Many on Gather that lean to the Right politically, insist upon "FACTs" from the Left, which must have what they call "Valid" sources. No source that does not meet their approval is deemed valid, and anything given in an "anonymous" fashion to the degree that the very source cannot be later questioned, is worth less than nothing to them. This rules out all subjective wisdoms, however spiritually inspired. The following is a comment I posted on that subject ...
Bret, I am right here going to tell you something that I believe I have never said before. I am only saying this now because it seems that I have tried everything else I could think of to find some common ground with the few folks from the Right here, that are always on the case of the Left and actually believing what your pundits have said about the Left, to concoct an image of an enemy into your heads to relate to, so you can hate the Left because you would then dualistically support the Right, where your "leaders" claim to reside (you know, the "good" guys).
First off, for most of my life I never gave a damn about politics and what the social atmosphere of this nation was doing, because it was all bad and hopeless to me ... and I never really understood it anyway. In fact it was a big part of what depressed me about this world.
But in seeking to finally get myself out of depression, I tried many things, one of which paid off ... I turned withIN by attempting to meditate (more of an Eastern concept) and opened myself to whatever might show up ... it came as a very mystical experience with an extremely powerful expression of loving forgiveness ... one thing led to another and I realized it was an extremely "Spiritual" experience ... from that moment on I had a powerful interest in everything concerning the world condition and why it was what it seemed to be and I hoped to find a way to help it be better ...
Now this is the gist of all of that ... we live in a very materialistic realm, here the most important things are those objective physical things that give us a relationship via our 5 physical senses ... nothing else, such as the subjective ideas and emotions, matter near as much as what we can more easily relate to objectively ... we have all been told our entire lives that our leaders were leaders because they had more ability and knowledge, that only they were qualified or authorized to lead us, that we must trust them and be loyal to them ... secular AND religious both. That they were all here to protect and guide us, that we were to be their followers ... we were always told, do not rock the boat, conform. Be a "good" little citizen.
But in the process of connecting to the spiritual realm as I did, I had actual communications with that realm, now many would like to call this all evidence that I am just crazy, that nobody sane does that sort of thing. That is the "popular" opinion of those in denial of spirituality, so be it. Never the less, I have received much information through that process that assures me that there is most definitely a spiritual dimension watching over us and attempting to guide us all ... and at the top of THAT hierarchical "arrangement" would be what is commonly referred to as God.
God (the one I believe in anyway, and there is only one, just that many have lessor versions) gives us complete freedom to learn our lessons by actual experience so that we can discover the truths first hand, most of which are related to cause and effect, the reason for the Golden Rule. Do unto others ... because we are ALL interconnected spiritually to one another and other realms of God ... there is no separation at all, other than what we make up in our minds and insist upon for our own version of our preferred reality.
And the real point of all of this is that we have a very non-spiritual leadership here on earth that really enjoys the perks of the higher ranks of their leadership standings ... so much of it is based upon wealth $$$$ which gives them power and control that protects those folks at those levels at the expense of the common folk ... we have heard of the "trickle down" theory ... that is what we have on earth ... also known as the "sh#t rolls down hill" concept (and truth).
Our earth world leaders for the most part are taking advantage of the bulk of the world, earth and people, not to mention other life forms. We are being lied to all of the time, we are fed fear every day then promised protection by the same interests that scare the hell out of us in the first place, secular and religious. That comes from most all of the corrupted institutions that prey on those that they can get to conform to their rules ...
Those are things that I have come to know relatively subjectively, Spiritually !!! There are no written FACTs that cannot be refuted ... because there is nothing subjective that can have any value for a society that has the objective as it's primary standard.
Yet in the realm (world way) of objectivity, there can be two valid viewpoints on everything, because the two people contesting such, will have two different perceptions ... that is the God given natural order ... thus there can be facts made up and written down to support both ... then (as happens on Gather threads all of the time) the two "sides" can argue and debate to their hearts content where each uses "their" facts and calls the facts of the other false.
The more spiritual of us, very validly (from our subjective [intuitive] perspective), use what we believe is some wisdom granted from God ... rather than worldly "facts" (which cancel each other out anyway). Such wisdom always looks deeper into the essence of meanings and intentions of everything ... presenting often a much different picture of what is going on, the truth over the counterfeit becomes apparent with spiritual wisdom.
In completion, much information is written that may be of the very highest truth at times, which just cannot be "sourced" to anything "objective" that would satisfy objective people ... but that does in no way mean that it is of no use for people ... I am in no way claiming that all things subjective are to be believed and trusted ... but in the same way, not all should be rejected based just on objective standards ...
It is so easy, for say the Right, to take everything that is from another perspective and just label it the evil Left and reject it as you badmouth it ... that would be what is called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" ... Not everything NEEDs a Name source to have merit.
Please think about this, there is much to be learned in the intended message ... Peace SHOULD be everyone's goal.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 78
Anything to assist all of us in mastering the practice of "Love God in All Things / Love thy Neighbor as thy GodSelf / Love thine Enemy as thy Neighbor GodSelf."
It is frustrating coming across those who will say "PROVE the Bush is a liar," or "PROVE that Bush has violated the Rule of Law." To me, the evidence is nowhere in particular and yet everywhere all at once. It takes only the willingness to allow open perception, to not allow one's perception and intuitions about those perceptions to be stifled by preconceived notions and prejudices.
Not being from the right or left.
I would vote for you instead any day of the week.
Some people who are interested in voicing their opinions on politics are interested in blame.
It sure would make it easier if certain things could be blamed on just one person.
But, what would that solve.
Excellent topic
I diverge rather sharply with a few points of the article but do agree with some of the major thrusts presented. What causes me some concern, is the apparent division of this objectivity/subjectivity stuff, along ideological lines. For I can see quite clearly that what you wrote here;
"Now this is the gist of all of that ... we live in a very materialistic realm, here the most important things are those objective physical things that give us a relationship via our 5 physical senses ... nothing else, such as the subjective ideas and emotions, matter near as much as what we can more easily relate to objectively"
. . is simply not true. The "subjective" (a term I find somewhat improperly used here), is presented to people as extremely important, on all sorts of levels, and woven into all sorts of beliefs and understandings. from the first. We as a society simply do not place a great emphysis on the outward senses when we are being ideological. We generally can't even see the subjects of our bias at all. It is within, that we watch the rationalizations and biased programmed thinking unfold.
