02-07-2014, 02:11 PM
This thread is pretty much self explanatory and self evidential by the very posts made in response. I think something we have to come to terms with in this life is that agreement/disagreement is the engine of communication. There are those who will disagree, those who will agree, and those who just don't care. In every single person you ever meet, you will probably find some disagreement, just as you can probably find some agreement.
Most of the disagreement on this forum is well-intentioned, usually in an attempt to aid others in working through or not having to go through the same hardships. In many, if not all cases, this is taken from the basis of the experience of the individual and whatever conclusions they came to throughout their experiences and struggles, and most of all, the wisdom gained from working through those struggles.
I have seen much on this forum in terms of communication whereby the intention is for people to avoid some kind of delusion (usually seen to have been experienced by the self and thus claimed to be known as a delusion), to not over-identify (usually because personality is seen as imbalanced if grandiose), to avoid being mislead by any source (usually related to polarity or safety), from being "too intuitive" or "too mental" (usually coming from a basis of consideration of methods of truth gaining, or assessment of experience), etc, etc.
In short, anyone with a semblence of compassion will do what they can to help others to avoid the pitfalls they perceived themselves to have experienced.
I certainly believe in an objective existence, but I have not yet found a single form of validation for it that is not based entirely on the perception of the individual. In science they often use instruments to ascertain a reading that is as mechanical or reproducable as possible, yet somehow I have rarely met anyone who seems to acknowledge that the reading, construction and deductions made from the inferrence of such instruments all comes purely through human perception. The instruments do not make hypotheses and assumptions based on those hypotheses, it is humans that create all of the information which can apparent be assumed by such experiences and then organize them according to a heirarchy of description.
Labeling, categorization and word description dilute every objective consideration. Let us take a black hole for example. What if I gave it a different name, such as a unity point? (Just as an example) What if I then went through every book ever and changed where it says black hole to unity point? From then on, we would look at the object (which according to Descarte is actually a purely mental construct, preferring to call external things exactly that "things", whereas an object is an object of the mind, an encapsulation of the experience of a thing) from the standpoint and description of being a unity point, all the while referring to the exact same thing and object we were when we called it a black hole.
Do you think people would take the same connotations and inferrence from the description of a unity point rather than as a black hole? Where does objectivity start and subjectivity end, exactly? If we are part of objectivity with our subjectivity, then is not subjectivity actually part of objectivity and to work in purely subjective or purely objective terms it will always be distorted?
The descriptions of our reality or experiences is really what we are agreeing or disagreeing about. It has nothing to do with the actual experience of each individual because there is no way to directly share that (depending on what you believe, of course) and so it is entirely descriptions that we use to communicate and share our experiences.
Most of the disagreement on this forum is well-intentioned, usually in an attempt to aid others in working through or not having to go through the same hardships. In many, if not all cases, this is taken from the basis of the experience of the individual and whatever conclusions they came to throughout their experiences and struggles, and most of all, the wisdom gained from working through those struggles.
I have seen much on this forum in terms of communication whereby the intention is for people to avoid some kind of delusion (usually seen to have been experienced by the self and thus claimed to be known as a delusion), to not over-identify (usually because personality is seen as imbalanced if grandiose), to avoid being mislead by any source (usually related to polarity or safety), from being "too intuitive" or "too mental" (usually coming from a basis of consideration of methods of truth gaining, or assessment of experience), etc, etc.
In short, anyone with a semblence of compassion will do what they can to help others to avoid the pitfalls they perceived themselves to have experienced.
I certainly believe in an objective existence, but I have not yet found a single form of validation for it that is not based entirely on the perception of the individual. In science they often use instruments to ascertain a reading that is as mechanical or reproducable as possible, yet somehow I have rarely met anyone who seems to acknowledge that the reading, construction and deductions made from the inferrence of such instruments all comes purely through human perception. The instruments do not make hypotheses and assumptions based on those hypotheses, it is humans that create all of the information which can apparent be assumed by such experiences and then organize them according to a heirarchy of description.
Labeling, categorization and word description dilute every objective consideration. Let us take a black hole for example. What if I gave it a different name, such as a unity point? (Just as an example) What if I then went through every book ever and changed where it says black hole to unity point? From then on, we would look at the object (which according to Descarte is actually a purely mental construct, preferring to call external things exactly that "things", whereas an object is an object of the mind, an encapsulation of the experience of a thing) from the standpoint and description of being a unity point, all the while referring to the exact same thing and object we were when we called it a black hole.
Do you think people would take the same connotations and inferrence from the description of a unity point rather than as a black hole? Where does objectivity start and subjectivity end, exactly? If we are part of objectivity with our subjectivity, then is not subjectivity actually part of objectivity and to work in purely subjective or purely objective terms it will always be distorted?
The descriptions of our reality or experiences is really what we are agreeing or disagreeing about. It has nothing to do with the actual experience of each individual because there is no way to directly share that (depending on what you believe, of course) and so it is entirely descriptions that we use to communicate and share our experiences.