How Is It Possible To Be Wrong If Reality Is Relative?

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

@Leo GuraIt is hard to imagine them being Absolute because they are so relative. Whose version of Christianity would be Absolute. There are a billion flavors of Christianity. Which one could be true?

Pick which ever you want.

Quote

Also, if God can create something, doesn’t that imply that it is contingent on God? If God creates Christianity as Absolute Truth. God would have to fool itself into believing that. Christianity would only appear to be absolutely true if God deluded itself to that degree. But everything that God creates has to depend on God. Christianity couldn’t exist without Consciousness /God.

It would be as real as the physical world.

Quote

I am not sure how a concept such as Jesus or the Space Kangaroo could be Absolutely True when it is contingent on the Mind imagining it.

But everything the Mind imagines is absolute in the ultimate sense.

The mistake is holding only Nothingness or Formlessness as absolute. But all form is absolute too. This what the nondualists miss.

Quote

The issue I have in understanding your last statement is that I am only on my own island. My human consciousness cannot explore other islands and lands beyond my own perception. Anything that I imagine outside of my consciousness is an idea held inside of my consciousness. There may be other consciousnesses or other dreams/worlds outside my own, but I could never access them or prove that.

You can explore other kinds of consciousness and other dreams. Of course they are still dreamt by you, but its like you enter a new reality.

It's not like you cannot travel beyond your one island.

Of course you cannot escape it all being your imagination. That's always the case no matter what.

Edited June 4 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

Can you clarify what you're asking and why?

[zurew]

7 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

It is absolutely true because it is something that exists in "all possible worlds" and cannot be doubted/mistaken.

Don't make the Descartes kind of (imo) mistake, where you put all your bets on your ability to doubt.

What makes you think that your inability to doubt makes that particular thing absolutely true?

it might just be the case, that given your cognition you can only doubt certain things and not others, but just because you can't doubt things, from that doesn't necessarily follow that those things are absolutely true (whatever that means).

Inability to doubt will give you psychological certainty(will give you a list of things you can conceive of) but not deductively valid conclusions (if you want to go with deductive logic, but that will have its own problems too)

Edited June 4 by zurew

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The mistake is holding only Nothingness or Formlessness as absolute. But all form is absolute too. This what the nondualists miss.

Perhaps they really miss it and are still in the denial phase 

[r0ckyreed]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Pick which ever you want.

It would be as real as the physical world.

But everything the Mind imagines is absolute in the ultimate sense.

The mistake is holding only Nothingness or Formlessness as absolute. But all form is absolute too. This what the nondualists miss.

You can explore other kinds of consciousness and other dreams. Of course they are still dreamt by you, but its like you enter a new reality.

It's not like you cannot travel beyond your one island.

Of course you cannot escape it all being your imagination. That's always the case no matter what.

So then how can we say that anyone is wrong? This just makes Trump supporters just as valid and true as a Sage. There is nothing stopping Christianity from being absolutely true.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but there seem to be objective truths in a relative sense such as being wrong about what makes one happy. 

Edited June 5 by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

What makes you think that your inability to doubt makes that particular thing absolutely true?

it might just be the case, that given your cognition you can only doubt certain things and not others, but just because you can't doubt things, from that doesn't follow that those things are absolutely true (whatever that means).

Inability to doubt will give you psychological certainty(things you can conceive of) but not deductively valid conclusions (if you want to go with deductive logic, but that will have its own problems too)

 Absolute Truth has to deal with what is true absolutely. We need to base our knowledge on what is absolutely true. If you can doubt something, then you don’t really know it. It takes alot of honesty because you can also be overly arrogant and have no doubts when you are wrong. 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

So then how can we say that anyone is wrong? This just makes Trump supporters just as valid and true as a Sage. There is nothing stopping Christianity from being absolutely true.

They are wrong relative to their own dream.

Flat Earthers are wrong because if they take a flight out to space they will see a round Earth, not a flat one. In THIS dream. In some other dream the Earth may be flat. But we are not in that dream now.

Your beliefs need to match the dream you're in. Or else you are wrong.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

6 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

what is true absolutely

That doesn't tell me much. A lot of people use that phrase very vaugely here, including Leo. Do you mean something like it is true in all possible worlds? If so what do you mean by possible? Do you mean logically possible, like it doesn't contain a contradiction or do you mean something else by possible worlds?

6 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

If you can doubt something, then you don’t really know it.

That will be depended on what you mean by 'know'. Which is also very rarely and vaguely discussed here. But yeah it might be the case that you have to stomach and go with partial knowledge (that is probabilistically true, with respect to a given epistemology) and not with absolute knowledge or you can be an epistemic nihilist where you say you don't have knowledge of anything , you only have beliefs and beliefs about your beliefs (no knowledge about your beliefs or about anything)

6 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

It takes alot of honesty because you can also be overly arrogant and have no doubts when you are wrong. 

Hence why I said that doubting is itself epistemically limited.

You can obviously have 2 people with mutually exclusive beliefs who both have 100% conviction in their beliefs.

