Questions for the scientists in our midst

[Marblehead]

1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, and is not affected by opinions one way or another.

 

1 + 1 = 3 is objectively false.

Not a good example.

 

1 + 1 can = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two.

 

 

True and false do exist objectively, but opinions can never be "true" or "false" because they are subjective classifications which may fluctuate according to any given number of various factors by way of the relativity inherent in the observer itself.

Disagree because the objective is without subjective classifications.

 

The objective needs no subjective observer to exist. We do not create the objective. It existed for billions of years without us passing judgements upon it.

[manitou]

9th: It may be possible to experience perception in which there is neither subject nor object, but that is also another matter.

 

Marbles: Yes, another matter. and I don't go there.

 

 

 

This hardly seems fair, Mr. MH. If you have knowledge that sorts this all out and you're not willing to cough it up, you're setting up a bit of a Catch 22 for the rest of us to understand. Please do go there. Many of us try to put these things into words on a daily basis on this forum.

Edited November 16, 2013 by manitou

[manitou]

Not a good example.

 

1 + 1 can = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two.

 

 

Disagree because the objective is without subjective classifications.

 

The objective needs no subjective observer to exist. We do not create the objective. It existed for billions of years without us passing judgements upon it.

 

 

Schroedinger might disagree with your last statement, no?

 

Your statement, '1 + 1 = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two'. Seems to me like this couldn't be better said. But can you apply this formula to natural phenomena that you see (what you might call reality) and realize that it's all '1', and there is no differentiation between thought and matter? One is the group of two. One is the alpha and the omega, we're just someplace in between right now within the bellows of the yin/yang action and the bubble of manifestation.

[Stosh]

You are speaking of judgements and opinions - not pure subjectivity. For instance, hearing the sound of rain outside is a subjective experience. Your sensory perceptions are subjective without being "nice" or "awful". That classification comes later, according to what you find pleasurable or not in a given moment. Something you find "nice" today you may find "awful" tomorrow, even though the subjective experience which allowed you to perceive it in the first place has not changed. Perception and awareness are subjective to the extent that there is a "subject" which percieves an "object". In the case of sensory perception, there is a "hardware" component involved - your eyeballs receive light particles, which results in your perception of a visual image through the mediation of your nervous system interpreting the signals which are communicated through the optic nerve. The visual image is a subjective experience. Your opinion of the image is another matter. It may be possible to experience perception in which there is neither subject nor object, but that is also another matter.

well that's an interesting post!

If I get it right, you divide an experience into two portions here. The first being the physical mechanism of say, getting the message that a bell rang - which you call subjective, and then secondly the reaction to it. While that could be the a valid description of sequence..I don't see why you aren't considering the opinion or reaction to be subjective as well.

If one is drawing a line , one can determine that another has heard the bell all the way up to brain activity which it involves. Its all physical and observable....all material , as Mh might say, and therefore it may be considered objectively real. But your opinion on it or your feeling about it , is just your own subjective state.

Perhaps we are each drawing the same division but with differing amounts of inclusionin the word objective.

[Marblehead]

I see this just about opposite of how you see this, surprise surprise.

No, no surprise, really. Hehehe.

 

I don't quite see your point that it is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites. when one truly gets to the point of Oneness, we realize that ultimately all life is One and there is no battle between light and darkness; not really - the only battle is a dynamic furtherance into the light; the battle is only the vehicle that consciousness takes to get to the One.

And this is the root of our disagreement here. You, nor anyone else, will ever attain Oneness as long as we have a body, as long as we are alive. Sure, mentally we can think we have attained it. IMO this is naught but an illusion. Just the fact that we disagree here is an indicator that we are not in the state of Oneness.

 

The DDJ is not a materialistic writing.

Of course it is. It tells the king how he should rule his kingdom and tells the individual how (s)he should live their physical life.

 

It's not saying that we should never question anything.

Yea!!!!! We agree!

