Seth Ananda

.

.

.

.

.

.

I agree that people do that, or they have an experience that they then make a set of conclusions about, and then never again question their interpretation of it. I am against this, and always try to carefully examine my own and other peoples experiences. Yet, This is not a scientific forum, where empirical data is worshiped as the only thing worth talking about. Spiritual systems and spiritual development {and thus spiritual forums} rely on 'anecdotal evidence' and personal sharing. If you cant tell your teacher or a friend that you had heat move up your spine or any other random unusual thing {without them shouting "proove it, you could be delusional"}, then there is no chance for furthering growth, deepening relationships, or even talking. Earth centered astronomy still works quite well. We shifted to a heliocentric model that is also incorrect. Spacecentric reveals even the sun moving in spirals, and removes the problematic idea of something standing still. But when/if we change over to that, we wont be suddenly 'better off' than before... I disagree. No body has to believe. But if you hear someone's experience and write it off as nonsense immediately, then you are closed minded and are probably also a condescending prick. And its bad science to do so, and against the rules of skepticism. You could question to rule out 'delusion', 'soft in the headitis', 'dishonesty', mistaken environmental factors and so on... but that just may well leave you with more questions, and an attitude of 'I wasn't there, I don't know'. Strangely some people who consider themselves scientifically minded, or skeptics are terrified of that 'I don't know' place. Just because you have not experienced something does not mean that everyone who has is automatically an mentally unstable, below average intelligence, charlatan ass hat. And if they are your only go to options when meeting someone who has (or claims) 'experience' then you are closed minded, and you are a condescending prick.

.

.

.

.

.

.

On another level, I prefer 'ignorant' to 'bad', and 'wise' to 'good'. I dont want to get caught in a trap of naming the parts of myself that need help 'bad' or 'evil' as it sets up a stronger set of judgements against them...

Hmm we may be getting at the same point. I have no qualms about describing certain behaviours as 'bad', and I'd happily see the heads of some gmo scientists stuck on pikes out side of the smoking ruins of Monsanto headquarters. My point was rather that they are not sharply defined opposites as some christians {and others} seem to believe, but rather a spectrum like: ...Really good, good, fairly good, ok, neutral, a bit off, fairly bad, bad, really bad... Or another way of saying it, is there are not 'just' good angels on one side, and bad demons on the other. Its a really useless model to take into spirit work. Even 'good' spirits can become problematic, and 'nasty' ones can occasionally become quite useful if treated with dignity and respect, and there are a whole whole lot of them in between, just like humans. From my view, people who focus solely on light usually have massive shadows.

.

As for the reductionist black and white thinking behind the "good/positive/divine vs bad/negative/demonic" mindset, well its extremely inaccurate and does Nature herself no justice. Are Mosquitos 'Evil'? They are parasitic! If we destroyed them as christians suggest we do with evil, it will in turn destroy the populations of frogs they feed. What about Wolves? Well they sometimes attack and kill things or even people {oh the horror!} but what about how they nurture and raise their little wolflings? Are they Evil, or Good, or part evil part good, or is it about time we do away with such stupid descriptions? Are all parasitic spirits always bad? Are they always 'taking energy' from you in a forceful way? How do you know your not walking around generating/pumping out certain flavours, and they may just happen to like those flavours? If you do go with always bad for that one, then what about your friends? Humans who like and are nourished by the energy flavours you give off? Vampirising {forcefully} life force is another tricky issue. There are times when that skill can be used for healing, or to calm someone down who is in a state of excess... What about the worse ones? Spirits of breakdown and decay? Isn't decay and rot a very important function in nature? what would happen if all the bodies would no longer break down?

The world of spirits is wonderful, occasionally dangerous and endlessly fascinating.I sometimes watch them for hours, learning about their particular functions, habits and so on. One thing i have learned very clearly is that all spirits feed on something. Learning about their food sources, and about how at certain times you may also be their food source is very useful. Learning to see them wont make you more susceptible to them. Most people are being fed off anyway, so who is better off, the food person ignorant of their existence or the cunning person who sees them and knows what they are up too? It also helps remove a lot of the 'spirit' fear, and knowing what to feed something can make it a very useful Alli. Then you no longer have to worry about all that garbage like is it light/dark, can it control me, should I defeat it blah blah blah. Im not saying there are not some big pitfalls a spirit worker can happen across but thats another story. As for the blurred ET/spirit thing, I first read about Jungs ideas, later echoed by Patric Harpur and others, and was thinking to myself "Et's just a new face of Faery or something deeper? Nah, I don't think so" but the Fae i had been exposed to at that point were much closer to nature. There is however a realm of faery existence that is far more connected to the most subtle etheric outer layers of earth, and the faery beings there seem far more alien. Long thin limbs, insectoid appearance, elongated eyes, and can seem cold or emotionless. They also can view humans as 'interesting specimens' and seem like they would have no qualms abducting people, or doing {possibly experimental} operations on them...

For me the keys are Congruence, Will, Action, Consistency. Congruence: Having most of your deeper being feeling good about what you are wishing to achieve. It makes things a lot easier. If your heart is really in it, then wow! Necessity is a beautiful adjunct to this, as your whole being is most likely online in the face of Necessity, and stuff happens really easily in these circumstances. Will: It is Will charged with purpose {and congruence} that moves mountains. Its not positive thinking like 'the Secret' says. All kinds of shit bags throughout history with minds full of negativity have focussed and achieved their horrendous goals via will, not positive thinking. The more congruence you have the easier it is to mobilise will. Action: With congruence and will in place, take action in the world. Set up avenues for the world to answer through. Don't sit and wait for a lotto ticket. Get up and do something. Follow your path and watch the doors swing open. Consistency: Keep at it!

