|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 11:12:20 GMT -5
 ZD once quoted a guy as saying "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". You resort to logic to try to justify "reality", but even the mathematicians who define, explain and codify logic for you admit that logic itself is never complete. Your idea of me accepting the world as consistent is yet another one in the long line of straw men. And I've never written that you are on a fools errand, just that you're looking in the wrong place using the incorrect faculties to find what you're looking for. The search will continue for as long as there's something to find, and this is just the way things happen. No, I don't think so. inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. That, simply, is the meaning of consistency. The universe operates via laws, whether we understand them all, or not. When you get to the fine print, it says, this law can be superseded under certain conditions. Basically, chapter one the Tao Te Ching says it all: If you can say it in words or write it in words, that's a sign it's not the final Truth-Tao. (My paraphrase). First of all, why should I take you seriously if you pose a question like this?  Your perceptions happen according to patterns that can be noticed and expressed as these abstractions you refer to, but you, are not a machine. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 11:14:24 GMT -5
He said that they're fooling themselves. Some of them are, no doubt, but the way he gets from A to B makes it clear to me that the jokes on him. The question was laced with hostility, that he echo's and affirms. Like I said, I understand if you don't get that. You think it's a waste of time to watch the video in full, I can't do anything about that. So I don't know if you at least conceptually understand his view. He bases his view on mystical experiences he has had, his view has evolved out of that. I understand if Michaels is not your cup of tea. It's just that his view is broader than the ND view, more inclusive, more expansive. I get that you don't agree. I've expressed my understanding of his view quite succinctly, multiple times now. Perhaps his view is "broader" than your and his cartoon-cardboard-cut-out of the "ND view", but you failed the challenge to substantiate what you wrote about what you imagine about my supposed "world view". So. There's that.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 11:15:01 GMT -5
Ok, I listened to the first 15 minutes because you mentioned my name. It's a mix of philosophy and psychology. It's way past psychology and philosophy. The simulation theory?  ... pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ..... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 13:11:22 GMT -5
You think it's a waste of time to watch the video in full, I can't do anything about that. So I don't know if you at least conceptually understand his view. He bases his view on mystical experiences he has had, his view has evolved out of that. I understand if Michaels is not your cup of tea. It's just that his view is broader than the ND view, more inclusive, more expansive. I get that you don't agree. I've expressed my understanding of his view quite succinctly, multiple times now. Perhaps his view is "broader" than your and his cartoon-cardboard-cut-out of the "ND view", but you failed the challenge to substantiate what you wrote about what you imagine about my supposed "world view". So. There's that. I deleted your name from the OP, but I also clarified what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 25, 2024 13:54:28 GMT -5
I just posted this video as a reply on another thread. I chanced on this on you tube, probably an algorithm brought it to me. But this guy, never encountered him before, Kim Michaels I think his name is, this guy comes as close to anyone I've ever encountered, on the internet, to explaining my world view. He does it in 45 minutes, yes, that's long. But you can place the view of anyone else here, within this framework, ZD, Gopal, inavalan, lolly, laughter, probably siftingthetruth. I think tenka will embrace it completely, if you want to understand tenka, watch the video. I think it will also resonate very well with inavalan. laughter doesn't like my characterization of him, I should have said I can understand laughter from Michaels POV. But satch came to mind. I think it was 3 months I was on vacation, I don't think satch has been back since, almost 4 months. But I also think this is close enough to satch that he will understand it, and benefit. But to ZD, this will explain everything I've ever tried to say to you. There is practically nothing new here for me, he just says it very well and very succinctly. I thought of satch because he understands Maya, correctly, the manifest world is Maya is a simulated world. Basically, the manifest world is a kind of simulation, look around, we live in a kind of simulator. But it's not exactly the philosophical idea of a simulator, the Elon Musk kind, or the Nick Bostrom kind, it's more-real, more-realer. But enough intro, you'll either watch it, or not. But basically Michaels asks: OK, who/what made the simulator? (And why). He's basically talking about the two truths of Buddhism. The lesser [subjective] truth is the consistency of the manifest world. The greater Truth is the [objective] origin of everything (including the manifest world), call it what you will, Consciousness. He calls it the Creator, big deal. Some of you will have to ~get past~ the first few minutes (and the video title). He's answering a question submitted to him. My main takeaway. He calls the Origin, Source, Ground, the Creator. He says we are co-creators. I might pick the bones of this, bit by bit, but I skimmed the video and it landed at a part where he says, the world is real, it isn't an illusion, the illusion is that it is separated from Brahman. This is exactly that. Same goes for the person. The person isn't illusory, it's the belief that it is separate from Brahman that is. That's why the SDP has always been a red herring. Niz or Ramana stated, it's not the person that is the problem, it's the person believed to be a separate person that is. All these illusory dream characters arising in god knows what is just ridiculous beyond belief. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 25, 2024 14:18:30 GMT -5
... inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. ... I meant that if you saw me jumping off the Empire State Building, you'd see what you believe and expect. You wouldn't see a "fact" as there are no objective "facts" in your subjective physical reality, the only one you perceive through your physical senses, which themselves are subjective senses (they exist for you). If I jumped off the Empire State Building, I'd experience what I believe and expect. I am not saying that I believe I can fly when I am awake. But, I've experienced flying, many times, when lucidly dreaming. Awake and dreaming are two different states of consciousness, each with their own root assumptions. When you perceive me in your subjective physical reality, you don't perceive what I perceive about me in my subjective physical reality. What I state in my posts are hypotheses that I currently believe to be the most accurate. I never say that "I know", as others say here and there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 14:25:04 GMT -5
... inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. ... I meant that if you saw me jumping off the Empire State Building, you'd see what you believe and expect. You wouldn't see a "fact" as there are no objective "facts" in your subjective physical reality, the only one you perceive through your physical senses, which themselves are subjective senses (they exist for you). If I jumped off the Empire State Building, I'd experience what I believe and expect. I am not saying that I believe I can fly when I am awake. But, I've experienced flying, many times, when lucidly dreaming. Awake and dreaming are two different states of consciousness, each with their own root assumptions. When you perceive me in your subjective physical reality, you don't perceive what I perceive about me in my subjective physical reality. What I state in my posts are hypotheses that I currently believe to be the most accurate. I never say that "I know", as others say here and there. I'd see what occurs. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 25, 2024 14:27:54 GMT -5
... inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. ... I meant that if you saw me jumping off the Empire State Building, you'd see what you believe and expect. You wouldn't see a "fact" as there are no objective "facts" in your subjective physical reality, the only one you perceive through your physical senses, which themselves are subjective senses (they exist for you). If I jumped off the Empire State Building, I'd experience what I believe and expect. I am not saying that I believe I can fly when I am awake. But, I've experienced flying, many times, when lucidly dreaming. Awake and dreaming are two different states of consciousness, each with their own root assumptions. When you perceive me in your subjective physical reality, you don't perceive what I perceive about me in my subjective physical reality. What I state in my posts are hypotheses that I currently believe to be the most accurate. I never say that "I know", as others say here and there. .. Let's take a baby that has no subjective beliefs that is left out all day in the sun. If left out in the sun all day the babies skin will burn regardless of subjective beliefs in what the sun will do to the skin or not. It just happens doesn't it despite having subjective beliefs or not. You could jump off a cliff and the next day someone finds your body on the ground below. Subjective beliefs don't have any influence on things that happen when there are no subjective beliefs in play. That means that things do happen regardless. Things happen regardless for a reason. It has nothing to do with subjective beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 25, 2024 14:49:27 GMT -5
I meant that if you saw me jumping off the Empire State Building, you'd see what you believe and expect. You wouldn't see a "fact" as there are no objective "facts" in your subjective physical reality, the only one you perceive through your physical senses, which themselves are subjective senses (they exist for you). If I jumped off the Empire State Building, I'd experience what I believe and expect. I am not saying that I believe I can fly when I am awake. But, I've experienced flying, many times, when lucidly dreaming. Awake and dreaming are two different states of consciousness, each with their own root assumptions. When you perceive me in your subjective physical reality, you don't perceive what I perceive about me in my subjective physical reality. What I state in my posts are hypotheses that I currently believe to be the most accurate. I never say that "I know", as others say here and there. .. Let's take a baby that has no subjective beliefs that is left out all day in the sun. If left out in the sun all day the babies skin will burn regardless of subjective beliefs in what the sun will do to the skin or not. It just happens doesn't it despite having subjective beliefs or not. You could jump off a cliff and the next day someone finds your body on the ground below. Subjective beliefs don't have any influence on things that happen when there are no subjective beliefs in play. That means that things do happen regardless. Things happen regardless for a reason. It has nothing to do with subjective beliefs. Again ... My position is that you don't perceive what the baby experiences, but only what you believe and expect to happen to the baby. The two of you never experience exactly the same physical reality, and the association to a probable reality, that you resonate with, is dynamic. You leave one and join another as your beliefs change. The baby experiences his subjective reality, and also is also more in touch with his inner senses than adults are, due to the cultural indoctrination / hypnosis. