SWIMfriend said:
If that's true, then Stephen Hawking is ESPECIALLY, PRECISELY correct to say that heaven is a "fairy tale." If one can't know such things, then their ontological source MUST be a "fairy tale;" if they can't be known, then if they're asserted, they must be "made up."
One of the biggest ironies implied by this thread is the overt fact that nothing which contemporary science has stipulated over the last few decades, is an absolute TRUTH. These conceptualizations are merely today's current speculations about what is the most reasonable to our collective intellects and psyches. It's an approximation of the latest data which can be analyzed and quantified. Now, is it actually true? Is it even real at all? Hardly.
One of the fundamental issues with any theory is that it will, with the passage of time, become obsolete to some extent, as new information comes to light, which changes the consensus to further theoretical speculations. In this way, one human being's rational model of the universe is another human being's antiquated ERROR in the judgment of the conceptualizations which we routinely churn out for consideration.
I do not propose that any of Newton's ideas are WRONG or INCORRECT, anymore than I would suggest that any of Einstein's ideas are. Eternal change is the only constant and is it not naive and "fallacious" to entertain the conceptual construct that that which we do know through reason alone, is LAW. Law is another form of the concept TRUTH. It is neither the
reality of the object of study, nor is it totality of that same object of our observation.
The indisputable fact is, we all just see a fraction of any of it's complexity so why be so proud and absolute in our convictions? Besides, I have never personally subscribed to the notion that there is some
all-or-nothing LAW or TRUTH, which sharply defines: right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or untrue degrees of understanding. Each paradigm is superseded by the following paradigm.
Even when I read of spiritual sages extrapolating about "The Truth" and "the falsehood of illusion"... I am instinctively drawn towards impartiality. This does not mean that I refuse to acknowledge that I have SEEN
something else. Something which reflects a unity. The Oneness is not just a conceptual possibility for me, it is another plane of being, which I have witnessed when my mind is still and I do hold in faith, that I will penetrate further within this Indivisible Field of Consciousness. And I just could be WRONG... RIGHT???
Now when
gibran2 offered the example of the couple who through seemingly random chance, found each other as soul mates, he was implying that there is an unfathomable and quite uncontrolled characteristic to life on earth, which points towards the phenomenon of FATE. You,
SWIMfriend, brushed this analogy right off the table, accusing
gibran2 of not understanding your ideas. The opportunity to examine the possibility of the phenomenon of
fate, or if you will, DESTINY, was wasted by the refusal to accept any notions which fall outside of your rationale. This just goes to highlight how rigid and argumentative your perspective is.
If your really spent time in isolation, off in some cave without the distractions of the hustle-bustle of civilization... how is it that you have so little insight into what is beyond the boundary of reason? After all, meditation is an exponential expansion of the mental faculty of the
inner pilot. It has within it's practical methodology, all of the tools to see beyond the finite
reality and pierce into the vast realm of non-material variegation of the life force, which through it's own nature, created the entirety of the Omniverse. This is further expanded by the use of entheogens. I am beginning to suspect that you have never experienced the stopping of your mind or taken notice of states of being which transcend all materialistically culled conceptualizations? That's just an impression and yeah, admittedly it behooves me to say so, as I may be misunderstanding your vantage point.
No mind is not a precursor of catatonia, it is an alternative lens by which we perceive the awareness which we are consciously able to pinpoint within our core being. This is a bold step to take and it leaves the subjectivity of the witness without the safety net of our rationale. Furthermore, it behooves those who cannot or will not allow said stopping of the mind, to vehemently reiterate the paradigms crafted by an awareness, conception or opinion which originates outside of themselves.
Tenaciously clinging to logic is a poor excuse for wasting the opportunity to SEE another angle of the equation of sentient existence. Give it a break! At least in this subforum, such adherence to the dictates of reason, are both, inappropriate and rather uncreative.
Frankly, negation is not a philosophy nor a spiritual belief. It is simply put, denial.
