|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2018 19:49:53 GMT -5
2 issues. Those politically identified gender studies majors rallying about in their safe spaces who are trying to make the whole world their safe space are not actually advocating social justice. They claim to be, but they don;t know what they are doing because they are no social work gruduates. In their days work, that are not going to become involved in the dirt of abusive families, child removal, drug overdoses, suicides, violence of all sorts, trauma and other real-life issue which don't exist in their insular safe-bubbles. Then the libertarians, right viewed rich kids like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, arc up in disgust (much like I do) and create the popular SJW narrative to degenerate identity politic screamers, but The Shapiros and Crowders of this world are equally highly opinionated people of privelidge with very clean hands. In the midst of it, the term 'social justice' changes meaning from an ethos based on Human Rights to a derogatory slur. Then the history of social work discourse which has worked to manifest a decent equitable society is undermined through association with the idiocy outlined in the two paragraphs above. This means all those 'dogooders' be they of identity politic or the right viewed are actually doing more harm than good...
In my experience, it's best to take all political discourse with a grain of salt, and understand it through the lens of people seeking power, and how that goal is the precise antithesis of the foundation of any sort of honest discussion. I don't find the gender-benders to be disgusting, at all, but people seem to have a natural tendency to want to demand the primacy of their personal perspective, and I'm not down with either side doing that. It isn't gender benders that are disgusting. It's how the dynamic of identity politics vs. the right view has made 'social justice' counter productive term. Social workers are pretty much forced to invent a new lexicon so they can continue to be taken seriously and not be dismissed as 'snowflakes'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2018 20:15:05 GMT -5
'The world is appearing in me (or to me), but I don't know if the world is appearing in you (or to you)'. Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. I actually don't know what a point of perception in Consciousness has to do with a separate volitional person.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2018 20:17:54 GMT -5
Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. Oh I put it both ways to give them the option, for example, gopal is more likely to say 'to me' but Fig is more likely to say 'in me'. Obviously they deny that they are arguing for separation, I'm surprised you would even feel the need to say that! I agree with Reefs on that, i.e they don't realize they're doing it when they're doing it. The way you put it is pretty close to the way I would put it, but as I am a persistent arguer of the point, it wouldn't make sense for them to acknowledge that I understand what they are saying. If I DO understand them, and can show them the boundary of that understanding, then they have a problem. So it's better to say that I don't understand them. I don't think I've ever felt like you don't understand what we're saying. It's just that your arguments against it don't seem to have any substance, and so are rejected.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2018 20:23:11 GMT -5
This happens to everyone, it's the playing out of karma. It's the way that polarity is transcended, it's how God is awakening collectively. The political situation in many countries is a great example of what you said here. Right/Left are constantly attracting to each other. And at this point in the karmic cycle, the attraction is very fast indeed. 20 years ago....100 years ago....the attracting was much slower. I don't have the idea of collective reality . For me everything moves as one.That's what collective reality refers to.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 10, 2018 20:24:52 GMT -5
That's right. Now compare this to the positions of Figgles and Enigma. Figgles,I, Enigma don't even differ a bit in this place ,there may be a chance that we three may use the words differently. Yeah, I wouldn't use the term 'real', but I understand what you mean by it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 10, 2018 21:57:36 GMT -5
I think Gopal may have misunderstood the perception=creation thingy. And he seems to equate perception with the sense of sight mostly (or exclusively?). Which leads to even more absurd conclusions. Let's assume it is synonymous with the sense of sight. That means since Gopal cannot look at his teeth, they don't exist. So Gopal has no teeth. And his entire body disappears as soon as it disappears from his field of vision. And even if we include all other senses, then Gopal only occasionally has teeth, that is when his tongue touches them and he feels them. But then at least he always has a body, because he can always feel the body somehow, even though he may not always have his entire body. Yes. He has also told me he has no brain and no heart (no internal organs). He doesn't believe there IS a body (though of course he does believe it every moment of his waking day). But then I ask....so what particular appearance is this point of perception 'associated' with? I don't get an answer to that. The idea of 'associated' or 'representing' points of perception is basically a completely made up idea to cover up the context mix. On one hand they want us to sometimes believe that there is only the appearance appearing in any moment (so 'teeth' come and go), and then on the other hand they sometimes want us to believe that the point of perception is 'associated' with a consistent physical form. The argument is constantly changing, and thus, unresolvable. I think it's pretty simple. It always boils down to this, no matter what topic: If you want to understand Gopal's position, just take the non-dual pointers and then apply them from the perspective of the SVP. And in part this also seems to be the key to understanding Enigma's position where a context mix is involved. Where there's an actual reference, he tends to be very clear, where there isn't, he tends to mix contexts. So we have to discern which part of the ontology are based on a direct reference and which parts are based on speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 10, 2018 22:04:35 GMT -5