 

What is matter? It's a clump of molecules but with space between them; more space between the atoms; more space between the electrons and neutrons and quarks and neutrinos. Space, the cosmic broth, is the stuff of objects when broken down far enough. What holds the molecules into the same position for an extended length of time until the elements take their toll and decay and rust set in? Thought. The Dao. The idea, both manifested by Man and previously the idea was potentiality within the Dao. That to me is more reality than anything physical can possibly be. Some think it's all Mind and that the Dao continues to reign within all objects and situations. Others think the Dao died at the beginning, perhaps, and left us with nothing but residual matter. More interesting to see it as still alive, I think, as it then becomes something we can use by Not-Doing and letting things happen of their own accord. Not an aggressive stance, I realize, but one that has more power because things always align perfectly, although not always as fast as we would like. But it works like magic.

Is that an objective "truth" or a subjective "truth"?

 

Marbles, I disagree your statement about the subjective always acknowledging things as they should be as opposed to how they are.

I suggest that you misunderstood me. I did not suggest this. Without being subjective we can always acknowledge things "as they are". Objective is acknowledgement without value judgements. Subjective is when we place judgements upon the objective. An example is my "useful/useless" valuation.

 

All things are relative.

Agree. But subjectively only. Objectively, it doesn't matter.

 

If you think someone is a jerk because of something he did, you would get mad. But this very act of getting mad is because you made a judgment that he was a jerk. You're not seeing things as they really are at all.

But what if he really is a jerk all the time? Then my subjective judgement would also be a statement of objective truth.

[Marblehead]

This hardly seems fair, Mr. MH. If you have knowledge that sorts this all out and you're not willing to cough it up, you're setting up a bit of a Catch 22 for the rest of us to understand. Please do go there. Many of us try to put these things into words on a daily basis on this forum.

When I made that statement I was referring to the experiences we have in live where there are no fitting words to describe. I'm not holding back on anything I think I know that you don't.

 

And I'm not even talking about the experiences only but how those experiences effected us and planted information in our subconscious mind that we get access to only spontaneously but could never recall it while in a conscious state.

 

Don't worry. Be happy!

[Marblehead]

Schroedinger might disagree with your last statement, no?

 

Your statement, '1 + 1 = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two'. Seems to me like this couldn't be better said. But can you apply this formula to natural phenomena that you see (what you might call reality) and realize that it's all '1', and there is no differentiation between thought and matter? One is the group of two. One is the alpha and the omega, we're just someplace in between right now within the bellows of the yin/yang action and the bubble of manifestation.

While I'm not necessarily in total agreement with you here I really do like your response (when viewed from your perspective).

 

Yes, Chuang Tzu said somewhere that the beginning and the end merge into One.

[Stosh]

The ddj tells people how they should live? Thats an idea to have a debate on!

But later

I wanted to say regarding addition, it is not an objective thing in a way, it is a mental construct to do math , it is a set of rules..rabbits don't multiply.

That which is false doesn't objectively exist either.

 

[Marblehead]

But Stosh!, rabbits do multiply. They make babies faster than most animals on the planet.

 

Sorry. I think that was off topic. Hehehe.

 

Yes, I believe that the DDJ (TTC) is an excellent guide for one to live their life in accordance with. True, not everything will apply to different individuals but still.

 

And yeah, I am sure I would enjoy a discussion of the usefulness of the teachings in the TTC in living our daily life.

[Stosh]

Schroedinger might disagree with your last statement, no? Your statement, '1 + 1 = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two'. Seems to me like this couldn't be better said. But can you apply this formula to natural phenomena that you see (what you might call reality) and realize that it's all '1', and there is no differentiation between thought and matter? One is the group of two. One is the alpha and the omega, we're just someplace in between right now within the bellows of the yin/yang action and the bubble of manifestation.

Thres no differentiation between thought and matter? That might be true , but I am pretty sure that while I can imagine a bacon and peanut butter sandwich, I cannot materially get one to appear without going to publix..which seems to indicate to me that there may be a difference.

[Stosh]

But Stosh!, rabbits do multiply. They make babies faster than most animals on the planet. Sorry. I think that was off topic. Hehehe. Yes, I believe that the DDJ (TTC) is an excellent guide for one to live their life in accordance with. True, not everything will apply to different individuals but still. And yeah, I am sure I would enjoy a discussion of the usefulness of the teachings in the TTC in living our daily life.

yep bunnies procreate, but only humans multiply!

