What If It's All BS?

[Synkromystic]

I do believe in objective truth. But there is no such thing as objective truth for humans, or any other being that is manifested. Only the source, The All, The Absolute, which is God, the unmanifested knows objective truth. Because it IS the law. It is the all, the evrything that has been and will be IN the unmanifested state.

Take for example your quartz analogy. We can only see maybe 1/billionth of the electromagnetic spectrum. So how we would choose to define ''quartz'' is completely subjective. Another being that can see/hear/feel on a completely different wavelength would interpret what you refer to as quartz in a different way, because it would see something different. AND we can only imagine how the molecules of quartz might look to some incredibly advanced being. So in my eyes, there is no objectivity there. One might consider it to be an objective truth for all of us that operate on this tiny wavelength spectrum, because we all ( or most) would see the same thing, therefore we could communicate it as fact. But the truth remains that all truths are but half truths...

As I read this I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

"Every sentient entity in the multiverse is both an observer and an object of perception, and the source from which they emanate is the Primary Observer, which is unadulterated Consciousness itself. Before emanation, perception can not take place because perception involves both an observer and that which is observed."

and

"[The universe is apparently] constructed (and thus in such as way as to be able) to see itself. But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is only partially itself...But, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore, false to, itself. In this condition it will always partially elude itself." (55)

"Thus consciousness is prior to observation. Combine this logical necessity with emanation and we see that whatever the Cosmic Mind imagines cannot be separated from its source. It follows then, that as the matter-energy created within this explosive act of imagination expands and fragments, becoming ever more complex, each emerging monad of fresh awareness perceives as a subjective fractal of the objective One Mind in whatever dimension it finds itself. Hence universe becomes Multiverse."

"What better way for "God" to know himself than to divide his awareness so that "he" can observe objectively as creator and subjectively as creation?"

The Cracking Tower by Jim DeKorne

Wow. Although I do not have the beautiful, poetic, masterful command of the english Language that Jim DeKorne has, I have come to similar conclusions. Thanks for sharing those quotes I'm definitely going to read some of his work.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

The chemical composition of sand is not going to change based on what wavelengths of light you can see. No offense, but your response is non-sense.

I would take the time to clarify my point further, because it is not non-sense, but you seem to be so close minded that I'm not going to waste my time. No offense :?:

I honestly did not mean any offense with that. I was just being truthful. If you are going to invoke science to explain something, you have to understand the science of the topic at hand.

We as humans may not be able to actually see other wavelengths, but we have mastered the use of other wavelengths of light in order to understand aspects of the universe that we can't directly perceive.

For instance, we (as a species) understand the 3-D structures of many hundreds of minerals due to the use of the technique known as X-ray diffraction. And various spectroscopy techniques can be used to identify individual elements and compounds since the each compound and element has a unique absorption and reflection spectrum that is like a fingerprint but more exact.

If we could see in other wavelengths, our experience would be different, but we wouldn't magically see new things that we haven't already been able to detect through remote means.

Also, being able to see in more wavelengths than we do doesn't mean they are more "advanced". Some birds can see a larger spectrum of light than humans, but they couldn't be considered more advanced.

The definition of quartz is not subjective. It is based on the arrangement of specific atoms in the mineral. Any society more advanced than our society would have to have an understanding of the objective reality of matter and would therefore have come to the same conclusions about quartz. They may experience quartz differently and they may know more about it than we do, but they will know that quartz is a tectosilicate mineral composed of silica tetrahedra with the chemical formula SiO2.

My mind is very open, but I also have enough knowledge of science to be able to know when something is non-sense.

 

[Synkromystic]

The chemical composition of sand is not going to change based on what wavelengths of light you can see. No offense, but your response is non-sense.

I would take the time to clarify my point further, because it is not non-sense, but you seem to be so close minded that I'm not going to waste my time. No offense :?:

I honestly did not mean any offense with that. I was just being truthful. If you are going to invoke science to explain something, you have to understand the science of the topic at hand.