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 25, 2024 14:54:18 GMT -5
I meant that if you saw me jumping off the Empire State Building, you'd see what you believe and expect. You wouldn't see a "fact" as there are no objective "facts" in your subjective physical reality, the only one you perceive through your physical senses, which themselves are subjective senses (they exist for you). If I jumped off the Empire State Building, I'd experience what I believe and expect. I am not saying that I believe I can fly when I am awake. But, I've experienced flying, many times, when lucidly dreaming. Awake and dreaming are two different states of consciousness, each with their own root assumptions. When you perceive me in your subjective physical reality, you don't perceive what I perceive about me in my subjective physical reality. What I state in my posts are hypotheses that I currently believe to be the most accurate. I never say that "I know", as others say here and there. I'd see what occurs. I believe that there is an endless number of probable realities, and you perceive only the one that you resonate with. There is no single "what occurs". Even more: what you perceive now to occur isn't necessarily what you'll consciously recall later. As you evolve, you get more in touch with your inner senses, and you perceive more, understand more, can more, do more; your reach expands. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 17:44:04 GMT -5
I will try to give a synopsis in brief of the video, and touch upon some questions and comments.
There is an origin of everything. Michaels calls the Origin, the Creator. sdp calls the Origin SOCI (Supreme Ordering Conscious Intelligence). C is One, no differentiation. How can an Intelligence that knows everything, express its creativity and increase What It Is? C decides to form a manifest world, the universe, which it forms out-of-itself via a process of downgrading Its-Own-Energy in a series of stepdown transformers. Let's just call them world One; world 2; world 3; world 4, the material world (these match Michaels paradigm). World 3 would be an unmanifest world, to us, likewise 2 and One. Why? Because they are formed from a vibratory level which our five sense and our instruments can't measure, each world upward is of an even finer vibration. The ultimate intention of C is to form Co-Creators. Through a long and complicated process (it has taken 13.8 billion years to get to where we are now), we have complicated physical, emotional and intelligent beings, us, which can collect data about the world. What Michaels is saying is that although we have corresponding potential bodies corresponding to worlds 3, 2, 1, they are not formed, they are not 'filled out', they are merely potential, seeds. If you have a higher body, you know it, just like you know you have a physical body. The purpose of the Path he has shared but a brief glimpse of, is to form, first a body which consists of the vibratory level of world 3, so that the individual can experience world 3. Likewise, 2. What he has called mystical experiences, are experiences of world One. Eventually, he says also we can experience and maintain experience of world One. This, he calls an Ascended Master, or maybe better, sharon's term, the Masters of Ancient Wisdom.
Michaels is saying when differentiation first occurs, in world 2 (moving downward), this is already a dual world. The goal is to fulfill the full potential of a human being, continuing experience of the One. For this to occur, we must have a body of that level of vibration. Michaels calls this level Identity, elsewhere it's called the Causal body. An Ascended Master understands all the laws of all the higher planes, and so can dematerialize its own physical body, and recreate it. This is hinted at in the Gospels when the soldiers of the Pharisees sought to capture him, and it is said he vanished from their midst. And also, the body of world 3 can sometimes be made visible, and example of this is when Jesus walked on the water. The higher bodies are called bodies of light. An example of this is the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus was just his (extra)ordinary self, it was Peter, James and John who had their vibratory level temporarily increased, so saw Jesus as he indeed was. It was so extraordinary for Peter that he said, Jesus, let's just pitch a tent and live here! (Let us make booths, a booth is a tent). So, maybe the agony of Gethsemane, maybe Jesus knew he had not completed the formation of the Causal body, and he knew he had but hours to do so. In Theosophical Society literature, the crucifixion is the fifth initiation. In it, a man becomes an Ascended Master. So when the body dies, a Master can easily reform it, living. That's the seal of proof of becoming a Master of Ancient Wisdom. All that is not in the video, but its implication is.
