Prostitution and Eternal Values

[Arising_uk]

Same way you know this....

So you now agree this is false?

....no one has ever seen an idea...

[Dontaskme]

Same way you know this....

So you now agree this is false?

....no one has ever seen an idea...

Yes, that's what I've been saying...knowledge informs illusory reality.

The effects can be seen...but an effect implies a causer..which cannot be seen.

When an artist paints a picture...the picture can appear as seen, but the idea for the picture was nowhere to be seen until it appeared. The picture must have already existed for it to have manifested, appeared.

Do you want to discuss this further over here .. https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=23601

If you don't then I have no idea what your motive for being on this forum is except to refute everything the meta-physical mind has to say, and if that's true, who died and made you judge and juror over and above what's actually real and not real, true and not true?

.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, that's what I've been saying...knowledge informs illusory reality.

Sorry I don't understand, do you agree with what I said in that ideas can be seen or not?

The effects can be seen...but an effect implies a causer..which cannot be seen.

A mirror if it's you and the person with the idea if not.

When an artist paints a picture...the picture can appear as seen, but the idea for the picture was nowhere to be seen until it appeared. ...

? It was in the head of the artist.

The picture must have already existed for it to have manifested, appeared.

It did, in the head of the artist.

If you don't then I have no idea what your motive for being on this forum is except to refute everything the meta-physical mind has to say, and if that's true, who died and made you judge and juror over and above what's actually real and not real, true and not true?

I see, so you deny me what you assume for yourself?

If I can refute something then why not? That I tend to oppose metaphysical logical ontology is because of the history of Philosophy which has taught us that when it comes to what is true or not the best method is Empiricism, hence the rise of the Natural Philosophers. I also think Kant had it right that there is a noumena and anything can be said about it and all of it will be wrong or at least unknowable.

[Belinda]

Arising_uk wrote:

That I tend to oppose metaphysical logical ontology is because of the history of Philosophy which has taught us that when it comes to what is true or not the best method is Empiricism, hence the rise of the Natural Philosophers. I also think Kant had it right that there is a noumena and anything can be said about it and all of it will be wrong or at least unknowable.

But it was Descartes the rationalist who made scepticism popular.

[Eodnhoj7]

With regards to myself, my observations cease to exist with me. With regards to others, my observations, which they only get to know by way of my expressions, stay in their memories or in the physical records where they might have been stored. They'll be gone when all of these cease to exist, too. That's why archaeologists have a job: the dig out the lost memories, if any remain.

So by default everything you observe will eventually be untrue.

No. Why would that be? If they cease to exist, they will be neither true or untrue.

Nothingness is an absence, an not a phenomena in and of itself, hence "untruth" is equivalent to a deficiency in truth.

The problem occurs that the nature of measurement, regardless of historical influence, is ever-present and requires a form of consistency, premised in a lack of change, in order to occur.

In simpler terms the process of connecting the dots is an ever-present form of measurement whether it is viewed quantitatively or qualitatively, and we can observe this following in a similar format in the physical laws of the universe.

In these terms, a universal morality of mirroring through reasoning seems to be inevitable and is summated in moral codes such as the Golden Mean, or moderation as a form of unifying balance.

You have just replaced the term "observation" by "measurement" and start arguing again the same thing I already dealt with when talking about observations. Once again: the measurement implies the measuring agent, the observer.

Measurement is inherent within observation for it is merely a reflection of dimensions. The observer perceives a phenomena, in turn the observer both measures the phenomena by its inherent quantities and qualities, while in a separate respect the phenomena reflects back to the observer and a medial neutral point of phenomena/observer exists.

For instance:

I observe a car. I use all my senses to perceive it, and in doing so cause a change within the car (moving the car or parts of it).

The car as phenomena, in turn reflects back to me. My senses change, I move around, my thoughts and emotions form memories which will affect me later down the timeline. In these respects, the car causes changes within qualitative dimensions of my being.

The "me observing the car" phenomena in turn has an effect where a bystander may look to see what is going on, or a person slows down to avoid a collision while I am driving etc.