We are talking about people NOT being "objective". NOT doubting the validity of their emotional responses to the things which they themselves project, of others. But rather, treating what they see in their own mind, AS IF it was "objective", and seperate from them. The problem has nothing to do with the actual "5 senses", just treating the imagined as though it was pretty much what they would see, if they could, in reality.
Joy, you also have the recommended perception ... our "problem" so often comes from the fact that so many on the Right (it seems to me based upon Gather experience) always equate all that are even slightly to "their" Left, as Far-Out Loony Lefty Kooks ... even we "centrists" are bunched all together as one or the other of the dualities they see everything as.
John, I am really not able to follow what you are saying as well as I would prefer. I am sure that from your perspective, what you are saying is right and correct ... I am just not sure what that perspective is. A case where it seems that I cannot "trust" my own subjective mind ... because you do not seem to be using the same language as I. (subjective/objective)
For clarification and ease of communication, I will have to mention how I have come to this sort-of "dualistic" analysis of differentiations, done dualistically because most people still think "that" way, IMnsHO. I realize that there is a vast range of different ways to think about and see things, even the opinions we have of people.
But when discussing people, thoughts and "things", we often have to "categorize" them in order to portray the understanding we have of them as compared to the same understanding held differently for "others" ... it is always so much easier to "see" what is meant IF the two MOST contrasting dichotomies are used. That of course does not mean that the real truth is not really somewhere withIN the gray areas in-between.
Thus I usually differentiate between the "things" sensed by the 5 (what I call the objective physical) senses, which are thought of as mostly involving our OUTER physical Universe, or at least our relationship to it, where it IS, versus where we are. These being concepts involving how most objective people relate to themselves (ego) and all other people and things (outside of themselves). The physical "reality" of most people involves ... OBJECTIVITY ... and a word often used to denote things (objective) that are "common" to such like thinkers.
The SUBJECTIVE then, as I tend to use the word, is that which is believed to be withIN each of us, things that we cannot really "put a finger on" and "show" as hard evidence to others, our thoughts primarily ... and of course most things involving how we "think" that we relate to God and/or Spirit.
I say these things because so often I run across people that claim or place their higher value on objectivity as they reject subjectivity as being so much "less" important to them. Yet in my case, because of subjective experiences around my Spirituality, I put my preferences on my understanding of what came first, Spirit or man, and where I go next, after this life, to nothing or a Spiritual experience. So I believe in my subjective INtuition, thinking it to be much more related to the subjective things of INside of myself, which were (spiritual) before life here and will continue to be after life here ... the now still small voice of God ... that being most important and to be the "final word" (thought) in determining where, how and which, or why, of what has highest priority (in my mind) as compared to objective and/or subjective considerations involving other(s).
I somehow doubt that I made anything more clear here ... ?
The thing I'm pointing at, is revealed when you go from these;
"which are thought of as mostly involving our OUTER physical universe"
"These being concepts involving how most objective people relate to ..."
. . . which are about thoughts and concepts, things of the inner; To this;
"The physical "reality" of most people involves ... OBJECTIVITY"
It does not follow. you are saying that because an image looks like something one could see with the eyes, it is of the objective (as you define it) outer world, but it is just an image, like any other subjective (as you define it) inner world thing. It is like a picture of an ocean, which is not wet, or deep, like the actual ocean. It has more in common with a picture of a cartoon character than it does with a real ocean. It's only because it makes us react with memories of oceans we have seen, which causes us to identify it that way. It's still paper and ink.
So what I'm saying is, you are not realizing that it is not a problem with the "objective" reality we are discussing, but with the inner "subjective" realms. It doesn't matter what the memories are based on, they are still a form of imagination in all realities. That a person BELIEVES they are "outer" does not matter, they are truly "inner" things. If they base their actions on them, they are basing their actions on the "subjective" reality within.
This is what gives rise to the saying; The idea, is not the thing. One can talk to, and see, and touch, a person; but they can only THINK about the idea of a person. That idea, is part of themself, not the "outer".
That is why it is so much easier to call for the bombing of a "them", an idea of people, than to actually kill real people we can see, and touch. The real thing impacts us in a vastly more profound way.
Not all are willing or able to transcend that divide that has so expertly been crafted out of years and years and years of one-sided political propaganda. Hell, 40% of republicans still think Iraq caused 9/11! We shouldn't be the least bit surprised that a chunk of them will forever hate all things left of center, whatever that happens to be these days.
Their propagandists have made them into masters at suspending reality and fostering divisiveness.
You're one incredibly enlightened man, Jerry, as is Mr. Knight here. I'm humbled to be in the presence of such brilliant, open minds.
As for those on the Right that we often deal with here, I think we are also in agreement. I just read an e-mail posting I get from the People For the American Way foundation that says the Radical Right in last year alone has funneled over 50 million dollars into their goal of indoctrinating young people (I assume college groups) into their way of thinking ... that to me is a rather ominous sign of what the future may hold for this world because of the "power" of money combined with the ideology of those that have it.
John, I will put on my thinking cap and see about addressing your comment next ...
Your last two paragraphs in the recent comment seem to point to that which we most certainly do agree upon. Let me point out my thoughts (which are subjective) on that.
First, let me say that I see ALL thinking as "subjective" and the PHYSICAL ACTIONS that come from, or happen, related to such thinking are THEN OBJECTIVE ramifications of the earlier subjective thoughts ...
That means to me that the thoughts come first, result in INTENTION (or sometimes preprogrammed natural reactions) which when ACTED UPON become OBJECTIVE ...
Now some might put all of this "conjecture" into the category of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" ... and maybe it is ?
But the overall point that I am attempting to make, is related to the saying that, "The Pen is mightier than the Sword", which translates to the idea that it is "The Thought that Counts" ... meaning to me that Subjectivity (thought) IS the ESSENCE of objectivity.
