Subjective vs. Objective reality

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yin, Yang, and ... Yung?

Young!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Sorry you think that, Arc.

No, to me, it's more that I'm more likely to trust that someone really understands something because they admit that they're not able to explain or define what they understand. Words really often fail miserably to explain some of the things that we discuss in this subforum.

Otherwise, nothing is more or less "correct" than anything else.

Pretty much what I was trying to convey.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Pretty much what I was trying to convey.

How about the confused ones? Following the Beingist logic they would be amongst the most trustworthy.

[Luciddd]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I hope the folllowing helps.

Consciousness, put in simpler terms, is our awareness. Awareness is dependent upon two inputs into it - our emotions and Intelligence.

Perhaps look at it this way; imagine if you will a drink of water. Now in order to experience it as fully as possible, you require BOTH an Intelligent awareness that is water, but also an emotional awareness that you WANT to experience it. Until these two awarenesses come together, it will (objectively) remain a drink of water, but you will not (subjectively) experience it.

Therefore consciousness is the point of confluence between our emotions and Intelligence.

No it is not something like that, when I refer to Consiousness I refer to the Source/All That Is, etc.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Reefs

How about the confused ones? Following the Beingist logic they would be amongst the most trustworthy.

Yeah, there seems to be a concern about getting trapped by mind, which just keeps mind safely in charge along with all it's goodies.
(Just a perspective, B. )

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by seeds

Did you ever consider that your "Concept City" is in fact just a tiny "hamlet" way outside the border of a vast "metropolis" that you fail to reach.

I take that as a compliment, that my Concept Hamlet is small, empty and uninhabited, as compared with your GREAT CONCEPT METROLOPS, where seeds, wombs and impregnating are getting after it, like nobody's business, with the great, all-seeing, pervy eye watching through the cosmic key-hole!

Originally Posted by seeds

It seems that when the vast majority of humans hear the word "God" mentioned, then all of their preconceived notions regarding that word, floods their field of vision, completely obscuring any fresh and alternate way of seeing what the word actually denotes.

Er ... I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm quite comfortable with using the word God to denote the loving, divine presence within living beings, since that is what I actually experience.

So, you have a 'fresh', 'alternate' way of defining God? Your definitions and concepts of God may change, but God doesn't. Sorry. That's the point - you're still constructing myths and models about who this God might be.

It's AR who seems to gag at the very mention of the word.
Let me remind you of his extraordinary rant when Reefs mentioned the word:

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

My dear Reefs, 'God' is a mythical pagan deity based upon another, from the Germanic region of around 800 years ago, who in turn was named 'Gott'; German for 'good'. However he is certainly NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN who I've been referencing.
Moreover neither 'Gott' nor 'God' ever existed in any reality whatsoever, outside the SUBJECTIVE imaginations of some religious pagan Germans, and religious pagan Christians.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

It's AR who seems to gag at the very mention of the word. Let me remind you of his extraordinary rant when Reefs mentioned the word:

Popo's explanation was BS anyway. Good in German should be 'gut'. 'Gott' should the German word for God and the Swedish word for good.

Popo is just THE recent example for what you get when a confused mind goes into overdrive.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

I don't quite relate to an 'eye watching our every move' as such, yet 'all-Intelligent and all-seeing' pretty much defines my 'UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE'. The difference is that I define this INTELLIGENCE as the eternal power source that underpins the universe, is omnipotent and omniscient; therefore we exist entirely within this INTELLIGENCE, and ultimately - ARE this INTELLIGENCE.

AR, sorry, but it is standard stuff - the idea of intelligent energy pervading the cosmos goes back millennia. Hindus, Christian Scientists, New Agers, etc. all talk about this.

What gets my attention about you is how you focus on one aspect of reality, intelligence, and promote it to the exclusion of everything else.

If there is an omniscient Godhead/Buddha Mind/UniversalMind, surely intelligence is just one aspect, or atrribute, of that Godhead?

What about things like good judgement, discernment, and especially, wisdom?

What about love and compassion? Surely, these are viable aspects as well?
Why this unhealthy fascination with just one aspect?

It's very one-sided, and as such, imbalanced. Can't you see that?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

How about the confused ones? Following the Beingist logic they would be amongst the most trustworthy.

Well ... yeah. Certainly more trustworthy than those who claim to know everything.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yeah, there seems to be a concern about getting trapped by mind, which just keeps mind safely in charge along with all it's goodies.
(Just a perspective, B. )

Would you rather be trapped by mind?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well ... yeah. Certainly more trustworthy than those who claim to know everything.
Would you rather be trapped by mind?

I would say one gets out of the trap of mind through clarity about mind. Even Beingist knows too much, so how is that knowledge going to dissolve by being ignored?

[seeds]

Originally Posted by Cantando

I take that as a compliment, that my Concept Hamlet is small, empty and uninhabited, as compared with your GREAT CONCEPT METROLOPS, where seeds, wombs and impregnating are getting after it, like nobody's business, with the great, all-seeing, pervy eye watching through the cosmic key-hole!

