Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
They 'measure' things only according the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

You get the term 'measurement' by physical tools, which are derived from awareness that is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Most is not all measurement tools that are used by the current science, are derived from awareness that is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Furthermore, these tools use measurement units that are derived from the current context-dependent local-only understanding of the concept of Number.
Click to expand...

But that is not an answer to my question.

Let me rephrase it...

How is OM, in the eyes of the people that, according to you, are not able to get to the required level of awareness and measure incorrectly etc... different from any other cult, sect, religion or paranormal following?

So, I am not asking if these people are correct, or why they are wrong, but I am asking how OM is different *to them* from any other 'science is wrong' story.
 
realpaladin said:
So, I am not asking if these people are correct, or why they are wrong, but I am asking how OM is different *to them* from any other 'science is wrong' story.
Click to expand...
It is not about 'science is wrong' in general , it is about the current science, which is based only on Polychotomy and on the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

OM can't be a religion because it is based on direct perception of the considered subject, where beliefs have no room.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is not about 'science is wrong' in general , it is about the current science, which is based only on Polychotomy and on the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

OM can't be a religion because it is based on direct perception of the considered subject, where beliefs have no room.
Click to expand...

How do people that do not have the required level of awareness verify that? How do they know it is not a belief system?
 
But that is not an answer is it?

Actually, it is the same type of answer given by all cults and sects...
 
dafydd said:
Can you have a one man cult? Punshhh seems to have deserted him.
Click to expand...

Just you wait. In the future we will all be ruled by Doronetics, so named after it's discoverer who had a sad and lonely ending when he thought nobody would ever be able to 'get it'.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, you increasing the illusion at the subjective level of thoughts (the mirror is some thought about objectivity that is still trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective) and you are still trapped under Polychotomy (Unity awareness can't be achieved without actually being aware of objectivity AND subjectivity, as a necessary stage in order to actually achieve Unity awareness).
Click to expand...

You suggested it was necessary to get out of the cave to move beyond the shadows - how is this different to suggesting a mirror would help? Both require a change in physical reality.

Surely, if I follow your argument correctly (perhaps I don't?), and the non-local unity within all locality, not only do you not need the mirror, but you don't actually have to get out of the cave? If the non-local is present in everything, the shadow watchers should be just fine in their cave - because it is already connected to what is outside the cave?

I'm confused as to whether you are talking metaphorically here, or not, about the cave. I was working the analogy to a physical level, therefore suggesting that in order for the local consciousness to perceive the non-local connectedness, some different wiring / physical reality is required (whether this is possible or not I don't know).

We can't know anything other than through thoughts. Otherwise, why the need for OM? OM is thought-based, is it not? As is typing words to be communicated on a forum. Otherwise you could just communicate the OM without the need for the forum. That would be cool.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
But that is not an answer is it?

Actually, it is the same type of answer given by al cults and sects...
Click to expand...
Actually, your response is the same type of response given by all people that do nothing in order to be developed beyond all belief systems,
realpaladin said:
I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.
Click to expand...
where belief is the signature of an awareness that is trapped at the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective and therefore based on belief.

As for Traditional Mathematics, the concept of "branches" is only a belief exactly because Traditional Mathematics is restricted to context-dependent verbal_symbolic framework (no Cross-contexts aspect is used) that is based only on the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

You do not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 exactly because your mind is currently trapped at the level belief systems.
 
Last edited:
Ah...TM. Now my issues with TM include the following;

There is no evidence that there is a single inner non-temporal 'self'. Therefore, you can't get in touch with this.

There is no reason why calmness should be more creative / better than the opposite. Can you suggest one?

The brain is plastic. It initially forms in response to stimuli (external) and retains plasticity (although seemingly less) through lifetime. With no external stimuli there would be no thought. Now that's pretty 'calm' - but I'm not sure desirable.

Calmness is an emotional state in response to external triggers (neurohormones).

The ability, and desire, to spend time alone with one's inner thoughts would appear to be a factor of personality (significantly genetic in cause). My own personality is already highly introverted. I'm not sure meditating is called for.
 
Perhaps you are talking about trying to reach a state in which the mind no longer chatters through language? Since language is the symbolic way in which we both 'know' our thoughts, and consciously appear to formulate them (although thought does arise prior to the conscious awareness of them as you suggest). Thought without language may be freer of certain biases, perhaps, without language. If we look across languages, they do not share ALL of the same biases (gendered pronouns for example). However, they do share SOME of the same biases (past / future tenses / counting and so forth). And it is these shared biases that I'd suggest are inherent in the way we frame the world even without shared language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom