Reality, beyond logic and faith

Remove all ads!

I really had no idea that discussions like this are taking place here. This is rather amusing. You say something, and then other agree. However at the end - you die and then you never know that anything really existed. So it did not. This may be off topic but I have a strong belief that philosophy is just pumping your ego. I don't want to be rude but is there any real accomplishment in philosophy that has changed our lives forever. The way light bulb or wheel changed out lives?

 

Intuition, is key

The very notion of the horizon prove the world is flat I disagree. My intuition say when I see a ship disappear in the end of the horizon on the sea, it's not falling off the planet. It's disappearing behind a "hill", a curve of the world.
Is the ship just not out of eyesight? Well how far can the eye see? Can see stars in the sky that's a billion times further away. So I'd say the intuitional understanding of the horizon would be on my side.

Same with sunrise, sundown. It's not obvious the world is a plate they're just circling about.

I think, as I said before, that intuition is only thing that can guide you to "absolute truth". If that's not the truth of someone else, well, so be it. By defining your own variable universe, you can make a world that makes sense because it simply feels right.

I started rambling I must admit, and actually losing the idea of where the discussion is going? Please guide me.

 

I could go on like this for a long time, but I think this is allready a little too long.

I know I have been skirting any solid facts here, but have tried to convey a sense of what it is I am not permitted to speak of, by giving you common examples readily available.

I do not try to say what this reality is -far from it, I am going out of my way to avoid doing so- I am merely trying to answer the question at hand, ie. How can we attempt to understand beyond doubt what is real? And I think we are all in agreement that our reason, logic, and sensual observations, can neither be trusted, nor believed beyound doubt. This my friends, is Maya.

Now, strictly speaking, to have a post as creation or destruction you have to assume that the keyboard, and computer, actually exist. In terms of volatge, a 1 or 0 is just a symbol applied to a certain voltage, of which there are partial voltages. Also, in terms of physics, the actual amount of matter measured in substance is so small as to be negligible. We should only speak in densities of energy, and even then, if the universe originates from an infinite source, then all is but a part of that infinity, so nothing has actually changed, this is in responce to Grey Magistrates valid statement of the contradiction I proposed, for further explanation of this, please read the top two quotes of this post.

This being said by way of explanation, Lokken is quite right in asserting that intuition is the key, intuition being something quite different from "feeling," and a higher form of knowing.

Now, If anyone does wish me to explain myself further, I shall give some examples of what the aforementioned means, and of the super-reality that has been spoken of, but there are still certain things I cannot broach.

 

@Manus: Your perspective on this is intriguing but I have to say that you deal your credibility a serious blow by saying (in effect), "Here's the truth but you'll just have to take my word for it. I'm not allowed to tell you more. Just accept it."

Kind of reminds me of how my very strict and old-fashioned Catholic mother raised us to think about sex - "It's dirty. Just don't do it." There was absolutely no discussion to be had, only blind obediance. Thought didn't enter into the picture.

If no one is permitted to reveal or discuss this knowledge and truth that you're privy to, how does it ever propogate?

 

@ Manus
Are you implying that you belong to a certain order? Just answer me this and the rest will follow

 

It's your truth, keep that in mind. We're talking perspectives here, your own to be precise.

I percieve this as right, thus it is right (at least till someone can convince you it's not thus and your perspective change).
At least that's how I understood it.

 

Look, you guys missed my point.

I don't belong to any order, no religion, no cult, nothing like that; I have just studied this sort of thing independently, and, added to that the experience which both myself, and family members have had in related fields, have reached my own conclusions. I trust in the validity of what I haven't experienced because it co-incides so closely with what I have.

I was never trying to say what the truth specifically was (if you read the end of my post-and I do apologise for its length in hindsight-you'll notice I said that I was trying to avoid doing so. I'll get back to this later.

What I was trying to do is merely offer an alternative solution. The conversation up to this point had reached the conclusions (varyingly) that logic, reason, and empirical science, while pragmatically useful up until a certain point, were not unquestionable, were in fact doubtful, and that people needed to reach a certain level of proof up to which they could believe, and that all knowledge rested upon solely this, personal belief.

What I am trying to say here is that reality can be experienced, beyond doubt (at least to those who make claim to such thing) and that it supercedes such things as impeded those other fields.

I was never asking you to take my word for anything, merely saying that it was possible to discover for yourself.

I have very good reasons for not trying to say -"this is what it is, you'll just have to believe me." The main one of which is to escape the sort of reaction that is just begginning.

People are unlikely to believe things too distinct from their own area of experience - which is exactly why I wrote all this, to say that the only way we will ever know for sure is to experience it.

By all means, discuss these topics, they have been previously in great depth (the majority of those quotes I came upon through a series of papers discussing the validity of such claims).

As to the second quote, the one that was partially cencored, it just doesn't feel right bandying those things about, for several reasons. It borders too close on bragging for me, trying to gain attention by the things that I say, which I try to avoid. Also, as was stated, if I tell something to someone who is neither ready to trust me, or attempt to discover the truth for themselves, it can sometimes do more harm than good.

I had a personal experience with this type of material quite recently. I'm hesitant to speak of it, but I will if you want, that reinforced in me the conviction that people come across these things at certain times, and that this progression cannot be rushed or forced, especially for the wrong reasons. In fact, despite the oppurtunities, if the situation isn't right, things will be experienced very differently, or not at all.

What I was trying to do, as I outlined at the end of my last post, was not to say what reality was specifically, but to answer the question that was originally stated, ie.

So I presented a possible solution; If you don't agree, not only will I accept that, I'll encourage it. However, everyone here seems like very intelligent and inquisitive people, so I thought that, even if the majority here did not agree, it would at least serve as a point of curiosity.

I'm not trying to come across as some know-it-all or religious fanatic, but I see that this is the way I have been percieved. This is what I was talking about before with the "more harm than good" bit. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and there are so many charlatans out there that anything that smells remotely like what they are all trying to peddle, can very easily be branded with the same mark. Unfortunate, but seemingly unnavoidable.

As to your reactions;

I couldn't agree more. I don't know if that was intended for me or not, but what I'm trying to present is a way to overcome personal perception (at least as far as this plane is concerned): the limiting factor that surrounds all else. Now it may be wrong, this loss of interference by personal perception may indeed only be a personal perception, but I guess we'll have to experience that for ourselves to be able to make such a judgement. Myself, I have probably spent more time with the other side of this argument (that is, the opposite side to that which I have taken up now), so I know what some of you may be thinking, having been there myself - and I can tell you now it's far more likely than not that these people (whom I quoted) are correct.
Also, these things are not my own perceptions but those of others'. As you can see they are all quotes.

Mithrantir, I think you are trying to say that if I had only been taught to believe such things by a particular order, that there is theoretically just as much likelihood of them being as untrustworthy as everyone else, believing things without any experience to back up the claims, and usually experience that suggests the opposite, or so full of dogma that it makes little difference. I'm not trying to say this is what any particular order is like, but any worth it's salt would be generally unknown to the general public anyway. This is exactly why I avoided all topics that could be seen in this light. The pre-dominance of these quotes comes from scholars, researchers, and authors of scientific papers and lectures - people just like everyone else.
However, I may be wrong in this assumption, so could you please clarify what you would infer if I had of belonged to such an order?

Rallymama, I only choose not to say more out of morality, and a desire to avoid unnesecary or emotional conflict and argument. If I had of spoken of my own understanding of cosmogeny I can assure you most people would have called me either arrogant, a fool, or said the exact same thing you're saying now: How do you expect us to believe this? Well this is what I'm actually answering, not what you should believe, but that it's possible for you to test that belief for yourself. I could go into an account of the meanings of all these quotes, but that rather defeats the purpose of me putting them there in the first place, especially since noone asked what they meant, only disagreed as to whether they meant anything. If I am wrong here than I do sincerly apologise. As to it's propogation, as per the first, second and third quotes, people usually come to roughly the same conclusions by themselves, and then can intuitively, or even rationally, tell for themselves the truth of another statement. This is drammatically assisted because the nature and limitation of time for such things is unveiled, as pertains to literature - This claim too I will explain if asked, and leave the final decision of belief up to you.