Besides completely misinterpreting the Ultimate Seeds concept (something of which you have firmly stated as having no interest in even trying to understand), you have also with this line…

“…the great, all-seeing, pervy eye watching through the cosmic key-hole...”

…proven my point about “preconceived notions” flooding and clouding your field of vision.

That appears to be a personal “subjective” remnant from that "old paradigm" belief that there is a “judgmental Being” watching our every move in order to determine our eternal fates, based on what “He” sees.

From my point of view, nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by Cantando

So, you have a 'fresh', 'alternate' way of defining God? Your definitions and concepts of God may change, but God doesn't. Sorry. That's the point - you're still constructing myths and models about who this God might be.

You are absolutely correct. Our definitions and concepts of God may change, but God doesn’t.

However, let’s view that from a slightly different angle.

Look at how much our myths and models of “material reality” (objective reality) have changed with the ongoing creation and refinement of microscopes and telescopes.

As we are able to look deeper into the microcosmic realms of matter, and further out into the macrocosmic realms of space, nothing of the actual “material” reality ever changes, for it is what it is.

However, “our definitions and concepts” of the material are constantly changing due to our ever perfecting of the “lenses” through-which we view everything.

The same thing applies to the “metaphysical” realms.

Our “spiritual lenses” are becoming clearer and more refined as we evolve.

Therefore, our “myths and models” will also change in direct proportion to that evolution.

Is that not obvious to you?


seeds

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Would you rather be trapped by mind?

Why are you so concerned about mind?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Why are you so concerned about mind?

Why are you?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I would say one gets out of the trap of mind through clarity about mind. Even Beingist knows too much, so how is that knowledge going to dissolve by being ignored?

Who is suggesting that we ignore it?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Why are you?

Am I?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Am I?

Aren't you?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Aren't you?

No.

Mind is not an entity. It's a verb. Verbs are harmless.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Reefs

No.

Mind is not an entity. It's a verb. Verbs are harmless.

If you say so, Reefs.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Who is suggesting that we ignore it?

Sounds like you are.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

If you say so, Reefs.

So mind is an entity rather than an activity? Or would you rather ignore the whole issue?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So mind is an entity rather than an activity? Or would you rather ignore the whole issue?

Not ignoring anything, just not worrying about it.

I don't see mind as an activity, any more than I see it as a verb, per Reefs, but that's just me and my understanding/definitions. Regardless, I don't see the point in cogitating on it. Wouldn't that be mind trying to figure out mind? I'll leave that to you guys. I'm just gonna BE, if that's okay with you.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Sounds like you are.

Well, you should know as well as anyone how deceiving appearances can be.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not ignoring anything, just not worrying about it.

I don't see mind as an activity, any more than I see it as a verb, per Reefs, but that's just me and my understanding/definitions. Regardless, I don't see the point in cogitating on it. Wouldn't that be mind trying to figure out mind? I'll leave that to you guys. I'm just gonna BE, if that's okay with you.

The difference between noticing there's just thoughts happening and believing there is a mind struggling with itself and you in any number of ways is worlds apart.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

The difference between noticing there's just thoughts happening and believing there is a mind struggling with itself and you in any number of ways is worlds apart.

Indeed. So?

Are you implying anything with that, CG, or just stating the obvious?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Not ignoring anything, just not worrying about it.

I don't see mind as an activity, any more than I see it as a verb, per Reefs, but that's just me and my understanding/definitions. Regardless, I don't see the point in cogitating on it.

You say you're not ignoring anything, then go on to talk about how you're ignoring it. I'm not sure I see the point in cogitating on it either, but then nobody ever suggested doing that.

Wouldn't that be mind trying to figure out mind? I'll leave that to you guys.

Only if you believed mind was an entity, which I guess you do. You used to mind to come up with all sorts of ideas. Do you spose you can use it to help you notice how you did that?

I'm just gonna BE, if that's okay with you.

That would be great, but that isn't really what's happening.....so much.....really. Something else is happening too, only you don't notice it because you're too busy trying to be and ignore everything else.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You say you're not ignoring anything, then go on to talk about how you're ignoring it. I'm not sure I see the point in cogitating on it either, but then nobody ever suggested doing that.

Only if you believed mind was an entity, which I guess you do. You used to mind to come up with all sorts of ideas. Do you spose you can use it to help you notice how you did that?

That would be great, but that isn't really what's happening.....so much.....really. Something else is happening too, only you don't notice it because you're too busy trying to be and ignore everything else.

Whatever you say, Arc.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Whatever you say, Arc.

Either the approach of 'just being' and not seeking clarity will work, or it may be a way for mind to hide it's illusions from the light of truth. In my experience, whatever approach we take is the wrong one because it's mind that thinks it's a good idea. In any case, I wish you the best.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

In any case, I wish you the best.

Thanks. And I, you.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Cantando

AR, sorry, but it is standard stuff - the idea of intelligent energy pervading the cosmos goes back millennia. Hindus, Christian Scientists, New Agers, etc. all talk about this.

You know, the main reason I post, is because it helps me to come to grips with my search and focus. What I share of my ruminations for others, may help, anger or frustrate them (usually the latter), yet that is not my issue, nor purpose.