This symmetry between the phenomena forms a dimension of space and time in itself, a particle maybe, but a particle which relates to further particles causing further symmetry (or lack of) to exist. Measurement as an application of symmetry, while necessitated by the observer, also follows that all phenomena (whether a rock, plant, animal, etc.) manifests some degree of change or stability by manifesting further quantitative and qualitative dimensions.

Measurement and observation are inseperable, and where they are deemed as separate it is merely an observation of relations in regards to change.

[Nick_A]

Arising

If I can refute something then why not? That I tend to oppose metaphysical logical ontology is because of the history of Philosophy which has taught us that when it comes to what is true or not the best method is Empiricism, hence the rise of the Natural Philosophers. I also think Kant had it right that there is a noumena and anything can be said about it and all of it will be wrong or at least unknowable.

Curious. You support external empiricism or scientific knowledge but refuse to believe it is incomplete for the human experience the seeker of truth is drawn to.

As strong as you support external empiricism or science, you reject the conscious attempts to “know thyself” or have the inner experience of oneself. Could we ever verify the reality of eternal values without first experiencing them in the process of self observation? I’m convinced that methods of inner empiricism would be impossible to teach in modern universities. The temptation to corrupt them to establish politically correct answers would destroy the efforts. Eternal values cannot be prostituted since we are closed off to the experience of them. So those sincere seekers have to find others like themselves. This isn’t easy

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

This is an unconventional approach to philosophy in our culture. Yet it is one that can throw light on many of the great classic questions of philosophy. For example, "Is the world real, or only a construct of appearances?" Behind the appearances presented to us by our senses, is there a real world? And if so, how can we ever know it? These problems have been argued over for centuries, often brilliantly; and nobody has argued better or more cleverly about these points than Immanuel Kant. There are many ways of looking at the issue; and what we find is a shifting mosaic of appearances depending on our point of view.

……………….What I want to emphasize is that once we begin to take seriously the potential capacity of the human mind for other kinds of experiences--for other states of consciousness--and develop the proper language and understanding, we discover that the whole question of appearance versus reality itself shifts. Once we begin to realize that there is a selfhood that is more real, under what we usually call "my self ", we come to recognize that not only do we live in a world of appearances outside, we also live in an internal world of appearances.
At this point, the whole issue gets really interesting. Now we see that in order to know the world behind external appearances, we have to get behind the appearances of our inner world. The only way to gain real knowledge of the outer world is by penetrating the appearances of the inner world. Thus, if I want to know the numinous, the thing¬in¬itself, I need to activate that instrument in myself that is capable of perceiving it. This is the very "instrument" that Kant proved, so he believed, did not exist…………………

Arising often asks me what I would teach. This is meaningless without first acknowledging the human condition which defines reality as appearances. Only a few will be open to the process but who can teach it other than those who have experienced it and have experienced eternal values. Prof. Needleman concludes the article with:

What is missing from our educational system is not so much courses in meditation or inner empiricism but classes in how to think for ourselves and how to balance our whole lives. A university course designed to teach students how to think things through from fundamental principles--combining the psychology of perception with meaningful philosophy--could be added to the curriculum. There are signs that this is beginning to happen in academia--in philosophy, in comparative religion, in divinity studies, in anthropology, and in the humanities. It is possible, for example, to reframe perhaps as much as 90 percent of the world's great literature--from Homer to Shakespeare--as expressions of the spiritual quest for self knowledge. The emphasis on inner experience may even be already happening in the sciences. But wherever it occurs, it evolves through individuals, not through institutionalized mass movements.

Ultimately, though, individual seekers will not make it on their own without guidance and the support of peers. For that reason, it is important for serious and committed seekers to come together, not in the sense of an academic school, but as a spiritual school. The whole point of such a school would be to assist the development of the autonomous observer. Top of the agenda for any spiritual school would be disciplines aimed at developing the observer's instrument for perceiving the reality beyond inner appearances.

