When this world fades away, ceasing to exist, where will the immortal human essence go? Will we wash away like countless grains of sand? For some of us this is our reward for our impatience. We will live a life of death, trapped in our own reality of pain and suffering. Others of us will remain as before but without flaw or mistake but excellence. We will be made perfect by the author of flawlessness.

If history lives on then how are humans ever considered pure? Who hears the past? Who applies it to the future? Others do. They model our faultlessness and our seemingly endless flaws. We humans depend on others no matter how much we willfully accept it. We are all connected and all help to construct the bigger picture. This is what it means to be human. It is the basis of our existence. But this is only part of our employment. It also means we co-exist. But not just exist together. We must exist gently, not sending our harmful rippling effect to others. We must give others what they must give to us as well…love.  As humans we are required to love but also know the boundaries of that love. For without the knowledge of these limits how would we know we are loving. We must be constantly reassured we are doing what is right. We must be praised and worshipped. We must be arrogant and ignorant to know just the opposite.

Although my perspective is skewed, it is impeccable. It is perfect in every way. For I am only fulfilling my duty as a human being…to be imperfect.

Human interpretation is at best available to the amount of stress and judgment that has been programmed into the nervous system and what the awareness is placed upon.
The senses have the ability to look and see the gross realities of ignorance or the subtle realities of union.
One seemingly separate yet joined in the chaos of the illusion of interpretations or the other joined at a more subtle level where no thing is separate and all are born of the one.
Perfection cannot be achieved in the boundaries of human separation but at deeper levels where all actions are intertwined below and beyond the human reality.
To be human means to suffer to some, and to some this may seem perfect. Suffering is an illusion born of ignorance, of ignoring the subtle realities and believing in the grosser realities of separation, mortality, judgment and fear.
 These qualities though built into the possibilites of reality are not the essence of who we are and by choice we can be something other than chained to these truths. It doesn't mean we have to suffer to realise the greater parts of ourselves, that is just the stress of the ego and it is just a thought.
Whatever you need to do to fulfill all contrasts so that you may make it big enough to choose for the subtle is just a choice. However don't be so sure others will need to suffer along with you in order to reach perfection. They may not see the imperfections that you need to see to evolve beyond your levels of self worth.
Love has no boundaries. No Boundaries. No boundaries.
Only Ego places boundaries and limitations so that it may not get lost in its own limited realities. So that its limited ideas of self are not destroyed in death. Yet Ego keeps you trapped in illusions and tricks you into death so that you may never know your Self. Beyond Human limitations, suffering and imperfections and judgment.

Joe, consider this:

"Love is a human emotion based on a combination of lust and child-rearing instinct that we glorify because reproduction is the only purpose or goal to our existence."

QUOTE

Joe, consider this: "Love is a human emotion based on a combination of lust and child-rearing instinct that we glorify because reproduction is the only purpose or goal to our existence."

That is definitely one human definition/interpretation.

Personally I find that the concepts of evolution within mans mind and the ability to transcend the idea of just the physical part of our nature, cause definitions to the human being to rapidly change. What love is to the physical is far from historical identification of the more subtle pure unconditional love which is an energy that supports action.
Human interpretation seems to relate to human identification and that is subject to the personal ideas of reality. I tend to lean more to a broader perspective that includes all things rather than separating each into its own idea.

In the movie that Matrix, mouse defended his creation of the Lady in Red to Neo with the statement, "To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human."
 Although they triumphed in the removal of themselves from the generators that ran the matrix. Intertwined into the story was the idea that within the confines of the matrix their thoughts feelings and actions were illusiory programs. Once released from the matrix their thoughts feelings and action were now in the control of themselves and whatever programs they chose to supplement their construct with.
The funny thing is, what they felt and thought they were doing was as a feeling and experience not much different in the Matrix than in what they determined to be their real life. The only difference was a conscious awareness of being in the Matrix and manipulating certain things in their environment. Neo became stronger than the limitations normally incurred in the projection of the physical world by seeing beyond the aspects of the beliefs in the mortality of the body which was a creation of a program. Depending on the program certain aspects of human strengths and weakness were seemingly sentient or normalized. Neo started to break down the 'given' aspects or the foundations or human boundaries in structure.

Similarly Scientists/physicists are finding certain physical properties of the human creation which make up time and space are subject to the belief structures that are dominant in the mind.
Collectively as a group the strength of the collective would always seem stronger than a single idea unless the single idea was of a greater reality than the illusiory group foundation based in illusion.

Like in the Matrix where the normal sleeping minds that were trapped in the matrix saw only their normal abilities and limitations, the awakened abilities of Morpheus and his group far exceeded natural laws.

So to get back to your definition of Love as it relates to human reproduction. In its most basic animal functions without the fluff of candlelight and romance, Love broken down into an instinct could be just the draw to perpetuate the self rather than to live and die and end the relationship with awareness and whatever.
Other theories around basic human emotional sexual drives is to achieve union with God. Some say in having sex is to unite with the other person at the most intimite levels where all defenses are dropped and the emotional and physical state is at its most vulnerable and open spot, free from any fear, self doubt or any other distracting thought like what's for dinner or how am I going to make the mortgage payment, etc.
The presence of the minds engagement in the perfection of the moment without any other thoughts stills the awareness into clarity and peace. This is one definition of the experience of divine nature.

Each person is different in what ideas they make to be truth in reality but if the minds of man in their multidimentional nature are and can be so diverse, the questions of what being human is can be answered on different levels, multidimensional levels.
It relates to you though, who you have a taste for being. What you are will feel like something and if you are satisfied with the feeling as the basis for what and who you are then that is what and who you are, until the feeling changes and the meanings to the feelings change as well.

Humans.............what a concept!

Joe,

Your quote:
"Humans.............what a concept!"

Do you believe that humans are a concept?
And if so, who might you be?
Care to explain?

QUOTE

Joe, Your quote: "Humans.............what a concept!" Do you believe that humans are a concept? And if so, who might you be? Care to explain?

Oh you're not going to like this one..........
I am God, I am you, I am that.

Human characteristics in the egotistical sense allow only for the relative boundaries of human experience.
"I think therefore I am"    That kind of thing. The thoughts of I am are associated subjectively to the ideas of what I am is in relationship to, what I think.
I am flesh and blood , I die and thats the end of it kind of thinking. Ideas that are beliefs that are based on observances more than experience.
Lets take death for example. "I die and thats the end of it."  A very popular thought but just a thought or idea. Those that have had near death or death experiences come back to tell of a different experience.

What makes us human?
From the level of creation a force that creates and maintains physical reality and all its ideas in form and forms outside of physical boundaries.
 From lesser thoughts based on Human nature it is the labeling of a collection of physical observances, but they always fall short of all unexplained action and abnormal patterns that go beyond the singular personal experience that is limited only to physical boundaries. Ya know those contradictory behavior patterns and unexplained ideas that are usually thrown into the piles that are labeled with some sort of condescending generalization.

As a concept humanism is subject to duality or Totality. One is dual in nature the other singular.
My experience is it is singular, of one consciousness. IT allows both for the idea to initiate creation and all actions in consecutive order as well as the created inevitable Being that draws all action and form to it to align with its Self.

