Saidin said:
Though in all honesty (and I don't mean to offend you or anyone else personally) I don't give two shits what you or anyone else thinks of me, as that would only be allowing someone else to define me, and thus give my power away. Liking me or not, my comments or not, has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you. If you are resistant to and uncomfortable with ideas outside your reality tunnel, I suggest you ponder why this is so, as it is telling of where you are on your own journey to self-actualization...
This. This is a prime example of why I disliked your comments. Though you may not have intended to, I perceive from this here arrogance, condescending tones and a pumped ego. I don't understand how one could go through their life never thinking that oneself actually made a mistake, handled a situation poorly, communicated in a bad way etc etc, and just shove the problem down other peoples throat by saying their problems with how you come forth has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with them - and therefore, they should ponder why they reacted in the first place while you can just go along on your high horse of spiritual correctedness not caring two shits about them, or what they have to say. Where is the humility in this? Where is the self-reflection in this? Where is the spirituality in this?
Saidin said:
I am not posting in absolutes, nor telling anyone they are wrong. You misunderstand. I am only offering a perspective...a subjective perspective of the nature of reality gained through extensive experience and study. Accept or deny it, in full or in part, it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
Perhaps this is so, but you do not come across this way. You deliberately dismiss, or so it would seem, other peoples arguments on the premise that what you are saying is truth. Instead of balanced discussion and sharing of views with even a modest amount of humility, you repeat your cycle of presenting your spiritual truths and dismissing the views of others because you are convinced you are right, and you certainly don't seem open to reconsider anything, especially not when you are just saying the problem people have with your comments are problems in and about themselves, and has nothing to do with you. This is easily perceived as posting in absolutes.
You say "There is no you", "But there is no objective reality", "The objective world is an illusion", "There is only awareness" and so on and so forth. You are making truth claims about other people and the nature of our universe, truth claims that I do not believe anyone of us can make with complete certainty while being intellectually, as well as spiritually, honest. Further down in your post you even write "You can agree with this or not, but it is
A truth whether you choose to accept it or not."
Saidin said:
Claiming that there is no objective truth is in no way an objective truth, it is a subjective one. Science, which you so honorably worship, validates this premise in its entirety. All of existence exists within the mind of the beholder. We can come to consensus about what we individually or collectively perceive, but that does not in itself create an objective truth. We could all live in The Matrix, and it would fit this paradigm perfectly. Science cannot prove we don't live in The Matrix, or that our entire Universe isn't a simulation (In fact there was an article not too long ago that stated that at deep levels of String Theory, the equations are indistinguishable from computer code). So any claim of an objective truth that can be validated is false.
How can claiming there is no objective truth not be an objective truth in itself? Is this not a claim going all over the board, valid everywhere and at all times, independent of individual minds? If no, then the claim is true in your head and you readily admit it does not apply generally, if so there is no contradiction, and it must not necessarily be true at all. If yes, then you certainly have a contradiction.
I don't worship science, I trust it and I do it in my daily life. But enough about that. Science does not validate this premise of yours that there are no objective truths. Science may not presuppose this, and science does not need to either in order to work, but it certainly does not readily validate or suggest that this be the case. We do not know, neither in science nor elsewhere, whether or not all of existence solely resides in the mind of the beholder. I do not know if this is true or not, and I don't claim to know either, but as you know I have an inkling to believe that the world is more "complicated" than this. But that is me and my reality tunnel, and I realize that what I think might be wrong so I do not speak as if I know the truth of this. This is very different from how you come forth with your comments, as you speak as if what you say is true and that you really know them to be.
Now, if you dismiss both ontological and epistemological objectivity, there is no right and wrong answers about anything. Science does not necessarily care about ontological objectivity, but it cares about epistemological objectivity - i.e there are right and wrong answers concerning whether or not the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, if Newtons laws are valid, if pigs can fly, if the earth is round and so on and so forth. If you will, there are right and wrong answers about this "simulation" and how it works, if that is what all of this is. On the contrary of this, this would be of pure subjective character, and whether or not the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, and the consequences of such, would be entirely up to each and one of us just as much as which painting or piece of music is the nicest.
All we have got is this universe, this world. If we live in a sort of Matrix, then there will still be right and wrong answers concerning the simulation, and perhaps some of them even apply outside the simulation? Who knows? Nevertheless it is rather pointless to address this in our daily lives, as we couldn't possibly know what does or does not lie outside of this reality. This is a question completely out of reach, and do not constitute proper arguments for anything - just food for thought. You and me can still be right about things, or wrong about things - for example in the questions discussed here.
Saidin said:
You yourself claim that you are not arguing against this premise...so your point is that you don't like how I am presenting it? Fair enough if so. But then I should express myself in a way that you find acceptable in order to get my point across? If I pander to you, how many others might I offend or alienate? Should I give up my uniqueness or who I perceive myself to be in the current moment to cater to another?
It is correct I am not arguing specifically against this premise, or at least I didn't to begin with, so my point was largely how you came forth, yes. And I will refer to my upper part of this post as a reply to this, as it is relevant here.
Saidin said:
All personal truths are equally valid, since we are all fragments of the Universal Mind, each experiencing itself as separate from itself. So the individual flying into a building is the same as one who believes non-violence is the key, to one who waits for the coming of a savior, to one who believes that there is no God. Who deems it dangerous? You? What gives you the authority or the right to speak for humanity, let alone a solitary individual you know nothing about? Life is eternal, you being a part of life are eternal, we are all eternal. There is only experience, and all experiences are valid because experience IS the expansion of the Universe. Time but measures change, which is naught but experience. You can agree with this or not, but it is A truth whether you choose to accept it or not.
Here you are coming with the absolutes again. How do you know any of this? Do you not at all consider the fact that this might not be the case? This is just wishy-washy talk with no concrete substance in it. You have presented no reasons for why this is true, no arguments to support it, nothing. But I guess you don't give two shits about what anyone thinks, so there is no reason to do so, you can just post this stuff as facts and go along. This might work in your world and be perfectly reasonable, but where many other of us are living, this is not good enough. This kind of thinking and attitude, and the acceptance of such, would get people killed in real life, Saidin - where it is actually very important to consider the truth value of various claims and ask for supporting evidence and good thinking.
And yes, I deem it, and so do many people, dangerous that we consider all personal truths as equally valid. Again, this justifies any act on the basis of such personal truths, including mass-murder and terrorism as mentioned. If we actually considered any claim made to be on equal footing as everyone elses in real life, people would get killed - medicine would not work properly, technology would not work properly and so on. We would simply not care to ensure that what we are doing makes any sense across the board, because everyone would be just as right.
And who are you anyway, to say such things? Who are you to, by a wave of your hand, dismiss the extent of real life issues that arises because someone act on delusions, factually wrong perceptions and potentially dangerous convictions by saying they are just as right as anyone else?
Saidin said:
Science is nothing extraordinary, it is only discovering what already exists, there is nothing new or special about it. I find it amusing that there are those who have created a new god out of it, placed it upon a pedestal as something to revere, when it is naught but remembering what we have forgotten...
Science is nothing extraordinary? You may think so, but I think it is safe to say that it permits us to do extraordinary things. You would not expect to live to the age of over 70 if it were not for science, you would not have electricity, a computer, the internet or any of our modern technology without science. We would not have Curiosity on Mars as we speak would it not be for science. It is hypocritical to degrade science like this, all the while when you are benefiting from what it makes possible for you.
Saidin said:
Technology is not the sign of an advanced civilization, it is a sign of a civilization about to advance...
This is not what I said. I said that technology speaks clearly of the fact that there are good and bad ideas, even right and wrong ones, concerning stuff in this universe.