Science will establish facts and inner empiricism will establish objective values. But the world is against inner empiricism. It prefers indoctrination. Seekers of truth are forced to find authentic spiritual schools as opposed to the myriad expressions of charlatanism and escapism. So spirit killing under the banner of education rules the secular world. Secular education will attempt to indoctrinate the politically correct lie supporting the whims of the Great Beast while the authentic spiritual school develops the autonomous observer in pursuit of the experience of reality and eternal vlues. The young seeker of truth really has virtually everything against them.

[Eodnhoj7]

Physics inability to observe Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the principle of uncertainty (which emphasize by default a heavy probabilistic understanding of the universe as approximation) provide a premise for deep uncertainty about the nature of the physical universe...plus it shows a poor logical ability to reflect on their axiomatic foundations.

The simple truth is the physics, while a necessary science, is not the "be all end all" until it finds the "particle" or "field" (if they can make up their minds what is what) responsible for the vary consciousness which observes and manipulates it.

Physics has its place, but it is the modern version of the medieval Catholic Theocracy, and we will view it the same way in a few hundred years or less. The simple truth is that Newton was the sole prophet of physical truth, then Einstein came and we say "ehh...newton...he tried that is what counts". What happens when another man, greater than Einstein, comes along?

Its emphasis on theory over fact will bite it in the ass one day unless it learns some humility...and basic rules in logic and common sense. Predicting "darkness" (ie black holes, dark matter), provides the metaphysical and moral foundations for a perpetual nihilism we see today.

Metaphysics will have to come back eventually simply because these extremes, much like the frequencies the physicists observe, follow a universal pattern and "alternate".

Metaphysics has to come back and apply universal principles that apply, without a shadow of doubt, to both empirical and abstract realities that compose the human condition.

[Nick_A]

Physics inability to observe Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the principle of uncertainty (which emphasize by default a heavy probabilistic understanding of the universe as approximation) provide a premise for deep uncertainty about the nature of the physical universe...plus it shows a poor logical ability to reflect on their axiomatic foundations.

The simple truth is the physics, while a necessary science, is not the "be all end all" until it finds the "particle" or "field" (if they can make up their minds what is what) responsible for the vary consciousness which observes and manipulates it.

Physics has its place, but it is the modern version of the medieval Catholic Theocracy, and we will view it the same way in a few hundred years or less. The simple truth is that Newton was the sole prophet of physical truth, then Einstein came and we say "ehh...newton...he tried that is what counts". What happens when another man, greater than Einstein, comes along?

Its emphasis on theory over fact will bite it in the ass one day unless it learns some humility...and basic rules in logic and common sense. Predicting "darkness" (ie black holes, dark matter), provides the metaphysical and moral foundations for a perpetual nihilism we see today.

Metaphysics will have to come back eventually simply because these extremes, much like the frequencies the physicists observe, follow a universal pattern and "alternate".

Metaphysics has to come back and apply universal principles that apply, without a shadow of doubt, to both empirical and abstract realities that compose the human condition.

Rodney Colin wrote:

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different 'methods of knowing'.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions.. The first method begins with 'facts' and attempts to reach 'laws'. The second method begins with 'laws' and attempts to reach 'facts'.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive...

The return of valuing metaphysics through deductive reason IMO will be very meaningful if it ever happens. But the attraction to and celebration of inductive or bottom up reason to verify universal truths may not allow it in public. So such top down logic and respect for intuition as Einstein described it will not be common knowledge IMO. At least it will always be in the world and supplying a very important awakening function for those who need it.

[Greta]

A career as a guru beckons! Go tell it from the mountain, brother!

Be quick, though, I hear that Nick is in the market for mountains in which to teach the way of the Grumbling Evasive Rationalising Misogynist to his many follower.

People need to stop shooting the messenger. Shoot the message but not the messenger. Your response is immature pettiness. Not your fault, it's part of the human conditioning to mock others...and while those who do this to others at the same time hate being mocked themselves.

Thank you for ignoring the fact that Nick and I have debated for years. We exchanged every bit of actual content we were ever going to exchange some time ago.

Pity you missed all of that. For years.

So let's just ignore all of Nick's and my very public past on forum and pretend that this was Nick's and my first interaction. Let's pretend that he has not hammered me with FAR more ad hominem attacks that I've given him. For years. Suddenly, my rare moment of wit is the sole issue.