So, that's basically the rest of the video, the other side of the first 15 minutes. The purpose of life is to evolve-into-these higher levels, and unless and until we do, the journey is not over. At some point in the video Michaels says what I have said numerous times, a nondual realization isn't the end of the journey, it's actually just the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 18:30:39 GMT -5
Do you expect to look up into the sky and see a mermaid riding Pegasus? No, I don't think so. inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. That, simply, is the meaning of consistency. The universe operates via laws, whether we understand them all, or not. When you get to the fine print, it says, this law can be superseded under certain conditions. Basically, chapter one the Tao Te Ching says it all: If you can say it in words or write it in words, that's a sign it's not the final Truth-Tao. (My paraphrase). First of all, why should I take you seriously if you pose a question like this? Your perceptions happen according to patterns that can be noticed and expressed as these abstractions you refer to, but you, are not a machine. I will try to explain, as you have brought this up at least a dozen times. We are born as a baby, as essence, the living and growing individual. A baby collects data about the world through the five senses, through impressions. This data is stored in the neural network, the connections between neurons, the way all information is stored. Impressions feed essence. Millions of connections are made a minute. Picture a net, a neural network. About age six impressions no longer reach essence, they fall on the net, are captured and absorbed by the net. So essence ceases to be fed. Our sense of identity shifts from essence to the cultural self (so called because it is formed from the info of culture). This is the fall of man, spoken of in Genesis, it happens again to almost all men and women. My latest invented word for the artificial self, is the self-avatar, because it actually is a kid of avatar. In Greek theater, they wore a persona, a mask, to portray different characters. So the artificial self is a mask, a persona, it is not who we actually are, essence. Now, to a very great extent, the self-avatar is made-from abstractions, conceptuality, it's formed from these connections between neurons, which is stored data. So the self-avatar is made-from copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, just data. This, is a machine ("garbage in, garbage out"). No, as explained, ~you~ are not a machine, the true self is not a machine. But a lot of people are. We are all part essence, part persona, different ratios. Some people are 90% essence, 10% persona. Some people are 90% persona, 10% essence. (Or 80-20, 70-30, 60-40, 50-50, or vice versa). Gurdjieff said some people's essence is so covered over, they are essentially dead. So, I don't know why you keep telling me I'm not a machine, you're preaching to the choir. But you can see in people when they are operating merely from their programming, you can recognize when people are talking on autopilot. And you can see it in people when even their programming is degrading, dying. They pause, and hesitate, struggle to find the words, and then say: We finally beat Medicare. People with severe Alzheimer's or another kind of dementia, mostly operate from the programming, the person is no longer there. A hundred years ago Gurdjieff called this dying in thirds. The mind can die, the emotions can die. The body can die, of course then the emotions and the mind die also. Shunryu Suzuki (Zen Mind Beginner's Mind guy) was asked, How much ego do we need? He answered, enough not to step in front of a bus. The mind thinking incessantly on-its-on, the monkey mind, that's the machine looping. Get a song stuck in your head? That's the machine. Chasing? That's the machine. Spiritual practice? That's reversing the process whereby the self-avatar was formed, and taking back one's attention, for essence. You then cease to feed the self-avatar, which is maintained by taking your attention through, thoughts, negative feelings/negative emotions, excess bodily tension, people, places, things, events. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Aug 25, 2024 19:18:08 GMT -5
I will try to give a synopsis in brief of the video, and touch upon some questions and comments. Michaels is saying when differentiation first occurs, in world 2 (moving downward), this is already a dual world. The goal is to fulfill the full potential of a human being, continuing experience of the One. For this to occur, we must have a body of that level of vibration. Michaels calls this level Identity, elsewhere it's called the Causal body. An Ascended Master understands all the laws of all the higher planes, and so can dematerialize its own physical body, and recreate it. This is hinted at in the Gospels when the soldiers of the Pharisees sought to capture him, and it is said he vanished from their midst. And also, the body of world 3 can sometimes be made