If all of Reality only exists within your mind

[Detales]

James, thank you for yur comments and questions.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Actually time is perceived through our BODIES (breathing, heartbeat, sleep cycles, etc.) Even if there were no mental activity resulting in an increase of our knowledge, our bodies would inform us of the passage of time.

Nonphilosophically, time is a result of the physical entropy as it affects our bodies. If time were purely mental, we could stop it by going into “couch potato” mode

ICXC NIKA

Normally, given the correct context, I would agree; but there is one problem. The context in which*** you*** have chosen to make ***your ***rebuttal has immediately exposed you as failing to understand the principle problem of knowledge. In so far as knowledge is concerned, you are in fact making a circular argument. “But why?”, you might stubbornly and yet perhaps innocently say. If so, then let me indulge your curiosity. You assume the objective existence of physics and the principles that govern physical objects from the out set of your argument, and then you conclude on that assumption that i must be wrong.

However; “I” begin from a position of epistemology, that which is self evidently or logically true, a position from which there is no way that i can possible know or prove that the object of my experiences is in fact the physical reality that appears to us. It is self evident that there appears to be a physical universe, but I cannot know objective reality as it truly is with the certainty afforded by a true epistemology such as that which is given by a self evident proposition. I can only trust that it is how it appears to be. Secondly, the empirical method assumes that physics exists with all its consistent laws and principles; but science is ultimately based on an assumption rather than true epistemological knowledge. Thus i cannot determine with empiricism that objective physical reality exists, and neither is there anything to say that it ought to exist as we experience it.

The Scientific method is void when it comes to the qeustion of objective knowledge, at least in so far as the universe is concerned. On this bases, we can only know things through logical necessity; as in to say, that which follows necessarily from the fact of existence as existence, or being as being. This is the purpose of metaphysics. I therefore rightly conclude that the only way that i can possibly know that there is such a thing as time, is by taken in to account the self evident fact that i gain in knowledge. The fact that we gain in knowledge tells me that my being is not a static entity, the fact that i go to sleep and wake up, gives me absolute evidence that i go through a transition of change. I have potentiality. I am changing.

I hope that you appreciate the fact that i have taken the time to explain this to you; and i hope that you will read it thoroughly and carefully before making your next comment. I can only hope that your next post will merit a response.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Isn’t a misperception a “lack” of reality" to you? You always act on what you percieve to be so. That is invariably less than the totality of the actuality, and therefore illusional by definition. In other words, it matters not a whit what a supposed “objective” reality might be, as even that is partial unless we are talking about the entirety of Creation, inclusive of all aspects known and unknown, and its God, as if That was seperate. No matter how you slice it, each one of us is dealing in partials filtered through our own predilections. How can it be otherwise, and what use is it to postulate something outside that if that is not what you are dealing with? We each always deal always and only with our perceptions.
.

You don’t seem to want to address one of the main problems with your argument. Although your worldview might be one possible circumstance that we have found our selves in (whatever the word “we” could possibly mean since individuality is totally lost in you understanding of the world), this does not change the fact that you’re jumping to conclusions. You are absolutely correct that we only deal with or comprehend our perceptions, and thus we cannot ever know reality as it really is beyond what we perceive, since we only have our perceptions. However, it does not follow necessarily from that fact that our perceptions are not actual representations of what is truly objective. You have provided no real argument to support your position. In fact you have made a circular argument. Thus your worldview is a matter of belief, rather then that which is necessarily true of existence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You are absolutely correct that we only deal with or comprehend our perceptions, and thus we cannot ever know reality as it really is beyond what we perceive, since we only have our perceptions.

That is a common and understandable misperception.

You have already testified to the existence of “necessity” or what I call “Accurate Logic”. Logic does not require perception which is why people thousands of years ago, with no Science at all could still be right about many things. Science merely verifies when it can what Logic dictates, which isn’t always, by a long shot.

Logic dictates, by the ordering of possible options, what might or might not be. When that list of options becomes only 1, then no perception is required to “know” of truth/reality. But most often, due to starting in the middle of chaos, that option list is formed from our ignorance of all that might be, thus we cannot narrow the list to merely one very often.

That is where perception and Science come in. Science lets us “try and see” each possible option so as to narrow the list more. But eventually Science runs out of ability to demonstrate and independently verify. At that point, we are back to using merely Logic and trying to ensure that we use it accurately.

But regardless of how many times it gets misused with inaccuracy, the truth of it never varies and is always present.

Accurate Logic dictates that I am NOT the universe.

 

[Detales]

Are you not arguing that the perception is the thing? It makes what I say correct and your argument circular: the perception within one’s own awareness is what one deals with, always and only. Whatever is “truly objective” therefore is perceived as our sense apprehension of it. So in what sense is that object “objective?” Because it is calibrated as outside the body that has the senses that are also in awareness? So they are yet in the same place: awareness.

And remember that it is only at our particular frequency range that the kinds of “objective” descriptions can be made. At the atomic level, where is the edge of anything, given that if a proton the “size” of a baseball has its nearest electron two miles away? Also, our perceptions, no matter how “actual” and “objectively” measured, are always open to further adjustment. All assessments are completely ad hoc and arbitrary, even if shared and working and appear as law. And sharing is necessary as all within awareness by nature obey the same rules. All you are proving is that you are restricting your thinking to the human sensory spectrum, and not much of that.