Joe,
There are two of you.  One is flesh, the other is intuitive dreaming.  The question still exists that can you ignore the problems of this life by escape into the domain of the imaginative?
You post above shows that you are really out of touch.  Do you honestly think you can transcend the body you are wrapped up in with the problems that exist all around us by being a house husband and meditating?
Ignoring something is not transcending in my book.
I don't know the solution for someone that is dis satisfied for being who he is.  Ignoring the fact is the way out of the amnesiac.  Realising both conditions and trying to find a working solution is reality.  Not that I want you to do anything else unless you come here to indoctrinate us with this ridiculous propaganda of the escape artist.  No matter what you say, here you are trying to convince us.  It is not working,Joe.  Go thwack the book someplace else.  

How do you expect to be anything other than one sided if you keep deleting the answers to your questions?

If you were selling door to door and appeared at someone's door step every day someone would have a glimmering that maybe there was something wrong with your technique.  If you appeared at every door everytime someone opened it, extolling your product some one would think you had a fixation on the house or some one in it.  
You are stalking.

It has nothing to do with your outlook and everything to do with your actions which appear more and more as symtomatic of some condition.

I would suggest you stop inviting the salesman in if you are going to keep complaining about what he has to say.

pathology......what a concept!

humans: in different believes god or someone has created us. People search long and far to find whats the meaning of life; if u think very hard u can see that we were made to make more humans (duh), but also to help the earth as much as we can!! The meaning of being a human is.... u should already know because u of course are a HUMAN so live long, help earth, and be a human. Show how proud u r to be a live and living cuz some day u wont be-able show how proud u r!!!link=board=Philosophy;num=1055222661;start=0#8 date=06/26/03 at 10:47:43]If you were selling door to door and appeared at someone's door step every day someone would have a glimmering that maybe there was something wrong with your technique.  If you appeared at every door everytime someone opened it, extolling your product some one would think you had a fixation on the house or some one in it.  
You are stalking.

It has nothing to do with your outlook and everything to do with your actions which appear more and more as symtomatic of some condition.[/quote]

I am 56, dedicated my life to ether/ehterial  studies, and so proud to encounter this great study of yours. As a passed radio radio network broadcaster/director of communications, it would feel so good to hear your study service of this 'only' catagory bilingual (and in English) world wide, daily. May we talk concerning this,or could this be in your agenda for near future efforts.
Carl D. Corrick - 2130 Bonita Ave. - Shawnee, Oklahoma 74804 - phone 405-878-0367, fx 405-878-0561, email: Sooner.Horizon@sbcglobal.net

Thank you !

For one who has dedicated his life to the study of the Etherial you must have some ideas and experiences of your own to share, particularly on this subject. I'd like to hear them.

On the physical level, at least, it means to be imperfect.

I have thought of all my family, friends, and acquaintences and not one of them is free of one or more physical or nervous complaints: the older ones suffer multiple 'faults'.
Why is this?

Best regards Bill.
PS don't blame me!

QUOTE

PS don't blame me!

There is a wonderful series of books written by Baird T. Spalding called "The Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" published by De Vorss press.

In it, the Masters have described the nature of fault to be only in perception.
Where God creates and holds all of creation in the image of perfection, the Ego sees it as less.
Man believes in the probabilities of dis-ease and imperfection and projects these things into life and manifests the relationship to their interpretation and reality.
We draw all things to us in which we hold as real and as truth. It is only by joining with the Universal mind in that infinite perfection that the lesser belief systems fall away, the illusions of fear and absence of Love.
Once this is achieved all of the universe rallies around the experience to manifest.

By the way Bill, belief is not required, for the nature of God is not democratic, only the ideas in interpretation give false illusion to the idea that it doesn't exist.

Joe, i've been away, and following the departure of John and PJ i might well leave myself, but I'll pick up for a while. I think we have a problem with language:

You: "I am God, I am you, I am that."

Now obviously I am not utterly seperate from you, as I interact with you. We are both part of existence, part of the same set of linked universes in phase space. In a sense then we are the whole, and the ego is only seperate because it defines itself as such. This is my view, and it shares some similarities with yours, but what i build from it ends up radically different from your ideas. Your thoughts?

What?  John and PJ left?  When?  How did that happen?  Please update me on that.

they left because joe wasn't censored.   Apparently, some people are easily offended by freedom of speech.   Go figure.   :-/

QUOTE

but what i build from it ends up radically different from your ideas

This is why the difference is radical to you.
Your interpretation of the whole is in a sense as you put it. The senses are part of the system of projected being, the projection of the ego and the part of the whole. The senses are trained by the experience of the mind moving outward away from the One Self into its projected parts so to speak and identifying with the separateness of the parts as being independant.
Intellectually one can rationalize the many parts or people making the whole of the population of the planet. Possibly the many planets and their inhabitants if you believe there are other inhabitants in other solar systems to make up the one galaxy.
This leaves the individual awareness intact and allows for the beliefs in the possibilities in perfection and imperfection. Such is the reality of your quote by Mr. Russel that life is horrible. The acceptance of suffering and fear as being the ultimate, or Gods perfection.
Humans set such low standards in waking states of consciousness.
When one goes inward to experience the Self or the One the union of the Self recognizes all aspects of its beliefs projected in the likes, dislikes, and realities of beliefs in the world and people around them. Consciousness easily moves about and within each object and person.
As one evolves further the preconceived Ideas and projections dissolve into the infinite energy or the absolute and all that is recognised is the same pure energy of God as it contains any idea one wishes to pull out and make real.
There is only at any given time One person in the room, one room, one universe.
I read an interesting note last night concerning the American heritage in its creation and symbology.
Each dollar has the latin e pluribus unum  
stamped on it. "From the one comes the expression of the many" or "from the union of the many is the one"
These words were not just empty words, they come from a deeper level of consciousness and it is the outer sensory levels of the 10% level of the thinking mind that intelectualizes reality into its many parts. The deeper 90% that is rarely tapped or used knows a different perspective and a greater reality.

You ask for my thoughts in the radical difference in perception. It comes from a different anchor in the basis of reality and awareness.
Is it belief or is it real or imagination?
Such is the paradox of anything in the world.
You will draw to you what you are able to accept.
That is what you will hold as truth and reality.

I have some questions for you?
Are you content with your point of reference and your understanding of life? Do you ever notice what you have drawn to you in the many ideas and beliefs? Do you hold tight to what you believe or have you been expanding your awareness of the many ideas to broaden your own awareness?
Are you quick to judge, or do you easily accept, or remain neutral to what goes on around you?
How much of what others say to you do you make your truth without the actual experience?
Do you find you defend certain things and fight others?

That's silly goddess incarnate.  It is a form of freedom of speech to determine what you will or will not listen to.  It is more likely that they found joe's ubiquitous presence(s) to be rather undesirable and out of respect for the freedom of speech chose to depart rather than condone coerced censorship.  I know I could stand to hear a lot less of joe and I would be glad if he responded affirmatively to the petition put forth by the community that he should restrain his very opinionated impulses, but I acknowledge that only good manners obligate him to do so.  John was a moderator and could have with approbrium censored joe, but chose to instead resign and now it seems to depart.  If you think of this as offense against the freedom of speech, then I must conclude that you are not living in reality...or that you are living in joe's reality, hehe, which is much the same thing.  As far as I'm concerned, I don't consider this message board home and only interlope here for a change of pace.  It sad that John and PJ chose to leave, if that is in fact what has happened, but I can respect their decision to do so.  I do hope that they will contact me and let me know where I can reach them seeing that I have always found their comments to be insightful.  It would be a shame to fall out of touch.

