"The Thesaurus should become a 'dino'-saurus! " RTB

It proves that literalist logic and gamesmanship with linguistics or semantical differentiation makes it possible for people to avoid awareness.

Why seek for black and white answers? Why use pejoratives like 'ambiguous'?

Yes, there are many scientists who have described the wholeness and soul in all its beauty. They have won Nobel Prizes and they talk with people like Krishnamurti who explains the fallacy of ego that drives this need for simple paradigm thinking. We live in a creative world and there is more than ONE PIE.

I liken your question to the one raised by MCO as he rambles on about tenured processes and peer review. Historically it is demonstrated that what is theorized at any point in time is oiverturned with all those tenured people fighting tooth and nail against creative real and wonderful GROWTH. Life is not static and anything which does not grow will die.

An equal (universal) balance (piece of the pi) of universal knowledge, where all cultures collectively and all people individually converse and comprehend the same universal language.

Einstein says (for example) that: "Small is the number of those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own heart."

Rhymer,

Try this site on Norman Cousins, recently posted by IGKING:

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/cousins.html

Concerns holistic thought.

Sartre said - 'Love is absent space'.

"Explainations can be misunderstood. Experiences can be beneficial".
Agreed - due to different usage of language and unintended ambuguity.

"Have you ever been in a close relationship with someone and felt them"?
Yes.

"You sense their emotions when they are sad or angry.
Similarly, you can if you let go and develop the inner senses sense what they think, and experience".
Agreed. I find this easy, even when no speech occurs and with strangers.

"Intuition is a name for the mechanism, but it is a step towards understanding the universal connection of intelligence in all things".

I now conclude that through the mechanism of intuition [and I would add empathy, the use of self experience, the use of memory, and relationship] humans can be aware of the types and extent of inner thoughts and feeling of close ones, and that this 'shared conciousness' happens between humans anywhere in the Universe. This sharing occurs less between those who are not close, or between those that are close but separated.
Even when separated, close people are aware of what each others thoughts and feelings might be under some circumstances, but there is no communication between them.
I think a better name for 'universal consciousness' would be 'empathetic consciousness'.


Thanks for your help.

Because we see or learn one aspect of something does not mean the rest does not exist.

I agree Robert!
However, in view of the extent of crime and deception, selfishness and other unsociable characteristics apparent in humans I do suspect that the probability of a true universal consciousness in existence now is very small.

The widespread availability of a totally universal consciousness would impart a tremendous survival and power capabilty to the group that achieved it.

I do not think humans are the most advanced species or sentient life in universe. We are far younger than much of the universe and this fact alone would argue for the lifeforms that have a 6 or more billion year head start - having reached something far more universal in their ability to manifest reality. Just look at the information or science explosion - what was considered science fiction not long ago was a better predictor of the present than all the peer reviewed people put together could muster. If we can think it - it can be 'creatively realized' (Bucky Fuller).

The science behiond a World Mind or what we are calling universal consciousness has grown far more likely - and Dembski is no fool.

I only have a super general and simple reply to this thread. Everything is ultimately sentient beings experiencing some net amount of pleasure and pain, so why not just make the goal of life to increase well-being?

In my opinion--feel free to check my profile by clicking on my name--I would put the question this way:

What am I searching for at all levels of my being--physically, mentally and spiritually?

Surely, we all need the bsic physical security air, water, food clothings and shelter--a decent standard of living and good health, agreed? This why all of us need to be concerned about what is going on in the whole ecology. Looking after the basic needs and physical security of the individual, the family and community gives us the basis to go on and satisfy our mental, cultural and spiritual needs.

Steve that is what philosophy does to you...welcome :-) Whilst sittin in beautiful surroundings near the Vietnamese/Chinese today I re-asked myself this same question.

Everybody begins life as a naive realist. We believe what we perceive. We progress through developmental stages inwhich our cognitive abilities and corresponding perceptual skills take on some sophistication. (Piaget) At some point in our lives, we become convinced that objects exist independent of our perception of them - that is, our cars do not stop existing simply because they are locked away in our garages. Also, we come to suspect, at some point in our lives, that objects exist independent of our wishes and beliefs - that is, we cannot make our cars go away simply because that is what we want. Even with the strongest of beliefs, we cannot wish our cars into teacups. Generally, we believe that reality is objectively discovered and not subject to our wishes or beliefs.