[manitou]

 

But what if he really is a jerk all the time? Then my subjective judgement would also be a statement of objective truth.

Not so, friend. He is You. If you see him as a jerk all the time, then you have some internal digging to do. Don't you think there would be others who see him as Not-Jerk?

 

It's a question of whether we wish to keep our point of view in the 10,000 things, or have the liberty to see from the One as well. And all points in the middle. It takes both left (organizational) and right brain (intuitive and as a result of going within) activity to see from the One, only left brain activity to see from the 10,000.

Edited November 16, 2013 by manitou

[Stosh]

If Mh says the guy is a jerk , I'm willing to take it as true. But we each individually are coming to that conclusion for different reasons, which indicates to me we have a similarity of subjective opinions rather than the same objective opinion. Whatever the guy IS , is an objectively true thing though, and so someone else who doesn't want to call a spade a spade, has what I would call an objectively wrong opinion.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Stosh

[9th]

 

Not a good example.

 

1 + 1 can = 3 if one of the "1"s is a group of two.

 

Your above hypothesis is only correct if you decide that the number 1 no longer equals a quantity of 1 item, but that the number 1 is a variable like "x" or "y" and has fluctuating values according your whim.

 

In regards to mathematics, the number 1 a certain quantification of absolute value, it is not a variable. Variables are represented by letters because the numerical value is not inherently present.

 

Of course you can say "what if up was down"? and "what if black was white"? and "what if ignorance was wisdom"? And of course you can abstract actual objectivity into fictional subjectivity, and thereby soothe yourself in the bliss of superior self-satisfaction where you can convince yourself that your own mind alone determines reality and you are the master of all you survey. You can ride a unicorn named "what if"? straight into the heart of "bliss" itself. However, this is what is classically known as "illusion".

 

Conceptual arguments can be used to prove to yourself that you are indeed a god, as well as all sorts of other important things about yourself that have no basis in actual reality. In fact, the maintenance and reinforcement of a fictional self-image is enacted by a peculiar vortex of conceptual abstraction and unconscious imagination. Without that unchecked inertia driving obsessive manipulations of subjective concepts, it is impossible to support such an idea of self-importance. It requires an effort akin to a dog constantly chasing their own tail. Stopping even for a moment causes massive problems for the little world it lives in.

 

In reality, one human being is less than a speck of dust in regards to the workings of the cosmos. The physics of cosmic workings are available to everyone, but only if they are accepted as real and worked with on their own terms. You cannot start with conceptual abstraction and jump off from there as if you are a superhero just because you decide to call yourself one.

[Marblehead]

WoW! I didn't expect all that just from suggesting that 1 + 1 could = 3.

 

I have a pegacorn, not a unicorn.

 

I know, I should be ashamed of myself as during the past couple days I have been in a discussion about subjective and objective reality. But I'm not. Hehehe.

 

Yes, 1 is a constant, x is a variable. I never could grasp imaginary numbers though. I have a really sorry imagination.

[9th]

Imagination can be good, when used for the powers of good.

 

Cant let it fall into the wrong hands, however - the powers of evil are bad

[Stosh]

You used the word conceptual yourself ninth, 1 is concept. X is also concept it is one of whatever x is . You can't have X be 2X exponents like wise x squared cannot be x to the third either because the conceptual framework would be defunt. You have made the mistake of thinking the universe complies with human conceptual rules rather than the other way around. Many great and minor men have made this anthropocentric ERROR. Maybe some of the most finished mathematicians! Humans can be wrong. The universe is never wrong. Humans or thinking creatures create the possibility of error in themselves.

Additionally , the same goes for GOOD and EVIL. THEY ARE CONCEPTS both fungible , both imaginary and both capable of being described as wrong though some of the most adept minds in history have made such an error.

Sorry . But that's just how it is Sir.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Stosh

[manitou]

Many great and minor men have made this anthropocentric ERROR. Maybe some of the most finished mathematicians! Humans can be wrong. The universe is never wrong. Humans or thinking creatures create the possibility of error in themselves.