We as humans may not be able to actually see other wavelengths, but we have mastered the use of other wavelengths of light in order to understand aspects of the universe that we can't directly perceive.

For instance, we (as a species) understand the 3-D structures of many hundreds of minerals due to the use of the technique known as X-ray diffraction. And various spectroscopy techniques can be used to identify individual elements and compounds since the each compound and element has a unique absorption and reflection spectrum that is like a fingerprint but more exact.

If we could see in other wavelengths, our experience would be different, but we wouldn't magically see new things that we haven't already been able to detect through remote means.

Also, being able to see in more wavelengths than we do doesn't mean they are more "advanced". Some birds can see a larger spectrum of light than humans, but they couldn't be considered more advanced.

The definition of quartz is not subjective. It is based on the arrangement of specific atoms in the mineral. Any society more advanced than our society would have to have an understanding of the objective reality of matter and would therefore have come to the same conclusions about quartz. They may experience quartz differently and they may know more about it than we do, but they will know that quartz is a tectosilicate mineral composed of silica tetrahedra with the chemical formula SiO2.

My mind is very open, but I also have enough knowledge of science to be able to know when something is non-sense.

It is not non-sense. Maybe because you can't see something from my perspective, it is non-sense to YOU.

I will try to politely respond to your statements, but I would appreciate it if you stop telling me it is all non-sense. If you disagree, I completely understand, but i'm sensing a very condescending tone which I really don't appreciate.

Here's how I see it. Your statements assume there are no other ''realities/dimensions/levels'' that exist, or if they do exist they are based on exactly the same code as this one. You are also assuming, whether you realize it or not that the electro magnetic spectrum only exists on this level. You also assume that it is not possible for beings to co-exist in different dimensions, levels, realities at the same time. Sure, a very advanced being existing on only the same level as you, will most likely decode Si02 the same way as you do, and more than likely the base structure of Si02 will be the same.

What I am trying to explain is that the "molecular" arrangement is drastically different for that Si02 when one exists on a different plane of awareness(dimension/level/reality). That the Si02 exists, but has a base structure that is distinctly different from that here. where it is interpreted differently, and where the wavelengths are decoded differently. Which is why I keep saying that it is all subjective. However I am not not saying that it is random!

You know how I know this? Because of my experiences. Subjective experiences, that are clearly different than yours, and you should respect that fact and politely disagree instead of calling non-sense. :?:

I could care less whether you agree with my perspective, or not.

 

[Synkromystic]

And also, there is a saying that goes....One centuries magic, is another centuries science.

In my opinion, being stuck only in the science of now is one of the most limiting, mind closing actions a person can take.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

Anyone can come up with any possible scenario, but when that scenario has no basis in objective reality then it is non-sense. Non-sense is something that just makes no sense when considered objectively.

You are saying that there might be some advanced beings coexisting in the same space as we are in yet they are on a different plane of awareness and experience completely different things than we do. You are then trying to say that this scenario stands on the same footing as human understanding of science.

Your scenario has zero evidence to back it up and is unprovable. It may make sense in your subjective experience, but this doesn't mean that there is any truth to it. Subjective experience does not equal truth. Do you believe all the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic? If I tell you the world is actually flat despite all of our current knowledge, does that make it true just because I claim it be true in my subjective experience? Of course not. That is non-sense.

Your scenario is only a fantasy story, not something that can be used as a counterargument to a scientific claim. It is something interesting to think about, but to say that it has definite truth to it is non-sense. It may be subjectively true in your mind, but to say it has objective truth is just wrong at this stage in our collective knowledge and that is why it is non-sense.

This is why any revelation of spiritual content that is experienced on DMT is just BS in the eyes of science. It is non-sense because there is no way to ever be sure that it is true.