The problem is that we do not and cannot discover everything. Our perceptual abilities seem limited. It is only through the assistance of technological facilities that we can detect certain sounds heard by dogs or see with the sharpness of an eagle. Without devices such as the radio, we cannot tune in on the sound waves which are almost always around us. Even the things we do perceive may not be perceived correctly. Our senses sometimes fool us. We sometimes see illusions, like a bent pencil in a half a glass of water. Also, if our senses were somehow differently constructed; if, for example, we had eyes like those of a bee, then we would either perceive reality differently or perceive a different reality.

The reality we see differs, to some extent, in the eye of each beholder. This is because there are times when we adjust our perceptions by taking mental leaps. Nobody has ever seen a perfectly square box, yet we still attribute squareness to certain objects. We ignore the slight imperfections of an otherwise square object. We ignore a small blemish on an otherwise pretty face. (Unless we don't like the person. Then the blemish becomes larger.) We fill in our incomplete picture of reality with our own details. More than this, we sometimes impose our ideas onto that which surrounds us. We cannot discover everything, therefore we create certain things.

It may be that the problems with perception are insurmountable, and we actually create everything. The law of gravity did not exist until someone made a mental leap. The laws of logic and the laws of physics may be nothing more than the figments of someone's imagination. It sometimes seems that all scientific explanations are only the most current mythologies that we use. They may be no more real than the ghosts and gods that we once thought were real. Thousands of years from now, if we don't go through another dark ages, people may view our most sophisticated observations as we view Thor and Zeus.

Is there one reality which each of us perceives differently, or is there a different reality for each of us? Is there an objective reality which we can, to some extent, discover; or is reality entirely subjective?

Are we even on the right track? Perhaps we are presumptious in thinking that we are even capable of discovering or creating anything. Perhaps it is reality which forces itself upon us.

I must be able to discard my beliefs in exchange for truth. Even when the "real" world is discomforting to me, I must prefer it to the security of an imaginary playground. I may ignore the small imperfections on an otherwise square box or the blemish on an otherwise pretty face, but I cannot ignore blatant injustice or that which is of potential danger. I cannot pretend harmful elements do not exist. I cannot project only pleasant things onto the world. As paradoxical as it may sound, I want to learn more than simply that which I want to learn.

The method I use to find objective knowledge is observation and generalization. I observe that which surrounds me, and I generalize things based on those observations. My generalizations then become something else that I can observe, and I can make further generalizations. I can observe something which calls itself Aimee, and I can generalize that Aimee is a woman. Further, I can generalize that all women are human being and all humans are living entities. The further I get from the specific person, Aimee, the more abstract I become. Even when I observe the method I am using to generalize about the method I am using, I must conclude that my conclusions are a product of this method. (S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1963)

Unfortunately, all generalizations based upon observations are not objective facts. False conclusions could be due to insufficient evidence or faulty reasoning from the evidence. Even the most carefully formulated generalizations can be false. If a thousand Abadabs are Bugaboos, it does not necessarily follow that all Abadabs are Bugaboos. It is this inconclusiveness of all inductive reasoning which prompted David Hume to say that knowledge is only an illusion to be maintained by the ignorant.

However, even Hume's statement is a product of this inductive method. In a strict sense, there is no way to assert absolute skepticism which does not desolve into an ultimate paradox.

Our classification system could be wrong, but it can be adjusted in the same way it was created, through the inductive process of observation and generalization.

We already know that inductive arguments are always inconclusive. Deductive arguments are always circular. It would seem, then, that all propositions of logical truth are merely sophisticated pronouncements of faith, and the only two positions open to philosophers are dogmatism and nihilism.

And what about language in this search? Language not only facilitates but also limits our awareness. The good thing about our language is that it allows us to conceptualize rather than depend on percepts and sensations as do other living things. It is because of our language that we can grasp the gestalt of our experiences. We can formulate cognitive maps which guide us where our inherent reflexes and automatic functions cannot. Without language, we could not make many of our generalizations from our observations.

However, we are also limited by the limitations and structure of our language. Just like formal logic, language ultimately rests on social conventions. How can I depend on something which is the result of that which was haphazardly chosen by the group of people of whom I happen to be part? There are different languages with different structures which may very well shed a different light on my ideas. How do I know that the pattern of my language is the most reliable and accurate guide for showing the relation of my words to each other?