Objective material existence independent of the consciousness thereof. Everything is an extension of Source/All-That-Is.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 10, 2018 22:28:43 GMT -5
Objective reality is Gopal's term. I don't actually use it. Here's a definition: Is that what you are all referring to? I've also been engaging with Gopal's definition. This is what he said...''If you believe your body doesn't disappear when you stop looking at it, then you believe in objective reality.'' Based on that, I have suggested that he does, actually, believe in an objective reality. Well, the entire issue is flawed from the start. Objective/subjective are mental categories. SR being the case, the question if there is an objective reality shouldn't even arise. It's an absurd question to ask from the perspective of oneness. It makes sense only from the perspective of the SVP. So you are not going to see me choose one or the other. All I can say is that what comes closest to a so-called 'objective reality' and what I can agree with is Seth's camouflage model. But even that is more about a shared reality than an actual objective reality. A-H talk about an agreement based reality. That goes into the same direction. Interestingly, Seth also talks about the physical world as an idea construction and A-H about everything being perceptual, but that shouldn't be confused with the kind of radical subjectivity Gopal and some others seem to be suggesting (aka it's all just appearances). Anyway, to me this is just another day with another discussion about another misconceived question. Even though it does make sense that someone who doesn't know if others are conscious or not would have to ponder that kind of question first. I hope this settles your dispute with Laughter.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 10, 2018 22:33:48 GMT -5
The 'ruler' thing doesn't sound anything like a god-complex to you? Yes, it does, and that's what I mean about how it's easy to break his balls about it. But on one hand, he sees the humor of it, while on the other, he has a serious philosophical problem that he's drawn specific conclusions about that he can't get anyone here (or on the gab) to agree with him on. So, in the balance, I don't think what Reefs described, describes Gopal. I meant that in the philosophical context. I didn't mean to imply anything about Gopal's actual behavior here or anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 10, 2018 22:47:41 GMT -5
The problem here is the context mix again. Trying to apply the what only works in the largest context to the SVP context. That's how you get weird conclusions and statements. So in a sense, the moon disappearing thingy is just another round of armchair philosophy again. I mean, we all know that Gopal does not believe that his house disintegrates when he leaves for work in the morning or that his wife goes poof as soon as he turns away and looks at the TV instead. No one lives like that. He's going to treat his house as if it is always there, and he is treating his wife as if she continues to exist (and even exists independently) even though he's not looking at her, in the same way that he has no choice but to treat her as if she is conscious. This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . Gopal already conceded that his philosophy is without any practical real life consequences. The concessions of Enigma and Figgles are still pending. What you say there about abiding to the design of each species is similar to Seth's camouflage model. In that sense, when humans look at the moon, they see more or less the same because they share the same camouflage signature, but when a beetle looks at the moon, that's not the case anymore. But in any case, the moon (or whatever is perceived there) doesn't just disappear when no one looks at it anymore. That's a contest mix again. The outer self didn't create the moon. And so the outer self cannot make the moon disappear. And from this to conclude a belief in an objective reality is flawful logic. There is no actual dividing line between inner and outer self. The outer self is the inner self. And so in that context, it is also true that those who perceive also create what they perceive at the same time. But when we apply this from the perspective of the SVP, it gets all screwy.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 11, 2018 2:40:48 GMT -5
This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . Gopal already conceded that his philosophy is without any practical real life consequences. The concessions of Enigma and Figgles are still pending. What you say there about abiding to the design of each species is similar to Seth's camouflage model. In that sense, when humans look at the moon, they see more or less the same because they share the same camouflage signature, but when a beetle looks at the moon, that's not the case anymore. But in any case, the moon (or whatever is perceived there) doesn't just disappear when no one looks at it anymore. That's a contest mix again. The outer self didn't create the moon. And so the outer self cannot make the moon disappear. And from this to conclude a belief in an objective reality is flawful logic. There is no actual dividing line between inner and outer self. The outer self is the inner self. And so in that context, it is also true that those who perceive also create what they perceive at the same time. But when we apply this from the perspective of the SVP, it gets all screwy. Yea, it disappears momentarily, as it appears momentarily, according to any experience. It's just that the idea, 'same moon', constructs a type of objective realism even under the perception/creation paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 3:21:12 GMT -5
