|
|
Post by gooseone on May 1, 2013 15:39:37 GMT -5
"Coincidentally" i stumbled onto a youtube clip giving a view on the technical side of "truth" www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1YnlW59--JE(I guess it is made to debunk religion but it seems to explain some things quite well, although i must admit rhetoric is not one of my virtues). And indeed it seems he has not investigated modern science that much, it's not completely self-evident any more these days that science equals materialism. Where it does still seems that scientist do not always take the implications of their findings to question their own place in the matter. It's still a matter of semantics concerning judging the book off course , but where i was able to enjoy his earlier books ( for the most part ), this one seems to aid in getting stuck in semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2013 19:19:51 GMT -5
I've already refuted this idea. I guess I missed that....... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2013 19:58:12 GMT -5
So you're spamming all over the online interwebs in order to save people from ignorance? Be honest. Not even you believe this. You need others to believe it for you.
I put C-Rex in quotes. I've been discussing a reasonable facsimile of C-Rex, not Jed's C-Rex, and I said for four months. Jed's book has only been out about a month, and I discovered it only last week. I haven't mentioned the book on the thread I mentioned, or anywhere else on Beliefnet, except I did put a quote from it concerning atheists and how they beat up religion is like beating up the court jester (common there on a couple of forums) on my tagline (with reference). If they can't get that we don't perceive the exterior world (material/type stuff) but only what our senses deliver, coded electrically and chemically, it's sort of hard to move from there to we don't encounter U-Rex in any way whatsoever. (Our own) Consciousness is King. But I gave it a shot......sort of a fishing expedition. I'll discuss anything with anybody, but I know I can't convince anyone of anything. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2013 20:43:30 GMT -5
"Coincidentally" i stumbled onto a youtube clip giving a view on the technical side of "truth" www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1YnlW59--JE(I guess it is made to debunk religion but it seems to explain some things quite well, although i must admit rhetoric is not one of my virtues). And indeed it seems he has not investigated modern science that much, it's not completely self-evident any more these days that science equals materialism. Where it does still seems that scientist do not always take the implications of their findings to question their own place in the matter.It's still a matter of semantics concerning judging the book off course , but where i was able to enjoy his earlier books ( for the most part ), this one seems to aid in getting stuck in semantics. to the bold -- fwiw that's what I see happening as well. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2013 20:48:49 GMT -5
Yo! Guess who this is. So I've read the ~20page books.google preview of Jed's new book and was a bit shocked because of the low quality. Usually I don't care, but this is an author with a large following and he speaks with such authority that I couldn't help but expose the guy for the charlatan that he is. Well, that and I also wanted an excuse to post again. - A trick question, though not a surprising one, considering that he introduces his book by quoting Socrates, the father of all trick questions. What is the "truth" that Jed is speaking of? A fool's mind here will immediately start spinning a tale of epic proportions. Looked at closely "truth" will reveal itself to be nothing more than a function of a class of sentences. Other kinds of sentences don't contain this function and still remain operational. - Let's be very precise here, because if we're not then this will distort the entire contemplation. If within the sentence the true/false-function operates, then this function can't be absent within the same sentence, for then the sentence would be in self-contradiction. However, we have to clearly recognize that such is the function of these particular kind of sentences, the function is not universal, it does not extend beyond this class of sentences. - Look at the insanity of this. There is supposed to be some kind of mysterious truth-entity, we believe to know that it must exist, but we haven't the faintest clue about what it could be. It's an entirely abstract entity that insists not because we have positive evidence for it (we don't, because we have no idea what it could be) but because we can't imagine it not to be. Isn't that strange? The mystery is solved when you understand that truth is not a universal entity of some sort but instead merely a value of a true/false function within a sentence, and that this function necessarily insists whenever you instantiate it within the sentence, but it is completely unwarranted to extrapolate this function beyond the sentence and imagine it to be a universal entity. - And this is the tale of epic proportions that I hinted at earlier. - Don't be deceived by "absolute certainty", it simply articulates the inability to doubt, which in this case isn't representative of anything other than the constraints of the structure of the sentence which one is thinking in. "I know that I exist" is simply the swapping of one abstract term for another, same with "I am conscious". The strenght of "I" and "conscious" comes not from understanding, it comes from the dominance of intuition, which is the same as the inability to doubt, which is the result of a lack of understanding. He who does not understand whereof he speaks has the strongest intuitions. He who understands whereof he speaks requires no intuition. Next. What is consciousness? Jed has to give a precise account, otherwise he would violate the requirement of "absolute certainty". So, how can you be absolutely certain about something if you're not exactly sure what it is? "Absolute truth" is an entirely abstract entity and according to Jed it can only be concretized by something of which we are absolutely certain, but it obviously can't be "consciousness" or "self", or "existence", or any other one of these ideas because we're not certain what they represent... and if Jed disagrees, then he contradicts himself and his syllogism falls apart faster than a virtual particle. Moreover, if you try to cheat and say that intuition is enough and that there is no obligation to present a precise account of the involved notions, then what reason is there to prefer consciousness over the myriad other dominant intuitions that we experience each and every day? - No, Jed has completely confused a poor fellow and robbed him of his precious time and money. - Do you remember Rumsfeldian epistemology? There are things we know we know. Things we know we don't know. And things we don't know we don't know. But there is also a fourth to this permutation. Things we don't know we know. Be vigilant, the latter is the realm of charlatans. Just going to quote a little Jed.