Edited June 5 by zurew

[r0ckyreed]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They are wrong relative to their own dream.

Flat Earthers are wrong because if they take a flight out to space they will see a round Earth, not a flat one. In THIS dream. In some other dream the Earth may be flat. But we are not in that dream now.

Your beliefs need to match the dream you're in. Or else you are wrong.

That’s what I figured. I got it.

I guess the point you were making is that there is nothing stopping Quanon and Islam from being true in another universe. The issue that I have is that from an epistemic standpoint, I can only know this world. All those other multi universes are hypothetical as they are more conceptual than actual. From an ontological standpoint, I cannot travel to a different dimension/dream because that would still be this one. 

My hand is actual and all those other worlds are concept and imagination. The part I had trouble following is that Christianity cannot be absolutely true in any universe because it is conceptual rather than actual. Christianity cannot be observed. I can look at my hand and that is actual, but Christianity is concept and imagination.

Edited June 5 by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

That doesn't tell me much. A lot of people use that phrase very vaugely here, including Leo. Do you mean something like it is true in all possible worlds? If so what do you mean by possible? Do you mean logically possible, like it doesn't contain a contradiction or do you mean something else by possible worlds?

That will be depended on what you mean by 'know'. Which is also very rarely and vaguely discussed here. But yeah it might be the case that you have to stomach and go with partial knowledge (that is probabilistically true, with respect to a given epistemology) and not with absolute knowledge or you can be an epistemic nihilist where you say you don't have knowledge of anything , you only have beliefs and beliefs about your beliefs (no knowledge about your beliefs or about anything)

Hence why I said that doubting is itself epistemically limited.

You can obviously have 2 people with mutually exclusive beliefs who both have 100% conviction in their beliefs.

That would be because we are missing honesty in the equation. Someone who is honest and has a high consciousness will be able to introspect and be aware of beliefs they hold that can be doubted. Doubting typically means that you are aware of something that isn’t based on certainty and truth. What is meant by absolute truth is something that you cannot be mistaken about. I have the appearance of a phone in front of me. That cannot be doubted. That cannot be mistaken, and so that makes it absolutely true.

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Someone who is honest and has a high consciousness will be able to introspect and be aware of beliefs they hold that can be doubted.

And there you have the exact same problem  - how do you know that your consciousness is high enough so that you can't be mistaken? If your introspection is depended on your level of consciousness, then first of all how do you know whether you can correctly assess/judge how high your consciousness is right now (that assessment is limited by your ability to introspect) and second of all, if there is always a higher level to consciouness, then that means that all your judgements about yourself and about the world will always be limited to the level of consciousness you have at that particular moment, so you can never prospectively know which foundational conviction/belief of yours will be undermined about yourself or about the world, as you gain more consciousness.

So what do you think, at level you can stop and say "okay this level of consciousness is high enough to make the the following claim with 100% certainty (without it being undermined as you gain more consciousness later), that x really cant be doubted"?

25 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

I have the appearance of a phone in front of me. That cannot be doubted.

Of course it can be doubted, because that claim is an introspective claim (making a claim about your experience) and you 100%  rely on introspection to make that claim. How do you know that your introspection is accurate, without using your introspection to assess your introspection and making it circular?

But again,  even if it couldnt be doubted - an inability to doubt won't solve the certainty problem, because it is bounded by your cognitive abilities and by your introspection, so its more of a skill issue, than a thing that you cannot be mistaken about.

Its like how do you know that something cannot be doubted ? "Well, it is based on my introspection". Okay how do you know that your introspection is correct ? "Well, I cant doubt it" - sounds very circular.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, r0ckyreed said:

The part I had trouble following is that Christianity cannot be absolutely true in any universe because it is conceptual rather than actual. Christianity cannot be observed.

This is some silly bit of logic.

Science is also conceptual. Concepts can point to real patterns within a dream. Christianity could point to real phenomena. The problem is that is probably does. Jesus could actually have risen from the dead, but he probably didn't. In this sense Christianity is false.

And who knows, may Jesus dod rise from the dead. We don't technically know.

Just because something is conceptual does not make it false. Falsehood is the relationship between your concepts of the dream you're in and the actual dream.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[Majed]

@Leo Gura how tf did jesus rose from the dead the laws of physics point to real phenomena within the dream? 

and would you say and ant is in a different dreams from humans or the same ?

[Keryo Koffa]

@r0ckyreed The concept of Evil itself does not make sense from an absolute point of view, conditional love and restriction on the other hand materializing through hurtful actions, ignorance, preference, bias, hatred, misunderstanding and so forth do arise when consciousness fractures into perspectives. For a devil to exist, there has to be a positive force and desire to support its existence, if no one else, the devil himself must have an actual reason for his own perpetual existence devoid of any good qualities by definition of being God's antithesis. In such a system however, no one benefits unless it is a sado-masochistic balance, in which case it has reason to persist. In the grand scheme of things with the evolution of self-understanding and the universe, it makes no sense for consciousness of any intelligence to willfully take such form. Leo himself described in one of his awakenings that the Universe is a massively complex balance of infinite systems and it all happens for a reason and a greater good. As I wrote before, I try to expand my understanding through the Seth Material, so here's an excerpt regarding that:

 

"On the one hand, quite simply and in a way that you cannot presently understand, evil does not exist. However, you are obviously confronted with what seem to be quite evil effects. Now it has been said often that there is a god, so there must be a devil - or if there is good, there must be evil. This is like saying that because an apple has a top, it must have a bottom - but without any understanding of the fact that both are a portion of the apple.