At any rate, I prefer to think of Joe, not so much as an unreachable, self-deluded, and eternally mystified anti-rationalist, but as a reliable, even indestructible target, in which to cast my barbs of critique against, an example par excellence of everything that is wrong in mysticism, but who by virtue of his very enduring resilience can not comprehend the spectacle of his own absurdity and will continue to eternally spew forth jewels of nonsense for me and those like me to make a mockery of.  Joe is the best part of these boards.  Any lesser individual would crumble under the sheer weight of opposition leveled against him and would as a consequence be worthless for purposes of ridicule.  Thank you joe.

Why thank you Timmy, that was sweet.
 I am always your servant.
I would like to help you with your misplaced perceptions of the majority though, concerning the exit of John and PJ.
It seems the majority of "you, John and PJ" weren't in agreement with the majority that run the board.
 John after censoring many of my posts, as would the Catholic right wingers censor the Wizard of Oz for profanity and Satanism, left in a hissy fit because your majority of viewpoints disagreed with the other majorities extreme liberal viewpoints.

I am always grateful for the perspectives that are given here and see that they are beneficial in more ways than one to show each one how they might view the world around them.
Either we suffer in our own delusions of what is wrong with the world or find ways to live in praise, gratitude and love.

Clearly we all make our own choices

QUOTE

It is more likely that they found joe's ubiquitous presence(s) to be rather undesirable and out of respect for the freedom of speech chose to depart rather than condone coerced censorship.

but why condone coerced  censorship in the first place?   Synchronox and PJ wanted joe censored or banned, and when that didn't happen, they left.  I was here when it happened.  I saw it all.   If anything's silly, it's that "adults" can behave so childishly and be so narrow-mindedly, that they can't even tolerate anyone else's point of view that differs radically from their own.  Personally, I'm glad they left.  They were very hostile towards joe's point of view, and such hostility is unwarranted, to say the least.   This forum doesn't need close-mindedness, censorship, or intolerance, but rather quite the opposite, which is what this forum has, now that pj and synchronox have left.    

Haha, you're quite the riot, incarnate goddess.  I was here too and I'm sorry to inform you that it was not joe's philosophy that they wanted censored, but his manner of presentation.  You see joe is a bit of an overbearing and unsavory chap with respect to common courtesy and etiquette.  Of course in joeism, all that is fine and dandy since properly speaking "there are no victims" and all that jazz.  Injustice doesn't exist or freedom of speech or anything else.  It's all egocentric perceptions mischeviously decieving us.  We wanted joe to censor himself and we stated as much in unequivacable terms, but looking back it was wasted words.  When was the last time you saw someone possessed of the god-savior archtype recant or constrain him or herself?  Not likely.  I guess that is why joe felt obligated to fabricate alternative personas to defend himself, lol.  That silly joe.  Doesn't he know there are no victims in need of defense?  Tell your alter egos to get the facts straight Joe!  Its lucky for you that embarrassment isn't real because such dichotomy is certainly embarrassing.

But I'm also glad that those bigots are gone.  There's nothing more reprehensible than close-minded, intolerant, and child-like behavior.  And they were pretty crappy bigots at that, especially that John, what a smuch.  Take for instance his resignation as moderator, only a amatuer bigot would do that.  A first class bigot would have mocked joe, then deleted his protests until he finally left.  That kind of ineptitude gives all of us bigots a bad name.  And PJ, she's not much better.  What kind of bleeding-heart softie would condemn joe's arguments on fact alone, she should have fabricated evidence and misconstued every possible statement ever made by joe.  Instead, all we find is disgustingly honest personal reactions to joe's intellectual stinkyness.  I mean, if you're gonna be a bigot these days, you AT LEAST have to be more dishonest than your opponent, and unfortunately, neither john nor pj amount to very much, although I applaud their rather pathetic efforts.

But you are right immortal goddess, we are better off without them and will now be able to operate in a open-mind, tolerant, and mature environment where all comments are homogenous regulated by the gloriously loquacious dialogue of our savior joe.  Not that we have cast out those heathen rationalists, none can confute our unfalsifiable nonsense.  The world is safe once more.

Well, until I leave anyway.  Joe seems to enjoy quoting from paul now and again so i'll throw in my own pauline reference: unreason on these forums, like paul in the first century, will forever be plagued by the proverbial "thorn."  And, although dan reigns supreme, I'm particularly good at jabbing, if i do say so myself.

Prick!
PRICK!
P R I C K !!!!!

You serve my purpose more than I ever could.

QUOTE

dan reigns supreme

I kick ass!

;D

tim, only the truly moronic would find your crude style of sarcasm and your "jabbing" amusing.   *yawns*

I will not waste much time with this post.  Suffice it to say that I have a keen sense of justice, and this is what compelled me to respond here and now to nonsense that I wouldn't otherwise pay attention to.  

QUOTE

You see joe is a bit of an overbearing and unsavory chap with respect to common courtesy and etiquette. Â

Wrong.  You mean that YOU see joe that way, YOU interpret joe's actions and words in that manner.   You should not confuse the 'thing-in-itself' with your interpretation and mental picture of it.  Such error belies naivety and crassness.  

You're stuck in a cave, dumb-founded by the shadows on the wall.   You should try getting out sometime.   Or, better yet, go deeper in.  

Maybe then you'll be able to better appreciate what others say.

By attacking others, whether through sarcasm or other means, you're proclaiming to everyone that you have personal problems and must project your inner problems out onto other people and vent your hostility out onto the  undeserving.   Is this anger of yours merely a cry for help, a cry for much-needed attention, or do you actually have a valid point to make?    

Dearest Goddess Incarnate...

I hate this part of our site and avoid it like the plague, nor do I want to draw the fire of all these philosophers and theologians lurking hereabouts; I am a very busy man, and do not have the time (and certainly I do not have the inclination), but I just had to risk saying something to you, and that is, simply: Thank you.

You are quite right about a certain denizen of these stygian shores, and you spoke beautifully!  The grateful masses thank you.  

Now leave me alone, you philosophers and theologians.  I have poetry to write, and a life to live.  

But thank you, Goddess, whoever you are.

QUOTE

You serve my purpose more than I ever could.

You seem to project some pretty low self worth issues Tim. Don't fool yourself you are never less than.
Every thing you see here is you!

Joe how can you tell me not to fool myself when you're the one gallavanting around trying to fool me and everyone else with your host of faked ID's?!  You're untrustworthy!