 

[SpartanII]

We are dealing with that immensity out there. To turn that magnificence out there into reasonableness doesn't do anything for you. Here, surrounding us, is eternity itself. To engage in reducing it to a manageable nonsense is petty and outright disastrous.

I've told you that the true art of a warrior is to balance terror and wonder. Power can be met only with power. The crux of sorcery is the internal dialogue; that is the key to everything. When a warrior learns to stop it, everything becomes possible; the most farfetched schemes become attainable. We are a feeling and what we call our body is a cluster of luminous fibers that have awareness. As long as you think that you are a solid body you cannot conceive what I am talking about.

Warriors keep controlled and aloof. They don't believe anything, but still act efficiently. We are luminous beings. We are perceivers. We are an awareness; we are not objects; we have no solidity. We are boundless. The world of objects and solidity is a way of making our passage on earth convenient. It is only a description that was created to help us. We, or rather our reason , forget that the description is only a description and thus we entrap the totality of ourselves in a vicious circle from which we rarely emerge in our lifetime.

We are perceivers. The world that we perceive, though, was created by a description that was told to us since the moment we were born.

We, the luminous beings, are born with two rings of power, but we use only one to create the world. That ring, which is hooked very soon after we are born, is reason , and its companion is talking. Between the two they concoct and maintain the world. So, in essence, the world that your reason wants to sustain is the world created by a description and its dogmatic and inviolable rules, which the reason learns to accept and defend.

-Carlos Castaneda

 

[--Shadow]

I do believe in objective truth. But there is no such thing as objective truth for humans, or any other being that is manifested. Only the source, The All, The Absolute, which is God, the unmanifested knows objective truth. Because it IS the law. It is the all, the evrything that has been and will be IN the unmanifested state.

You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.
Unfortunately there is no reasoning to people that do not value reason

Actually, I know exactly how ridiculous it sounds to certain people. Reasoning IS based off of your Subjective experience. There is nothing objective about YOUR experience, therefore it is very difficult to compare it to my subjective experience.

And by the way. I HIGHLY VALUE REASON

There probably a good reason you can understand how it may sound ridiculous to certain people (and by 'certain', i assume you mean 'rational' )

 

[Synkromystic]

We are dealing with that immensity out there. To turn that magnificence out there into reasonableness doesn't do anything for you. Here, surrounding us, is eternity itself. To engage in reducing it to a manageable nonsense is petty and outright disastrous.

I've told you that the true art of a warrior is to balance terror and wonder. Power can be met only with power. The crux of sorcery is the internal dialogue; that is the key to everything. When a warrior learns to stop it, everything becomes possible; the most farfetched schemes become attainable. We are a feeling and what we call our body is a cluster of luminous fibers that have awareness. As long as you think that you are a solid body you cannot conceive what I am talking about.

Warriors keep controlled and aloof. They don't believe anything, but still act efficiently. We are luminous beings. We are perceivers. We are an awareness; we are not objects; we have no solidity. We are boundless. The world of objects and solidity is a way of making our passage on earth convenient. It is only a description that was created to help us. We, or rather our reason , forget that the description is only a description and thus we entrap the totality of ourselves in a vicious circle from which we rarely emerge in our lifetime.

We are perceivers. The world that we perceive, though, was created by a description that was told to us since the moment we were born.

We, the luminous beings, are born with two rings of power, but we use only one to create the world. That ring, which is hooked very soon after we are born, is reason , and its companion is talking. Between the two they concoct and maintain the world. So, in essence, the world that your reason wants to sustain is the world created by a description and its dogmatic and inviolable rules, which the reason learns to accept and defend.

-Carlos Castaneda

Sounds like.......................non-sense....lol :lol: :?

 

[Synkromystic]

I do believe in objective truth. But there is no such thing as objective truth for humans, or any other being that is manifested. Only the source, The All, The Absolute, which is God, the unmanifested knows objective truth. Because it IS the law. It is the all, the evrything that has been and will be IN the unmanifested state.