visible, and example of this is when Jesus walked on the water. The higher bodies are called bodies of light. An example of this is the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus was just his (extra)ordinary self, it was Peter, James and John who had their vibratory level temporarily increased, so saw Jesus as he indeed was. It was so extraordinary for Peter that he said, Jesus, let's just pitch a tent and live here! (Let us make booths, a booth is a tent). So, maybe the agony of Gethsemane, maybe Jesus knew he had not completed the formation of the Causal body, and he knew he had but hours to do so. In Theosophical Society literature, the crucifixion is the fifth initiation. In it, a man becomes an Ascended Master. So when the body dies, a Master can easily reform it, living. That's the seal of proof of becoming a Master of Ancient Wisdom. All that is not in the video, but its implication is. Christ crucifixion on the cross is a Path of Kriya yoga, an ancient meditation technique of energy and breath control, or pranayama. It`s a form of yoga where the follower is made to under go rigid physical acts in raising one`s spirit from his/her Kundalini " Saccro-coccygeal nerves", to the abdomen " solar nerves", to the thorax " Cardio-throracic nerves" , to the neck " cervical nerves " until it reaches the pineal gland " 3rd eye" in the brain. It takes a lot of practice under a Kriya guru to master the art of lifting up the soul from this so called "chakras " to opening and closing of the Third eye. Where the soul exits and travel " astral " wherever it wants to go in the ethereal world. Christ Jesus at Mt Calvary conveyed to his disciples to lift up one`s cross was in itself Kriya yoga. It's main purpose was to achieve Jīvanmukti ( Sanskrit ), "liberation during life, liberation before death", or "emancipation while still alive". |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 26, 2024 2:34:34 GMT -5
I will try to give a synopsis in brief of the video, and touch upon some questions and comments. There is an origin of everything. Michaels calls the Origin, the Creator. sdp calls the Origin SOCI (Supreme Ordering Conscious Intelligence). C is One, no differentiation. How can an Intelligence that knows everything, express its creativity and increase What It Is? C decides to form a manifest world, the universe, which it forms out-of-itself via a process of downgrading Its-Own-Energy in a series of stepdown transformers. Let's just call them world One; world 2; world 3; world 4, the material world (these match Michaels paradigm). World 3 would be an unmanifest world, to us, likewise 2 and One. Why? Because they are formed from a vibratory level which our five sense and our instruments can't measure, each world upward is of an even finer vibration. The ultimate intention of C is to form Co-Creators. Through a long and complicated process (it has taken 13.8 billion years to get to where we are now), we have complicated physical, emotional and intelligent beings, us, which can collect data about the world. What Michaels is saying is that although we have corresponding potential bodies corresponding to worlds 3, 2, 1, they are not formed, they are not 'filled out', they are merely potential, seeds. If you have a higher body, you know it, just like you know you have a physical body. The purpose of the Path he has shared but a brief glimpse of, is to form, first a body which consists of the vibratory level of world 3, so that the individual can experience world 3. Likewise, 2. What he has called mystical experiences, are experiences of world One. Eventually, he says also we can experience and maintain experience of world One. This, he calls an Ascended Master, or maybe better, sharon's term, the Masters of Ancient Wisdom. Michaels is saying when differentiation first occurs, in world 2 (moving downward), this is already a dual world. The goal is to fulfill the full potential of a human being, continuing experience of the One. For this to occur, we must have a body of that level of vibration. Michaels calls this level Identity, elsewhere it's called the Causal body. An Ascended Master understands all the laws of all the higher planes, and so can dematerialize its own physical body, and recreate it. This is hinted at in the Gospels when the soldiers of the Pharisees sought to capture him, and it is said he vanished from their midst. And also, the body of world 3 can sometimes be made visible, and example of this is when Jesus walked on the water. The higher bodies are called bodies of light. An example of this is the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus was just his (extra)ordinary self, it was Peter, James and John who had their vibratory level temporarily increased, so saw Jesus as he indeed was. It was so extraordinary for Peter that he said, Jesus, let's just pitch a tent and live here! (Let us make booths, a booth is a tent). So, maybe the agony of Gethsemane, maybe Jesus knew he had not completed the formation of the Causal body, and he knew he had but hours to do so. In