Be that thought coming from the ego perception, then translated into any kind of action (either subjective or objective) towards another. OR ... that thought coming from a more transcendent "spiritual" perception, then also later translated the same as above.
Now let me attempt to tie all of that into your concerns ... as I see it, it is the ego perception that "feels disconnected" from other(s) because the ego sees itself as a stand-alone physical unit, that which can think itself making "good" decisions related to itself which are in fact "selfish" in nature ... self centered !
In contrast to the above, is the person that actually believes themselves Spiritually INterconnected to everything else, especially all other people and THAT connection being involved with the love of God for all. Such a person would tend to have much more compassion for other(s), much more concern, more of a 'connected' personal relationship to other(s) ... even the thoughts in their mind would be much more benevolent to other(s). THIS would be what I would call a SUBJECTIVE matter ...
Subjective because it was/is INclusive ... related to that which is rather unspecified from withIN, INtuitive ... as opposed to the more physical related ego concept about all things more EXclusively OUTside of that singular disconnected ego being, who may be content to be selfish ... probably because s/he feels INsecure, vulnerable and weak in front of a powerful world that "could" easily destroy that person/self/body ... FEAR of that OUTside and ALLaround will often (usually) cause a completely opposite thought process and resulting action(s)/interaction(s) from people.
Please bear in mind here John that I am speaking about dualistic differences here so that there is enough CONTRAST to make it possible to "see" (in thought) the essential differences involved between the two BASICally different ways of thinking ... the one way being subjective and the other being objective. All the while realizing that in real life there is a vast intermixing of all of these traits within the all of the people ... BUT easier to understand when ANALYSED based upon the DIFFERENCES as I am attempting to break down and isolate concepts for that purpose into generalities.
I will close on this for now and await your response to see if we are making any headway in understanding each other (whether we agree or not is not as important as our understanding of the truth(s) that we make those decisions upon) IMnsHO.
Perhaps we edge ever closer to the "common ground" you often refer to, it certainly is to be hoped. What seems to me to be happening, is that there comes a point at which you "leave" the careful observation of what is real within, and begin relating to what you have "concluded", or imagined, based on the real you have witnessed. What I am suggesting is to stay with the actual, that which can be observed which is not born of the imagination, further in the inquiry.
To grasp better what I have tried to point out, consider what you have observed; Some person speaks of some "others" as though they could see and know them through their minds eye. And you sense that they are not seeing a "realistic" representation of those "others" they speak of, but just things they imagine to be true, perhaps based on what they have heard, on the ideas provoked by the words of others. You sense they cannot deal "realistically" with the world through such imaginings, for they are just imaginings, and not like the real humans they believe they are thinking about. This we can all understand and relate to.
But it is what we do next that can give rise to our misunderstanding, what we ourselves do next. If one thinks; "Oh, that person is fooled by their images and concepts into thinking they understand the reality of the world, apart from themselves, because they don't realize those images are just something they think, something they imagine to be true, while I, on the other hand have more realistic thoughts and images, which CAN be trusted and utilized to understand the real". . . then one has fooled oneself. For our thoughts and images are not "reality" either. We too are looking at the world through our own imaginations, at that moment. We too, are not seeing the actual world.
If instead of comparing our thoughts and ideas about those "others", to the thoughts and ideas we hear in what that first person says, we do something entirely different, we can see what is truly happening within us; We are seeing that people can be fooled into thinking they are observing the real, when in fact they are observing their own imagination. That's what we saw. That's what we actually observed of the world.
Why would one wish to turn right around and do the very thing we have seen is not right? Why would we wish to begin indulging in that very same behaviour which we just saw is NOT a means of apprehending the real world? What has led us to believe such would be useful, or "good"? Is it possible to simply stay with what we observed, and NOT attempt to do this treacherous thing ourselves, without the same unrealistic results?
Yes, it is possible, I say. It is possible to refrain from believing in that process we just saw is untrustworthy, and leads to self deception.
Also because you did not address anything I said in the earlier comment, I have no way of knowing IF we are understanding each other any better or not.
So overall it seems that you are saying that only the original objectivity is trustworthy because any "later" consideration away from that is but a fabrication in the mind using our untrustworthy imaginations ... which as much as seems to say that we cannot at all be sure enough to even discuss things afterwards because of the untrustworthiness
that may be involved ... ?
Take you and I, along with most people here on Gather, miles away from each other and still communicating as best as we can even though we have never met objectively ... it is all thus subjective relationships ... it is all we have, and we try to make the best of it by thinking positive when we can, not fearing the untrustworthy aspects of the non-objective. What else is there in "these" situations ?
But on the outside chance (probable) that I am the one being criticised here, based upon past discussions, I must say in self defense, that I have did the best that I could with the available information at my disposal. If I make "assumptions" about others, I try to state them in a way that I can be corrected if necessary, but stating them is my way of explaining how and why I write the words that I do in response to others ... if I did not attempt to so state/explain my thinking as connected to my response, then it would take an awful lot of separate words being exchanged over a much greater time period to come to know anything ... it seems to me.
You suggest that all imagination is untrustworthy, and that "can" be a valid fact, but it is no reason to not do our best at trying to use it to further our conversations, allowing for "corrections" IF we have "guessed" wrong.
Between the separated ego ideas of the mind about the thoughts of others, there may well be a lot of room for error and thus less reason to trust such thinking.
But it is my contention that minds are ephemerally interconnected spiritually, and one that is trusting their spiritual intuition to help them understand others on "that" level, have a much greater chance of being "in tune" rather than mistaken.
By the same token, one that has actually experienced the subjective spiritual mind of God to the degree they no longer have any doubts whatsoever about the reality of it, they have experienced the epitome of subjectivity and feel that such is to be used in their search for truth in this world.
Thus the use of such "gifts" are seen in a more positive light and felt to be trustworthy to a greater degree than unexperienced wishful thinking or mere conjecture.
I attempt to use those possible abilities but still leave myself open for corrections IF I get it wrong, my tries are done in good faith because I am always attempting to relate to the more spiritual aspect of everything. I trust it far more than I fear it ...