You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.
Unfortunately there is no reasoning to people that do not value reason

Actually, I know exactly how ridiculous it sounds to certain people. Reasoning IS based off of your Subjective experience. There is nothing objective about YOUR experience, therefore it is very difficult to compare it to my subjective experience.

And by the way. I HIGHLY VALUE REASON

There probably a good reason you can understand how it may sound ridiculous to certain people (and by 'certain', i assume you mean 'rational' )

maybe because i'm a reasonable person

 

[Synkromystic]

Your scenario has zero evidence to back it up and is unprovable.

I dont think I ever claimed I could prove it, or had any evidence other than my subjective experience. :? The only thing I was trying to prove is that there are other possibilities, and not to cling to a specific limiting belief system.

I'm done with this ''discussion''. peace

 

[SpartanII]

Sounds like.......................non-sense....lol :lol: :?

That's the beauty, tragedy, and irony of it! It's all BS. Everything. Yet it's all deadly real at the same time.

Have we created a dream so real we forgot we were dreaming?

 

[hug46]

I'm pretty sure that plant 'decision making' is a product of chemisty. It's not like a plant can 'decide' "I'm not going to drink water today", or "today I might take a day off from photosynthesis", or "I don't like Bob the Acacia downwind, I'm going to exclude him from my chemical signalling processes"

The same could be said for humans. I personally cannot decide not to drink water when i am thirsty. When we meet people that we like, or don"t like, i think that there are a number of signals that we give off that we are unaware of.

Our sense of purpose is an evolutionary trait to ensure the continuation of the species. Maybe that is why psychedelic/spiritual/religious experiences are so valuable, because they can give the impression that there is something more to our existence rather than the inexorable pointlessness of it all.

 

[findtheothers]

Sounds like.......................non-sense....lol :lol: :?

That's the beauty, tragedy, and irony of it! It's all BS. Everything. Yet it's all deadly real at the same time.

Have we created a dream so real we forgot we were dreaming?

^ This. The DMT experience is no more real then everyday waking life experience. Like spartan says, it's all "BS" really.

 

[Synkromystic]

Sounds like.......................non-sense....lol :lol: :?

That's the beauty, tragedy, and irony of it! It's all BS. Everything. Yet it's all deadly real at the same time.

Have we created a dream so real we forgot we were dreaming?

^ This. The DMT experience is no more real then everyday waking life experience. Like spartan says, it's all "BS" really.

This is what I have been saying.. It's real to the person, because subjective experience dictates that it must be. But it's all BS to use a very crude term.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

This is what I have been saying.. It's real to the person, because subjective experience dictates that it must be. But it's all BS to use a very crude term.

Here is a hypothetical situation. You go to a psychic and that psychic tells you that you are going to die the very next instant that you step outside. They say there is no ambiguity to this. The psychic says the spirits are being very clear and not being metaphorical at all and that they are incapable of lying. Then you don't die for many years. Where does that leave the psychic's subjective reality? Let's assume that the psychic believes that they are a psychic, so to them their subjective experience is real.

Is their subjective experience more real than objective reality where you didn't die? The obvious answer is that their subjective experience was dead wrong. It was not real. It may have seemed real to them, but there comes a point where subjective experience is so far removed from the truth of objective reality that it becomes delusion.

Subjective experience only must be real to people who are willing to surrender to illusions. There is a difference between saying that something feels real and something is real. In general we must assume the physical world is real or else every philosophical discussion turns into nothing more than the affirmation of solipsistic beliefs. But many subjective experiences can be proven to be wrong. And to think that everything that you experience is true just because you experienced it is an egotistical belief. How can it be that in a world where many people hold contradictory beliefs that all of their subjective experiences can be true in objective reality.

If you believe that all subjective experience is true, then you don't believe in objective reality in the physical world, and to be fair that belief is just incoherent. And before you get insulted, I mean that this belief lacks logical coherence. It ignores the mountain of evidence showing that subjective experience can be illusory and untrue.