We go back to our fundamentals: You create reality through your feelings, thoughts, and mental actions. Some of these are physically materialized, others are actualized in probable systems. You are presented with an endless series of choices, it seems, at any point, some more or less favorable than others.

You must understand that each mental act is a reality for which you are responsible. That is what you are in this particular system of reality for. As long as you believe in a devil, for example, you will create one that is real enough for you, and for the others who continue to create him.

Because of the energy he is given by others, he will have a certain consciousness of his own, but such a mock devil has no power or reality to those who do not believe in his existence, and who do not give him energy through their belief. He is, in other words, a superlative hallucination As mentioned earlier, those who believe in a hell and assign themselves to it through their belief can indeed experience one, but certainly in nothing like eternal terms. No soul is forever ignorant.

Now those who have such beliefs actually lack a necessary deep trust in the nature of consciousness, of the soul, and of All That Is. They concentrate upon not what they think of as the power of good, but fearfully upon what they think of as the power of evil.

The hallucination is created, therefore, out of fear and of restriction. The devil idea is merely the mass projection of certain fears - mass in that it is produced by many people, but also limited in that there have always been those who rejected this principle.

Some very old religions understood the hallucinatory nature of the devil concept, but even in Egyptian times, the simpler and more distorted ideas became prevalent, particularly with the masses of people. In some ways, men in those times could not understand the concept of a god without the concept of a devil.

Storms, for example, are highly creative natural events, though they can also cause destruction. Early man could see only the destruction. Some intuitively understood that any effects are creative, despite their appearances, but few could convince their fellow men."

[GLORY]

On 03/06/2024 at 5:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

People are not all dreaming the same dream. 
So what is objectively true in your dream may not be in another's dream. 
God is just an absolute ocean of dreams.

What you mean with people dream different dreams ?

Isn't that, that Solipsism is true and there is only one single dream and nothing outside of it, no other parallel dreams. 
And everything that exists right now is only this one dream(=consciousness) creating the illusion of a human life
Everything that exists right now is consciousness/being/god: colors, sounds, thoughts, smell, tastes, feelings 
This dream is made of different types of consciousness (like colors and feelings), and thats all there is 
 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The mistake is holding only Nothingness or Formlessness as absolute. But all form is absolute too.

If nothingness exists, why is it so difficult to become conscious of nothingness if possible 
And when the solipsistic dreamer is not conscious of nothingness does it even exist ?
Because all that exists, the solipsistic dreamer is beeing conscious of right now 
And everything that the dreamer is not being conscious of does not exist
Is there a difference between nothingness and consciousness ? 
Or is nothingness a very subtile type of consciousness ?

[mmKay]

5 minutes ago, GLORY said:

What you mean with people dream different dreams ?

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, GLORY said:

What you mean with people dream different dreams ?

Isn't that, that Solipsism is true and there is only one single dream and nothing outside of it, no other parallel dreams. 

This can depend on how high of a consciousness you look at it from.

In practice you are imagining that other people are dreaming in parallel to you. If you become super duper conscious you might transcend that. But then again, there is even higher consciousness which transcends that. Maybe.

[GLORY]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This can depend on how high of a consciousness you look at it from.

When consciousness gets higher and lower does it mean that there is less God when Conscious gets low? 
And when Conscious drops to 0 (if thats possible?) does it mean that God disappears existing? 
Because if God=Consciousness and Consciouss lowers to 0, then God sceases to exist 
Like what supposedly happens in deep-sleep and than suddenly appears again

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, GLORY said:

When consciousness gets higher and lower does it mean that there is less God when Conscious gets low? 

No.

The amount of God is always 100%.

Quote

And when Conscious drops to 0 (if thats possible?) does it mean that God disappears existing? 
Because if God=Consciousness and Consciouss lowers to 0, then God sceases to exist 
Like what supposedly happens in deep-sleep and than suddenly appears again

No.

You are describing formlessness, which is also God.

Edited June 5 by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

There is an absolute truth that is difficult to see: the infinite is perfect, complete and total, and therefore all its manifestations, all forms, are perfect, complete and total, they are the absolute truth. The thought "the earth is flat" is the absolute truth, not in terms of its content, which is completely irrelevant, but in the fact of the existence of that thought, its fit into the totality of the cosmos, the millions of neural interconnections that In turn, they are a consequence of an unimaginable quantum process of total perfection that causes that thought to be formulated at the exact and precise moment so that infinity is perfectly coordinated. The perfection of this does not fit into the human mind. Reality is perfect, since imperfection is absolutely impossible.