Besides, you are only able to get away with statements like that because you have redifined the term 'you.'  But the concept "you" has a natural and necessary signification which cannot be jimmied by your whatever whimsy runs through your head.  To divest "you" of its specificity is to give it a self-repudiating definition.  I know you don't like that, but as PJ, John, Bill, Seanf, and nearly every other non-faked persona on these boards has said, part of being authentically human is accepting that our wants are often in conflict with life.  If reality and desire square off, so much the worse for desire.  You seem to, at least superficially,  recognize this principle, but then try to resolve the dilemma by deny a conflict exist.  If personal desire is illusory, then it cannot be party to the alleged conflict against against reality.  The argument is anecdotal but well-intentioned and as such I respect it although my rhetorical flourishes would sometimes indicate otherwise, but fundamentally it is a denial of the very thing that makes us human--the stuggle for identity.  But the problem cannot be solved by denying that it exists, no matter how elaborate the argument used to justify it may be.

I was going to throw one last barb to punctuate my point, but deep down inside, I tender the hope that you, the unique and individual you, are not unreachable, that you have not hardened your heart against all other consideration and are capable of even the smallest concession.  If you do not believe in reason, how can you believe in certainty?  How can you be certain that your palace is not a house of cards?  Joe, your doctrine of 'no victims' is very empowering as a perspective, but what if it is only a wonderful, anecdotal metaphor that becomes harmful when taken as literal?

Again, for reason you already know, I would consider it an act of unwarranted benevolence if you could respond in a concise and structured format, or at least break your points up into seperate posts.  It is just not within my power to thoroughly treat a big essay with fairness.

Ok, I've spoken my peace for now.  I do not know how to predict your response, but I hope that there is some sort of reconciliation to be had between us.

/holds breath in anticipation
Tim

As a philosopher, I am often forced to ponder those existential questions of life.  For example, which is more tragic: being admonished via Plato's analogy of the cave by a bootlicker of irrationalism, or passive-aggressively,  attacked by an episode prone interlocutor given to self-aggrandizement of olympic proportions?

Man may never know.  Maybe we should ask the IPU?

Have I pissed some people off?  I hope so.  Have I been crass, vulgar, and intellectually course?  That's for damn sure.  But when facing teflon fallacies, sometimes you have to cook some Lasagna.  I and many others have presented our arguments with civility again and again, ad nauseam, only to see them ignored or presupposed against.  Ordinarily I am loathe to resort to such flagrant antagonism, but against such adversity, and when a slap in the face is less deleterious than polite indifference, such measures are in order.

By the way, Plato thought poets were the scum of the earth, even worse than criminals.  But wait, Platonism is at the heart of Christianity and Joeism.  'In fact, Plato was the first Christian before Christ.'  Oh my goodness gracious!  Maybe the unexamined life is worth living after all?  I mean, what happens when someone comes along and makes nasty comments about what I believe?  I don't have to defend my beliefs to these philistines.  Why should I?  In fact, why defend my beliefs at all.  Why even know what I believe.  That's too much trouble and I cannot be criticized.  Nananananananaaaaaaa!

Dan, we could have had so much fun until you made me submit.

Sorry Tim but I can't give you the answers to your interpretations.
You want me to explain why you see the world the way you do and why you use sarcasm and name calling to explain your points of view?
I can't see it.
Maybe the difference between you and I is that you seem to take life way to seriously and are easily offended and disturbed by what you percieve.
I wish I could help you but you want to rearrange the outside so the insides feel more at ease with the limited ability to be a little more flexible and less rigid in your beliefs and judgments.
Life is what you make it and from what I can tell, you aren't making it very easy on yourself,with all this obsessing of yours. You and john are alot alike in that regard, continually obsessing over these petty ideas of injustice and impracticality.
Find the box that fits Tim and climb in it. You might as well be comfortable.

Behold!  I am the Invisible Pink Unicorn in all of my magnificent pink glory!    

To all,
heed not this chimp, I mean chump, called Timothy_Schoonover, as he is a morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt  dilettante.  

To Timothy,
you have proven yourself unworthy.   No longer will you receive the grace of my mind-boggling pinkness.  So go sulk and repent of your unworthiness, and while you are at it, why don't you go and just eat that noodle on your lap instead of beating it?  Wooh ho ho,  oh nevermind, that's not a noodle!  

Behold!  I am the Invisible Pink Unicorn in all of my magnificent pink glory, leaving you all for now, making my exit in a splendid puff of pinkness!    Be good boys and girls while I'm away, and place nice!    Wooh ho ho!!!  

*poof!*

QUOTE

Dan, we could have had so much fun until you made me submit.

I merely showed you the Truf.  It is now up to you to make fun with me.  ;D

right now, I'm waiting to see if Joey can start a local auxiliary of his church of jibber-jabber.  So far we have a few biters, but I think Joey needs to dumb down his dogmas a little more if he wants to get the locals to tithe significantly

8)

BTW Dan, I didn't get a chance to ask Dawkins about the logical coherency of memetics being a meme.  To be honest, I forgot about it.  I didn't really ask him anything come to think of it.  I stayed up until 4:00 am, and then slept through half the chat.  Oh well, we're both probably better off reading Meme Machine, rather than relying on Dawkins to issue some proclamation from upon the mount anyway.

BTW, you should drop by sometime if you are interested in science/politics/religion discussion from a rational point of view.  Send me a message if that sounds appealing and I'll send you the URL.


So I guess that leaves the issue at hand to discuss.  First of all, Joe, sarcasm and name calling are your interpretations of my behavior.  The fact that you think my actions are unnecessary are also your interpretations.  As such your objections are unfounded.  What cause for concern can there be?  There are no victims here, and there is really no you, me or them--only the transcendent self.  If the arguments you promulgate are applied to your own words, it is only too clear how thinly these fallacies are disguised.

Why should I believe what you believe?  You have scarcely provided one single argument on your behalf.  Instead you tell me what I should do, and not why I should do it.  You could at least suggest that I will be happier, but that would be fatal for you.  Believing in the imaginary may make you happy, but that doesn't make it real.  Religion is the opium of the masses as Marx reminds us.  And when I shower you and your adherents (both falsified and real), with legitimate criticism your only answer to me is that my motives must derive from some inner insecurity.  Here's a novel idea.  Maybe I just really disagree with your theory, maybe I really think that humankind is better off without religion, and maybe all of history bears witness to horrors wrought in the name of the very essense of the thing you champion!  Every sentence you read, whether sarcastic or polite, is crafted for the purposes of achieving maximum effect.  If I piss some of you off, it is testimony to their efficacy, not my desire to be verbally sadistic.  If my motives were sadisim, what purpose would civility serve?  It cannot be argued that I am more than civil to those who have shown civility.  In fact this whole argument precipitated from a insult to John and PJ whom I consider to be friends.  Let that not go unnoticed.  Moreover, if my motives were self-assertion, I would be debating Dan and not any of you.  Dan is the One, and we all by comparison are meager ants crawling within the matrix.

QUOTE

Dan is the One, and we all by comparison are meager ants crawling within the matrix.

that is so true!  you have put a tear of happiness into my eye  :'(
;D

it's kinda weird that we are 'buddies' now.  Does this mean that you forgive my previous assaults, or that you allow that I am sort of full of gas and probably was just just gassing you a little.   :

I like the idea of hanging out with you hyperbrains over there, I don't think you have to worry about me being a problem as I doubt they would put up with too much silliness.  Hook me up!
8)

QUOTE

In fact this whole argument precipitated from a insult to John and PJ whom I consider to be friends.  Let that not go unnoticed.