You KNEW all this. You cannot pretend. You have seen these debates for years. You saw him starting threads to specifically attack me. Yet you ignore it and attacked only me, ignoring both all of my content and all of Nick's ad homs.

Why did you deliberately choose to misrepresent the situation? Because you like him as a "God kind of guy" like you. He is one who speaks mystical rather than scientific language. He is one who dislikes science and scientists. He is one who, like you, hates this world and the people in it.

So please skip the disingenuous adjudication. It is embarrassingly transparent and childish. Thanks.

[Dontaskme]

I also think Kant had it right that there is a noumena and anything can be said about it and all of it will be wrong or at least unknowable.

Yep, you got it, that's exactly what I've been pointing to all along. I agree with Kant.

If knowledge is one with the knowing then it's all a fiction arising in no thing....it's not that it's wrong per-se..it's what it is, purely fictional...believed or not believed to be true, that's the nature of the mind, it's makes-it-all-up-as-it-goes-along...like this.......

[Dontaskme]

You saw him starting threads to specifically attack me. Yet you ignore it and attacked only me, ignoring both all of my content and all of Nick's ad homs.

Why did you deliberately choose to misrepresent the situation? Because you like him as a "God kind of guy" like you. He is one who speaks mystical rather than scientific language. He is one who dislikes science and scientists. He is one who, like you, hates this world and the people in it.

So please skip the disingenuous adjudication. It is embarrassingly transparent and childish. Thanks.

I simply said there is no need to shoot the messenger. It wasn't meant to be taken personally, but if that's what you've done then that's because ego is still very apparent in you, don't take that personally.

Thanks for your understanding, or not.

We can only attack ourselves. I have never been successful in destroying myself ...bar shooting myself in the head with a gun, but even that I have no idea of the outcome as to whether it would have been a total success of being destroyed or not.

I have never once seen Nick hating the world, this is purely your own projection of hate imposed upon Nick. Nicks projections of the world are his own thoughts unique to him alone....they do not belong to another neither are they any business of any one else..I've never seen Nick attack any person on this forum...he attacks the ideas about the current belief systems, but I have not seen him attack the person he is having the conversation about current belief systems with.

And are we not all doing the same thing, projecting our likes and dislikes, hates and prejudices into the world out-there ?

...when are we going to stop doing that?...when are we going to realise that we are the only ones creating the conflict in the world via our well grooved out belief systems... perhaps when we all stop doing it, when everyone stops doing it...then perhaps we'll all see the pure clarity of existence.

We can only be the peace we want to see in the world...the world will never be at peace until we as an individual are at peace....

That's why we have to stop shooting each other in the head..because quite frankly, you wouldn't do that to yourself now would you?

....this is not to be taken personally..

Nick and I don't really get into a conversation that much because we both know there is no one there to bounce off.

It's quite funny how the nobodies seem to be the ones who shout the loudest, and yet are never heard...until they are.

.

[Dontaskme]

Sorry I don't understand, do you agree with what I said in that ideas can be seen or not?

An idea can be seen as and through language written or spoken or through a material model. But these are recordings. Evidence appearing real.

They are the appearances of no-thing...all appearances can apparently temporally be destroyed but Like a Phoenix Rising from the Ashes will arise once again...and again and again and again....

The effects can be seen...but an effect implies a causer..which cannot be seen.

A mirror if it's you and the person with the idea if not.

A mirror cannot see itself, just as teeth cannot bite themselves. You are not the image in the mirror...you are the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects from itself...illusory imageless images.

The person with an idea is an idea, it's a mirror image of the mirror that cannot see itself except what it reflects, as illusory imageless images, a mirage...appearing real.

When an artist paints a picture...the picture can appear as seen, but the idea for the picture was nowhere to be seen until it appeared. ...

It was in the head of the artist.

No it's not in there either....have you ever seen a painting inside someones head?

The picture must have already existed for it to have manifested, appeared.

It did, in the head of the artist.

Nope, the picture that already existed was an idea....only ideas exist, and ideas are invisible.

I see, so you deny me what you assume for yourself?

