coconutree
Member
your BS synopsis 
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...yes?/no?...lol
- Thread starter southflorida
- Start date
Just because something is refered to in an old text doesn't make it so, or are you one of those people that take the bible literally? As for the definition of ego this is the one I was thinking of:
Merriam-Webster said:
http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego
there has been life on earth for 5 billion years, whilst humans have been around for 2 million - a mere blink of the eye in geological terms. how can we possibly be so conceited as to think it's all about what's going on in our heads?
it's all bloody real!
VG
it's all bloody real!
VG
...this is a very good distinction VG, and is what I'm pointing at, but
my primary distinction is what was there before earth was created
and what will be after the earth is no longer here, and what is in
between these two points
...and this is concsiousness/being/nothing/infinity
...this is why I love it when people like VG come into this thread and
drop a distinction that points at what is so difficult to describe with
words, but is possible to point toward with examples and analogies.
...by the way, a distinction simply is, it can't be true or false, it is
simply the difference between two or more things.
...a distinction does NOT tell you what something is, nothing can do
that, a distinction is what makes something different/distinct from
something else. This is why reality is distinction, and why everything
you perceive is different from something else.
...I'm paddling against cultural/societal programming, to get back
to the real source, the true nature of who and what I am. And
I'm doing this so that I can interact with my environment as it is,
instead of interacting with it through my programming, concepts,
opinions, beliefs, and assumptions.
...I want to interact with it as an honest-conceptual-self, and not
as a programmed robot, since I see a distinction between these
two states, I am using ruthless honesty as my main principle.
Check out this video, where this person explains what honesty is,
and why it is so imporant to be honest with ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChengHsin#p/u/12/CkJllCuPYBg
In 1978 he became the first non-Asian ever to win the World
Championship full-contact martial arts tournament held in the
Republic of China.
What he says is pretty much what I'm trying to do in my life, because
I have become deeply aware of my inauthenticity, and the fact that
I lived my life lying on a daily basis, to myself and to others.
...and this is the primary focus and discipline that I'm using to eliminate
all my false beliefs and assumptions that have been programmed
into me, and that I have additionally programmed into myself.
What is interesting is that in Western Society "enlightnment" and
grasping the essential nature of "being" is looked at as not something
really valuable or worthy, while in the east, instead, it is looked
at as something that is "possible" to achieve, and is respected and
practiced by many.
...the problem with enlightnment is that it is a direct personal
experience and can't be shared with another human being.
...this might be one of the reason it is not that popular in the west,
and one of the reason why enlightnment is not an easy thing to
actually achieve in one's lifetime.
...loneliness is not something that most people enjoy, and instead
something that most try to eliminate. But it is one of the components
of becoming enlightened.
...it is not entertainment, and probably one of the most serious
things a human being can achieve, because it requires to admit
that we don't know anything, and to become fully aware of our
programming, beliefs, and assumptions and how we live our lives
as conceptually false selves that are convinced that we know
a lot of things and are knowledgable, when in reality, if we look
a little deeper, we will see that we "know" nothing.
...we only believe or assume that we know, and there is a huge
difference (distinction) between knowing something and believing
and assuming that you know.
grasping the essential nature of "being" is looked at as not something
really valuable or worthy, while in the east, instead, it is looked
at as something that is "possible" to achieve, and is respected and
practiced by many.
...the problem with enlightnment is that it is a direct personal
experience and can't be shared with another human being.
...this might be one of the reason it is not that popular in the west,
and one of the reason why enlightnment is not an easy thing to
actually achieve in one's lifetime.
...loneliness is not something that most people enjoy, and instead
something that most try to eliminate. But it is one of the components
of becoming enlightened.
...it is not entertainment, and probably one of the most serious
things a human being can achieve, because it requires to admit
that we don't know anything, and to become fully aware of our
programming, beliefs, and assumptions and how we live our lives
as conceptually false selves that are convinced that we know
a lot of things and are knowledgable, when in reality, if we look
a little deeper, we will see that we "know" nothing.
...we only believe or assume that we know, and there is a huge
difference (distinction) between knowing something and believing
and assuming that you know.
...this is a very good distinction VG, and is what I'm pointing at, but
my primary distinction is what was there before earth was created
and what will be after the earth is no longer here, and what is in
between these two points
...and this is concsiousness/being/nothing/infinity
...this is why I love it when people like VG come into this thread and
drop a distinction that points at what is so difficult to describe with
words, but is possible to point toward with examples and analogies.
you're a good sport sf
i agree we dont know everything, but we are coming to understand an awful lot (if you believe in science) about the universe and the earth and our place in it all. for example the first fossils showing bilateral symmetry appeared in the oceans 500 million years ago and this was the basic blueprint that all animals today evolved from including us.
reality is subjective sure - but much of it - including where we came from - is set in stone
VG
you're a good sport sf
i agree we dont know everything, but we are coming to understand an awful lot (if you believe in science) about the universe and the earth and our place in it all. for example the first fossils showing bilateral symmetry appeared in the oceans 500 million years ago and this was the basic blueprint that all animals today evolved from including us.
reality is subjective sure - but much of it - including where we came from - is set in stone
VG
VG...from my perspective, there is difinitely an objective reality,
as in a rock IS a rock, pain IS pain, happiness IS happiness, etc.
...so everything that is set in stone IS set in stone.
...the subjective part is our perception of this objective reality.
...but the difficult thing to become conscious of and to become
aware of, is the foundation for these two distinct experiences.
...in other words, the true nature of objective and subjective reality.
...this is the domain that I'm studying and trying to talk about in
this thread, and your example about the objective reality that there
has been life on earth for over 5 billion years points in the direction
of the Universe being infinite, having no beginning and no end.
