People are not paying attention to this.

[integral]

This is especially important for people who in their twenties did not pursue science.

Quote

By a dark age, I do not mean that all modern beliefs are false. The earth is indeed round. Instead, I mean that all of our structures of knowledge are plagued by errors at all levels, from the trivial to the profound, periphery to the fundamental. Nothing that you've been taught can be believed because you were taught it. Nothing can be believed because others believe it. No idea is trustworthy because it's written in a textbook. The process that results in the production of knowledge in textbooks is flawed because the methodology employed by intellectuals is not sufficiently rigorous enough to generate high quality ideas. The epistemic standards of the 20th century were not high enough to overcome social, psychological, and political entropy. Our academy has failed.

 

Edited September 7 by integral

[Keryo Koffa]

Amazing meta-contextual condensation of our climate's psychological dissonance!

[UnbornTao]

I mean, no belief can be true.

[Keryo Koffa]

19 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I mean, no belief can be true.

When you think it true (through)

Edited September 7 by Keryo Koffa

[UnbornTao]

21 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

When you think it true (through)

I was nitpicking. However, isn't a belief not an experience of what's true, but a thought about something? The truth is found in our conscious awareness or recognition of some dynamic, condition, event, subject, fact.

Edited September 8 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

19 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I was nitpicking.

Not really. You gave a different definition of truth, steering the conversation away from the original topic.

Edited September 8 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Not really. You gave a different definition of truth, steering the conversation away from the original topic.

Sounds about right.

Always talking about beliefs... So annoying.

On 9/7/2024 at 8:56 PM, Keryo Koffa said:

When you think it true (through)

On another note, there's also the influence of beliefs, in that they are not recognized as such and so are taken to be true in themselves. Some may be justified and valid, too. 

Edited September 9 by UnbornTao

[Keryo Koffa]

21 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

1. Isn't a belief not an experience of what's true, but a thought about something?
   The truth is found in our conscious awareness or recognition of some dynamic, condition, event, subject, fact.

2. 34 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

   There's also the impact and influence of beliefs, in that they are not recognized as such.
   And so are taken to be true in themselves. Some may be justified and valid, too. 

1. It's tricky. What is a thought? An experience made of the same stuff as the experience it's referencing.
   What is the experience referenced? An interface interpreting combinations of sensations.
   What is the overlay/interface? An experience translating experience into a contextual experience.
   What is the non-contextual original experience? Itself. What is that? A perspectival self-reflective figment.
   A figment of what? Consciousness. An aspect of infinity. A construct of experience, intelligence, being...
   What are those? Consciousness creating and understanding itself, conscious or unconscious?
   Ugh... this is getting out of hand. Don't wanna derail the thread to infinity! I also have posting limits, you know? 😁
2. Ah yes, excellent topic! Shadow integration is counter to pure wishful positive thinking.
   Some say that what you focus on multiplies, but denying the uncomfortable limits you.
   What beliefs are true and which aren't? That's epistemology for you! For God, all is true.
   But that's capital truth. God also knows relative truth absolutely, interestingly enough
   Or does it, is god omniscient or just uniscient? Ah, that's another topic entirely, derail...
   Beliefs shape reality, on our layer our experience, but also metaphysically
   Beliefs drive intelligence, intelligence drives creation, holarchy synchronization

This discussion is getting out of hand, sorry @integral. But reference a part of the video and we can discuss that instead!
 

[UnbornTao]

18 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

1. It's tricky. What is a thought? An experience made of the same stuff as the experience it's referencing.
   What is the experience referenced? An interface interpreting combinations of sensations.
   What is the overlay/interface? An experience translating experience into a contextual experience.
   What is the non-contextual original experience? Itself. What is that? A perspectival self-reflective figment.
   A figment of what? Consciousness. An aspect of infinity. A construct of experience, intelligence, being...
   What are those? Consciousness creating and understanding itself, conscious or unconscious?
   Ugh... this is getting out of hand. Don't wanna derail the thread to infinity! I also have posting limits, you know? 😁
2. Ah yes, excellent topic! Shadow integration is counter to pure wishful positive thinking.
   Some say that what you focus on multiplies, but denying the uncomfortable limits you.
   What beliefs are true and which aren't? That's epistemology for you! For God, all is true.
   But that's capital truth. God also knows relative truth absolutely, interestingly enough
   Or does it, is god omniscient or just uniscient? Ah, that's another topic entirely, derail...
   Beliefs shape reality, on our layer our experience, but also metaphysically
   Beliefs drive intelligence, intelligence drives creation, holarchy synchronization

This discussion is getting out of hand, sorry @integral. But reference a part of the video and we can discuss that instead!
 

That's good, and also what would coming from a grounded experience look like?

We certainly distinguish, albeit sloppily, a thought of an apple from our perception and feelings about it. Which is which? 

It's late, might elaborate tomorrow.

Edited September 9 by UnbornTao

[Keryo Koffa]

35 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That's good, and also what would coming from a grounded experience look like?

We certainly distinguish, albeit sloppily, a thought of an apple from our perception and feelings of an apple. Which is which? 

It's late, might elaborate tomorrow.

The apple is a multi-sensual experience in color, touch, weight, form, taste, biological dynamic constitution...
The lines are self-drawn and imply a psychic structure, which simulates the experience based on sense data
Which means the apple, far as knowable is entirely mind-created, though the origin is certainly interesting
It's the CTMU's super-tautology all over again, everything is one and it's all qualia all the way down or up 😁

But I'm starting to see what you were pointing to. There's the universal field outside of our awareness
And then there is our adapting psychic structure which expands itself to imagine incoming sense data
One would wonder how it does it, unless it's made of and expands its maps into the same territory
The experience of the apple can of course be abstracted away or overlayed with codified pointers
It can also be substituted with other projections, predictions, and paradigm-lensed interpretations.

But how do we get to the deepest most direct experience of the apple in and of itself?
What even is the apple? Where's its boundary, which taste belongs to it? It's not static.

I think I got to the core of the argument though, which is Source vs Overlay.
How much is karmic projection vs actual experience and what's the difference?
Everything is mind created but some of our experience enters through senses.
Those senses could themselves be just imagination slightly outside awareness.
It practically seems we're part of a far greater interdependent consistent system.

Now, how do we get the experience of the apple, get it, or tune into it?
Dismissing all physicality still, there is a mind inside the mind.
The mind that creates the universe outside awareness and the one navigating it within.
How do these Levels of Reality interact through imagination and embodied consensus?

Mind synchronizing with the system, maybe other minds within the mind.
Is it a top-down convergence or a middle-out emergent radiation?
The structuring and navigating mechanism is not at all obvious

Edited September 8 by Keryo Koffa

[Forestluv]

Steve is great. Below is another one of my favorites about "zooming in" and "zooming out" and how different perspectives can be valid in one context, yet lead to erroneous conclusions.

Zooming In and Out

 

[UnbornTao]

@Keryo Koffa I was simply pointing to our experience of these things, hopefully in an attempt to deepen it (the experience). Thanks

[Keryo Koffa]

3 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Keryo Koffa I was simply pointing to our experience of these things, hopefully in an attempt to deepen it (the experience). Thanks

The experience is pretty deep, one can get lost in infinite regress, after all, what is an Apple? 😁

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

The experience is pretty deep, one can get lost in infinite regress, after all, what is an Apple? 😁

Maybe that's the observation we are supposed to make (that we don't truly know what it is directly), and bask in that, contemplating what the object is as itself.

We perceive it. We hold feelings about it. We think about it. We refer it to ourselves. But what is it? 

Something to look into.

[Keryo Koffa]

22 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Maybe that's the observation we are supposed to make (that we don't truly know what it is directly), and bask in that, contemplating what the object is as itself.

We perceive it. We hold feelings about it. We think about it. We refer it to ourselves. But what is it? 

Something to look into.

Whatever it is, all that we know of it is us. We are entangled, the experience is our own, as is everything we experienced.
The interconnected sensation pattern gradients are one thing, but the mind's unique personalized qualia experience...
Sure, an apple is this color and taste and cultural significance, but it's also a (w)holon, a thing significant in and of itself

Holons... synergies... emergence... only life knows life... it's so cool!

[UnbornTao]

8 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

Whatever it is, all that we know of it is us. We are entangled, the experience is our own, as is everything we experienced.
The interconnected sensation pattern gradients are one thing, but the mind's unique personalized qualia experience...
Sure, an apple is this color and taste and cultural significance, but it's also a (w)holon, a thing significant in and of itself

Holons... synergies... emergence... only life knows life... it's so cool!

Don't jump to conclusions or intellect, but contemplate, while not knowing what it is: What is the object? A direct experience is needed.

Edited September 10 by UnbornTao