Right And Wrong In Science

[Edvard]

Any opinions on this? Have seen many here argue that you can't define good from evil and right from wrong.  Sam Harris seems to disagree with that. Any thoughts? Counter-arguments to this video?

[Nahm]

@Edvard From any observer's perspective there certainly is right and wrong, but from the deeper perspective everything is one thing so it wouldn't perceive right or wrong because there is no other thing for it to be relative to or have a perspective on. 

[Visitor]

On 6/10/2017 at 4:56 AM, Nahm said:

From any observer's perspective there certainly is right and wrong, but from the deeper perspective everything is one thing so it wouldn't perceive right or wrong because there is no other thing for it to be relative to or have a perspective on.       (Visitor's underlining)

IMHO. There is still a need for concern.

To explain. The mind is a phenomenon as a result of brain activity. It is a field and a means for life energy to flow. The mind can direct this energy for use on what is true (love), or what is not true (fear). The first is used for creating/materialization (existence), the later for dematerialization (extinction). Beliefs are mind agreements of what to hold onto, truths and/or non-truths. The result has a bearing on the condition of the soul, the inner source of life energy (existence).

For the human body to survive longer requires its body-mind to pay attention to the human values of right and wrong. 

For the mind-soul, the spirit as some call it, is still subject/influenced by the mind, especially the belief system. Hence the idea of good (existence) and evil (extinction).

For the soul, there is only pure truth and its expression of love. It is unadulterated creation. Some say it is part of God/Truth. However, the mind has an influence on how its energy source is to be utilized; to be used or wasted.

For the one thing, uncreated light energy, the source of everything to be created, there is no differences for it is one thing, energy. 

[Nahm]

@Visitor I can certainly understand your perspective and need for concern. There is a state of being found through meditation that allows you to be without concern because the concern is a perspective rooted in thinking. 

[ajasatya]

a human being, when embodying Truth - a true master -, acts naturally according to what is called "good" in the relative level, even though he doesn't label "good" or "bad" with thinking processes.

why is that? because he feels in his bones the fact that we're ONE BEING.

then how to attain mastery? we start by practicing oneness with effort to break through our egoic resistances. after a while, we become so tender that oneness practices itself through us.

that's why a true master is always a servant of Truth. it's the happiest way of living.

[Visitor]

9 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Visitor I can certainly understand your perspective and need for concern. There is a state of being found through meditation that allows you to be without concern because the concern is a perspective rooted in thinking. 

We are still alive and still surviving. Meditation is for stilling the ego-mind and concerns (ego-fears) fade away. Yet we cannot survive on meditation alone. We still need to abide to human values for bodily survival/longevity.

[Nahm]

@Visitor human values are subjective though. 

[Visitor]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Visitor human values are subjective though. 

Yes it is. Realistically, all is subjective, because the mind must be used to perceive what we call objective.

[Nahm]

@Visitor There is observance without judgement. 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Nahm

[Visitor]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Visitor There is observance without judgement. 

If you remember what you observed then that was censored by subjectivity. If you don't remember what you observed then how did you know you were observing.

What is commonly referred to as 'without judgement' really means that what you observed was tagged/labelled as not important to one's ego. The subjective idea that one was not judging is a judgement (another paradox). 

[HikiNEET]

I can feel what is bad and good for me. He is just rationalizing. The name of it is mental masturbation.

[Nahm]

@HikiNEET will what feels bad or good to you ever change in your life?

 

[HikiNEET]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

@HikiNEET will what feels bad or good to you ever change in your life?

 

 

Like rape, murder, and violence? No. Extreme crimes like that are instinctively bad for me, I don't need laws to know that.

[Nahm]

@HikiNEET do you see that those things do feel good to some people?

[HikiNEET]

@Nahm  Yes, still crimes. These are destructive and selfish.

Edited June 16, 2017 by HikiNEET

[Wyatt]

@Edvard There is probably no inherent good or evil, but our brains are wired to perseve relative good and evil to protect us from danger (evil) and attract us to greater well-being (good). Science can definetly help us understand our bodies and minds, and we are seeing how science is coming up with new and fascinating technologies to optimize our well-being. But I don't think the human pursuit into science will uncover inherent morality in the world

[Ramu]

@EdvardSam Harris is trying to explain spirituality from a rationalists point of view.  He won't get anywhere near enlightenment, never mind awakening until he surrenders his limited worldview.

[Edvard]

1 hour ago, Ramu said:

@EdvardSam Harris is trying to explain spirituality from a rationalists point of view.  He won't get anywhere near enlightenment, never mind awakening until he surrenders his limited worldview.

What is Sam Harris' worldview?According to this, spirituality means to have no opinion, which is quite hypocritical, when you have to have opinions to stay alive. Every human being has the worldview that says eating makes us survive, i.e.

But then again, assuming that you eat is just rationalism, right?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Edvard