One of the things I love about you Marblehead. You point to the obvious so well. I forget the philosopher, some greek or roman, who pointed out the illogic of fearing death. I cant do it justice, but it cruxed on if there is 'nothing', then none of us will experience it as we are alive the entire time we are alive, and dead the instance we are dead, so its pointless fearing something that can't be experienced. If there is 'something' after death though, well, then we dont really 'experience' death either...

Of course intersubjectivity is different, it exists. Depending on the school of thought. I use it the way some phenomenologists use it, as a replacement for, and more accurate description of so called 'objective' or shared reality. I doubt I would argue with the 'necessarily' in there, as people will always be as deceptive with themselves as they feel they need to be. I would say that 'rigid character development' increases the likelihood of self deception, and the belief in objectivity contributes heavily towards rcd. Also if honesty is a priority, then surely avoiding false notions is also a move in the right direction That is one way some groups use intersubjectivity, as a simple add on to objective/subjective, but not how I or some phenomenologists use it. There really is no objective to speak of. If you think there is, ask what/where and how? Any conclusions will be based 100% entirely on subjective measurement systems, 100% of the time. There is not even an argument really, except from people so ossified within their status quo view points and their cultural/conventional stockholm syndrome.

Of course I do, and of course you do. Dropping a false notion like objectivity does not turn you into a vegetable. You will simply continue to be what you have always been. An intersubjective person, yet who now no longer believes in objectivity. They are not examples and in no way qualify proof. Saying "you can bump in to a tree so therefore ~ Objectivity!" does not in any way qualify as science, evidence, or even logic, if logic means following careful steps to something self evident. Not really. "I told him about tree's so lets just move on" is what has happened. If you want it to be fair, take the example of bumping into a tree, and break it down. See if we can find something actually objective within it? Why would I just 'accept' those views? Apparently science is not a religion? My stance remember is that there 'could be' an objective universe, but that no one will ever know anything about, or experience it. Weirdly it was the process of falsification that got me to my current perspective. When I first read this Idea, I was like "no...!" so I then started analysing everything i could about my experience to try and find something that could genuinely be called objective. I couldn't. Senses are a measurement system. We see based on the available rod and cones in our eyes and see a completely different world to other creatures with different eyes. We hear the 'world' within our available hearing spectrum. Ect... Maths results are based on a human construct, based on our particular numerical systems.... Measurement systems are approximations based on time. If you say its 10 feet to the shore, well the shore edge is constantly moving, so Australia being 4100 km across from shore to shore is also an approximation. Any other example that can be thought of can be found to be subjective or intersubjective. Real by what standards? Existing by what standards? Sight? Experience? Thermal Imaging? I think there is a core fear around most people and this subject. Subjectivity has been rubbished and demonised for so long as being Objectivities poor shabby second cousin. This means people are terrified that dropping the concept will result in a wooly thinking epidemic, which is why an understanding of Intersubjective is so important, to ease irrational fears that suddenly the laws of physics wont apply or 1+1 will now equal a Marshmallow! {or anything you want really} "Stop believing in Objectivity and our whole way of life, and the whole universe will be utterly destroyed!" Catastrophizing cant really argue or think clearly. No I spoke to the Intersubjective. There is no Objective that can be demonstrated in any way. Prove me wrong please with an argument other than 'A tree!'.

Everyone is so sure of Objectivity. You mean it 'Must' exist right, because everyone believes in it? Or how could a so commonly held concept be wrong? Yet, when you ask people to actually demonstrate objectivity, to show someone something that is actually truly objective, no one can come up with anything but diddley squat. The underlying themes seems to be: "well it does/must exist because I like the concept" "even though I can not demonstrate it even too the slightest degree, I will continue to talk as if it is real because I am comfortable with it" I dont think that anyone should even mention it once more in this thread, unless they are demonstrating conclusively that it is real. If you cannot demonstrate its existence in any way, why include it topics as if it is a real thing? Its actually a worse concept than 'God', in that people have experience of 'something' that they refer to as God. Whether it is God or not, or how accurate their interpretation of their experiences is is another conversation, but at least there is 'something' that they are basing their conversation on... Not so with objectivity.

Likewise! Youve got it backwards. at least by Kashmir Shaivite standards. He is called the 'supreme subjectivity' because he is the knower not the known. The KS folk would more happily call the world objective, because it is known. But Also the world is Shakti which is energy and change, so to me, that is still pretty 'subjective' Page 115-116 in Mishra's KS work, second paragraph in chapter 'Siva is subject-consciousness': Consciousness always remains the subject, or the knower, and never becomes the object, or the known. hell no, I studied KS for nearly 20 years, and while Its no longer my tradition, I still have a great Love for it. Tattvas are a top down model. The organs of cognition do not feed 'Maya' they are a result of her... hmm you have a strange approach to the teachings or am I misunderstanding your meaning? May I ask where you study?

Well, since you mentioned Kashmir Shaivism earlier, ParamaShiva is called the supreme subjectivity, while everything else is hmm, just subjective? Infact the subjective and intersubjective perception is inherently relational in nature, yet does not blur into homogenization as it is utterly diverse. Mystical experiences, regardless of whether it describes an accurate map of the universe {everything floating in one big superconsciousness for instance} is more easily achieved and integrated, as the ego softens and gains more flexibility I don't really see that way. The experience mystics describe is still subjective. As is any foundational consciousness. One might argue that a 'supreme consciousness' could be objective if it literally was everything, and was experiencing everything from every possible point of view, but to me that still seems subjective No one has ever been emerged in objective experience, and no, believing in objectivity causes only pain, separation from our inner beings, distance from nature and environmental destruction. It does not have a single redeeming or positive feature.