However, if any of you (or anyone else) does have any questions, whatever they may be, I will endeavour to do my best at answering them, within reason of course. Not to say that you should take the time to question me, or that what I have said is more valid than anything anyone else has said. I only offer this as a possible answer to Grey Magistrate's very interesting conundrum, one I have accepted for myself.

 

Something just popped into my mind concerning this...

Those who are 0 per cent insane do not doubt reality. they are absolutely certain that everything is real.

Those who are 100 per cent insane never doubt the reality, either, for whatever they believe, IS the reality for them at least.

Thus, only those who are insane to a varying degree doubt the reality.

 

divine intellects are never wrong. At least the internet's residents like to think so.

If you ever want to achieve something in an argument make sure your counterpart can get an honerable retreat. Now I said Counterpart not parts. Never argue in a crowd, it is faceless.

 

This reminds me the first belief; of Bene Geserit as Herbert so beautifully writes in Dune. Imagine that the blind can't see, the deaf can't hear and understand that there many things out there we can't understand because we lack the appropiatte senses. At least that is what it said pretty much. Really deep quote it holds a big truth in it.
Anyway, the concepts real and reality are subjective and not objective. Everyone is perceiving the world in a different way than everyone else and we only have basic channels of communication between each ones world. Reality for each one of us is based upon our actions and the consequences of our actions. But for two people no matter how close they are and what level of understanding exists between them any action performed by the other is perceived differently from each one.
We may be social animals living in societies but this does not mean we live in the same place. My world differs from everyone elses and resembles in many details to everyone else but only resembles, it is never the same.
As i said before our actions and their consequences form our reality and noone else can really change this. It is just a matter of choice. Where do i stand? That is then real.
@Manus

Because all things start from one and end at that one, is the reason that nothing is and yet they all are.

[ October 14, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

@Mithrantir Exactly!

 

We follow the same path Manus more or less. We had similar questions and we both search for answers

 

Hey! My dad is a filosophy teacher... You don't wanna know how many times we have had THIS conversation...I think that if it's true that we live in a computer or somethin' then theres nothing we can do anyway so why torture ourselves... So what if nothing is"real"?? what we don't know can't hurt us!

 

Hey all - my first post in this section in a long time.

I must admit I haven't read every word of every post here, so I apologise if I repeat anything someone has already said.

I'll start out by saying that I can't see how the nature of reality can ever be ascertained. We have no tools to test the accuracy of our perceptions against the "true nature of reality", and, as such, are in no position to construct such tools. There's no one and nothing there to say "yeah, you figured it out"... and if there was, there would be no way to prove we'd been told the truth.

However, when it comes down to it... I can't see how it's relevant. We use our knowledge / belief / understanding (I won't debate the use of these words - take them in their normal, everyday context) to make predictions. This therefore that. Cause and effect. If one model describes the outcome just as well as another, what does it matter which one is "correct" according to the true nature of reality?

Let's say the physicists got it wrong, and there really are no such things as atoms. So what? The model they proposed has allowed us to make useful predictions. Sure, the uranium atom might not REALLY exist, and as such it doesn't REALLY decay releasing energy... but that doesn't stop nuclear power from working. If, eventually, we find phenomena that cannot be explained by the model, the model will be adjusted in order to allow useful predictions to take place.

It's a funny question, that. Two points immediately spring to mind:

1) Assuming everything ends (and physics seems to suggest it will, at least insofar as we and our universe are concerned) will the light bulb or wheel really have made any more difference than philosophy?

2) What is the point of the wheel? To make life easier. Why make life easier? So we can do other stuff. What other stuff? Enter philosophy...