Now we can talk about agreement, in that certain properties are displayed by objects commonly held in perception. But all those awarenesses and perceptions are yet from the same Source. In the unfortunately limited terminology of christianism, we say “God made them.” So there is the consistency of sameness of Source.

But the whole question of Identity and Awareness is not addressed by christianism, only an imaginary historicity. And that historicity is a degradation of the source teaching that originally dealt with all these questions. But somewhere along the line, around 200-300 CE, it all got popularized and historicized into one person who in all that time before that was a symbol for the possibilities of Everyman.

So here we are, debating on a forum that is primarily populated by those under the influence of a prophylactic teaching regarding the very ideas inherent in what used to be the core to His teaching, if indeed He ever walked. The Church has rendered His teaching less than useless, because it has convinced its following that the Jesus story is only incidentally pertinent to them, not their own vital journey, as is actually the case.

So the Faith has y’all in a fix. So does English. Neither allows for the comprehension of basic ideas that are pertinent to your own understanding of yourself, ourselves. But that is OK, I guess, as most people wouldn’t get it anyway, which it why was always in the form of myth.

But We are smart enough now, I think, and know enough from history and physics, to re-examine where our belief stems from and what it stems. All the Teaching is there in the Church, even in the words attributed to Jesus. But all those words, all those miracles, all those everything are ancient. Just read history and ancient religious texts, and look at temple paintings and carvings. They are about you. You are the “Jesus” you are waiting for. And the Church has robbed you of that understanding, advertently or not.

It has always and oly been a case of waking up to what you truely are as correct Identity. That is why Jesus was made to say “It is not the son of man who doeth the works, it is the Father in me that doeth them.” (Kind of pantheistic, eh? Not really, but definitly non-dualist. It ought to be “… as me.” The “Son” is completely misrepresented in dynamic by the Church.)

But you will never ever see that if you don’t go beyond Paul’s dictum that now we see through a glass darkly. But that was the whole purpose of the Jesus story, so that you could see through the parables and cleanse you lens. Try it. Don’t believe me. Believing me would just be a further tragedy. Do it for yourself. Or don’t. That is your call. But if you don’t, you can’t say this is wrong. You can only say you don’t believe your own opportunity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Are you not arguing that the perception is the thing? It makes what I say correct and your argument circular: the perception within one’s own awareness is what one deals with, always and only. Whatever is “truly objective” therefore is perceived as our sense apprehension of it. So in what sense is that object “objective?” Because it is calibrated as outside the body that has the senses that are also in awareness? So they are yet in the same place: awareness.

Datales,

You appear to be very good at rhetoric, but not very good at logic. Do you disbelieve in logic?

Logic is what we require to know if we know anything and even if we don’t know something. Without logic, no thought can have value. Without value, no thought is worth thinking and certainly not believing.

But perhaps one must be good at logic to know that. But that’s why so many are confined to the struggles of Faith and self concern.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Accurate Logic dictates that I am NOT the universe.

accurate logic might dictate that you are not the universe, but it does not prove that the universe is objectively real.

 

[James_S_Saint]

accurate logic might dictate that you are not the universe, but it does not prove that the universe is objectively real.

Actually, it does. But as I said…

 

[Detales]

James, perhaps if you learned to distinguish apples and oranges, you might do better in seeing how some of what you are saying doesn’t wash?

 

[James_S_Saint]

James, perhaps if you learned to distinguish apples and oranges, you might do better in seeing how some of what you are saying doesn’t wash?

Or if you would do as you suggest, you might find that your apples and oranges were nuts and bolts.

Why don’t you just answer the simple questions?

Within what does your mind exist? Saying that it exists within “awareness” is not an answer. Awareness is not something that things exist within. Awareness is a property of something as is consciousness (which happens to BE the same as “awareness”).

 

[Detales]

Hmmm… Why don’t you go back and re-read my posts, James? You remind me of a very intelligent friend of mine. He wanted to join a book discussion group on a topic similar to what we are engaging in. He was told “Go and read Basic Self Knowledge.” Next meeting he showed up, all happy and ready to participate. He was told “go read Basic Self Knowledge.” “But I read it,” he said. “Go read it again” was the reply. Not to labor the point, though I still have no clue why he persisted, my very intelligent friend read that book twenty-six times before it dawned on him that he had not a clue what was actually being said on those pages. At that point he was asked to join the discussion. He was now bringing questions based on experience, not his prejudices.

Hey, maybe you would enjoy reading that book? Naaaaaah…

 

[James_S_Saint]

my very intelligent friend read that book twenty-six times before it dawned on him that he had not a clue what was actually being said on those pages.

If someone has to re-read your posts or that book 26 times to “get-it”, then may I suggest a course in correspondence?

If there actually is real logic hidden deep within those words of yours, why don’t you just bring them to the surface for us blind folks?

When dealing with a text from an ancient people of a foreign land and language, I can understand the need to study the text many times over before being able to see what they were really talking about.

But you don’t have that excuse. What is your simple reasoning, your unleavened bread, without the hot air and brandishments?

 

[Detales]

Hey, perhaps that’s your thing, Mr. Spock! There is levening, you know! Try it. 26 is nothing. Why do you suppose 40 is such a prominent number in the Bible?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Maybe after the Logic gets ironed out.

 

[Detales]

Well, ok. Go do some reading and think a while, meditate on it, and then we might be able to talk. Blessings and Best.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[James_S_Saint]

Alternatively, you could go define your words clearly and unambiguously. Perhaps the revelation, after your 26 readings of your definitions, will be to you…?