What argument? What insult?
I had a friend once.....

Joe: "Your interpretation of the whole is in a sense as you put it. The senses are part of the system of projected being, the projection of the ego and the part of the whole."

Me: That's a different meaning of the word sense to the one I used. This is part of what I mean about problems with language - you can never be sure that what you mean is what the other person understands you to be saying.

J:"Are you content with your point of reference and your understanding of life?"

Me: I don't really have an understanding of life as such. My point of reference is everything i have ever experienced, therefore it constantly expands and cahnges as my experience grows.

J:"Do you ever notice what you have drawn to you in the many ideas and beliefs?"

me: Could you clarify this - do you mean which ideas appeal to me?

J:"Do you hold tight to what you believe or have you been expanding your awareness of the many ideas to broaden your own awareness?"

me: My beliefs change and adapt as I encounter new ideas.

J:"Are you quick to judge, or do you easily accept, or remain neutral to what goes on around you?"

me: I don't judge on an absolute basis. If someones actions are harming me or people I care about (in some cases this encludes everyone) I will probably take action to stop them. If someone acts consistently in a way I don't like, I won't befriend them. I also make value judgements concerning personal preference, but would not consider these to apply to others. For example, I would not consider someones taste in music 'bad' because it was different to my own.

J:"How much of what others say to you do you make your truth without the actual experience? "

me: Depends on what you mean by truth.

J:"Do you find you defend certain things and fight others?"

me: Yes - again this is personal preference, value judhement.

Dan, the common trait we both share is that we make far better friends than enemies, and I am a utilitarian.  I'll send you a message containing the URL.  But don't think of us as 'hyper-brains.'  We're just normal folks not given to silly fancies.

Joe,

Here are the ugly facts: Goddess Incarnate implied that John and PJ were bigots.  I simply defended them by pointing out inconsistencies in this assumption, inconsistencies which revolve around you.  GI, didn't care much for my tone I guess and continued her insinuation that they are narrowminded, childish, and intolerant.  Again, I felt obligated to correct her, meanwhile Steve 'BMOC,' popped in to thank GI for being silly!  But what can you expect from a poet?  (*Unweave's Steve's Rainbow*).  The original insult, and consequent argument are plain for anyone with half a brain to see.  But wait, there are no victims, if fact none of this is even happening, hahahaha.

I expect and deserve reprimand for behaving this way, but not half as much my opponents deserve false sloppy, fanciful, and downright absurd thinking.


Here are some more facts:

1) Joe makes a habit of falsifying ID's for purposes of gaining credibility.

2) This has continued to the point that I almost always assume that any newbie that agrees with him is actually him.

3) Prior to the flood of anonymous supporters who were conveniently 'there the whole time', to call joe's opposition a majority was an understatement--it was unanimity save one.  Everyone who participated disagreed with him with one exception--Joe.  Haha, what a surprise.

4) Of those that opposed him, the majority expressed a desire for him to change his behavior which amounted to all but harassment.

5) Joe didnt give a shit and kept stalking every thread with his unwelcome dogma.  We had all heard it countless times before and we all disagreed with it and for good reason.  Everytime we tried to have a conversation, he'd barge in and post 3 pages of unreadable trash.  It was literally impossible to have a meaningful conversation without being spammed with joeism.

6) John decided that censorship was in order when joe refused to conform to the wishes of the community.  I supported this move, but its legitimacy was arguable.  All of us were hoping that this sanction would prove to be unnecessary

7) Joe kept coming, kept posting and stalking and spamming.  It became clear to John that regulation had no effect upon joe's behavior and resigned as a moderator in order to engage joe without marring the reputation of m-b.  In a pissing contest, everyone gets wet.

8) Eventually, John and PJ and whoever else, just got sick of joe and left.  Who can blame them?



I'd like to see one registered user come forth and support joe's position.  I'd be surprised if even one person, with an established identity on m-b, supported him.  Keep in mind joe, that IP's can be verified not only for individuality, but also for similarity, so don't bother going to the library or recruiting a buddy.  If you somehow, miraculously can produce an individual that 1) agrees with you 2) is familiar with the history of this dialogue, 3) who's own credibility as a witness is inexpungeable -- I would be downright flabbergasted.

QUOTE

I'd like to see one registered user come forth and support joe's position.

hello Timothy,
if by joe's position, you mean his thoughts and/or posts, then I don't have a problem supporting him, as least as far as the philosophy board is concerned (his jokes on the humor board are arguably a different matter though).    I appreciate that he can challenge people's belief systems, but I think this is a good thing, particularly to the extent that it forces us to rethink and re-evaluate our belief systems.    

As to whether joe is right or not, my response would be that there are many valid perspectives, many truths, and joe's is one of the more interesting ones.   I'm curious what other people think though.  

take care,
Shawn

So when you said you suported John's decisions as moderator you meant what again?  What about your documented disagreements with Joe?  What were those if you now agree with him?

By support I do not mean endorsing Joe's right to have a view, who would contest that?  I mean do you agree with what he says and how he has pursued communicating it?

Spinoza wouldn't.

Anyway, this latest turn of events is quite shocking to me.

though I don't really see the relevance of these questions to this thread (they seem more appropriate for the padded room), I'm hoping the following answers will resolve some issues here.

QUOTE

So when you said you suported John's decisions as moderator you meant what again? Â

I gave John the right to exercise authority as moderator, which meant more or less doing what he wanted and what he deemed in good judgment, regardless of whether I would've done the same or not.

QUOTE

What about your documented disagreements with Joe?  What were those if you now agree with him?

like I said partly above, I believe joe presents an interesting and venerable perspective, one that's well grounded in the Gita and other ancient Indian works, and one that other people can find useful and enlightening.   Mind you, I adopt a pragmatic approach to perspectives, regarding particular perspectives as useful and desirable for particular circumstances and for accomplishing particular things.   It's all a state of mind.  Those who have relative control over their own minds (and mind-states), and have the freedom to choose among multiple perspectives from which to interpret this world and themselves, possess a significant advantage over those that don't have such a freedom.   Wouldn't you agree?  

And what about my disagreements with joe?   I don't have a problem with disagreeing with people, and in fact often do disagree.  I never presumed in my discussion with joe that we'd necessarily meet eye to eye, and nor would I presume this with anyone else, and hence I was not expecting us to agree over everything, but was rather expecting some disagreement as is usual between people with different experiences, backgrounds, modes of thinking, etc...

Perhaps not surprisingly, I don't wholly agree with everything that joe says, but I do acknowledge the validity and depth of his perspective, and I think it's a very useful perspective to adopt sometimes.  Like I said above, my perspective involves many perspectives, ideally infinitely many, and hence no individual perspective, in and of itself, really holds any absolute validity for me.

QUOTE

I mean do you agree with what he says and how he has pursued communicating it?   Â

Since joe is communicating his perspective, which contains, at the very least, partial validity for everyone who experiences it, and since I believe I've experienced it, then it's only natural that I'm going to agree with what he says, with the understanding, born of experience, that there are multiple perspectives one can utilize or realize at any given moment.