But, other than that, I know not what else to say at the moment. Thanks for the effort to better understand.
Well first, what I said there has nothing in particular to do with you, other than the fact that I believe you would do well to enter into a deep inquiry into what it portends.
Further, nothing I am saying here, or anywhere in general, is an indictment of serious attempts to understand reality. That is the function of all intelligence, and can never be a "bad" thing of any sort. It is in fact THE "good" thing, in my opinion. What I am advocating here, is the recognition that there are aspects to attempting to incorporate what one imagines to be true, AS IF truth itself, which will torpedo any real inquiry pronto.
It is, I am very convinced, the tendency to set certain things one imagines aside, from our normal propensity to resist seeing the imagined as if real, in such attempts to find the truth, which constitutes a form of self deception.
Every person has things they would LIKE to be true, and some of those things have an air of sacredness about them. If one uses the fact that they have said words to that effect about some idea, or ideology they built with ideas, to place such matters off limits to their own critical examination; They have given themselves a way to avoid looking carefully at those ideas, and any errors will most likely be overlooked indefinitely. This has not gone unnoticed by the average person, and many simply say that something they wish to be so, is a sacred truth to them. They even expect others to avoid questioning the conclusions they draw based in those "truths", on the grounds that it is immoral to question someones "faith". This is a recipe for an intransigent world of habitually self righteous people, each asserting as unquestionable, their own self formulated "universal" truths.
I propose that nothing whatsoever a person imagines is anything but imagination, and that alone cannot be rationally accepted as truth itself. That does not mean it cannot be useful, for surely such things are very useful in investigating our circumstance here in life. But, it does mean one ought not cordon off things based on how precious they are to the believer, and so force intelligence to look away from everything which comes into it's awareness which is relatable to those cherished ideas, and instead be repeatedly subjected to the pre-formulated spiel of the self instead.
Declaring one has a higher self, which justifies this behaviour, is just another formulation, and whether that "package" seen as emanating from that higher self bares a resemblance to some universal truth or not, one is still treating what one believes to be true, as if truth itself. If everyone took up this way of enshrining what they very much hoped was true, the egos would rule the world sure. I am fairly certain that is precisely what has gone wrong with our species.
What you call a higher self, another calls core values, or God's way, or common knowledge, or heartfelt feelings, or spiritual insights . . .
We need to drop the self protection crap, and look with unflinching eyes at all we can see, all we can imagine, all we can understand. Those unflinching eyes, are the eyes of the humble human being. Says I.
I believe that I have had spiritual experiences which are "beyond" the group listed by you at the end of your comment. Of course such is primarily subjective, so one can never be sure of what another has experienced, but by their fruit they shall be known, and other than that, it is a personal matter between the person and their God, that having highest priority.
When I equate subjective and objective concerns I try to explain the relationship of my intended meanings. When I speak of truth, Truth and TRUTH, I usually try and explain the relative relationships knowing that relative truth is subjective and personal for differing people and their experiences of it. I reserve "absolute truth" to being withIN and concerned with God which we cannot know the fullness of.
I will still claim that my concept of Universal Truth is applicable to the world view of what I call the BET, the Basic Equation of Truth as (+=-) ... until God tells me different, I will stick with that ... unless someone can show me where it is wrong, and they believe their version as much as I believe mine, they should refrain from attempting to do so.
So IF you are suggesting (and it sure seems you are) that I should have more humility about what I believe, and begin to doubt it enough to revert back to the level of where I was prior to my spiritual enlightenment, just to be, or appear, more like everyone else that are still "normal" and objective oriented ... no thanks, I will pass. Been there-done that. IMnsHO. :-)>:-( (+=-)>(+/-)
And I like your "greater than" smile.
This is the part I see glowing like a lamp;
but it really does not matter, because I am quite firm in my own convictions
That's the truth. That's the problem.
I am speaking, we are speaking, of some of the most fundamental, and important things in any human beings life. It is difficult.
Because what you yourself are asking people to do, as regards your spirituality concepts etc., is to drop their preconceptions about that entire realm of experience, and invest their minds and "hearts" into your concepts. But you yourself, are in a state of being, where that "freeing" of the mind does not come easily.
If you think that over, you will find some rather discouraging aspects. But if you simply reload for self defense, you probably will not.
It's not that I want you to find the false, it's that I want you to be free to look without bias at yourself. The simplicity of humility.
When "normal" people say things like this;
but it really does not matter, because I am quite firm in my own convictions
. . . I hear them saying they don't care where the conversation goes, they have no intention of allowing themselves to be moved in any way on the matter. They are not the words of a free being.
You tell me you are "different", and that difference will set people free.
Something is wrong with this picture.
It's a good day to be me! I hope it's a good day to be you, too. Maybe the timing is right for another shot at walking between you and John? Or should I say between a rock and a hard place???
Going back a ways, I agree with John in this:
"What causes me some concern, is the apparent division of this objectivity/subjectivity stuff, along ideological lines." (John Knight)
What you have identified as "the right" and "the left" are as you said, subjective things, and mostly derived from the minds of those who identify themselves with one or the other and thereby identify their political enemy. Ironically, both are straw men. Therefore, neither is naturally better than the other, and both become "I/It" as opposed to "I=Thou" relationships. (Buber, paraphrased)
If your "Basic Equation of Truth" is correct, doesn't it apply to "the objective" and "the subjective"? I think it does, and I have often wondered why you would apparently abandon that principle relative to this subject. I agree with the gist of your article, of course, as long as it is applied both ways. Those who identify themselves as our right and left both advocate authoritarian principles of governance, and that places modern American politics firmly on "the right" relative to political history. I'd say that our American state has become so pervasive that it's blinding! It is typical for the "haves" of this world to become politically conservative, though. Never mind where that path naturally leads, eh? I believe Franklin was correct that those who choose to sacrifice liberty for security will end up with neither.
It is my experience that understanding is augmented when "the objective" and "the subjective" work in concert. In essence, intellect fired by interaction and tempered with Spirit. I understand the importance of seeking answers from within and often find them there. However, I don't think I see the fullness of those answers until interaction with the world is realized. How can you honor the creator, if you are devaluing objective creation? Of course, it has been objectively determined that it is an illusion that a rock is solid....