 

 

 

And yet can not an accomplished meditator get into this same alignment with the universe? It involves no-thought, however, no concept at all. The absence of ego. Yes, we do create the possibility of error in our thinking if it is coming from our own cogitated conclusions, always subject to our egoistic point of view. It is when this is surrendered in a meditative sense (whether sitting or walking around) that the alignment is perfect. Pure love is emanated.

 

Wish I could join in on the mathematics! I so admire you guys...

[manitou]

Cant let it fall into the wrong hands, however - the powers of evil are bad

 

 

How about just the absence of light? shadow without intent, it's all it knows. It's doing it's best too, after all.

Edited November 17, 2013 by manitou

[Stosh]

And yet can not an accomplished meditator get into this same alignment with the universe? It involves no-thought, however, no concept at all. The absence of ego. Yes, we do create the possibility of error in our thinking if it is coming from our own cogitated conclusions, always subject to our egoistic point of view. It is when this is surrendered in a meditative sense (whether sitting or walking around) that the alignment is perfect. Pure love is emanated. Wish I could join in on the mathematics! I so admire you guys...

I can't answer but to say that I picture that meditation or complete unconsciousness would indeed remove the potential for being wrong but also being sentient. The capacity to be wrong allows one to envision that which not-is , a very powerful tool. Whether love is a sentiment associated with having no sentient thought,, I don't know, but since it appears that one can love when one is not mentally negated...I'm thinking that the two are not linked. That a person would have to meditate to feel love seems quite limited.No ,I lean toward the idea that love is a lovely folly and great wisdom rather than the blankness of that which entirely objective.

 

[Marblehead]

Not so, friend. He is You. If you see him as a jerk all the time, then you have some internal digging to do. Don't you think there would be others who see him as Not-Jerk?

 

No. I have to disagree with you here. He is not me. No, no. Let's not play that game. We each are individuals. There is no way in hell you can say the Mother Teresa was Adolf Hitler. Please stop trying to play other's faults on those who have integrity.

 

I am not he and he is not me. We are two individuals. I'm not say here that I am not sometimes a jerk. No, that's not the point at all. What I am saying is that we judge the individual according to the individual. A jerk is a jerk. If he is a jerk all the time hen he is a full-time jerk. His problem, not yours.

 

Yes, other jerks would see him as not-jerk. People who are blind to reality could possibly see him as not-jerk. But a person with good eye-sight would see him as jerk.

 

Remember, we are talking about the ten thousand things here, not One.

[manitou]

Remember, we are talking about the ten thousand things here, not One.

 

 

Yes, Adolph Hitler is Mother Teresa, only with contortions. They both stem from the I Am, the One.

 

To assume that we only live in the ten thousand things is to assume that the Tao stopped its dynamic after the moment it created the 10,000 things, and that matter is all that is in existence now. There are a zillion masters that would disagree with this.

 

Other jerks would see him as Jerk, because we are all mirrors of each other. One who sees him as Jerk would think that is Reality, but to announce to others that he is a Jerk would be incorrect. One evolved in this line of thought would realize that the best usage of one he sees some Jerk-like qualities in, would be to look for those same qualities in himself and take steps to correct them. He only sees them because he has them. Ego vs. Ego - like Spy vs. Spy, if you're an old Alfred E. Newman fan.

 

This is the quantum physics of it. We are the One and the 10,000 at the same time. We are a particle (matter) and a wave of probability (thought) at the same time. We are the creator and the matter it conjures all at once. This is why the Sage can change the dynamics of things - because he lives in awareness of this.

 

It's sheer sorcery, that's all.

Edited November 17, 2013 by manitou

[manitou]

I can't answer but to say that I picture that meditation or complete unconsciousness would indeed remove the potential for being wrong but also being sentient. The capacity to be wrong allows one to envision that which not-is , a very powerful tool. Whether love is a sentiment associated with having no sentient thought,, I don't know, but since it appears that one can love when one is not mentally negated...I'm thinking that the two are not linked. That a person would have to meditate to feel love seems quite limited.No ,I lean toward the idea that love is a lovely folly and great wisdom rather than the blankness of that which entirely objective.