"And yet, is it not possible that whatever we discover truth to be, it must prove to be found in all things? That nothing that exists can be exempt from truth, or exist outside of truth?
Very possible. In fact, I must insist upon it. Truth must be found in the essential nature of all that exists, and nothing can exist independently of truth. It's absurd to suggest that something might exist in untruth". Jed's ToE, 6%
I'd say that trumps your puny toy/word abstract sentences.
sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2013 20:59:39 GMT -5
Yes I agree with you but with one caveat. It's useful to point out that the assumption underlying the notion of a "material universe" collapsed over a century ago based on experimentation with the goal of explaining it in depth. Maybe some of them during their lunchbreak fancied their experminets to be about exloring the "depth of the material universe", but the actual procedure has no way to live up to this. The philosophers of science still are uncertain about the correct interpretation. The issue lies elsewhere. Quantum physics is articulated via mathematical formulas, the interpretations are philosophical in nature. People disagree about the interpretations, not about the math. If someone wants to contribute to the field then he is required to do so in the language of mathematics, and it does not respect our philosophical intuitions. The reason is that the two languages are incompatible and everyday language can't accurately represent the abstract formalisms. You can't build a consistent everyday ontology out of it, because then you get backwards time, many-worlds, too many dimensions, entanglement, etc... and this ontology remains inconsistent even if we swap "U-Rex" with "C-Rex", because these oddities still remain and we still can't comprehend them. As far as the identity poker involved with the word "Consciousness" that you allude to I'll reiterate my agreement and refer you to this conversation. As far as the rest it doesn't matter what their intent was. All that matters is that when the technology got good enough they broke their own assumption about a material world that could be described objectively. The finding is definitely not the added on "more" that the new-ager's would hoist onto it but it's certainly not less than the absence that it is. It seems from the little of the work I've read in this thread that Jed is aligning himself with the likes of Deepak Chopra ("new-ager's"). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 2, 2013 5:26:32 GMT -5
No, he did not browse a lot of books - the spirituality section of every book store contains at least a couple of books propagating the same theory as Jed's. Why is he choosing a title that he doesn't even like? Do you know what Jed means by "living it"? I suggest that it means that his intuition is so strong that he is unable to doubt it. You can't "live" ideas, nobody lives a materialistic or consicous life, they merely think they do. Jed didn't mention Kant. He mentioned various other philosophers that danced around C-Rex, but not Kant. But it seems that Kant got the closest to what Jed is talking about when he wrote about the phenomenal world and the noumenal world. The noumenal world would be U-Rex, everything that's exterior to our self. Kant said that we can never know what's out there, all we can know is what passes through the wall of self, what nudges our senses, what nudges our consciousness. We only know our own brain/body/neural network. That's Jed's C-Rex. Moving on from that, Jed says that C-Rex should be our natural state if we lived in a cultural system that functioned properly, but we essentially get educated out of C-Rex. I'd say that living consciously in C-Rex is to live in the third state of consciousness, being objective towards our own self. Spoiler alert.........Jed eventually says towards the end of the book that everybody lives in C-Rex, we can't not-live in C-Rex. Becoming what Jed calls a mature Adult is to live consciously in C-Rex. One other thing, Jed covers briefly, what about higher beings and the higher realms? Says his Theory of Everything covers all that, all them. Whatever their state happens to be, it's still their C-Rex. Now, I can buy that, but there's a lot in the little he says that one can unpack. Essentially you can say that in a higher state of consciousness you're taking in more of all that is, you're altering your capacity to take in more of what's out there. That Jed does not move in to this more is not a problem for me. First you have to row a little boat. Yea, I know what Jed means by living it. I don't live there, not even there a lot of the time. But I've visited. I've visited enough to know that Jed knows what he's talking about. Excellent book. Why choose the naming it Theory of Everything? Jed also said in the trilogy that he didn't like the term enlightenment. He used it because it was part of the vocabulary describing the stuff he was talking about. He used Theory of Everything for the same reason. I've read hundreds of books about all this stuff, philosophy, metaphysics, consciousness, Kabbalah, Dzogchen, Zen, Taoism, mysticism, Native American spirituality (Tom Brown Jr. & Grandfather/Stalking Wolf, most excellent), Sufism, I Ching philosophy (the movement of Yin and yang), Eastern Orthodox monasticism... bla, bla, bla. Sure a lot of people have danced all around what Jed says, but he puts it in a nutshell. There isn't another book out there that has done what Jed has done in this book. It's clear, simple, direct. If you don't get what's here then you've got nothing. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by shawntedrow on May 2, 2013 9:26:35 GMT -5
I have found this thread of post to be very refreshing. It is nice to hear from those that are not a devoted Jed-sheep.