~~~~~~~~~
She keeps her Moet et Chandon in a pretty cabinet
"Let them eat cake." she says just like Marie Antoinette
A built-in remedy for Kruschev and Kennedy
At anytime an invitation you can't decline
Caviar and cigarettes,
Well-versed in etiquette,
Extr'ordinarily nice,
She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, gelatine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind (anytime)
Ooh, recommended at the price
Insatiable in appetite (Wanna try?)... (Queen)
~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm... that tune brings my wife to mind... (smile)
I still say that you and John mostly argue over your similarities. That's my perception, for what it's worth. I've responded to a subjective call I FELT, just as I did when we first met. It remains to be seen whether I have done good or ill, though. The way of KNOWING will be in the subjective interpretation of the objective result, eh? I think that figurative babies and bath water exist in both "the objective" and "the subjective" conceptual realms. Although, it seems likely to me that actual babies exist based on the realities of this world. Can unrealized potential exist without time?
But as for the bulk of your comment, in a once through read (so far) I would have to say that I agree with everything you have said, very wise your thoughts !
In defense of what may "seem" like an abandonment of my "balance" (=) of (+=-), I would prefer to think that when I express "Dualistically" as I often do, IT IS 'my' attempt to get people to look closer at just what might be INvolved, to FIRST look at where they stand, to SECOND look closely at where the other stands ... and to hopefully realize a compromise somewhere closer to the center, the middle or balance point overall. (+=-).
BUT ... I will have to admit that I myself probably have some BIASs ... but I very well could say, and I do say, "Do as I say, not as I do", BUT even THEN, I mean the very ESSENCE of IT ... not necessarily the shallow understanding ... because IN ESSENCE we have PERFECT FREEDOM to do whatever we want ... KNOWING that what goes around comes around ... so what one does MUST be taken into consideration of the effects of that "Karma" accounting. IF one is willing to get back what they put out with God being the judge, then that gives a lot of freedom ... as well as RESPONSIBILITY !
I prefer to think that I do adhere to my concepts and do not "overly" abuse it ... yet I may when I speak the way I do about the Right VS Left "divide" in this country ... but "that" is based upon what I see here on Gather (where I am commenting/posting) where I see a relatively few on the Right (possibly FAR Right ?) who always seem to "echo" what I have read/heard and seen "their" pundits (mostly on FOX TV)(and similar radio talk shows, along with many books put out by Radical Right Think Tanks) proposing all of the time ... and I honestly believe that the most hatreds and nastiness is that GENERATED from the Right ... and the Left is more of a RESPONSE ... Cause and Effect. I see the Right always attempting to DICTATE the playing field parameters ... they constantly strive to always keep moving the goal line closer to where they are playing, to cut down the field to the side and size that most suits "their" aims and goals ... of course I may be wrong about that, but that is the way I see it coming down ... and I also feel that I must comment on the truth as I see it ... just because I am me being me ... I never attempt to get people to be like me, only to realize where "they" stand, and the TRUTH of (+=-) and their freedom to operate withIN that framework ... which has no bounds nor limits, including ALL potential(S) (+AND-).
Now I will don the ole' thinkin' cap and see about a reply to John (that often takes more time for me). Thanks again for "jumping in", you are always welcome. And it is always nice to know that others are reading what we write.
Thus when I cast the Radical Right more on what "I" would call the Evil (especially when "that" side so often self identifies with Good) side, one might consider it more of an attempt at leveling the playing field ...
But the point being, we can use the very same equation to show the relationship between God (+) and Man (-) with the Holy Spirit being the (=) ... all together (+=-) !!!
Would we not all agree that the idea of God "just might be: BETTER than a man ? (at least at this point in time) ?
The alternatives are Duality without Spirit where there will always be conflict and division with polarization (+/-).
Rosa, thanks for chiming in ! I completely agree with you also ! Ever since achieving my "freedom", I know that what normally scares so many people, death, no longer involves any fear ... that is freedom of a very important kind.
Jerry,
Because what you yourself are asking people to do, as regards your spirituality concepts etc., is to drop their preconceptions about that entire realm of experience, and invest their minds and "hearts" into your concepts. But you yourself, are in a state of being, where that "freeing" of the mind does not come easily.
<< I say, John, you see that somewhat differently than I do. I ask people to CONSIDER where they are VS the possibility of a "better" truth for them based upon (+=-) … It was from THAT position of open neutrality and seeking of highest Truth that I received God via God's Spirit … That is where I WAS … I am now FREE to move around withIN that realm of (+=-) KNOWING how it works … thus I have the freedom that sets me free (one of the beauties of it) to do what I think best as long as my intentions are of the highest order … and I prefer to think that they are.>>
If you think that over, you will find some rather discouraging aspects. But if you simply reload for self defense, you probably will not.
<< I say: I am always thinking about the truth of (+=-) and where I stand withIN it, I even dream about it nights. If you cannot see the truth of what I say, it could be just a misunderstanding on your part. That is not unusual and there is no shame in it. >>
It's not that I want you to find the false, it's that I want you to be free to look without bias at yourself. The simplicity of humility.
<< I say: I believe that I see myself quite clearly, it is all about my belief and within (+=-). I have information that God (my 'version' anyway) asked me to share ("Tell Others") with others, that is what I have been attempting to do ever since. I have the required "humility" (actually 'none' is required), but I will have nothing to do with FALSE humility for the sake pretension and/or show. I am what I am, and God allows (and encourages) that truth.>>
When "normal" people say things like this;
but it really does not matter, because I am quite firm in my own convictions
. . . I hear them saying they don't care where the conversation goes, they have no intention of allowing themselves to be moved in any way on the matter. They are not the words of a free being.
<< I say: John, THAT is "your" interpretation, you are allowed that, it is not mine. I will always allow, in fact I actively seek, higher Truth. But when I already have that to my satisfaction, I would be extremely foolish to allow someone who does not have it talk me out of it … not likely to happen. From that experience I have gained much wisdom that better allows me to see such truths and their opposites. >>
You tell me you are "different", and that difference will set people free.