 

To envision the not-is is to have to acknowledge the unmanifest idea behind the phenomenon. This assumes your starting place as a particular object or condition, and walks it back from there to the unmanifested idea. That's fine - you're right - it is a powerful tool. Castaneda would say this occasionally - to see not only what is there, but what is not-there. Love is a thought and a sentiment - who knows which came first? Maybe the sentiment came first at the beginning, maybe the thought - I don't know. All I know is the state of agape love that is experienced when one can achieve No-Mind at all. This is what is referred to as Adam Kadmon in ancient Freemasonry. The thought of the original man before the man (or evolution of the man) came into existence. The thought was the motivator, and the sentiment of love was the motivator.

 

There is an avatar that someone on this forum has - can't remember who is it! - but the avatar shows a sitting man with light emitting from his eyes, his nose, his ears, etc. This is the metaphor for Adam Kadmon - the original thought-template of Man. it is the I Am consciousness of no-thought, the realization of Who We Really Are; this state necessitates the removal of contortion to achieve it, and the emissions go outward from the I Am into matter and what we call 'reality'.

 

I just reread your post and my reply would be that we're talking about two different types of love here. There is the agape love of the One, of all, of all things as One - and then there is the love, the folly, that we mistakenly keep looking for - the "funny feeling" that we keep trying to run down and hope it's permanent. That type of love or feeling isn't permanent; it comes and goes, sometimes the bads outweigh the goods in the relationship and we go seeking another, thinking that someone 'out there' is just the right one to give us what we seek - that warm fuzzy feeling that makes us feel wonderful. This is a love from a selfish perspective - what can the other person give to me?

 

Agape love, on the other hand, is a permanent condition unless you lose your balance on the ox. It is to love your brother as yourself - even if that brother is in your mind a despicable ay-whole. The motivation is exactly opposite - how can I love my brother better?

Edited November 17, 2013 by manitou

[Marblehead]

Yes, Adolph Hitler is Mother Teresa, only with contortions. They both stem from the I Am, the One.

We are all individuals, separate and unique. Most are good, some are bad. The sheep thinks the wolf is bad, the wolf thinks the sheep is good. They are not one until the wolf has eaten the sheep.

 

Mother Teresa was a symbol of the good, Adolf was a symbol of what is bad.

 

The next time a comet hits Earth I am sure you will not say that the event was good.

[manitou]

We are all individuals, separate and unique. Most are good, some are bad. The sheep thinks the wolf is bad, the wolf thinks the sheep is good. They are not one until the wolf has eaten the sheep.

 

Mother Teresa was a symbol of the good, Adolf was a symbol of what is bad.

 

The next time a comet hits Earth I am sure you will not say that the event was good.

 

In whose eyes are some good, some bad? That's your evaluation, and maybe others in the world don't share it. that's dual, Marbles... Adolph Hitler no doubt had his fans too. Mother Teresa may have been a pain in the butt for others, challenging the system. It's all relative. It just IS, that's all. We don't need to decide whether it's good or bad, then project it onto everyone else as being Reality. Remember that we are all straw dogs and the Dao probably doesn't give a hang about what period of time an individual manifestation (which is what we are, all manifesting from the One) makes his appearance or leaves the scene. It is all part of the cosmic stream, the cosmic harmony; and it's all HERE and NOW, not linear. To continue to see things as merely linear is to deny the perpendicular vertical line of depth. You're just going with what your eyes tell you, and if that's the case you would believe that the earth is flat.

 

I wouldn't judge the comet hitting the earth. Seriously. I wouldn't. I think that death may be the coolest thing that ever happened to us in our life. I don't go out looking for it, but I'm not fearful of it. This is the shamanic mindset.

 

You know, it might be kind of fun to triangulate different versions of the DDJ and sort this out further depending on what the Dao has to say about it; or at least, we could discuss the difference, as we see them, as to what the Dao is saying. I'm going to give that some thought and maybe start up a thread on this.

 

Love you, brother.

Edited November 17, 2013 by manitou