Regarding how he's communicated it, I think there are pros and cons here, as there would be for any manner of communicating.  Do the pros outweigh the cons?  Maybe, maybe not.   But since this is, more or less, an open forum, I don't see the point in pursuing the matter further.   Joe's posts have almost always been topically relevant, and some people have found them very useful and have told him as much.   And so your need to take the offensive against joe and his manner of posting stems from what exactly?

QUOTE

Spinoza wouldn't. Â

I don't see your basis for this statement.

QUOTE

Anyway, this latest turn of events is quite shocking to me. Â

ok, perhaps you can clarify 'this latest turn of events', but in any event, I don't really find anything here so shocking since this is an open forum where, more or less, anything goes and people are free to speak their mind.    

Perhaps it's unfortunate that some people have left, but it's their choice, and I certainly don't hold anything against them for doing so.    More people come to fill their place daily, and so you can only expect some people to leave every now and again, because some people will take offense to other people's posts, because this forum can't be everything to everyone, and because people's time is limited.  Is this what you find shocking?    


namaste

QUOTE

(his jokes on the humor board are arguably a different matter though).

Shawn,
I will not be offended if you remove what you decide is distateful.
I never go anywhere with the intention of deliberately trying to offend anyone and I find that we all seem to find our limits both in taste and etiquette.
I assure you I posted those jokes with purely innocent intentions and without any prejudice or malice.
I just happened to think they were funny, but then that's me.

QUOTE

I expect and deserve reprimand for behaving this way, but not half as much my opponents deserve false sloppy, fanciful, and downright absurd thinking.

This is the paradox of life. What you expect does not always produce what you may think if the expectations are weaker than the majority that supports the foundations of reality.
In this case God supports reality and allows for all points of view and their references.

QUOTE

Here are some more facts:

Factual yes but in whos determination are these facts valid? The board seems split in the views of personal perspectives and rules of etiquette and personal irritation set by an imaginary rule maker be it God or Your point of belief or reference point.
Which is imaginary and which is the real determining governor of lifes foundations in judgment, and where is the rule book and who wrote it?

Being that this is an open Forum and Shawn is the Originator I would assume he has leeway to determine the course of his own ship. That may or may not make his point of reference the majority for there will always be differing viewpoints.
It would seem that control is the issue at hand and the attachment to it. Where John and PJ left off you have picked up the ball. What you see as real is being challenged and you will not accept anything less than what your reality has given you. To lose that would be devestating, as would it be for everyone if suddenly your life was taken away and you were told it was a lie.
This is the beauty of free will and choice to see your life any way you wish to see it.
The only problem is when we see conflicting life streams being supported in the face of our own realities that would challenge our own choices. Do you continue to accept your choices without the fear of possibilities that you could have done it differently or you aren't getting fair consideration for what you hold of value when another lives and prospers without the rules you thought were real?
What will you allow in support of your own choices? will you allow others to live and believe in what they have experienced?
Enlightenment is not doing the right thing but it is a lot closer to doing away with the wrongs to see that all choices are supported.
This is the mirror.
I am no more right than you are but the arguments keep trying to pin something down as right and wrong so we can agree on the rules.
The are no rules to desire. We provide guidelines to cohabitate and cocreate that we will keep others from harming or taking that right.
The enlightened state of mind never invades any fantasy or illusion it only stands as a threat to small thinking and the need to believe fear and protection from fear is real.
I never gave you reasons to be another way but you demand them from me so that you can accept my point of reference.
I never demanded that you accept mine but you don't like them and you insist they are dogmatic, irrational and invasive just by my open sharing and one pointed viewpoint to never waver from what I know.
I am not threatened by others and therefor I have no problem with anothers point of view. I can walk away any time I choose and without any regrets or feelings of malcontent.
I haven't seem much of that here from the disgruntled faction. More of a need to remove the irritation from the eye than to change the point of decision to look another way or see it differently.
You confuse my words with your values and reality.
I am harmless, I can not climb into your mind and flip any switches. You seem to be doing that all on your own. Everyone sees what they see and it is as real as they make it.
Enjoy your life and quit trying to make anyone believe another can keep you from that.

Shawn

If you say you agree with him then you agree with him and I have to take your word for it don't I?  Although based upon what I've seen in the past and what I have read just now, I really am flabbergasted.  What's intersting is, while your position allows you to agree with joe, joe's position does not allow him to agree with you, at least not if you follow it to its logical conclusions.  In joe's view, truth can be equated with reality, thus Self is the only truth.  In your view, there are many truths: joe's truth, your truth, my truth, John's truth, Hitler's truth.  Each is applicable in its own circumstance and setting.  Joe's philosophy is predicated upon the existence of an absolute (Self), while your position, if you follow your premises to their necessary end, is predicated upon the impossibility of absolutes.  Essentially, your point of view amounts to the total erosion of truth, leaving only localized convention and opinion.  What is shocking to me, is that a credentialed scientist such as yourself, would espouse such a worldview.  Not that its impossible, just very unpopular.

Regarding the practicality of the matter, which is all that remains once you have abrogated the appeal to truth, perhaps an analog to joe's behavior would be lend perspicacity.  You all are familiar with the IPU.  Most of you (I hope) think it ridiculous, and you should.  What if I were to barge in to every single conversation on the philosophy board and proclaim the truth of the IPU as I did in the HOOTIPU thread.  It might be kinda funny for the first week, but after a month or four, you'd be pretty sick of me.  You'd probably tell me that my behavior was offensive and unwelcome.  Then you'd probably demand that I stop.  But I won't.  Instead, I'll just post with more frequency and fervor.  I won't write in ways that can be addressed.  Instead I'll make very vague claims over the span of three pages, and I'll do it every single chance that I can, even though my presence is clearly persona non grata.  Finally, someone will snap--a moderator--and force me to shut up about the IPU.  But I will complain that my rights have been violated and hash out an even greater flurry of IPU vagueries.  Even though almost everyone is sick of me, and the moderator is threatening to censor me, I WILL NOT STOP behaving like the invisible pink energizer bunny.  Finally my opponents have had enough and out of sheer misery and disgust, abandon the site.  So much the worse for them, I keep churning out the gospel of the IPU.

How is this any different from what Joe does, and why should it be "supported" by board owner.  I mean, if that is what you like, I just might do it?

QUOTE

Those who have relative control over their own minds (and mind-states), and have the freedom to choose among multiple perspectives from which to interpret this world and themselves, possess a significant advantage over those that don't have such a freedom.   Wouldn't you agree?

I would ask you to define advantage here, but like truth it must be relative.  As such, you cannot say with consistency that more perspectives or mind-states grants advantage to the perceiver.  In fact, you cannot really say anything about truth, morality, reality, experience, or advantage at all other than how you view them.  So really, what difference does it even make if I agree?

You are caught up in a fundamental contradiction whenever you try to make any prescription or assertion at all.  Welcome to the failure of philosophy.  You've just covered two and a half millenia of error.

