Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

Science doesn't work like that, science is always scrutinizing science. At least the honest science and not the scientists who assume, have agendas, images and credibility to protect.

That's why I prefer science. It doesn't try to fill in the blanks with BS.

Personal experience is completely unreliable.

 

[Unification]

I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. I will even entertain the possibility that Godnotgod might be right with his nothingness/changeless view. However, I will not entertain those views as fact until they can be demonsrated as being such.

How do you propose that can be demonstrated?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I am not making false assumptions about you. I'm going off of what you "say."

"Universal." "Consistent." "Reality."

And then you go on to discuss "change" and pretty much nothing being universal and consistent.

Science as universal, consistent, and the absolute factor of what reality is, and then back to the contrary.

I do really like what you wrote in the second paragraph.

I think you are confusing me with posts from Godnotgod. I have never said that science is any sort of absolute expression of reality. The universe as a whole is constantly changing/interacting. There may be no such thing as "absolute reality".

 

[YmirGF]

That is also allowing the expectation that there are no ego's here, and that others are even listening to each other. In which case, not much will be compelling regardless of what words are used or what is said.

So, essentially, just shut up and try to keep up with the genius being trotted out by those wallowing in the egoless state of higher consciousness?

 

[Unification]

That's why I prefer science. It doesn't try to fill in the blanks with BS.

Personal experience is completely inreliable.

Personal experience is reality. The only absolute is personal experience and all of that is going on within you.

 

[Runewolf1973]

How do you propose that can be demonstrated?

I propose it is not possible to be demonstrated. It is something you can only ever choose to believe or not believe. No different than belief in God.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Personal experience is reality. The only absolute is personal experience and all of that is going on within you.

Smoke enough weed and that will change too.

 

[Unification]

So, essentially, just shut up and try to keep up with the genius being trotted out by those wallowing in the egoless state of higher consciousness?

That is another assumption.

Essentially listen to others without telling them their experiences are false just because they don't align with your personal mind or atheist Buddah teachings.

Do so try to be more objective.

It's really hard to admit that a higher or one consciousness might exist. It's much easier to say it's just all BS rather than say, "I don't know if it exists , it may or can exist, it may not."

 

[Unification]

Smoke enough weed and that will change too.

Still personal reality and experience.

 

[Willamena]

But we think they do, and so deny/affirm them as if they are real, when all that is required to see ego for what it is: an illusion.

Isn't the author of the ego the mind/self/ego itself?

In thinking it real, it becomes an existent. We can't think non-existent things. I get that the term 'existence' has come, over the centuries, to be equated with only certain kinds of things. In the sense I mean it, it denotes any things. A an existent is something. An illusion is an existent.

To conflate the author with the ego is to leave yourself unable to see that the ego is authored.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Still personal reality and experience.

A changing personal experience and reality, yes. Is it in any way absolute?

Perhaps all "reality" is only temporary until the next moment or split second when a new "reality" emerges.

In a way this would mean that everything is both real and not real at the same time.

 

[YmirGF]

That is another assumption.

Essentially listen to others without telling them their experiences are false just because they don't align with your personal mind or atheist Buddah teachings.

Do so try to be more objective.

It's really hard to admit that a higher or one consciousness might exist. It's much easier to say it's just all BS rather than say, "I don't know if it exists , it may or can exist, it may not."

And yet my own extensive inner experiences and perspectives have routinely been dismissed as so much drivel throughout this thread. I'm sensing a bit of a double standard at play here.
What seems lost on several posters is that it is because of my experience in these areas that I dispute what people are being told here. And yet, because I don't hum along with the "higher consciousness brigade" I somehow don't get it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hypothetically, let's say there are 12 gates to the brain/mind.... I am expressing with all 12 of mine open to another who has 4 gates open and 8 closed. They will more than likely be very closed off to what I am expressing because their mind is closed off to such. We cannot begin to understand what another is expressing unless our mind gates are open to such. Perhaps it's due to light/energy penetrating and opening those gates to one mind and another has not yet experienced such.