You mean like when you deny me same...good game isn't it trying to pin down what is actually really true or not true in reality.

[Dontaskme]

Arising often asks me what I would teach. This is meaningless without first acknowledging the human condition which defines reality as appearances. Only a few will be open to the process but who can teach it other than those who have experienced it and have experienced eternal values.

That which is eternal cannot be an appearance. Eternity cannot make an appearance ...eternity doesn't have to show up to it's own show...it is the show. Appearances are what's not real, there is a lot of what's not real showing up to it's own show.

We all know intrinsically the eternal values because we are them...and that those values are lurking deep within the dark slimy caverns of our puny little minds...if only we could dig deep enough to find that they were there all along, there's gold to be found in them there caverns for those who are willing to dig deep enough.

Many teachers of today are leaving their profession as they one by one are waking up to the reality that there is something not quite right with the current education system...the shift is happening, we are slowly but surely all waking up to the truth.

[Nick_A]

A career as a guru beckons! Go tell it from the mountain, brother!

Be quick, though, I hear that Nick is in the market for mountains in which to teach the way of the Grumbling Evasive Rationalising Misogynist to his many follower.

People need to stop shooting the messenger. Shoot the message but not the messenger. Your response is immature pettiness. Not your fault, it's part of the human conditioning to mock others...and while those who do this to others at the same time hate being mocked themselves.

Thank you for ignoring the fact that Nick and I have debated for years. We exchanged every bit of actual content we were ever going to exchange some time ago.

Pity you missed all of that. For years.

So let's just ignore all of Nick's and my very public past on forum and pretend that this was Nick's and my first interaction. Let's pretend that he has not hammered me with FAR more ad hominem attacks that I've given him. For years. Suddenly, my rare moment of wit is the sole issue.

You KNEW all this. You cannot pretend. You have seen these debates for years. You saw him starting threads to specifically attack me. Yet you ignore it and attacked only me, ignoring both all of my content and all of Nick's ad homs.

Why did you deliberately choose to misrepresent the situation? Because you like him as a "God kind of guy" like you. He is one who speaks mystical rather than scientific language. He is one who dislikes science and scientists. He is one who, like you, hates this world and the people in it.

So please skip the disingenuous adjudication. It is embarrassingly transparent and childish. Thanks.

DaM, you really should be ashamed of yourself. Why do you hate the world so much and the people in it to such a degree that you will attack Greta who as everyone knows is as pure as the virgin snow thinking only of sugar plums. You have now joined me in engaging in nasty ad homs against this pearl of purity.

Does it really matter that I began the Einstein thread? Of course not. Our pearl of purity has proclaimed that I hate science. And now you have revealed what you are and will join the list of condemned deplorables. You cannot escape. The purity police will find you and expose the hatred that you have for science and humanity.

So please skip the disingenuous adjudication. It is embarrassingly transparent and childish.

You have been exposed and even now snowflakes are hiding under their desks to avoid the vibrations of your hatred. May God have mercy on your soul.

[Nick_A]

Arising often asks me what I would teach. This is meaningless without first acknowledging the human condition which defines reality as appearances. Only a few will be open to the process but who can teach it other than those who have experienced it and have experienced eternal values.

That which is eternal cannot be an appearance. Eternity cannot make an appearance ...eternity doesn't have to show up to it's own show...it is the show. Appearances are what's not real, there is a lot of what's not real showing up to it's own show.

We all know intrinsically the eternal values because we are them...and that those values are lurking deep within the dark slimy caverns of our puny little minds...if only we could dig deep enough to find that they were there all along, there's gold to be found in them there caverns for those who are willing to dig deep enough.

Many teachers of today are leaving their profession as they one by one are waking up to the reality that there is something not quite right with the current education system...the shift is happening, we are slowly but surely all waking up to the truth.

I agree. Eternal values are the norm. Fallen man and secularism is a result of a cosmic condition.

Sometimes change is only the appearance of awakening. But what if eternal values are interpreted into secular ethics inviting all the hypocrisy which sustains them? Then, as usual, they will result in their opposite as what happens now and the search for those responsible will begin. New scapegoats will be created since Trump will be gone by then.