Theosophical Society literature, the crucifixion is the fifth initiation. In it, a man becomes an Ascended Master. So when the body dies, a Master can easily reform it, living. That's the seal of proof of becoming a Master of Ancient Wisdom. All that is not in the video, but its implication is. So, that's basically the rest of the video, the other side of the first 15 minutes. The purpose of life is to evolve-into-these higher levels, and unless and until we do, the journey is not over. At some point in the video Michaels says what I have said numerous times, a nondual realization isn't the end of the journey, it's actually just the beginning. According to Justin Richards, that only depends upon where in the world you live. Older and more ancient cultures encourage and even insist upon a period of acclimatisation and a deepening of trust. Which is what the majority of us talk about regularly in this forum. www.quora.com/profile/Justin-Richards-10How familiar was Nietzsche with Oriental mysticism? "Nietzsche was remarkably familiar with works of eastern religion and philosophy for a man of his time. He read the Ramayana in the original Sanskrit, for instance. However, his exposure to Eastern mystical traditions was quite limited, and mostly secondhand. One of the mystical works he was most familiar with was that of Emerson, which created a cross cultural mysticism from decidedly non-mystical works from Hindu and Christian traditions. The biggest mystical influence on Nietzsche, and one might also argue Emerson, came not from the far east, as one might have said back in the day, but from Greece. All of which encourages a question, what is mysticism? Mysticism is a practice whereby one dissolves ones sense of self for participation in the totality of existence. This is what Nietzsche called Dionysian. However, for Nietzsche, as would become an issue driving Martin Buber towards his opus I and Thou, the Dionysian dissolution of the self must always end with a return to Apollonian individuality. Nietzsche's brand of mysticism involves a reversible gestalt switch. This is a facet of western mystical traditions, at least the non-heretical kind. However, as far as I know, eastern mystical traditions offer a permanent dissolution of self." |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 26, 2024 6:01:01 GMT -5
.. Let's take a baby that has no subjective beliefs that is left out all day in the sun. If left out in the sun all day the babies skin will burn regardless of subjective beliefs in what the sun will do to the skin or not. It just happens doesn't it despite having subjective beliefs or not. You could jump off a cliff and the next day someone finds your body on the ground below. Subjective beliefs don't have any influence on things that happen when there are no subjective beliefs in play. That means that things do happen regardless. Things happen regardless for a reason. It has nothing to do with subjective beliefs. Again ... My position is that you don't perceive what the baby experiences, but only what you believe and expect to happen to the baby. The two of you never experience exactly the same physical reality, and the association to a probable reality, that you resonate with, is dynamic. You leave one and join another as your beliefs change. The baby experiences his subjective reality, and also is also more in touch with his inner senses than adults are, due to the cultural indoctrination / hypnosis. But you don't have the expectancy when you are not aware of what has transpired do you. You walk the beach early one morning and there is a lifeless body laying on the shore. You don't have to perceive through their eyes to know the body is lifeless. You don't know if the peep had a heart attack or a brain emurism, you might conclude subjectively if he fell from the cliffs edge if there was signs of damage to the body but there is no expectancy and you certainly don't need to see through their eyes at the moment of their passing to know what you know. There is a foundation in place of what we call life and death of the physical world reality. No amount of subjectivity will change that fact. A fact based upon natural laws. There is either experience of it or there isn't. That won't reflect in being subjective of that foundational experience. Same goes for finding a babies body sunburnt. Its either burnt or it isn't. |
|
ZD once quoted a guy as saying "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". You resort to logic to try to justify "reality", but even the mathematicians who define, explain and codify logic for you admit that logic itself is never complete. Your idea of me accepting the world as consistent is yet another one in the long line of straw men. And I've never written that you are on a fools errand, just that you're looking in the wrong place using the incorrect faculties to find what you're looking for. The search will continue for as long as there's something to find, and this is just the way things happen.
... pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ..... 
