Charles Kozierok: No way to know. Irrelevant to the discussion.
M: That was my point.
For reference, the context here was you asking whether you were smarter than me or not. That never had anything to do with the discussion. So I don't see how it could have been "your point".
CK: It was never on the table. I was trying to encourage you to, you know, actually say something meaningful and pertinent to the discussion.
M: Right, as if I had to be smart to say something meaningful, you put smart on the table.
I was simply trying to be courteous, by saying that you appear to me to be intelligent enough to make useful contributions to the thread. You responded with multiple paragraphs of silliness about whether or not you are smart.
Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.
CK: If you're so interested in "understanding", why not use words that people can understand?
M: Can't understand, or don't want to?
I see quite a few people saying they cannot understand you. I see no reason why they would not
want to.
CK: Is it your contention that everything is subjective, and that there is nothing at all that represents objective truth?
M: It is my contention that subjective and objective belong to a different kind of analysis, that truth is a conscious state that causes certainty.
That's not an answer, it's an obfuscation that just repeats your prior claim with no attempt at justification or clarity.
Consciousness is inherently individual and so you seem to be saying truth is subjective. Yet there are obvious truths that are, indeed, objectively true. So you'd have to explain how those aspects of reality can co-exist.
The conflation of "truth" with "certainty" is also a strange one. People are "certain" of things constantly that are not true.
Keep in mind that if you haven't tasted you won't know what I'm talking about and that means for some with a different kind of certainty that I'm not actually talking about anything at all.
Let's assume that I accept this statement at face value. That leaves two possibilities.
The first is that there is some way that you can show us how to understand what you're talking about. If so, you should make a better attempt to find that way, because people (including me) are saying that we do not understand, and frankly, I don't see much of an effort on your part in this regard.
The second is that there is no way to show us what you're talking about. In which case, how does it have any value in this sort of discussion? If your "truth" is only true for "your consciousness" and nobody else can understand it, then really, who cares?
And furthermore, how would that be distinguishable from madness, from utter detachment from reality?
CK: Are they? Or are they bridges to allow anyone to reach their own definition of a subjective reality, where they can say that the "truth" is whatever they want it to be, whether it really is true or not, and whether it makes any sense or not?
M: No no, your job is to find out. I am doing what I can to explain what I see. I have no need for you to see it. Any such need will have to come from you.
Again you run from the point.
To recap, you said "truth is a state of consciousness" and also that "religions are bridges to help folk awaken into that state".
And so I am asking how it is that anyone knows if these bridges really do lead to "truth", or just to self-created illusions that make the bridge-walkers comfortable. Why can't you answer the question?
CK: But you just said "truth is a state of consciousness". We do not all share a single consciousness. So there cannot be only one state of truth, using your definitions.
M: This makes good sense if you don't know what you are talking about which you don't. Just information. No criticism meant.
If I "don't know what I am talking about" with regard to your claims and statements, then that's because they are
your claims and statements, and after I politely pointed out a contradiction in them, you chose not to clarify them but instead take a pot shot at me.
Why is that?
Elsewhere I mentioned that truth is that state of consciousness that arises at the collapse of duality, where time stops and consciousness and all that human consciousness can contain in awareness become one and the same thing as the universe we perceive, when the eye with which we see God is the same eye with which He sees us, when the ego disappears and there is only unity.
I don't recall seeing you say that anywhere before. But having now read it thrice, it just looks like word salad to me -- a bunch of metaphysical/spiritual buzzwords strung together in a semi-grammatical manner to confound people.
I am that which I am the alpha and omega and other such pointing fingers. So it isn't that we share a single state of consciousness but that unity is unity is unity.
This is not just gibberish but self-contradictory gibberish. Unity implies singularity, which would mean a single state of consciousness.
But we can do this forever, you give me your questions and I answer them but none of this will ever create for you a state of unified consciousness.
You haven't given me any answers. You've ducked every question.
There is only one real question to ask. Is such a state of consciousness possible. As a big game hunter, I think I see the tracks of my Beloved and everything my ego does to follow them makes them disappear.
More word salad, put forth either in some strange attempt to impress onlookers into thinking that because they can't understand you that you must be profound; or merely meant to distract from your inability or unwillingness to address the questions I've asked you in good faith.
Facebook
Twitter