Yes, the author of the Jed books is a money focused charlatan. There are those of you that have picked up on the true character behind the books. As the old saying goes, "Out of the heart the mouth speaks", and yes how true indeed, eventually the author gave away his true character through his words.
His egoic hunger for spiritual popularity can only be realized through hiding behind these Jed books. His own personal efforts to the claim of fame has not come to fruition so he puts on his Jed costume and writes to self-affirm himself. The Theory of Everything was written to give the author an ego boost while making a buck on the way.
The author of the books is a person that teaches and combines spiritual principals into business practices. He is a philosophical capitalist that writes articles on Forbes online.
|
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 2, 2013 10:24:06 GMT -5
I've already refuted this idea. I guess I missed that....... sdp No, you didn't. By believing that perceptions originate in electrical and chemical processes you're already surrendering to "U-Rex", you're already sabotaging your own theory. You haven't answered my question. They didn't ask to hear your wisdom, you intruded upon them. To call my arguments "puny" without even remotely addressing their substance is quite a telling mistake. You said that Jed's is the first ever theory proclaiming the supremacy of consicousness. Then I refuted this by pointing out that his theory is the standard model of the "new age" ideology. Then you admitted that he is indeed but one of many to put forth this theory and corrected yourself toward claiming that Jed's contribution is merely the introduction of clarity. However, this too is false. As I have already shown Jed's theory is a confused mess. The funniest part is where you attempt to simulate competency by implicating Kant. The guy has nothing to do with the issue and is just a historical footnote in the contemporary discourse. Jed doesn't seem to the kind of guy who like to conform to cultural norms. Jed invented various new terms. Why didn't he simply invent another one? And there it is. No further questions. Look, I know your kind in and out. It's obvious to everyone here that you have no clue. If you're as serious as you claim to be then for your own sake please stop pretending. Maybe you're not intelligent enough to figure out the ultimate truths, but you sure are smart enough clean up the psychological mess that causes you to spam all over the internet and fake spiritual competency. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 2, 2013 10:27:52 GMT -5
The author of the books is a person that teaches and combines spiritual principals into business practices. He is a philosophical capitalist that writes articles on Forbes online. Interesting! I hope you can tell us more. Please send me a PM if you hesitate to go public with it. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 2, 2013 10:30:16 GMT -5
You haven't answered my question. They didn't ask to hear your wisdom, you intruded upon them. You mean like what you're doing? |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 2, 2013 10:42:38 GMT -5
You haven't answered my question. They didn't ask to hear your wisdom, you intruded upon them. You mean like what you're doing?  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 2, 2013 10:43:51 GMT -5
You mean like what you're doing? Back to your dominance games? |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 2, 2013 10:55:21 GMT -5
Back to your dominance games? You're making a scene. Please contribute to the thread or don't post here. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 2, 2013 11:02:27 GMT -5
Back to your dominance games? You're making a scene. Please contribute to the thread or don't post here. Thank you. (0_o) As laughter pointed out, you're the one here in drag putting on a show. Your antics haven't changed much since your melt down and banning. If Jed wrote his latest book to validate his ego, it looks to me like you're tearing it down and other people to validate yours. |
|
