if you believe in it, it will exist or else nothing really exist?

[Shad282]

Do you think that nothing in life is static and everything is relative?

In other words, if you dnt believe in chi/energy, you won't feel it. It could be that the belief is what creates our own reality, what we feel, see, hear, touch, smell, taste.

And nothing really exist... we just inherited genetically and got taught beliefs that makes our own reality and put us with people with same of those beliefs that reinforce them and thus lead to make it a very real reality.

 

Nd could be that the chakras, energy/chi, meridians...etc just another packaged reality, that we can choose to believe in out of many other realities, all is real but nothing really exist?

 

Are there some static stuff in the world? That foes beyond all possible realities?

Or could a majority belief be made a a static to all other possible realities?

Does nothing really exist.. because all realities cancel each others out and what is left is emptiness or just another belief?

thank you

[Drifting_Through_Infinity]

In the Second Book Of The Tao by Stephen Mitchell, it says "The universe was created the day I was born". I personally interpret this as "my view of the random squirming of energy did not exist before I was born". With this ideology, all people before you were born were robots because they only flowed as a pattern in the universal energy.

 

Whether it is deeper than that I know not.

[Marblehead]

Shame on Steven Mitchell.  Hehehe.

 

There is objective reality and,

There is subjective reality.

 

Objectively you cannot fly.

Subjectively you can allow your mind to fly wherever you wish it to fly.

[thelerner]

 

There is objective reality and,

There is subjective reality.

 

Objectively you cannot fly.

Subjectively you can allow your mind to fly wherever you wish it to fly.

Sometimes I wonder if its-

 

There is objective reality and,

There are subjective interpretations of it.

 

Objectively you cannot fly,

but is astral travel possible?

i don't know..

 

Our subjective interpretations are riddled

with cultural and egotistic blinds and filters. 

i wonder if there are other dimensions,

lighter ones, stranger ones, tied to this heavy tic toc world..?

i don't know.

and it doesn't really matter what anyone else tells me.

i'll only know, when i experience it.  and if i don't experience it, then.. too bad. 

there's always chocolate.  none of that in the other dimensions, i bet.

[rene]

There is objective reality and,

There is subjective interpretations of it.

That works for me. That, and chocolate. (-:

[Shad282]

Shame on Steven Mitchell. Hehehe.

 

There is objective reality and,

There is subjective reality.

 

Objectively you cannot fly.

Subjectively you can allow your mind to fly wherever you wish it to fly.

The objective reality could be what we agree on, and the subjective reality is what we differ in... And both are not the reality.

[Marblehead]

Back to thelerner:

 

but is astral travel possible?

 

IMO:

 

In the physical, No.

 

In the mental, Possible.

 

I think it depends on how strong our imagination and creativity is.  Mine is very lacking so for me, No.

 

This universe has its physical laws.  We cannot violate these laws.

[Brian]

Back to thelerner:

 

but is astral travel possible?

 

IMO:

 

In the physical, No.

 

In the mental, Possible.

 

I think it depends on how strong our imagination and creativity is. Mine is very lacking so for me, No.

 

This universe has its physical laws.[/background] We cannot violate these laws.

List them, please? Or pick one from the list and explain what the rule requires?

[Brian]

In the Second Book Of The Tao by Stephen Mitchell, it says "The universe was created the day I was born". I personally interpret this as "my view of the random squirming of energy did not exist before I was born". With this ideology, all people before you were born were robots because they only flowed as a pattern in the universal energy.

 

Whether it is deeper than that I know not.

Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that a universe was created?

 

Just food for thought...

[blackstar212]

Do you think that nothing in life is static and everything is relative?

In other words, if you dnt believe in chi/energy, you won't feel it. It could be that the belief is what creates our own reality, what we feel, see, hear, touch, smell, taste.

And nothing really exist... we just inherited genetically and got taught beliefs that makes our own reality and put us with people with same of those beliefs that reinforce them and thus lead to make it a very real reality.

 

Nd could be that the chakras, energy/chi, meridians...etc just another packaged reality, that we can choose to believe in out of many other realities, all is real but nothing really exist?

 

Are there some static stuff in the world? That foes beyond all possible realities?

Or could a majority belief be made a a static to all other possible realities?

Does nothing really exist.. because all realities cancel each others out and what is left is emptiness or just another belief?

thank you

Reminds me of a story. Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

 

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

 

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

 

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

[Karl]

Existence exists and consciousness is what we use to grasp existence. I argue that there is no subjectivity, we believe what we believe and that is an objective truth, even if that belief is in error it is true that we believe that error.

 

An objective, concrete and absolute reality exists regardless of our ability to grasp it. It does not matter if consciousness were to cease, because existence would remain even without anything to be conscious of it.

