Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

haider · 05-12-2007, 07:21 PM

Absvan,

I think we're mixing in too many ideas into this OR/SR discussion, and the result is a sweet and sour dish (you can guess which part of the discussion I think is sweet :P).

Firstly, I don't think the fundamental premise of SR is that "you are not your body," since this can also be shared by the belief in OR. I don't believe that I can be defined by my body. For one thing, a person's character is more important than his physical appearance. An objectivist can accept that we are thinking beings, or that we even have souls detached from our bodies (this would still be objective, but not all objectivists would agree). SR is the belief that there is no existence outside your consciousness, whereas OR states that your consciousness exists within reality.

OR states that there is a relation between you and reality, but this relation is *not* an identity (i.e. you = reality). For the record, I believe in God, and believe we all have a spiritual connection with God. But just because we have that connection does not mean that we = God, or that you = me, etc.

Now, you mentioned "enlightened" people. To me that is a very vague term: on what basis are they enlightened? and how can you assert that they are enlightened? I would need a more exact definition of what "enlightened" is in order to discuss this issue.

But, nonetheless, to point out similarities between ideas that sprang in different cultures does not necessarily mean that they are valid, or originate from the same source. The idea that morality is to renounce pleasure has popped up in every corner of the world, but this does not mean that it is a correct belief. All humans think, and share the same array of emotions. We are all prone to happiness and to sadness, to pleasure and to pain, to contentment and to greed, etc. We can reach the same conclusions about the world around us, or about our inner world, irrespective of our cultures. An Indian, or an Arab, or a Brazilian can all reach the conclusion that the ends justify the means, but this does not make the belief correct or "enlightened."

I don't see how I can practice SR, or have an SR experience. Like I said, I believe in OR, but don't relate solely to my body.

Finally, Frans, I must point out that your experiment is flawed and biased. If you choose to ignore the existence of everything around you, does that mean they don't exist? The problem is, you cannot escape your own existence, which only asserts that you do exist, and not that other things don't exist. Again, what discredits SR is the idea that you must abandon your senses (hence, closing your eyes) in order to "prove" the validity of SR.

I'm not denying that "I" exist, but this does not mean that the world doesn't.

I feel that I'm going against the grain in this thread (in this forum, actually), which is why I feel compelled to add: I hope I'm not offending anyone! While I feel strongly about objective reality, this does not mean that I hold a grudge against anyone here! Writing in a forum lacks tone and facial expressions, which can make words ambiguous.

05-12-2007, 07:21 PM	#78 (permalink)
haider Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 23	Absvan, I think we're mixing in too many ideas into this OR/SR discussion, and the result is a sweet and sour dish (you can guess which part of the discussion I think is sweet :P). Firstly, I don't think the fundamental premise of SR is that "you are not your body," since this can also be shared by the belief in OR. I don't believe that I can be defined by my body. For one thing, a person's character is more important than his physical appearance. An objectivist can accept that we are thinking beings, or that we even have souls detached from our bodies (this would still be objective, but not all objectivists would agree). SR is the belief that there is no existence outside your consciousness, whereas OR states that your consciousness exists within reality. OR states that there is a relation between you and reality, but this relation is not an identity (i.e. you = reality). For the record, I believe in God, and believe we all have a spiritual connection with God. But just because we have that connection does not mean that we = God, or that you = me, etc. Now, you mentioned "enlightened" people. To me that is a very vague term: on what basis are they enlightened? and how can you assert that they are enlightened? I would need a more exact definition of what "enlightened" is in order to discuss this issue. But, nonetheless, to point out similarities between ideas that sprang in different cultures does not necessarily mean that they are valid, or originate from the same source. The idea that morality is to renounce pleasure has popped up in every corner of the world, but this does not mean that it is a correct belief. All humans think, and share the same array of emotions. We are all prone to happiness and to sadness, to pleasure and to pain, to contentment and to greed, etc. We can reach the same conclusions about the world around us, or about our inner world, irrespective of our cultures. An Indian, or an Arab, or a Brazilian can all reach the conclusion that the ends justify the means, but this does not make the belief correct or "enlightened." I don't see how I can practice SR, or have an SR experience. Like I said, I believe in OR, but don't relate solely to my body. Finally, Frans, I must point out that your experiment is flawed and biased. If you choose to ignore the existence of everything around you, does that mean they don't exist? The problem is, you cannot escape your own existence, which only asserts that you do exist, and not that other things don't exist. Again, what discredits SR is the idea that you must abandon your senses (hence, closing your eyes) in order to "prove" the validity of SR. I'm not denying that "I" exist, but this does not mean that the world doesn't. I feel that I'm going against the grain in this thread (in this forum, actually), which is why I feel compelled to add: I hope I'm not offending anyone! While I feel strongly about objective reality, this does not mean that I hold a grudge against anyone here! Writing in a forum lacks tone and facial expressions, which can make words ambiguous.