The true rationalist would maintain that there are certain principles of thought which go beyond mere convention. The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are conventions based on underlying facts of reality. It does not matter what the convention is; it must always be true that A is A and not not-A. However, the rationalist can only assert this. He cannot prove that general truths are true. He must still assume that there is an order in nature, and reality is not beyond rational comprehension.

Even if we could base logic on underlying, objective facts of reality, there would still arise several problems. For example, Epimenides' paradox (The statement "I am lying." seems both true and false.), and Russel's construction (The statement immediately following this statement is false - The statement immediately preceding this statement is true.) are only a few of the brain teasers that still make logicians feel insecure.

Logic does not seem infallible as a criterian for truth, but other criteria are also not without problems. When two opposing views rest only on faith, then settlement cannot be easy. Majority rule, intuition, authority, revelation, etc. all can be wrong. Even pragmatism has only the appearance of truth.

At least logic is self-critical and self-correcting. It points to its own inadequacies. The other ways of arriving at truth do not have this safeguard. Perhaps an enlightened rationalism is still worthy of cultivation.

It may even be good that logic is not perfect. If there were no problems with logic, then the idea of freedom would be somewhat threatened. We could still say that one can choose not to be rational, but what is not rational about choosing to avoid a prison? Why should one choose to be rational if being rational locks one into a single course and prohibits creativity and surprise? If logic were perfect in every way, then a rational life would probably be a little dull.

Considering Steve hasn't been active on this board since 24th September 2004 - 03:16 AM, responding to Steve 2 years after the fact, is an interesting idea.

I guess the reason I find it interesting, is in the idea of responding to someone about enlightenment in a state of being aware that Steve is not there.

Or perhaps the response was made without any awareness of the fact which is even more interesting.

I also found the welcome part a bizarre twist...

At least it is a reply on the topic. Threads are often revived, especially "best of <insert forum>""ones



I was well aware of the date posted.



Interesting perhaps...but a response nonetheless



Almost as bizarre as a completely off topic reply from you.

Off Topic? I don't think so.
Reviving a topic is fine, but I still find it amusing that the resurrection of this particular topic is addressing the person who started it, not just the topic. Welcoming Steve after being gone for 2 years is OK, Lindsay offering someone who hasn't been around for two years the autobiography of Reverend King is OK.
I think the topic of what we are looking for or of enlightenment being present in the now amusing when it is addressed to An absent identity.
Looking more closely I think one could think that you culture needed an excuse to speak your mind by pretending someone was there to listen and Lindsay just advertises himself because he wants everyone to like him as much as he wants to like himself.

But it was just a thought. I found it amusing for a brief moment...
I think as long as your looking for something, judging what you experience is going to be inevitable as long as you separate out what you don't want, for whatever reason you find to separate it from your experience thru rules of engagement.

Culture,

Many thanks for your considered thoughts!!
I found your post to be very well structured and a good explanation of the processes we each hopefully go through as we try to understand what is around us, and indeed ourselves.

I personally use the word 'reality' only for what is real (ie., I exclude my thoughts). Even though the thoughts themselves are real, they only carry between 1% and 100% correlation to true reality. And who knows what the true figure is for the myriad of conclusions we each come to? I know some thoughts of reality are strongly representaive, eg., I have not walked into any trees, pillar boxes or walls for over 50 years!

As far our perceptions of reality go, I prefer to assume that they are symbolic of reality (or models of reality which we constantly change as experience provides greater differentiation and understanding).
Many thanks!!

I know that my ultimate goal is accepting death. The life I live is only killing time before I die. Any accomplishments really mean nothing but, "as a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death" Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519). I guess that any accomplishments in my life are only stepping stones on my way to accepting death.

Whatever thoughts bring the most innerpeace to our restless soul, those are the thoughts we should entertaine the most, the way I see it (Hey, it even rhymes! Hee, hee!). You seem at peace with this thought (natural death after this life), and I commend you for that.

? The nootropics don't seem to be working.

Surely we are searching for an evolutionary advantage, as individuals or as a species. Those who say they aren't are possibly just unaware or using their approach to mask their true intent.

I think to be enlightment helps you to detain your place into society. You have more chance to have a good job. Also it gives,teaches you knowledge of life.

Job description: guru.

Qualifications: enlightenment.

Or in some cases...

Job Description: Guru

Qualifications: Blood thirsty desire for money.