Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
scottmartinlocke
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 2
|
Post: #1  Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: understanding reality |
  |
|
|
if we really understad reality we have to come to terms with the inner mind as well as physical reality.
intuition works just only so far; the rest of reality is either in your mind or in the actual world; but what of spiritual reality? can it be confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nameless
Joined: 13 May 2008
Posts: 1071
Location: Here/Now
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: understanding reality |
|
|
|
| scottmartinlocke wrote: |
| if we really understad reality |
At which point you define what 'reality' means to you so the rest of your post makes sense as per your intent.
| Quote: |
| we have to come to terms with the inner mind as well as physical reality. |
What makes you think that your 'physical reality' isn't in 'your' mind (there is no 'inner' and 'outter' mind, there is Mind)? There is no evidence of an 'out there'.
| Quote: |
| the rest of reality is either in your mind or in the actual world; |
The 'actual world' is the concepts in your mind, moment by moment.
| Quote: |
| but what of spiritual reality? |
Can you define your terms here? What is 'spirit'? Evidence? And again, the subjective, nebulous 'reality', again...
Is "spiritual" a different flavor of 'reality' than the (apparently) 'physical' day to day life 'reality'?
| Quote: |
| can it be confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul? |
And your definition of 'soul'?
Mine is 'Conscious Perspective'. What is your's?
What are these 'principles' to which you refer? From where? Perhaps you assume that we know more than we do. There are no universal definitions for the words that you use; no universal concensus, especially words like 'spirit', 'soul', 'reality', etc...
Here's a 'principle' for you;
First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective." -Book of Fudd (1:1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tolex
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 8
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| we have to observe life to understand reality,we have to us our conscience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: understanding reality |
|
|
|
| nameless wrote: |
What makes you think that your 'physical reality' isn't in 'your' mind (there is no 'inner' and 'outter' mind, there is Mind)? There is no evidence of an 'out there'. |
Not at all true.
My mind is being effected (my perceptions) by something that is necessarily not my mind. Whatever is "not my mind" is "out there".
The idea of "self-affectance" is an oxymoron. Things are distinguished by what and how they affect. Existence itself is only the realm of mutual affectance. For anything to be said to exist, it must affect something.
If something only affects itself, it has no definition because there is no distinction between it and anything else.
There must be what IS the mind and what is NOT the mind. What is "out there" is defined by what is NOT the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: understanding reality |
|
|
|
| scottmartinlocke wrote: |
if we really understad reality we have to come to terms with the inner mind as well as physical reality.? |
Hi sml!
Excellent! It takes the inner reality/IR of our minds to make sense of outer reality/OR. Thus inner reality/IR is more important and is the more real reality than outer reailty/OR. Outer Reality/OR is real, but it might as well be Virtual Reality/VR when use IR as our RR: our Reference Reality.
| scottmartinlocke wrote: |
intuition works just only so far; the rest of reality is either in your mind or in the actual world; but what of spiritual reality? can it be confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul? |
bold by ape
Intuition is simply the tuition we get from being in Love with all words and their opposites: the more we love, the more intuitive we are, and vice versa. We can call intuition Inlovtuition.
Also since Love is the spirit of our minds and of all our words when we love all words, then the spiritual reality and intuition and soul and heart in our inner minds are really just other words for the same thing.
Example: The right spirit of truth is Love, -- not truth of itself, but the Truth of Love. Why? Because the truth can be spoken with and in the wrong spirit of Hate, which is why we have calumny and slander and etc.
All of this can be and is easily confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul and heart and understanding and mind when we love all words and their enemopposites. 
"Principle of Opposites. This is best summarized by Hegel's statement that "everything carries with it its own negation". The only way we can know anything is by contrast with an opposite. A partial list of opposites in Jung's theory would include the following:
* conscious-unconscious
* good-bad
* rational-irrational
* extravert-introvert
* masculine-feminine
* birth-death
* animal-spiritual
* think-feel
* causality-teleology
* sense-intuit."
Carl Jung (1875-1961) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: understanding reality |
|
|
|
| ape wrote: |
| Hegel's statement that "everything carries with it its own negation". The only way we can know anything is by contrast with an opposite. |
What is the opposite of a 3-legged cow?
You can't know what a 3-legged cow is until you know what its opposite is, so get to it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 857
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| can it be confirmed by our inherent intuition and relative understanding of the principles of spirit and soul? |
Intuition is a curious thing. My experiences with intuition tell me there is more to reality than what the eye sees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GiftedPhilosophy
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Post: #8 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Our perception only affords what we can biologically be designed to do [by virtue of threshold]. Indeed we have the affinity to understand the greater realms and depth of the universe by the aid of senses that may guide us to teleological abstractions at best, however, ultimate reality and with it the perception, will act as the substrate to absolute truth in the absence of the senses.
