the key. Suffering is the biggest obstacle to overcome and it just keeps on being perpetuated and denied. It simply doesn't matter.
Whether biological life does or does not exist is of no significance to the existence of the universe whatsoever.
The universe would still be the same even if life had never evolved.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 4:18:43 GMT
It simply doesn't matter.
Whether biological life does or does not exist is of no significance to the existence of the universe whatsoever.
The universe would still be the same even if life had never evolved.
Yes, the universe just is, but what comprises the universe on a structural level, is also comprised within us. We are the universe, or so to speak. We are scum on a pebble.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 5:31:15 GMT
I suppose it would depend on how one defines what 'we' is. I would see us as the scum and the pebble. It's all one and the same. Scum = All life on Earth.
Pebble = Earth.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 28, 2018 7:30:28 GMT
Scum = All life on Earth.
Pebble = Earth.
Scum as in just human life, or ALL life as in both flora and fauna? Is the pebble not life too?
I thought I made it perfectly clear in my previous post. I suggest you re-read it and this time, pay attention.
Scum = All life on Earth. How is that not clear?
Pebble = Earth. Earth is a terrestrial rock. The physical planet, not the biosphere.
What part of that are you having trouble understanding?
|
|