Thread: Proof (Blog)
View Single Post
Old 10-25-2007, 03:08 PM   #144 (permalink)
wolfgang
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,566
wolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond reputewolfgang has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Experience vs. proof

Since you cannot prove that objective reality actually exists, any proof you attempt to stack upon that assumption is merely a house of cards. You can get some mileage out of that approach, but the whole stack always remains in doubt. You can never feel 100% secure about statements that all trace back to a single, unprovable assumption. So in terms of discovering ultimate truth, this path is necessarily a dead end. It goes off track in the very first step.

I’m not arguing that you can’t get some useful results from pursuing the lens of objective reality. Certainly you can. However, whenever we discuss proofs, we must not forget that we’re still dealing with a lens and not with reality itself. To mistake the lens for reality is to make ourselves partially blind.
Is it really a matter of Experience versus Proof? What is proof anyway? Isn't proof just that you can expect that from your experience something will happen again, like the sun rising? Can I prove the sune will rise? Not really but most people would say there's proof that it will. What is objective about the sun rising? We can't devorce ourselves from being subjective about experiencing the sun rising - it is a subjective experience, just like all personal experience is. Proof is the way to try to take a subjective experience and transfer that to another person. To do that you have to separate the experience and label it and tells someone else that you think it will happen again that way and is provable to the degree that it always happens that way (which is an asumption of coarse).

I got the feeling from the blog that one must either be subjective or be objective. Why not both at the same time? This is what occurs to me.

It's like light behaves like a particle and a wave but both seem to not be possible at the same time.

It's like a Christian will say they are holy with God and also a complete individual.

It's like saying our ego is a complete separate identity (a particle) and at the same time I am one with everything (the universe or wave or field or source or God).

The ego has the proof from experience for itself and tends to be objective. The spirit can lead us into other experiences that can become proof to our selves - that is subjective reality. It is faith to follow subjective spirit into these objective experiences.
wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote