I think we can all agree to the fact that life as such, is not knowing. We simply can’t seem to grasp what life is, and how it truly functions. (without the use of science, which merely describes the behaviors, but not what it really is).
Therefore, I would interpose that this “not knowing” should be the greatest clue to the mystery of life. It seems that we’re not supposed to know, we’re not supposed to be able to figure it out. I think this would point to the fact that we are God, we are the eternal energy of the universe. But how can we truly experience life if we are aware of this fact? This would be like reading a book you’ve already read, or watching a movie you’ve already watched. Not knowing, is essential to the experience of life. Any thoughts?
Curious when we compare this to your language thread. If the ‘flash’ and the ‘lightning’ are indistinguishable, how come ‘what really is’ and its effects arent?
My thoughts are that you should post some reasoning for these conclusions.
I would state that speculating what we are ‘supposed to know’ is a thousand times more dangerous than simply speculating about what we know.
Yes all folk are ignorant of some facts of the world. How is this important?
What do we mean when we talk about what a thing “really” is? If it is very dark outside, we might say “that patch of grass looks grey right now, but it is really green.” What does that mean? Here’s a clue. One could convey the exact same thought by saying “that patch of grass looks grey right now, but under the sun’s light it looks green. Furthermore, many other scientific observations associated with the grass – its containing chlorophyll, for example – are associated with the observation that the grass appears green under sunlight. By contrast, the grass appearing grey at night is associated with certain other scientific observations about human eyes. In my opinion, the observations associated with the grass appearing green are more important – more useful – than those associated with the grass appearing grey. Therefore I say the grass is ‘really’ green.”
The meaning equivalence of these two sentences is the key to understanding what “really” really means. When we say that something appears one way (by any of our sense data) but really is another way, what we are really doing is just pitting one appearance against another, as we pitted the appearance of green vs. the appearance of grey in the discussion above. So which appearance do we choose to be the “real” appearance? Simply the appearance is more “interesting” or “important” to us. Grass’s green appearance is more important to us than its grey appearance for several reasons. First, most of our experience with grass has to do with when it appears green to us, not when it appears grey. Second, the green is more psychologically exciting, interesting, and important to us than the grey. Third, the green appearance is associated with certain observations of plant life which are very important to us (e.g. for agricultural reasons) whereas the grey appearance has less practical import to us. For all these reasons we conclude that the green appearance of grass is more interesting and important than the grey appearance, and therefore call the green appearance the “real” appearance.
“Real” is a comparative term. Something is more real if it is more important, life-affecting, interesting, exciting, etc. to us than something which is labeled “not real” or “less real”. The more unity and coherence we feel that a collection of perceptions and associations has, the more “real” that unity becomes.
I wasn’t implying there is any adequate understanding or description of what is real. Real, as you said, is comparitive. I was simply stating the impossibility to say what something really is. Because real is comparitive, or determined by measurement.
If we understand what we mean by “knowing” and “truth” and “is”, I reply that yes we do grasp what life “is”, and how it “truly” functions. Life is how you choose to look at it, and the most useful way for you to look at it right now is how it “really is”. How life “truly functions” is that way of looking at life’s functioning which is most useful to you right now.
This is a distinction without a difference. What something “really is” is nothing more than how it appears and how it behaves, together with the most useful way of thinking about these appearances and behaviors. A plant “is” the way you think it is.
I gave you an easy example! Grass really is green, from my point of view, because that’s the most useful way for me to think of grass right now. What’s wrong with that?
That’s not the point. You missed the point entirely. I guess the best example I can give of us not really knowing what anything is, how it is the way it is, is by trying to discover the basic “stuff” of the physical universe. You see, when we look under a microscope and keep turning up the volume, or keep magnifying, we get molecules, and then atoms, and then protons, neutrons, masons, niesons, and etc. But we never really get down to what the basic stuff is. Simply because we are trying to put an abstraction on something that is not abstract. Get it?
Oh and I’m not talking about relative truth. That’s the only kind of real truth there is, which is what I think you were trying to illustrate. But that is not my point.
Why do you say we never get down to the basic stuff? What do you even mean by basic stuff? Do you mean indivisible, without further structure? Because some physicists suspect that particles like electrons and quarks are indivisible and without further structure.
What do you mean by basic stuff? What would basic stuff look like?
I suspect that you’re clinging to a notion that there’s some privileged, God’s eye point of view of the world, a maximally useful point of view for all situations, and that “basic stuff” would be somehow part of it. That’s precisely the sort of notion that I’m refuting.
The problem with philosophy, is it’s self-reflexive. There is always a counterarguement which is just as valid as the first arguement. That’s why I said philosophizing is pointless, but it is fun. What’s even funner is meditation, and making your mind totally silent. That’s when you no longer experience seperation between yourself and the rest. That’s when you experience what you truly are. ehem God.
On a more positive note, I think I’m pretty close to (what I think is) your position by now D. I keep using phrases like “coordination of experiences” that I would have been disgusted with a few months ago. Interesting.
Admitting to not knowing initially allows for a freedom from preconception but one cannot truly understand without objective knowledge. This begins with the idea that you know nothing but it is not celebrated into believing you are God
Acting in accordance with divine law does not make you God and requires more then meditation but must include active participation in life.
It requires self knowledge to distinguish between the two. Believing this to be irrelevant since we egotistically believe are already God may not lead to the most favorable karmic consequences.
That’s funny that you mention that Nick. Because the greatest Yogis have always been known for attempting to extinguish karma altogether. They do not take karma literally, that if you do something bad, something bad is going to happen to you. Karma only means “action”. It is considered a rule of expedience to reaching your true buddha nature. This is the realization that you are God. Not your physical organism, or your personal identity. But you true nature, or true being. And god damnit, if someone asks me what I mean by that, I’m going to scream. =D
But potential nature and our actual nature are not the same. An acorn may have the potential to be an oak but it cannot call itself an oak. I’m not referring to the physical organism but its nature. That’s always been our difference. What you believe we have I believe in the image to be our potential.
Well if you’re not,you give a darn good impersonation. Your ideas and style are the same. I sensed it right away. But I can’t talk to you as tentative but can as torrentfields so I take this opportunity to do so.
I just thought you took this name to start some similar threads from a new username.
You also must be more careful. On the Death thread in Mundane Babble, you posted:
Not bad for a new member with about ten posts at the time.
I was speaking in reference to other places where I had posted threads about death in the past. It is funny though, most people refuse to talk about death, or factor it into their philosophy. That’s just my take though.
Maybe I should get to know this tentative fellow though, seems like we could have some decent conversation if our understanding and perspective seems similar. Thanks for the tip.
Well, when you read some of Tentative’s posts, you will see the resemblence. No matter though.
Death is not the most pleasant thing to face. This is why funerals and eulogies are the way they are. You can curse some guy out all his life but we have an unwritten agreement to publically praise him as the salt of the earth in the coffin at the funeral home. What happens outside may be another matter though.
Its easy. Just post a thread/quote from the Tao-te-ching in the Religion forum. Think really positive thoughts. Click your heals three times, make a wish, and he’ll come to you.