 

I don't like the term 'static' in terms of existence. Things are certainly not static, causality is a feature of existence, but should not be regarded as preventing consciousness grasping existence. This causality is due to everything possessing a nature which react and interacts with every other thing. These natures are the identity of entities. There are many parts making up an entity and human conception is to categorise the parts. Though our eyes cannot directly perceive the precise nature of the swirling, vibrating particles within a rock, never the less we still see them as a rock. We can conceptualise up down and side wards. The rock, to dust, down to its atomic level ingredients, or the rock to a mountain, moon or planet. We can conceptualise all the rocks there will ever be, all the planets and stars there will ever be right up to the conceptualisation of the universe. We cannot see the entire universe, neither all the swirling potentials in matter, but yet we perceive it all just by looking, by placing our awareness on rock, or universe we can perceive it all regardless of not being able to see to the end of the universe, or to those tiny particles. However our conception gives us sight beyond sight.

[Karl]

List them, please? Or pick one from the list and explain what the rule requires?

:-) just as an aide memoir here Brian, for the sake of the solid ground on which we most definitely agree, please don't begin asking those kind of questions to me ;-) as mentioned last time, when we get to this X-over we will start a war and I've decided diplomacy is the saner approach.

[Brian]

:-) just as an aide memoir here Brian, for the sake of the solid ground on which we most definitely agree, please don't begin asking those kind of questions to me ;-) as mentioned last time, when we get to this X-over we will start a war and I've decided diplomacy is the saner approach.

It was a rhetorical question and not even directed at you, Karl.

[Karl]

The objective reality could be what we agree on, and the subjective reality is what we differ in... And both are not the reality.

Reality is reality. What you directly perceive is reality. What you conceive may also be reality, but it is more error prone, hence the need for logic and reason. A dog does not question reality because it is only perceptually conscious, it cannot conceive all the possible numbers of bones, balls and dogs in the world. It sees what it sees and that's all it sees. It can make errors of perception, but these are because it cannot conceptualise, just as a fish will take a bated hook, or a dog will attack it's reflection in a mirror, but it is not capable of conceptual error.

[Karl]

It was a rhetorical question and not even directed at you, Karl.

:-) I know, but you do write 'notes to self' so I thought it might be a timely reminder in the heat of a discussion.

[Marblehead]

List them, please? Or pick one from the list and explain what the rule requires?

You want me to list all the Laws of Physics?  That's your department.

 

But sure, I will list one:

 

The Law of Gravity.  You jump up, you fall back down.  (Unless you can attain escape velocity [25,020 mph].)

[Brian]

Reality is reality. What you directly perceive is reality. What you conceive may also be reality, but it is more error prone, hence the need for logic and reason. A dog does not question reality because it is only perceptually conscious, it cannot conceive all the possible numbers of bones, balls and dogs in the world. It sees what it sees and that's all it sees. It can make errors of perception, but these are because it cannot conceptualise, just as a fish will take a bated hook, or a dog will attack it's reflection in a mirror, but it is not capable of conceptual error.

But surely you won't mind a simple question -- on what basis do you conclude you are fundamentally different from the dog?

[Marblehead]

It was a rhetorical question and not even directed at you, Karl.

Well, I replied anyhow.

[Brian]

You want me to list all the Laws of Physics? That's your department.

 

But sure, I will list one:

 

The Law of Gravity. You jump up, you fall back down. (Unless you can attain escape velocity [25,020 mph].)

Is that how it works?

 

OK, thanks!

[Marblehead]

Is that how it works?

 

OK, thanks!

Yep.  You won't see me getting much more technical than that.

 

And BTW I think you could probably find a Law that disallows us from flying under our own physicality and human power.

 

So no bodily astral travel, only mental.

[Karl]

But surely you won't mind a simple question -- on what basis do you conclude you are fundamentally different from the dog?

Thank you, but no. :-) I won't be tempted. I enjoy our joint enterprise in other areas and dislike the arguments that spring from these kind of questions.

[Brian]

I suppose none of us recognize our own blinders until they are gone.

[Brian]

Thank you, but no. :-) I won't be tempted. I enjoy our joint enterprise in other areas and dislike the arguments that spring from these kind of questions.

Personally, I've always pursued the questions which made me uncomfortable but that's just me.

 

Just thought I'd ask.

 

Thanks!

[Karl]

I suppose none of us recognize our own blinders until they are gone.

We can think they are gone.

[Karl]

Personally, I've always pursued the questions which made me uncomfortable but that's just me.

Just thought I'd ask.

Thanks!

It isn't an uncomfortable question, I am uncomfortable entering into a discussion with you. It is a rock meeting a hard place and I know already where you will go and nothing you will say to me, nor I to you, will drive it on one bit. You firmly hold to your view as I do to mine and the result of the interaction is a car crash. The argument moves into ad hominems from which we both derive nothing valuable. I can ask you about physics and I don't feel pressured in the least. I can be Mr dumb because I'm trying to understand and learn, but philosophically I am not.