Thinking or even self contained phenomena known as intuition could be one of the most creative ways to gain insight to absolute truth, but never can we arrive at a good enough haven to assign the quality of language to be reconciled with existence and the universe itself.
We are simply endomorphic identities to the universe and with it comes the showcasing of natural laws that we become aware of through inflection of analysis unto ourselves and the configuring events of reality as a 'participatory observer.'
I hope to arrive at even the rudiments of truth someday… absolute truth that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #9 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
"Principle of Opposites. This is best summarized by Hegel's statement that "everything carries with it its own negation". The only way we can know anything is by contrast with an opposite. A partial list of opposites in Jung's theory would include the following:
* conscious-unconscious
* good-bad
* rational-irrational
* extravert-introvert
* masculine-feminine
* birth-death
* animal-spiritual
* think-feel
* causality-teleology
* sense-intuit." |
I agree with the quotation from Hegel, Ape. However negations are not the same as opposites. For instance the negation of birth may be death, or it may be pregnancy, or it may be death , or it may be still birth, or it may be abortion.
The negation of think may be feel but it may as well be day-dream, or do, or intuit, or obey. The negation depends on the context.The negation may be an opposite but it's more often not strictly an opposite.
Extravert and introvert are true opposites I'd say because they are preccise terms from psychology.
Causality is not the only 'opposite 'of teleology, another what you are calling 'opposite' could just as well be randomness.
Rational's negation may as well be arational as irrational.
Good is, I'd say , the true opposite of bad, although others may argue that it's not an opposite but a negation.
Masculine is not the opposite of feminine, and to claim so is bad science. There are shades of sexual masculine and feminine, depending upon genetic inheritance and the hormonal state, perhaps even cultural influences. This is the clearest instance of the fallacy of claiming that everything has an opposite.
It is true that everything that exists has a negation in which case it's true to claim that masculine is a negation of feminine.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nada
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 91
|
| Post: #10 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| GiftedPhilosophy wrote: |
I hope to arrive at even the rudiments of truth someday… absolute truth that is. |
May I carry on with your fine thoughts.
I am not sure that absolute truth is - an object. I see it more as a stream .. where it can be known by experience and observation .. but can not be grasped or held in the same way we know a theory or hold a memory.
I am not saying it well but I hope you get my meaning.
At the foundation of all analytical knowledge is a more fundamental knowledge that we witness and understand.
Let me say it this way .. is directly knowledge of 'something' better than indirect knowledge?
Let me put it another way .. if you knew nothing about the sun rise .. would it be better to see one yourself? or to never see one but instead rely on people's descriptions?
I would say that it is pretty clear to us that direct knowledge of something is better and more accurate than indirect knowledge.
Now the psychological mind works with images. Be they visual images, impressions of taste or touch, sense impressions left in memory, or images of imagination (by which we create of postulate). The fact is that all psychological knowledge is indirect knowledge. The psychological mind works with images (representations).
But before the psychological mind developed in a child there was already a cognitive (knowing) feature. This, more truly than the features and function of psychological mind, deserves the name of 'intellect'.
Please allow me to use the work 'ken' which indicates a direct perception way of knowing, a comprehension, as differentiated from an {analytical / theoretical / memory} way of knowing something.
In a simple way we can say that a developing child can 'ken' a table (know it by way of a direct experience) even before there is a psychological image in his mind - of the table.
After the child 'ken' the table he may now develop a psychological impression (let is call that impression and 'image') of .. table.
In fact, the child can not create a psychological image of a table without having a foundational experience of - a table - on which to base the psychological image.
And so we now recognize two forms of knowledge. One is direct ((ken) and the other is indirect in as much as it is composed of images of experiences.
This experience of 'ken' is always true - there is no falseness about it. Any falseness associated with ken is a falseness which is being assumed or presumed from the psychological mind. For example .. we may see what appears to be red hot metal searing to touch.. only to find out some artist did a terrific job in fooling us, but the fooling part takes place in the psychological mind (it assumptions).
This 'ken' is essentially that state which mediation tries to restore. Under the theory that we have put psychological mind into the place where it tries to be foundational (rather than the ken experience).
Direct knowledge (which should be the judge over psychological knowledge as well as sense perception) is superior to indirect knowledge in as much as it is the foundational form of knowledge.
This would mean that direct knowledge (ken / foundational - first knowledge) is that absolute truth we are looking for. Let us call this 'ken' knowledge to be primary knowledge and psychological knowledge as secondary knowledge.
