Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
I might disagree, Etu. Sure, I think we perceive life in or own unique way, but isn't there universal things which we can all agree on? 2+2=4 for instance. Gravity is another. Heck, there's lots of things we all agree on, things based on our realities as living creatures. Are you suggesting that truth cannot be known since you view truth to be subject to individual perspective?
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
On the subatomic level mathematics go out the window, when you go into the astrophysical universe gravity makes no sense, and I'm not just talking about the physical aspects but also the theoretical aspects.
So, in essence we only know what we are capable of understanding here in the objective universe. I haven't even mentioned the Subjective Universe, because inside that 'nothing' plays by the rules!
Yes!
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
We can only know what we are able to understand in the objective universe, but doesn't this imply that we are able to know certain universal truth's? When I use the term universal I am referring to humanity and as a basis, life on this planet. Who knows what the rest of the universe holds? Life on this planet can be objectively known and understood universally as a people in other words.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Then they aren't Universal Truths are they? More like Kether Truths?
But, I know what you're saying and sure, I can agree with that to a point.
2+2 does equal 4 in the here and now of the physical/objective . . . but tonight, also in the here and now, my subjective mind/imagination can change all of that!
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Our goal (IMHO, my goal at least) is to make sense of it all. An “endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted" (to quote Whitehead). That is not always (ever?) easy even if we just consider the physical world, why else are there so many different relativities and quantum-gravity theories?
Yes, there are things we can never know to be true (the existence of multi-verses or why mass makes gravity curve spacetime or what the "historic Jesus" really was). There are some things we can know absolutely (arithmetic and deductuve logic and a limited number of ostensive definitions). In between are a bunch of things we can test, try to falsify, and attach a subjective probability to (did Lao-zi really live will the sun come up tomorrow or is radarmark really this inconsistent). "Knowing" (not in an absolute sense, how muost of us, I beleive use the term) those things we can never know means having a good (sufficient) reason for believeing them true and some kind of subjective probability associated with it. That is the best (that I know of at least) that philosophy and science have come up with. Call it induction or abduction or inference to the best explanation--they all mean about the same thing.
In addition there is this whole realm of experiential spiritual truths which can be intersubjectively verified (they are consistent and congruent) and philosophically validated (logical and necessary). We do this all the time in science (well, the good ones do, look up intersubjective truth or verifiability). Call it a Whitehead-Heidigger-de Quincy-Wilberian stance that the same method can be applied to theology.
Like when representatives of many Nations gather at a Pow Wow and share stories. The Peyote Roadman finishes his rap on Jesus returning as a cacti and some Seminole begins "that is interesting, let me tell you about the black draught and G!d". They share their respective ways... like the Buddhist Jew or the Taoist Quaker (both exist).
The issue is rising above self to family, above family to nation, above nation to species, above species to Gaea, above Gaea to G!d. Within this mythical-mystical space all (or nearly all) stories of creation of Jesus of Buddha of Gandhiji are "true" not by empirical or mathematical or logical proof, but as experienced. Grk? Cannot get much closer at this time.
Yes, there are things we can never know to be true (the existence of multi-verses or why mass makes gravity curve spacetime or what the "historic Jesus" really was). There are some things we can know absolutely (arithmetic and deductuve logic and a limited number of ostensive definitions). In between are a bunch of things we can test, try to falsify, and attach a subjective probability to (did Lao-zi really live will the sun come up tomorrow or is radarmark really this inconsistent). "Knowing" (not in an absolute sense, how muost of us, I beleive use the term) those things we can never know means having a good (sufficient) reason for believeing them true and some kind of subjective probability associated with it. That is the best (that I know of at least) that philosophy and science have come up with. Call it induction or abduction or inference to the best explanation--they all mean about the same thing.
In addition there is this whole realm of experiential spiritual truths which can be intersubjectively verified (they are consistent and congruent) and philosophically validated (logical and necessary). We do this all the time in science (well, the good ones do, look up intersubjective truth or verifiability). Call it a Whitehead-Heidigger-de Quincy-Wilberian stance that the same method can be applied to theology.
Like when representatives of many Nations gather at a Pow Wow and share stories. The Peyote Roadman finishes his rap on Jesus returning as a cacti and some Seminole begins "that is interesting, let me tell you about the black draught and G!d". They share their respective ways... like the Buddhist Jew or the Taoist Quaker (both exist).