Secondly I'm well aware that many people have attempted to come to grips with the overall power source behind existence, and for mine have all gained some snippets of insight (as do you and I), yet always reliant upon their authenticity of seeking. These snippets of insight then, come from our efforts to appreciate that which is not obvious, physical, yet such insight certainly enters our consciousness actively from, no - through this very Source, from within. So what is within that shares it's (HIS) own secrets upon our seeking?

Our (portion of) Intelligence, is the only answer that makes any sense to me.

However due to our need to express such insight in words, which in turn rely on the dynamics of the predominant subjectivity of both speaker and listener, we can merely glimpse such non-physical objectivity like a haze on the horizon, as seen through especially dirty glasses. Then the problem is compounded severely when we try to explain what we see to someone who generally fails to appreciate even the insufficient words, much less the vision - hazy as it be.

Originally Posted by Cantando

What gets my attention about you is how you focus on one aspect of reality, intelligence, and promote it to the exclusion of everything else.

Words are the first problem here. For instance it might seem ok to simplify the spelling of (say) 'business', for it is hard to spell; to perhaps 'bizness', but what we lose in this is the etymological details underpinning the word, such as the concept that 'business' relates back to 'busy'.

When it comes to the non-physical (spiritual) realm, words can be totally inadequate for we have to rely upon definitions and definitions re. this realm are much harder than the physical, to express in words, that is; even if one can pinpoint the concept to a consistently verifiable (scientific) focus. Then to add to the struggle, we have the issue of subjectivity in our understanding.

So Intelligence is my preferred term. I could just as easily use 'LOVE' or 'LIGHT' or 'Universal Mind', which to me are all applicable, yet again we come up against the roadblock of inconsistent definitions, for even you will most likely relate to all of these by alternative definition, and that is the very nature of subjectivity.

Originally Posted by Cantando

If there is an omniscient Godhead/Buddha Mind/UniversalMind, surely intelligence is just one aspect, or atrribute, of that Godhead?

Well you based your premise here upon an unacceptable term 'If', so with such a lack of faith in what I realte to as the obvious, we clearly don't get off on the most appropriate footing towards unison. Be that as it may...

As I see it, the basic problem in such things, again as always comes down to definitions according our subjectivity. Someone calls this CREATOR 'Source', another 'Godhead', yet another 'Universal Mind', and the list goes on. Some may even believe in a 'Godhead' for instance but not even see this as a creator. But whoever uses the term 'Godhead' will have their own subjective understanding as to what they are referencing, which will be different to some degree with that of another.

So whilst I don't have any fundamental problem with such terms, I use 'INTELLIGENCE' according my own, because I know what I mean, and I believe the listener/reader understands what this word in general mean, in a way that 'God' or 'Godhead' doesn't convey. Alternatively I clearly somewhat resonate with 'Universal Mind', however I've not much idea whether my definition, which would be "the knowing behind all creation", would in any way apply to general definition.

Originally Posted by Cantando

What about things like good judgement, discernment, and especially, wisdom?

Well all of these would certainly be attributes of Intelligence of course, however general mentality would define them as attributes of some quality inactive, rather than an active entity in themselves. Now I know that most folk define Intelligence as a separated inactive quality as well, yet one of my focuses is about redefinition - towards an active overall power source underpinning everything.

Originally Posted by Cantando

What about love and compassion? Surely, these are viable aspects as well? Why this unhealthy fascination with just one aspect?

You call it unhealthy, yet my definition of LOVE is entirely on a par with NTELLIGENCE - different words for the same Universal entity. What's more, I include 'LIFE' and 'THE CREATOR', and more recently 'THE UNIVERSE' in this list. Compassion then, would absolutely be an attribute of 'Love'/'Life'/'Intelligence/The Creator/The Universe'.

That may seem complicated to you, yet I see it as a major simplification in terms, definitions and appreciation.

Originally Posted by Cantando

It's very one-sided, and as such, imbalanced. Can't you see that?

Yes I can see that the way you perceive what I'm saying is imbalanced, however the content of your post is quite a way off what I've been sharing. I surely hope the above goes some way to clearing this up for us both.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Either the approach of 'just being' and not seeking clarity will work, or it may be a way for mind to hide it's illusions from the light of truth. In my experience, whatever approach we take is the wrong one because it's mind that thinks it's a good idea.

This has been my point about our subjectivity.

It makes no sense that 'mind' should be so inconsistent, so often getting it 'wrong', yet it surely does on far too many occasions. So for mine, the problem is not with the circumstances needing to be addressed, but with the mentality that is trying to address them.

If we were able to focus unhindered upon the objective details of the issue, I am convinced we would handle it appropriately, however our subjectivity gets in the way, to say the least; frustrating our task, often to almost impossible levels.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

In any case, I wish you the best.

As I do, yet for mine, perhaps Beingist is not really appreciating himself in full - a little too subjective maybe?

Anyone who can face self and the matters under discussion here in the manner he has, well ... despite what he may think, certainly does NOT approach this type of searching, questioning, delving from a stance 'blase'.