Generally we can say that the developing child has 'ken' knowledge as its primary form of knowing - from the day of birth to about the age of six. From approximately the age of six onward the child's psychological mind has developed enough (it is now populated with enough images) that the child can do reasoning and abstract thought.
This all means that 'ken' knowledge is the foundation of psychological knowledge. Psychological knowledge is built upon ken knowledge as a house is built upon a foundation.
To the extent that psychological knowledge corresponds (or is compatible with) 'ken' knowledge ... we are good to go.
To the extent that psychological knowledge does not correspond (and may contradict) 'ken' knowledge - we are unsure, doubtful, confused, and feel separated from reality and nature.
This 'ken' knowledge is dynamic. It co-exists with our experience of reality. The impression it leaves may be constant or may be superseded by some later and further experience. In fact I would say that it is only a matter of time before it is - superseded, again, and again, and again, etc.. hence I say it is more like a stream that we stand in as the waters flow by.
Which reminds me of the Buddhist saying that "You can not step into the same stream .. twice." Every step into the stream is fresh waters (not the same water) around your feet.
Just some of my thoughts on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #11 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
GiftedPhilosophy wrote:
I hope to arrive at even the rudiments of truth someday… absolute truth that is. |
Huh! I certainly won't be around when GiftedPhilosophy wins the Nobel Prize for the discovery of all time. 
************ *************
Nada, isn't what you are talking about usually called 'subjective knowledge' ?
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GiftedPhilosophy
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Post: #12 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Why's that exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #13 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
GiftedPhilosophy, God is the only being who is all-knowing. It is impossible for any human being to know the whole, the absolute truth.All we can ever know are relative truths. Granted , some relative truths may be considered to be truer than other relative truths.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GiftedPhilosophy
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Post: #14 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You lost me at God =/
And how in the world is that logically consistent?
5+5=10 is no more truer that 9+1=10 no matter how relative it may seem.
A observer from a vantage point, assuming that their position has never shifted to and from that position, at the distance of ≈ 9 AU may purport that the sun is a source of light and may hold the perception that it is cold. where as some one within a survivable distance but much closer than that of the Earth realizes that the sun is a source of light and is therefore hot. There cannot be any source of subjectivity when it comes to truth. Relativity only affords the disposition so long as there are differing vantage points. So from this, it is not possible to be more truer in any absolute essence as if assigning an arbitrary magnitude.
And about the God thing, if there is such a 'being' that exists, why would one program a self configuring and teleological reality [in the sense of cycles in a system] and not have its sentient beings to impart knowledgeable concepts? No, I cannot accept this until proven otherwise. We learn to understand our own existence by realizing our own self to put into motion the reasons for which we exist.
In fact let's say for certain that he does exist, aren't *we* endomorphic images of him? Do we not now exhibit theic identities? What could account for gaining theses insights independent of a miraculous and seemingly serendipitous event of divergent insight? How about the concept of free will...why would such an omnipotent and omniscient being create such a thing to be able to stray away from otherwise what they intended!? Sorry but if I am building a robot, I will never extend the digital luxury to know how to destroy me nor know anything about me--its creator.
You are essentially postulating that there is no possible way to gain an insight to such dimensions the same way an ant can never build a space shuttle. This is a very inhibited way of thinking, not at all a spatial nor temporal constraint to my thankfulness however. The questions that cannot be occluded are to ask [teleologically speaking] what indeed must exist in a hyper-rational frame of events to occur such that an improbability comes into existence?
In another age, a human also told another human that they were foolish to even consider the idea of flying... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #15 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject: Re: understanding reality |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
What is the opposite of a 3-legged cow?
You can't know what a 3-legged cow is until you know what its opposite is, so get to it. |
Yes, sir!
Easy!
Just as how the opposite of 3-legged sense or any-legged sense is nonsense,
.
and just like how the opposite of a sentence whose clause ends with a pause is a cat whose paws end with claws, ,
so too it is NOT a non-sequitur that the opposite of a 3-legged cow is a no leg Non-cow or a 6-legged non-cow or a 3-legged bull or a 3-legged calf or a 3-legged non-cow-ard or brave!
Infinitely-deep Appendix:
Because when we love all words, all words mean Love and Love means all words, and so each word means all words--as in dictionaries -- then
each word actually has an infinity of opposites and posites, or an infinity of synonyms and antonyms!
Example:
What is the antonym of site?
Answer: Non-site or *oppo-site*!
Example:
What is the opposite of name?
Answer: Non-name or nameless or anti-name or antonym or contra-nym or ad-nominem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