It really boils down to one knowing, realizing, and understanding themselves and their own nature before they can begin to even try to understand and know another.

On the one hand there are the atheists, materialists etc. rather straightforwardly rejecting subjectivity, and then on the other hand there are the "religious" problemizing subjectivity with supposed higher understanding. That's what you are doing, pushing regular subjectivity away, as it is in common discourse, with supposed higher understanding.

The thing is that you are lousy at understanding and applying the logic of regular subjectivity. If you were great at it, then I could appreciate it that you would go for something higher.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's why I prefer science. It doesn't try to fill in the blanks with BS.

Personal experience is completely unreliable.

Wait...are you saying you prefer a mental interpretation of reality to the real thing..?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Wait...are you saying you prefer a mental interpretation of reality to the real thing..?

I prefer a reliable, consistent, repeatable and testable interpretation of nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I prefer a reliable, consistent, repeatable and testable interpretation of nature.

Well fine Runewolf...I don't begrudge you your goal in life...but remember objective scientific interpretation of nature is delineated using knowledge based on only the 2.5% matter and energy detectable out of the 100% theoretical whole...while subjective religious practice deals with the 100%..

 

[Unification]

And yet my own extensive inner experiences and perspectives have routinely been dismissed as so much drivel throughout this thread. I'm sensing a bit of a double standard at play here.
What seems lost on several posters is that it is because of my experience in these areas that I dispute what people are being told here. And yet, because I don't hum along with the "higher consciousness brigade" I somehow don't get it.

I don't see your inner experiences as drivel or dismiss them. I can understand your atheist Buddah perspective. If I can't, I haven't walked a day in your shoes so it would be rather ridiculous of me to judge you. To me, you're a fellow human being who is experiencing, evolving just as myself.

What may be dismissed is the idea that that's the only way to be and the idea that all else is drivel.

Sure, we have all worn a coat of two fibers/double standards from time to time.

You know many things that I don't know and I know many things that you don't know. That's the point, what you may not get or understand, it's silly to dismiss as drivel. What I may not get or understand ...its silly to dismiss as drivel.

 

[Unification]

On the one hand there are the atheists, materialists etc. rather straightforwardly rejecting subjectivity, and then on the other hand there are the "religious" problemizing subjectivity with supposed higher understanding. That's what you are doing, pushing regular subjectivity away, as it is in common discourse, with supposed higher understanding.

The thing is that you are lousy at understanding and applying the logic of regular subjectivity. If you were great at it, then I could appreciate it that you would go for something higher.

Really, there are just human beings. That is objective and higher understanding to me.

If you need to label everyone into categories and call that objectivity... feel free to. That is lower understanding to me.

The only problems I see are your judgements and labels on everyone. That is lower understanding to me.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well fine Runewolf...I don't begrudge you your goal in life...but remember objective scientific interpretation of nature is delineated using knowledge based on only the 2.5% matter and energy detectable out of the 100% theoretical whole...while subjective religious practice deals with the 100%..

Yes, it is quite amazing what science has discovered already using only a very small portion of its real potential. I also find it interesting that mystics try to "prove" or validate their experiences utilizing new scientific discoveries (especially quantum physics)...because they are unable to validate them in any other way.

It's a double standard...."We refer to quantum physics (science) all the time because it helps to prove our view of reality is correct, but we don't accept the scientific method as correct."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, it is quite amazing what science has discovered already using only a very small portion of its real potential. I also find it interesting that mystics try to "prove" or validate their experiences utilizing new scientific discoveries (especially quantum physics)...because they are unable to validate them in any other way.

Haha....I can't realize God for another soul so they have proof....only myself... I can however point to a religious practice that will lead to transcendence for another soul... No soul will ever in all eternity realize the transcendent mind through science...for the transcendent state is non-dual...