Joe

If you could convince me and everyone else on this board by killing yourself, would you do it?  Isn't suicide the ultimate release from the 'egoic' bonds and material distractions.  In fact, isn't any desire at all even the desire for happiness a function of the ego.  This is why I find it strange that you would tell me on one hand that I should be able to "choose [...] without any regrets or feelings of malcontent" and on the other that I should enjoy my life.  If enjoyment exists, then the lack of enjoyment also exists.  But to be truly free of the ego, there can be no *I* to find enjoyment, and conseqently no enjoyment in life--only stoic indifference.  And to be truly enlightened, this indifference must pervade every aspect of the individual to the extend that the individual for all matters of practical concern, doesn't exist.

Suicide then is the highest calling for the enlightened.  There can be no greater test of true indifference and enlightenment  than the indifference to life itself.  If this were not such a serious matter, I would ask if you were capable of proving to us that you are not a phony, and demonstrating the extent of your resolve.  But somehow I think you're all hot air, I mean, I bet you don't even sit around in sack cloth and ashes, or flagellate your body!

Your right I don't sit in a sack cloth and flagellate my body or wear a hair shirt or stand on one leg for eternity.
These things are misinterpretations of right action and godliness, as are your ideas about the truth of reality.
There is only one truth. Everyone comes from the same place. All of creation comes from the same place and it is only ego that recognizes separation from the one mind.
All people in thier infinite ability to express as many ideas as are available are manifestations of the many possibilities of the one mind and that one mind can be experienced and united with.
Only in that sense is Hitlers truth and mother Theresa's truth the same. They are different fingers of the same hand. If one finger is worrying so much about what the other finger is doing it can't really be giving all the attention to what it is capable of doing is it?
Only by driving the car can you understand it, not by standing outside with a drivers manual having never driven it.
The meaning of life is relative to what experiences you have had and what you can project from what you know or have experienced.
There is so much more to life than what I have talked about and it seems too much to swallow or believe even at the level it is being discussed here, for you and others that are not interested and incapable of understanding without practical application thru experience.
Unfortunately you treat this whole excercise like I would try and convince you, you are duck, when you are not. I would not and could not know what my teacher taught me without the desire to experience what I saw in him. In one small way I experienced what he was by the simple recognition of what I wanted by recognition. I was ready for it. You are not open to it yet but appraoching the intellect with it is the first step towards it.
Learn about it, poke it with a stick that sort of thing and then when you are ready approach it within your own understanding.
The only thing that separates us is language and the understanding of what is being said. I can't speed up the process so you can understand it, it is happening as we speak and it takes as much time as it takes for you to allow something different than what you grasp onto as your basis for understanding and truth.
One thing that could help you is to quit trying to find so much wrong in everything and find what is right in everything. It is a little more difficult than the first but it opens the eyes.

These are fascinating questions and topics.   I realize that I only provided somewhat incomplete answers below, and only to some of your questions, though hopefully they will pave the way for future valuable discussions.    

QUOTE

What's interesting is, while your position allows you to agree with joe, joe's position does not allow him to agree with you,.... Joe's philosophy is predicated upon the existence of an absolute (Self), while your position, if you follow your premises to their necessary end, is predicated upon the impossibility of absolutes. Â

Alternatively, since all perspectives arguably presuppose a self (or the Self), a witness, a center of awareness, it could be argued that the view joe espouses is more fundamental, and underlies, the multi-perspective view I advocate.   Though one response to this is to shift away from use of the term 'perspective' and everything it connotes, and instead use the term 'state of mind' with its attendant 'level of awareness', and then to argue that states of mind characterized by consciousness of the Self comprise a finite subset of all possible states of mind.   In other words, using the previous terminology of 'perspective', the notion that the Self underlies all perspectives is inaccurate to the extent that the Self itself is but a perspective, one among many different possible perspectives.  

I wouldn't necessarily agree that joe's position does not allow him to agree with mine.  In order to do so, I'd have to make further assumptions about joe's position that may be unwarranted.

My position is predicated on the impossibility of absolute frames of mind, or absolute states of mind (or states of consciousness).   All states of consciousness that have yet been experienced by mankind, and all his thoughts and emotions, are but the tiniest tip of a vast, probably infinite, iceberg.  It's difficult to appreciate this when all we know, as human beings, is typical human consciousness.  The particular form of our human consciousness is a product of the particular activities in our brain.   But the brain is a highly specialized, very peculiar structure, and it's easy to envision different forms that our brains could take, with the result being that we would experience differents forms of consciousness, non-human forms of consciousness.   I'm not talking about 'animal consciousness', but higher forms of consciousness, states of consciousness that are far, far beyond typical human consciousness.  Mystical experiences, including those characterized by the dissolution of dualities, and in particular, of the object/subject dichotomy, and also those characterized by the overcoming of paradoxes, an overcoming characterized by stepping 'outside of the box', so to speak, of stepping outside the typical conceptual/logical box, give us but the tiniest glimpse into these higher states of consciousness, and permit those who experience such things to extrapolate even further, and in my case, to extrapolate indefinitely, so that I can say that mankind's most transcendent states of consciousness do not constitute the highest possible states of consciousness, but merely comprise a few rungs on an infinitely high ladder, containing infinitely many rungs, with each rung representing a state of consciousness.   Of course, this ladder example is a simplification since it linearizes the multidimensional aspects of states of consciousness, but it's useful insofar as it makes us aware that our states of consciousness are all relative, that what we experience as human beings is but an infinitely tiny portion of the vast space of possible states of consciousness.    I believe that Einstein had something like this in mind when he said that "all the thinking of human beings is but an utterly insignicant reflection'.    

QUOTE

Essentially, your point of view amounts to the total erosion of truth, leaving only localized convention and opinion. Â

no, it does not.  Or in any event, this is not the point of view that I was trying to communicate.   What is truth, after all?   At the very least, it must be founded in conscious experience, though this doesn't imply that anyone's opinion should be deemed to contain any truth, or for that matter, anything of value.

QUOTE

What is shocking to me, is that a credentialed scientist such as yourself, would espouse such a worldview.  Not that its impossible, just very unpopular.

I don't mean the following in an offensive manner, but I don't think you've fully grasped my worldview, largely in part because I don't think I've really communicated it very well.   Because my worldview incorporates and acknowledges mystical experience, this should not be shocking.   Consider the worldviews of the founders of quantum mechanics, including Schrodinger, Pauli, Oppenheimer, and Bohr (and even Einstein, who is one of the founders because of his photoelectric effect paper of 1905); all of these brilliant physicists, giants of their field, founders/creators of new systems, were mystical.  If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading about their worldviews in biographies or, if you can find them, personal essays.   You will find that mystical experience is often the motive force behind great scientists, is what inspires and drives them to formulate new conceptions of nature and of experience.   Certainly, you won't find any mention of such mystical views in typical science textbooks, because it would be out of place, and also because, for the most part, most ordinary scientists evidently do not experience such strong mystical experiences, which is unfortunate perhaps, but it does explain, in part, why mystical experience is not very popular with most scientists.  But for those who have these mystical experiences, it doesn't matter what others believe.  Those who do science know the rules of the game.   Since mystical experience has not hitherto found a way for being successfully incorporated into the scientific framework, mainly because such experiences have not successfully yielded to the reductionist approach of science, it follows that it stands outside of it, but this in no way implies that it doesn't exist or is invalid.  The mystical worldviews of many great scientists, in and of itself, should compel one to take mystical experience seriously, and not to confuse it with or debase it by conflating it with lower forms of experience that many people mistakenly label as 'mystical'.   To do so would be to miss out on one the greatest human experiences, one that has motivated the greatest scientists and creators to create their greatest works and greatest gifts to mankind.  

QUOTE

I would ask you to define advantage here, but like truth it must be relative.  As such, you cannot say with consistency that more perspectives or mind-states grants advantage to the perceiver. Â

by seeking what is to our 'advantage', we seek what is in our interest, usually with the intent of finding what is best for us.   Some would consider this "goal-directed behavior", and so discussion of 'advantage' must be within the context of goals, objectives, activity, being, and becoming.     What we think is to our best advantage is a decision that we make based on the before-mentioned.    'Advantages' often take concrete, absolute forms, but it's also possible to define it in a more abstract and relative manner, with the understanding that for particular situations, an absolute and concrete definition can be extracted from the relative one.   But, I don't see why there should be any issues with consistency, or the lack thereof, here.    The more perspectives or mind-states that we can utilize at any given moment, the more ways of perceiving things, and the more courses of action that we can take.   As such, it is to our advantage to acquire the utility of additional perspectives or mind-states, using both the relative and absolute definitions of 'advantage'.   Where's the inconsistency?  

QUOTE

In fact, you cannot really say anything about truth, morality, reality, experience, or advantage at all other than how you view them. Â

since what we can say presupposes our having consciousness with its attendant perspectives and mind-states, and since according to you, there are people who can really say something about truth, morality, reality, experience, and advantage, it follows that what these people (and in fact, all people)  say about truth, morality, reality, experience, and advantage depends on their perspectives and mind-states.    

QUOTE

So really, what difference does it even make if I agree?

if you agree, then it makes a difference to you and how you interpret your world and yourself, but regarding the particular difference it will make, only you can answer that, since it's your perspective or mind-state that's at issue here.  

QUOTE

You are caught up in a fundamental contradiction whenever you try to make any prescription or assertion at all. Â

Paradoxes are fascinating things.   There was a time when contradictions signaled a error in logic for me, but for years now, I've been comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions, realizing that they seem to constitute a fundamental aspect of reality, or at least of our way of perceiving, and that if you try to stamp them out or negate their existence, the result is that you limit yourself to a particular perspective, belief system, mind-state, or set of rules, and hence you limit the range of what you can experience and you limit the range of your being.

QUOTE

Paradoxes are fascinating things.   There was a time when contradictions signaled a error in logic for me, but for years now, I've been comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions, realizing that they seem to constitute a fundamental aspect of reality, or at least of our way of perceiving, and that if you try to stamp them out or negate their existence, the result is that you limit yourself to a particular perspective, belief system, mind-state, or set of rules, and hence you limit the range of what you can experience and you limit the range of your being.

Interesting and very concise. I would like to add something that you may or may not agree with but from my own knowing and experience in reference to the above quote and the one following.

QUOTE

My position is predicated on the impossibility of absolute frames of mind, or absolute states of mind (or states of consciousness).   All states of consciousness that have yet been experienced by mankind, and all his thoughts and emotions, are but the tiniest tip of a vast, probably infinite, iceberg.  It's difficult to appreciate this when all we know, as human beings, is typical human consciousness.  The particular form of our human consciousness is a product of the particular activities in our brain.   But the brain is a highly specialized, very peculiar structure, and it's easy to envision different forms that our brains could take, with the result being that we would experience differents forms of consciousness, non-human forms of consciousness.   I'm not talking about 'animal consciousness', but higher forms of consciousness, states of consciousness that are far, far beyond typical human consciousness.

In the subject of absolutes I would have to say that would be limited only to interpretation,
What the human experience is limited to would only be what the human limits itself to.
To say that the human experience is different than the aspects of itself outside of human form and experience would separate the human form from the formless.
If the possibility exists that the formless and the form are separate then they could never be tied together in form or out of form, they simply would be different.
Energy is energy, in form or beyond "normal" levels of perception. What has or may have been experienced within the abilities of interpretation would and can be only relative to levels of interpretive relationships.
In other words what you can't put in a box has no descriptive meaning or plausible relationship with that which remains in the box.
Any idea that would mimimize the ability to tie all things in the universe together limits it in its relationship and capacity.
I would say only in the limits of human conception is there any possibility of impossibility, only in relationship to the box ego creates can there be any limits to concepts, but that no way limits the human experience.
The human, the rock, the tree. The Form and the Formless are not separate and as such are not exclusive within the capabilites of "being" either separately or at the same time and within the range of "experience."
Any statement to the effect that human hasn't "done" or "experienced" this or that is relative only to ones experience, poiints of reference and understanding.
The Vedas are the cognized blueprints of Creation but what can possibly be put into words or form that has no form or sits outside of the box of experience translated accurately into form?
The Masters of the past and present will tell you always there are not any limits to the human condition. Only limits that are self imposed and are maintained by beliefs.
This is not Mystical by any means only the language and interpretation makes anything that is not understood or yet experienced "mystical."

Shawn

I disagree with your generalizations of infinity and relative measure in your description of mind-states.  In a finite physical universe, where mind-states are always related to particular distributions of elements in the physical universe, there is only a finite (albeit very large) number of total possible matter/mind states.  Perhaps this large number seems infinite, but it does end.  The only possible 'out' I could imagine is that there is an infinite number of possible types of 'elements' that can fill the universe, although I doubt this strongly because it seems to say that the element 'type' is abstractly selected which makes no sense.  I am stating that the universe cannot have an unlimited number of elements as a sort of generalized conservation of 'stuff' (as such a condition of infinite 'stuff' really overstretches' the  'source' into absurdity IMO) and that the element 'types' that can occur in the universe are consequences of meaningful selection.  
As for relative measure, this makes no sense if we are able to compare mind-states.  If we have a finite number of mind states at a given instant, and any two mind-states can be compared, we should arrive at an ordering.  And, using my well-ordering principle of 'cool/sux', we should be able to well-order all the mind-states that exist at that particular instant.  If we extend this to the 'possible' mind states (which I earlier explain to be limited to finite, albeit 'large') we also arrive at a well-ordering (in principle)

8)

Joe: "There is only one truth. Everyone comes from the same place. All of creation comes from the same place and it is only ego that recognizes separation from the one mind."

How can you ever be certain of this? The 'self' itself cannot contain knowledge of the non-existence of things utterly unrelated to it. It can only contain the speculative possibility, through an abstraction of opposites.

I agree with Dan.  The concept of infinity is just a convenient fiction--the negation of the finite.  We know the finite is real and can empirically experience it, but the infinite eludes us both mentally and experientially.  We cannot even concieve of it except vaguely as the negation of something we can concieve of--limits.  Logically, it is useful, but to equate the rational to the real has gotten philosophers in trouble from time immemorial.  To base an entire worldview on that is rather dubious.

Furthermore, not all philosophy presupposes a self.  Deterministic philosophies view the self as a fiction, the illusory product of complex mechanistic functions.  But even in non-deterministic philosophies, it is not necessary to presuppose a self although many have found it helpful to do so.  All that need be presupposed is experience, which really is not a presupposition at all, but a self-evident fact.

More later when I have time.