"If I can't perceive it, it does not exist." It portrays an anti-constructive regurgitation of what might be considered most trite, by those who have explored deeper into the fabric of reality. The quintessential posture of those
pseudo-geniuses who unswervingly war against the Divine Principle. I am waiting to hear one unique and original perception from your argumentative stance, even as you patiently await the same from me. Whole-scale dismissal is essentially nihilism and while acceptable in philosophical discussions, it apparently refuses to turn the same scrutiny towards it's own precepts. You know, if the supernatural is a fantasy, so is any and all perceptual perspective about reality.
We cannot be so blind as to insist that our stance about ANY model of the universe, be it physical, intellectual or spiritual, with absolute certainty. so yeah, this has all been said before, over and over again. What is most repugnant to my sense of fair play, is that there exist two polar extremes, which are unbending in their convictions. Neither extreme has any exclusive copyright on
reality.
As
gibran2 clearly expresses, what we know for a consensus certainty... is minuscule in comparison to what we do not and cannot know. The Omniverse is simply far to great and infinitely complex for us to encapsulate any lasting assessment of it's parameters. The blind faith of the mass believers in a Supreme Deity and the existence of conscious awareness prior to and after the term of physical incarnation, is no more illusory than the proposed laws of today's aggressive anti-spiritualist logicians. Science has it's own delusions about the nature of mind and lens by which we judge data about the universe which has been manifested by "nothingness", through quantum fluctuations.
There are simply aspects of human understanding which are subject to our current interpretation of this mysterious phenomenon we label, EXISTENCE. So too, one human being's "fairy tale" is another human being's "Divine Plan". Only the rude and insane are delusional enough to proclaim their standard of measuring just the tiny part of existence which we are all given to perceive, is the lens which ALL other human beings must see the mirage of existential conceptualization through. There are many lenses, arguably, most of them err to some degree or another, yet, given their intrinsic limitations... how is it that we insist on fabricating laws and truths which are based on only a minute sliver of the possibility of what knowledge is there to be perceived.
I reiterate, this is the Philosophy and Spirituality sub forum. I've yet to hear any philosophical or spiritual models raised by
SWIMfriend, who has supplanted Dr. Hawking in this discussion. One can hardly project anti-philosophy and anti-spiritual concepts and see it as a viable insight. Emphatic denial is a extreme person's knee-jerk reaction to any idea they choose to dismiss. It is not particularly profound, nor does it possess any original insight. I may be quite naive in this matter but are we not ideally supposed to be bringing new ideas to the table? New definitions of God and self?
IMO, there are enough parrots out there on other forums (on both, materialist and religious platforms of thought), repeating the mental constructs of third-party human beings. So shall we embrace something unique or even profound about our psychedelically inspired experiences or merely re-hash the same old jive? If not us, then who? If not now, then when?
Neither extreme in human cosmological ideologies is useful for those who are OPEN to possibility and the potentiality of our greater understanding. Kudos to the fearless voyagers who MUST find out for themselves, as directly as their perceptual faculties allow, what is taking place right here and now, and follow this line of perception into new territory. Is this not one of humankind's most noble characteristics? To openly challenge the unknown and bridge the gap which is seemingly without any discernible bridge? We are on the frontier of the moment. We are drawn towards a lens of perception which offers an alternate paradigm to conceive of.
To each their own but I am tiring of the density of the materialist agenda. It is founded on illusory data, which is relative to the observer. Reason is a tool to help our brains organize the chaotic jumble of stimulation and information which flows into our mind through the gateway of time, space and dimension.
Awareness has it's roots in a level of reality, which is not born of reason, so why measure this eternal force by such a partial glimpse of the whole? The totality is not subject to quantification by any fragmented view of said totality. Gross materialism and anthropomorphic deification are both absurd parameters to project upon the manifest and unmanifest attributes of the Tao. Logic must be fused with intuition if a holistic and balanced viewpoint is to be crystallized. The entire time, within the continuum of perception, holding to the understanding that this too... is another illusion. :idea:
Peace, love & light