Assuming they'd agree with that, as far as I can tell, each of them has quite forcefully rejected any and all conclusions and characterizations you've made about what they might mean, if they would put it that way, by "appearing in me" or "appearing to me". My recollection from the dialogs is that both you and Reefs conclude that they're arguing for separation, and Reefs even goes so far as to conclude that they don't even realize they're doing it as they're doing it. They deny they're arguing for separation. My opinion is that any opinion based on a series of ever finer conceptual distinctions in a dialog like this, very simply, is, what it is. An opinion. I actually don't know what a point of perception in Consciousness has to do with a separate volitional person. In speaking of a perception point as being prior to appearances/expressions, you are solidifying the 'point of perception' in exactly the same way that most folks solidify the 'SVP'. They also both share the characteristics of being finite, and so in solidifying the pop, you are going against the non-dual idea that 'what is finite' is only 'apparently' finite. You see, IF appearances are intimately connected (to use your words), then POP's are also intimately connected. Ultimately, all appearances and all POP's are 'one'. So the idea of there perhaps being just one POP goes against non-dual realization.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 3:27:12 GMT -5
Oh I put it both ways to give them the option, for example, gopal is more likely to say 'to me' but Fig is more likely to say 'in me'. Obviously they deny that they are arguing for separation, I'm surprised you would even feel the need to say that! I agree with Reefs on that, i.e they don't realize they're doing it when they're doing it. The way you put it is pretty close to the way I would put it, but as I am a persistent arguer of the point, it wouldn't make sense for them to acknowledge that I understand what they are saying. If I DO understand them, and can show them the boundary of that understanding, then they have a problem. So it's better to say that I don't understand them. I don't think I've ever felt like you don't understand what we're saying. It's just that your arguments against it don't seem to have any substance, and so are rejected. I'll give you my simplest argument, so please tell me why is has no substance. Traditionally, consciousness/awareness/perception has been attributed to the material, right? Now, if you have realized that consciousness/awareness/perception goes beyond who/what you are as a human being, then you have also realized that consciousness/awareness/perception is not-finite. Given that, consciousness/awareness/perception HAS to go beyond your POP. To put it another way, which is very similar. If you have realized creation/perception to be 'whole', then there is no question of whether there is just one personal creator/perceiver. You KNOW that perception/creation goes beyond any one person or POP. This is the same thing, said 2 slightly different ways. Have you realized awareness/consciousness/perception is not finite? Have you realized perception/creation is Whole? If not, then of course what I am saying is rejectable by you. But if you have realized that, then of course there is perception-creation/consciousness/awareness/ beyond your 'POP'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 3:34:35 GMT -5
I've also been engaging with Gopal's definition. This is what he said...''If you believe your body doesn't disappear when you stop looking at it, then you believe in objective reality.'' Based on that, I have suggested that he does, actually, believe in an objective reality. Well, the entire issue is flawed from the start. Objective/subjective are mental categories. SR being the case, the question if there is an objective reality shouldn't even arise. It's an absurd question to ask from the perspective of oneness. It makes sense only from the perspective of the SVP. So you are not going to see me choose one or the other. All I can say is that what comes closest to a so-called 'objective reality' and what I can agree with is Seth's camouflage model. But even that is more about a shared reality than an actual objective reality. A-H talk about an agreement based reality. That goes into the same direction. Interestingly, Seth also talks about the physical world as an idea construction and A-H about everything being perceptual, but that shouldn't be confused with the kind of radical subjectivity Gopal and some others seem to be suggesting (aka it's all just appearances). Anyway, to me this is just another day with another discussion about another misconceived question. Even though it does make sense that someone who doesn't know if others are conscious or not would have to ponder that kind of question first. I hope this settles your dispute with Laughter. Yes, that's close to what I had interpreted from what you have said. That's pretty much how I see it. The channelled teachings don't deny physicality, but they will also make sure they connect the dots between physicality, ideas, and perception. It's definitely NOT an objective reality in the conventional sense, and in addition, they see time-space as created too.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 11, 2018 3:37:28 GMT -5
This has been my point from day 1 . No-one lives or believes in this armchair philosophy . No-one believes that their wife is not a real perceiver or things just arise in consciousness . I used to speak of environments often and still do to emphasise that the physical plane of existence has it's own governed rules in effect . That's why if what you are as an individual energy signature wants to experience physical life experience one must enter this physical reality in a specific way . One has to abide to the design of each species. I can't stress enough that this appearance stuff arising out of or in consciousness is such a crock . Gopal already conceded that his philosophy is without any practical real life consequences. The concessions of Enigma and Figgles are still pending. What you say there about abiding to the design of each species is similar to Seth's camouflage model. In that sense, when humans look at the moon, they see more or less the same because they share the same camouflage signature, but when a beetle looks at the moon, that's not the case anymore. But in any case, the moon (or whatever is perceived there) doesn't just disappear when no one looks at it anymore. That's a contest mix again. The outer self didn't create the moon. And so the outer self cannot make the moon disappear. And from this to conclude a belief in an objective reality is flawful logic. There is no actual dividing line between inner and outer self. The outer self is the inner self. And so in that context, it is also true that those who perceive also create what they perceive at the same time. But when we apply this from the perspective of the SVP, it gets all screwy. Yes. Again, the moment someone says 'I perceive the moon', or 'the moon is perceived', this is not a disappearing 'moon'. This is a shared/created 'moon'.
|
|