Something is wrong with this picture.
<< I say: The only thing WRONG with the picture I present is your vision of it John, you just fight all the way the understanding of it … it seems you are always looking to find something to criticize … and with THAT your goal, you will always come up with something.
I have no problem personally with people that reject any aspect of it. As I have said before, I only have a problem when they mis-state what I say or think. I keep on communicating with you on these issues for two primary reasons, one is that I would like you to someday really understand what it is that I am attempting to teach … the other is that I want to reach the widest possible audience available with what I call the transcendent truth of the BET (+=-) hopefully to replace Dualism as (+/-) in the minds of those interested in the subject … I believe that many people that read you and I are so interested. >>
"you just fight all the way the understanding of it"
How could you POSSIBLY know that? The fact that I don't accept your ideas, does NOT mean I don't understand them, or resist them in any way. The fact that you believe that it must be so, demonstrates clearly that you don't actually believe your own doctrine.
You do NOT accept that others are capable of perceiving reality which does not conform to your particular conclusions about it. You negate your own declarations about "to each his own", and "we create our own reality", and so forth, in the very instant that you speak of what you believe as if ultimate truth. If your doctrine is correct, your reaction to all who do not agree with you is in violation of that doctrine.
The FACT that you cling to a particular, self generated, highly speculative view of the entire universe, is proof positive that you do NOT believe in a "relative" universe defined by what people believe, but an absolute universe, defined by what YOU believe.
Endless rationalizing about that will change nothing, for it is just more of what YOU imagine to be reality, which you rigidly maintain is the ultimate reality. It's not, it's just what one person thinks is reality, at this point in time. That person happens to be you, and you happen to see yourself as special. Big deal. It's called "zealotry", and you are a religious zealot, that worships their own imagination. So what else is new?
I fully stand by my own words and their meanings both here and in my own Book ... I trust that intelligent and honorable people will read them and understand ...
In the entire time (roughly 18 months now) that I have been on Gather and promoting the free downloads of my book, there has not been one other person in all of that time that has been as you have been. You do things via words that are very evident to all that would be following at all close, then you blatantly deny it and make different claims, usually suggesting that I have a complex about things being personal etc etc ...
I really at this point do not know how I put up with you this long. There have been so many times I have been ready to call it quits and bow out ... and then you become more polite and express interest in continuing ... or writing an article of your own that relates directly to "our" differences about these issues, of course never overtly giving a clue that is what is going on, all covertly done ... and as I would expect based upon past experience, you will deny the 'connections'.
But as I always DO say and mean, to each their own ... ENJOY your games, I tire of playing.
Another fine avoidance of the central issue. You simply refuse to believe you are a human being like six billion others. So be it.
I see you John consistently doing that very same thing to me in these discussions ... people do that as way of denying what they do not want to admit applies to themselves, they seem to think that they can rid themselves of such faults simply be insisting that they better fit someone else ... wake up and at least be honest with yourself John ... in the name of "your" God yet ...
And for any others that have, or may come late to these discussions between John and I, they (the discussions/debates/ arguments what have you) have usually been played out across at least two (often more) differing threads simultaneously ... so what is read on one thread alone, will make "some" sense, but one really needs to be reading all of them to REALLY know what is going on. So do not judge too harshly ... if at all. :-)
There's a very simple way to determine if what I said in that last paragraph you react so strongly to is true or not;
Drop the specialized "words", drop the preconceived concepts and images you keep re-introducing into your thoughts and words, and see what happens. If what you believe is true, what difference does it make what you happen to be thinking at a given moment? Will not your "Godly" status remain, whatever you think?
Your extreme hesitation to do that un-"self-indoctrinating", is all the evidence a rational person needs to see you are doubtful.
I do not cling desperately to any ideas or images at all. That's precisely how I confirm whatever may be true outside my imagination. If I keep filling my awareness with such thoughts and images, I can't even SEE the real world, I just keep seeing precisely what I stuck in front of myself a moment before.
There can NEVER be self based confirmation of God. That is simply the obvious fact. If what we believe in is a real God, He don't need us to keep Him in the drivers seat. He don't need us to agree to His existence.
When I put my God down, He just takes me back in His arms. I NEVER worry anymore, for I have SO many times just let doubt have it's way, take it's best shot. I sure don't want to worship a being that has no hands.
I just can't get into that whole "punishment/reward" kinda God stuff. Seems so "primitive" and unloving. Almost cruel.
<font size="2">Free Comments & Graphics</font>
How so?
What you describe seems somewhat "brutal" from my perspective, and I mentioned that. Why would you wish me to stifle a thought I felt might lead you to understand my perspective better?
" "eventually, when it hurts enough, they will re-evaluate and learn"
I just can't get into that whole "punishment/reward" kinda God stuff. Seems so "primitive" and unloving. Almost cruel. "
AND:
"What you describe seems somewhat "brutal" from my perspective, and I mentioned that. Why would you wish me to stifle a thought I felt might lead you to understand my perspective better? "
So, John, the problem between us is, I believe, that I DO understand your perspective, I just do not agree with it, having already earlier had such perspectives more like yours myself, I now have another, which can only be understood in comparison when one has actually experienced both ... you evidently have yet to experience mine and that is why you cannot understand it, and that is why you will never accept it until you do.
As for what you call "brutality", I fail to see how a learning process that teaches man that what goes around comes around and then gives him multiple lifetimes to learn it by experience ... is "more" brutal than giving him but a single lifetime to get everything "right" to keep from being assigned FOREVER to an eternal HELL. ???
Gonna give it one more shot . . . cause we're here anyway. What I've been trying to point out is caught very well in this section;
"So, John, the problem between us is, I believe, that I DO understand your perspective, I just do not agree with it, having already earlier had such perspectives more like yours myself, I now have another, which can only be understood in comparison when one has actually experienced both ..."
You can't have POSSIBLY experienced my perspective, and can't POSSIBLY be comparing your perspective to mine. THAT'S the illusion I'm trying to explain. It's not rocket science, but a simple, humble fact; We each experience ONLY our own perspective, never another's.