 

[Synkromystic]

This is what I have been saying.. It's real to the person, because subjective experience dictates that it must be. But it's all BS to use a very crude term.

Here is a hypothetical situation. You go to a psychic and that psychic tells you that you are going to die the very next instant that you step outside. They say there is no ambiguity to this. The psychic says the spirits are being very clear and not being metaphorical at all and that they are incapable of lying. Then you don't die for many years. Where does that leave the psychic's subjective reality? Let's assume that the psychic believes that they are a psychic, so to them their subjective experience is real.

Is their subjective experience more real than objective reality where you didn't die? The obvious answer is that their subjective experience was dead wrong. It was not real. It may have seemed real to them, but there comes a point where subjective experience is so far removed from the truth of objective reality that it becomes delusion.

Subjective experience only must be real to people who are willing to surrender to illusions. There is a difference between saying that something feels real and something is real. In general we must assume the physical world is real or else every philosophical discussion turns into nothing more than the affirmation of solipsistic beliefs. But many subjective experiences can be proven to be wrong. And to think that everything that you experience is true just because you experienced it is an egotistical belief. How can it be that in a world where many people hold contradictory beliefs that all of their subjective experiences can be true in objective reality.

If you believe that all subjective experience is true, then you don't believe in objective reality in the physical world, and to be fair that belief is just incoherent. And before you get insulted, I mean that this belief lacks logical coherence. It ignores the mountain of evidence showing that subjective experience can be illusory and untrue.

Maybe I'm not articulating myself well enough, or you have just completely misunderstood me. I am not saying that all subjective experiences are real, and I never said that everything I experience, or any one else experiences is true. Clearly, there are hallucinations, delusions, false beliefs, half-truths (of which there are many), etc....

What I am saying is that what you are referring to as objective reality, is actually a subjective reality, but it masquerades itself as an objective reality. Just because There are 100 million people that say that something is ''real'', does not make it an objective truth.

There is clearly and objective ''reality''(I call it the Absolute), but what i'm saying is that we are so far removed from that, that ALL our experiences here and there, and everywhere are subjective.

Here's a quote that helps to articulate my feelings on this subject more clearly. I just found it last night, thanks to Spartanall.

'' It must be emphasized that both conscious and unconscious awareness is subjective. Each of us perceives our apparently common world from the unique point of view of a separate, individual personality. This is because we live in a multiverse, not a universe. (Logically speaking, only the universe itself is capable of perceiving itself as One.) From the standpoint of everyday awareness, the concept of a universe is an abstraction -- we can imagine it as One, but we experience it as many. (For the moment I am ignoring the experience of the mystic, which is precisely the shifting of awareness from the many to the One. The overwhelming mass of humanity is still dealing with multiplicity.)

Hence, each differentiated, self-conscious entity by definition perceives subjectively: From the scientist who devotes his life to the pursuit of "objective" truth, to the most irrational hysteric, we cannot avoid the fact that each of us is a separate, individual, subjective observer of a multiverse. And let us not forget that this multiverse is both inner and outer, since those who pay close attention to the events in their unconscious soon discover a "beyond within" at least as infinite as the outer realm of stars and galaxies.

This is not to claim that there is no objective universe, only that all non-mystical experience of it is of a multiverse. To that extent, there are as many multiverses as there are observers. The universe itself may be thought of as the sum total of all subjective experiences of it, plus what it is "in itself."

"Objectivity" then is only a relative standard of perception -- an utterly essential and invaluable concept, but ultimately incapable of realization via ordinary rational processes. True objectivity (the mystical state of consciousness), since it is One, by definition transcends all categories of differentiation and is hence incapable of being described. It is one of life's greatest ironies that true objectivity may only be experienced subjectively! '' -Jim Dekorne


Life is a paradox...It's all real, and it's not real, both at the same time. I know it's a difficult thing to grasp, and maybe it doesn't merge with your current belief system and is causing you some cognitive dissonance.

I have been getting the feeling you are just trying to create some conflict. I read one of your other posts, and you openly admit that you intentionally create conflict here on the nexus. While that can be helpful, you seem extremely set in your ways and your beliefs, so there's not much point to having this discussion, as it's not opening up any new avenues of thought for you or me...And maybe I'm too stubborn as well. I can see why you say the things you do, but I just don't agree with most of what your saying.

I think at this point, if you don't see my logic, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. And even if you do see my logic, you don't have to agree. You can call it in-coherent non-sense...whatever you like, but that doesn't make it false because you say so! The reductionist, materialist scientific view point of today is very useful when applied correctly, but it is also so very limiting that it suffocates ones ability to see anything outside of the tiny box that it exists in.

 

[Infectedstyle]

Since we are theorizing. Did you know that i theorize that Dark energy is actually radiation given off by black holes pushing on the outer edge of the universe?

Let's raise the scales a little bit. Entire stars and galaxies are sucked into black holes and are released into the universe as alternative frequencies like gamma radiation which we can not see but only detect. Do you not think there is a slight possibility that this radiation is more than what we see on our measuring instruments?

We are talking entire GALAXIES... Do you really believe that the only function for these GALAXIES is to heat our food in the microwave?

 

[SKA]

There's no reason to assume they are any less conscious than us. They grow/live on such a different timescale. SO much slower than us.

What are you talking about?

Well I'm talking about how humans move at visible speeds and (almost all) plants seem to be static creatures. They just seem to stand there, there only movement being slow growth.

We humans move fast and move all over the earth. Our growth is also very slow, but is a different process than the moving of the body. In "The secret life of plants" you will see how plants tocuh and feel where they can or can't grow, like they are hands trying to blindly find something to hold onto. Time lapse photography made it visible. Their Growth seems like slow body movements on a slower timescale, is what I meant.

There is no substantial proof to prove either way, so until then I find it more logical to assume they are highly conscious beings.

Actually there is a lot of proof that plants aren't highly conscious. The general lack of behavior is one that jumps out. The seeming lack of any sort of organs or systems that would be required for high levels of consciousness is more proof. And these observations have been replicated billions of times and for every plant that we know of. If you want to ignore the evidence in order to believe your romantic idea that is in no way logical, then that is your choice.

How are these 2, which I made bold in yout quote, per say criteria for a high level of consciousness(like ours)? Perhaps there are other ways, beyond these systems we know, in which an organism, like a plant, could "support" consciousness so to speak? I don't see why not.

 

[۩]

The annoying little fungus gnat you keep trying to kill evades you time and time again because he's laughing at how slow you are. He sees it coming from a mile away whereas you think you are so stealth and swift.

Space and time come from the mind.
The mind does not come from space and time.

 

[--Shadow]

I'm pretty sure that plant 'decision making' is a product of chemisty. It's not like a plant can 'decide' "I'm not going to drink water today", or "today I might take a day off from photosynthesis", or "I don't like Bob the Acacia downwind, I'm going to exclude him from my chemical signalling processes"

The same could be said for humans. I personally cannot decide not to drink water when i am thirsty. When we meet people that we like, or don"t like, i think that there are a number of signals that we give off that we are unaware of.

Our sense of purpose is an evolutionary trait to ensure the continuation of the species. Maybe that is why psychedelic/spiritual/religious experiences are so valuable, because they can give the impression that there is something more to our existence rather than the inexorable pointlessness of it all.

You're confusing 'actions' and 'freedom of will' with 'making conscious decision' - there is a very big difference between them. We're talking about conscious vs sub-conscious.
So when a prisoner of war decides to consciously starve himself of food or water, this is something that you cannot consciously decide to do?
Reflecting someone else's body language is different to shaking their hand