The issue is rising above self to family, above family to nation, above nation to species, above species to Gaea, above Gaea to G!d. Within this mythical-mystical space all (or nearly all) stories of creation of Jesus of Buddha of Gandhiji are "true" not by empirical or mathematical or logical proof, but as experienced. Grk? Cannot get much closer at this time.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Our subjective mind/imagination/experiences are deceiving. Hell, I can fly in my subjective mind, but that is an impossibility on my own in the objective world. There is a distinct difference between what is real and what is not. The subjective world is a bit more liberating than the constrictive nature of the objective world, but it isn't reality at all. It is more like wishful thinking and delusion than it is based on truth.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
The question now becomes . . . what is defined as 'Real'?
Because something exists in the objective universe (OU) is that reality defined? Why can't our subjective universe (SU) be considered reality, or at least another reality?
What about stuff like music that comes from the SU and is born into the OU through the composer to the listener?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The difference is subtle. In subjectivity (sleep, trance, vision, hallucination) if someone points a 45 at you and pulls the trigger, your body does not die (at least due to a rather large and gaping sucking chest wound). In objectivity (which most call "Real") if someone points a 45 at you and pulls the trigger, it does. And sofar as we know all sleep, trance, vision, hallucinations cease. I may be wrong, but that is the predestrian view.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
The experience may be real, but does experience necessitate truth? It is a stretch (imo) to deem our subjective experiences as having a basis in reality. They are nice experiences for the most part, liberating and seducing, but can these 'experiences' truly be defined as anything more than a delusion, something based on a false sense of reality?
I've had pretty intense subjective experiences in my life, but my subjective experiences are quite different than objective reality. They exist only in my mind, and as such cannot be labeled as truth. They cannot be applied universally to everyone.
Such things are personal and sacred to the individual, but not all can identify with them, which is why I separate the subjective from the objective when I am able. One is based on what we know is true, while the other is based on what we do not.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
The body dies, but the soul/spirit doesn't.
If you lose an arm or leg, the subtle body is not changed, it remains in tact.
What I am suggesting here, is that both OU & SU are equally Real, they just have different Laws. I think we are indoctrined from birth and beyond to think that the physical is 'Reality' and our mind is not, I don't believe that, and as an Occultist I don't practice that, for me they are both equal, though I favor the SU much more than the limited OU.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Fine, I (somewhat) agree but it is an uphill fight with the pederstrians (everyone underestimates the mental)!
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
I suppose when one's subjective experiences over ride their objective experiences, the SU has officially become real for that individual.
<Immediately thinks of LSD's hay day>
It can, for some, be difficult to separate the what is real and what is not. I like how radarmark put it.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Well, we don't know that our soul/spirit lives on with any certainty, but that's beside the point. Consider schizophrenics and how their reality differs from ours. Are they simply imagining things or is what they imagine real? It's certainly real to them, but for the rest of us, they just seem crazy. I think the two (OU/SU) needs to remain distinct, but perhaps not separate. It could be that the SU is the absence of the OU, kinda like how I suggest that cold is the absence of heat. One is active, while the other more passive. One truly exist while the other only exists as an absence of the other.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Ah, I do not limit "experience" to "subjective experience". Rather, the old dicotomies of being/change and physical/mental are (IMHO) false. The ontology of the world is a series of "experiences" or "events" or "actual occasions" that have both physical and mental aspects. That are only in becoming. This process model really helps correct some very basic problems in modern philosophy (even though not widely studied).
All that exist (everything in the universe) is experiences, actual occasions. THings that are part physical (some exterior event sending light to my eyes, my eyes processing, my wet computer processing, my musculature reacting). Some part mental (what is this pattern, what does it mean, how do I react). It (the actual occasion exists in space and time (it has an extension and a duration).
This process model underlays everything I have written to you.
All that exist (everything in the universe) is experiences, actual occasions. THings that are part physical (some exterior event sending light to my eyes, my eyes processing, my wet computer processing, my musculature reacting). Some part mental (what is this pattern, what does it mean, how do I react). It (the actual occasion exists in space and time (it has an extension and a duration).
This process model underlays everything I have written to you.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
Isn't there a difference between the stimuli we process as living creatures and our imagination? You are absolutely spot on when it comes to how we process information, but when it comes to God experiences, etc. are such things truly based on reality, or are they simply a product of our minds?
This discussion has taken quite an interesting turn. I am enjoying the discussion immensely!
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Interesting . . . I believe that the SU is our first form and it gives birth to our OU in order for Us to 'experience' our Self and to experience others.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
That is interesting as well, and perhaps not far from the truth. You ever wonder about how and if fetus' think while still in the womb? There is no OU apart from the womb to fuel thought, so it must be a largely SU, no?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
My experience in Meeting (Quaker Worship) and reflexion (my term for meditation) says "this is as true as quantum mechanics". However, when I apply the principle of intersubjective verification (reading Lao-zi, St Teresa, or talking with my spiritual Friends), I find this is univerversally discoverable.
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Awesome thought . . . man, I'd have to think about that for a while.