Yes?
Well of course I want to get specific, look at your article; it's all about that very thing. I am not "off topic" or dealing in some obscure technicality, but the fundamental nature of the reality we all are confronted with.
I'm not saying we oughtn't attempt to comprehend others, that would be ridiculous, obviously. What I'm saying is we ought not assume what we imagine of others is the truth. AND, what we assume of ourselves is also not the truth, for that too is a projection by what you call the "subjective". ALL that we imagine is a projection, not a "reality". That's what imagination IS; a projection.
If it is true, which it clearly is, that we are not actually seeing the perspective of others when we attempt to understand them, then if we believe and act as if we are, it is not the "objective" sensory sort of "reality" you speak of which is throwing out the "subjective" baby, but just the opposite; The "subjective" is projecting what it erroneously believes is the "objective", and then "subjectively" passing judgment on other beings. We are then "playing God". THAT'S the real "problem" we face in this world; TOO MUCH "subjectivity" . . . in my humble opinion.
Of the two arrangements mentioned, I get a strong "impression" (IMnsHO) that I deal in the first and you deal in the latter. That is what I have been saying all along. The difference being a matter of where the priority is, first word or last word.
You call imagination a "projection", I assume that you mean it is "created" in our own personal mind as a "picture" which we then either trust or not, you seem to not trust most of the time, and I myself probably have much more confidence in mine and thus trust it more.
But IF I am correct in my assessment so far, it may just prove what I have been saying is the difference between us. In an attempt to not make this subject unwieldy, I will end here for now.
(I think you can see that your specialized use of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective', have run into a rather major snag. Their original meanings are also "off limits" now, as well, so I suggest we try some different terminology if at all possible)
I believe we are speaking of similar things now. Perhaps a comparison of how I might describe what I think you're speaking of, would clarify further. I would say that I approach the "projection", with an awareness that it is born of my mind. If I am in error, my thinking will be in error, so to me it is unnecessary, and bias intensifying, to approve of my own conceptions. They are useful for exploring possibilities, and often result in understanding most excellent, but are not themselves the understanding. They are part of gaining understanding.
I have no idea even how I could approximate a ratio of the sort you propose. Thought, and observation of thought, occur so fast and so intricately, that I could not possibly both reason, and keep track of each moment of everything going on, in terms of the simultaneously imagined duality of acceptance/rejection. I do not believe such a thing is remotely possible or of any benifit whatsoever if possible. I do not keep a running self assessment of my "trust" factor while I reason. I just get into the reasoning itself.
It seems kinda obvious to me that everyone always agrees with their own opinion, so clearly there is nothing of use in checking for that.
In what you have said above and before, I get a strong impression that our two concepts of the "mind" are different, and "that" would also account for our disagreements.
I agree fully that what you mentioned above is not really possible, the accounting for "each" thought as to it's singular validity as the mind seems to work so fast. But ... if one believes the "mind" is only "self" generated or limited only to the "self", then they have what I call an "ego" based process to thinking where the personal ego sees itself doing the entire process of decision making that ends up in the final result, yay or nay and then the action (if any). To me that is what I call objectivity, what most of society values the most, that which is called "normal" ... I believe myself to no longer be "normal" in that sense. (and I am well aware that most "normal" people would consider my thinking as very much "less objective" than theirs, preferring their own).
The difference being that I see the "mind" as an ephemeral "activity" that has also an "ephemeral" energy, all more "disconnected" from us, rather than being contained withIN us and limited to only the individual. That "could" be said to enter the range of the "paranormal" ... and it does ... though I usually reject the average paranormal thinking because so many people have fantasies about such and I do not.
With me, the Mind is the Mind of God communicated to us on the Spiritual "frequency" received via our 6th sense which I relate to our INtuition ... of course "that" is not something readily differentiated from the INtermixed (outside sources) mind(s) of our fellow humans which have relationships also to that overall, because we are ALL interconnected "that" way due to our being "parts" of the ONE GOD in the UNIVERSAL sense, the actual SUBJECTIVE UNITY that truly does exist IMnsHO.
Thus my priority in all thinking is INtuition ... that being the FINAL decision maker in all situations ... because when physical objectivity "seems" OBVIOUS and thus REAL to most folks, I might be more of a SOLIPSIST (based only on "my" dictionary) ... requiring the caveat that I differentiate the "self" of ego with the "Self" of what I call my higher Self ... my Spiritual Aspect associated with God's Mind (INcluding the mass mind) INvolved with the INtuition (mine primarily and secondarily with that of others).
All a matter of how one sees the issues and their subsequent priorities ... and of course, to each their own. I hope this helps clarify my thinking.
"In what you have said above and before, I get a strong impression that our two concepts of the "mind" are different, and "that" would also account for our disagreements."
Here is the "split", I think, in what we are speaking of; You are speaking of the concepts of various things with their associated memories, and I am speaking of the things themselves. You are basing your thinking and words on a comparing and exploring of ideas about what is happening in an "idyllic" mind, like a theory; I am not speaking of that sort of thing, but rather what I can actually observe taking place within and around me.
It's like the difference between speaking of a third person, whom we are both aware of, wherein you do some figuring and extrapolating based on what is triggered in memory, and I go find the person, and observe what they say and do first. I may then do some conjuring, but it is grounded (if I can manage it), in what I have seen, which is not of me, my associative memory stream itself.
Hence, the tremendous importance you place on word meanings, and the reactions of thought and emotion which occur in response to your thoughts and images. In the classic meaning, actually, you are essentially being "objective", (relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind, as distinct from a thing in itself), and I am essentially being "subjective" (the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind). The particular words used are not all that important to me, because I am describing something I am observing, and various ways of describing it can be found. What I am describing is not dependent upon, or significantly altered by, the act of describing.
I have no lists of "good and bad" feelings, "right and wrong" viewpoints, which one might call "ideology". I am not interested in my reactions and "take" on various words or ideas, but in getting a good look at the real-time movements and relationships I can be aware of independently of my memory reactions, which are of the past. Those reactions are like rumors to me, and not to be taken as reasoning or truth. They are mechanical for the most part, and dependant on conditioned response, and the preferences and attachments I may have formed in the past.