...the earth is ONLY a distinction in the Universe, and a small one
at that. It would be absurd to think that the Universe has an end.
Even if our mind can't grasp infinity, we can be aware of these kinds
of distinctions separate from our thinking.
...this is how I became conscious of the Universe being nothing/infinity,
because I had a realization that it has no beginning and no end.
...and that the only reason that I perceive what I perceive is because
there is distinctions between all things.
...and this went deeper, and I realized that while everything is distinct
it is not separated. Between everything we see, there is a distinction
that is called SPACE, and even though it is distinct, obviously
it is NOT separate.
the universe is constantly expanding. somewhere is a point at which it all started and expanded from. that is why distant stars and galaxies appear red - because off the doppler effect there is a 'red shift' in the color we see. - because they are moving away from us.
the universe did have a beginning and it will have an end.
the universe did have a beginning and it will have an end.
VG...are you sure? what are your assumption based on? Hearsay
or personal and direct experience?
...the first "false" assumption that our culture/society programs into
us is that we can "know" something, and that the scientists or
politicians or religious leaders or your parents "know" something.
...but the fact, is that before the first human, there was nothing,
as in no-knowledge, and this is what we also currently have!
...yes, we have assumptions and beliefs and all kinds of other BS,
but we really don't know anything, none of us.
...this is our natural state, but in our culture this state of not-knowing
is considered ignorance and stupidity, and this is why they try to
teach us a bunch of BS in school, and why there are scientists
trying to prove something.
...so far they have proved that 99.9% of the atom is empty space,
and slowly are moving toward proving that the other 0.01% is also
empty space...which is basically what I'm trying to say, that there
is really nothing.
...this is already so, at least this is what even the scientists have
confirmed, if this is what you believe.
...either way, I'm 99.9% already right that there is NOTHING...lol,
and this is scientifically proven !!!
...are you ready to be so sure of everything, if currently even the
scientists are confirming that 99.9% of everything is simply empty
space, since everything is made from atoms, this is the logical
conclusion...isn't it?
i wouldnt bunch science and religion together like that. science is trying to find out how the world, the universe and everything actually works - and some of the theories like relativity are being confirmed by a lot of new findings. i wouldnt call science 'hearsay'
well here is a little experiment for you - get someone to hit you round the head with an iron bar, and then come back and tell me if the fact that it was 99.9% nothing was significant.
D
draco
would YOU take a compilation of texts written by men and revere that as 'god's word"? i did when i was young, but now i am all grown up...
when i discover something i feel like i am the first in the world to discover it!! but then when i research it i find that peeps have been studying it for centuries!!
learning for oneself is obviously a good idea, and i can see that you have learned a lot in your life. but like all great discoveries or ideas, they are built upon the ideas and discoveries of others that came before them... ask any Nobel laureate. you can learn much on your own, but you can learn much more if you build upon what others in the field have discovered. does this mean that you have to swallow the bible whole? that's a childish belief HK and if you knew me you would know how laughable that question really is...
so the ego is the interface between reality and the 'person"? so webster says. that is painting with a broad stroke a excruciatingly complex entity that is blurred at both ends, because the ego has roots in both 'reality' and the self. indistinct and vague, it's a rather unsophisticated attempt to understand a mystery that has been addressed much more comprehensively in other parts of the world for many centuries.
just looking within our culture for answers to questions of this nature is mostly a dead end. buzzwords and misinformation abound, and besides this culture dos not breed spiritual curiosity.
i guess what it boils down to is: either you are a seeker or you ain't.
if you are, you are looking around
if you ain't, you don't
.
When you make a specific statement about why someone does something as opposed to asking if what you think is why they do something you're making a distinction about that person and their actions. If your wrong, if it turns out what you thought isn't why the person was doing what they were doing then that distinction you made about their motives is false. So you're wrong when you say a distinction can't be true or false.
I mean come on, lets stop playing word games here, nobody here in this thread is stupid, we all know and see that distinction = opinion. The real deal is there is reality and then subjective reality. What you're wanting to do is strip away the subjectiveness which stems from your ego (see definition in a previous post) in the hopes of becoming more in touch with the non subjective reality. I say it's impossible one because while you say it can be done, you haven't really provided proof and two because to be aware of reality you have to percieve it but as soon as you do, it becomes subjective.
Yeah, but the problem is, that's not proven and due to our limitations it'll likely never be proven. So really your realization is just an opinion you have and as such is subjective. I really don't see how then you can derive a discipline to become in touch with objective reality when it's all based on a subjective premise that may or may not be true.
Interesting when it works against you science is all assumptions and bs but when it fits what you want to believe suddenly it proves you 99.9% right, which is an incorrect interpretation of the data you're using by the way.
statusquo
Member
This. Well said.
Just because people studied things for centuries in the past doesn't make them right. People thought for centuries that the correct way to deal with illness was to cut people open and let the illness drain out with some of the blood. For a long time this practice was put into use and there were even schools that taught people how to do so. Eventually though someone saw some flaw in this approached or somehow reasoned it to be incorrect and we've moved on to where medicine is today where blood letting as it was called is no longer an accepted treatment for illness. It still exists though as drawing blood for the purpose of laboratory testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting.
As, for Ego that's not just some buzz word. It's part of what all psychology today is based on and was first introduced by Sigmund Freud. The other two parts are the ID and the Super Ego. Actually those aren't the words Freud choose but rather those words came from Freud's Translator. The word's Freud used would by more correctly translated as "The It", "The I" and "The Over I or Upper I"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego
D
draco
your comparisons are anachronistic and born of ignorance. when one compares something to something he knows nothing about... and then is dismissive, he has left the path of wisdom.
good day to you sir