The idea of 'love', is not love to me. The idea of anger is not anger. The idea of what I "ought" to think or feel, is not relevant, just what I do think and feel. If I have a feeling, I don't first define it, for in that moment of trying to define it, I am no longer able to feel it "as it really is", for all the associative thoughts and feelings swamp my awareness. Rather, I look at the feelings, and allow them to do as they do within the being. I let them exist, and watch what is revealed by and in response to them. For then they are of the whole of intelligence, and not just "used" to trigger or support various conjecture trains and theorizing sequences.
So I will simply say that I have done the best that I could at the time to portray my thinking in order for us to better communicate our highest truths ... when I give examples and comparisons about how we might agree or differ, I would expect that we would settle one already mentioned aspect before we go on to some "other" thing.
This was the second time I have attempted to get some understanding about what "you" think the mind is all about because to me that has become key to our understanding of what appears to be a difference between us.
Earlier you ruled out objective/subjective criteria and now you ignore the mind description ... then you go on to come up with "different" concepts for objective and subjective than those which I have used in accordance with a standard dictionary ...
I think I have run out of ideas at the moment based upon what we have exchanged so far ... If you feel that I am describing your ideas unfairly or incorrectly, I guess you could let me know how ... I believe that you are describing mine incorrectly based upon "my" uses of subjective and objective which are common and reasonable as far as I know.
But on the outside chance that we are going to continue this discussion, I would like to advise you that when I "think", I use ALL TOOLS available to me, every one of them, especially my memory, because that holds the lessons that I have learned throughout my entire lifetime, they are valuable to me. Imagination is not something that I consider the same as you seem to do, it also is a part of thinking that is useful, such as "picturing" the person that I am communicating with as a human being exchanging thoughts rather than just words on a computer screen disconnected from their source. It may not be accurate but it is better than nothing, being the best tool available ...
"I use ALL TOOLS available to me, every one of them, especially my memory, because that holds the lessons that I have learned throughout my entire lifetime"
If those lessons are not a part of your very nature, they are not the lessons you've learned. If the one who calls up memory is not wise, they cannot wisely call up memory. Wisdom is not in the memory, for that is made by the rememberer. If they believe something, it will appear to them as those things which give rise to that belief. If they hate something, hateful images will appear when they dream of that thing. However they feel or think of something, is how they will see that something when they remember it. We never see THE truth, we always see OUR truth.
To expand ours, we must go beyond what it already contains. This becomes more difficult if one is heavily invested in various thoughts and images. They will lead to endless triggering of reactive memory, and dominate thinking. It is the thing we call "close-minded". Perhaps you are not closed minded, but perhaps you are. But you can't tell through memory.
"Yet their method of philosophising is very convenient for those who have but middling minds, for the obscurity of the distinctions and principles which they employ enables them to speak of all things as boldly as if they had knowledge of them, and sustain all they have to say against the most subtle and skilful without there being any means of convincing them; wherein they seem to me like a blind man who, in order to fight on equal terms with a man who has his sight, invites him into the depths of a cavern."
We do not exist because we think. We think, thus we can know we exist. We can imagine our own existence. Therefor there must be an imaginer. The man was declaring it the ONLY thing we can truly be certain of. He was not advocating considering ourselves the product of thought or memory.
Consider your use of this as a part of reasoning;
"or I would think I was not"
How on earth could a being which did not exist, think it did not?
It is odd you would choose that maxim derived from Descartes' discourse.
<< I was well aware that certain "words" had been previously "arranged" by a certain Philosopher for a particular meaning that HE had in mind ... thus I used certain words arranged "my" way for a particular meaning that I had in mind. >>
"Yet their << their meaning those "others" from the writers perspective >>method of philosophising is very convenient for those << the "others" >>who have but middling minds, for the obscurity of the distinctions and principles which they employ enables them to speak of all things as boldly as if they had << meaning that they DO NOT have such knowledge>>knowledge of them, and sustain all they << those "middling" minds>>have to say against the most subtle and skilful << those who hold the highest truths which are spiritual>>without there being any means of convincing them<< because they (them) will not be swayed by the ignorant>>; wherein they<<the ignorant>> seem to me<<the knower of truth>> like a blind man<< the ignorant>> who, in order to fight on equal terms with a man<< the "knower">> who has his sight, invites him<<the knower>> into the depths of a cavern."
<< I know fully well just what "you" intended by the words so presented, BUT they CAN be taken in the way I arranged them equally well ... IMnsHO. >>
We do not exist because we think. We think, thus we can know we exist.
<< says "you" >><< "we" being key here as to whether one sees that as the physical "self/selves" OR as the Spiritual Essence (the Higher Self) which "I" believe we all really are, realized or not. >>
We can imagine<< but you have already said that imagination is not at all reliable>> our own existence. Therefor there must be an imaginer<<again, is that the self or the Self?>>. The man was declaring it<<the objective physical manifestation ... or the spiritual INner essence ?>> the ONLY thing<<objective or subjective ?>> we can truly be certain of. He<<is HE God or just a man ?>> was not advocating considering ourselves the product<<material or spiritual ?>> of thought or memory.
Consider your use of this as a part of reasoning;<<spiritual subjective reasoning or rational objective ?>>
"or I would think I was not"
How on earth could a being which did not exist, think it did not?<< because the Spiritual Essence of Man is Eternal, always thinking and experiencing, and if Godly enough, as a god, probably creating that which it thought.>>
<< SO, based upon the differing viewpoints, it again seems to become, suspicions confirmed. >>
If + = - ,
does (+=-) = (+/-) ?
The B.E.T. Basic Equation of Truth is (+=-) because Spirit is INclusive. TRINITY !
As you would guess, there is NO Spirit participation as an equalizer in (+/-) which is but the reduction of what has been taught to all of our children in secular schools as:
(+=+) and (-=-) which is divisive and subtractive and EXclusive. DUALITY !
Is (John's spiritual math=Jerry's spiritual math) ?
!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANKS ALL 'XSE