Non-Human Operate Within The Visual Spectrum 'We Cannot See' - ULTRATERRESTRIALS EXIST!

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I never read it that way...one can experience things without believing in them.

Dick is defining reality as something it is impossible to "think your way out of." What we believe is trumped when something contrary to such beliefs is experienced and persists.

a reply to: Never Despise

Until that belief is trumped, and it will be eventually. If you live long enough.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Maybe so.

Are you postulating life as a series of cascading successive belief systems, each of which is shattered by experience, which in turn gives rise to a new (and equally fallible) belief system?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The "rigged" parts are the game.
My opinion.
A game defined from a consciousness that doesn't have all that "biological maintenance" stuff we have to do.
Changing perspectives like a shapeshifter.

a reply to: Never Despise

That's been my experience so far.

It's a result of information theory, and best typified by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Even 1 bit of new information may completely trash, even an 'objective' 'truth'.

The only way to know anything for certain, would be to have total access to all information and to completely understand it and all it's implications.

However with the boundary layer problem... that being, even if you were 'god' of 'one layer', even that 'god' wouldn't necessarily know what was one layer 'deeper'.

Today's 'god' is tomorrows newborn.

My position is that the best possible goal, is not to decide something is 'objective truth', as there is no such thing, but rather learning how to dog paddle in an infinite ocean with only illusory shores.

THAT is what passes for 'enlightenment' if you even want to use that outdated term.

Now, 'one layer up' in the stack, might there be 'beings' that would look like 'gods' to us?

Would they possibly know everything worth knowing about our world?

Possibly.

But they would be in the same morass (almost certainly) about their own worlds, and would suffer from the same boundary layer problem that we do.

That's my experience.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Exactly.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Very interesting and clearly expressed. Thanks.

So I would guess you don't care much for the Hegelian Dialectic in this context...the idea that each successive new belief system, while fallible, is somehow leading "upwards" to higher truth? Do you think there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or just an endless series of deluded belief systems?

a reply to: Peeple

this is why the story about the 'gods' bowing down to the 'enlightened sage'
is actually a true story, or would be a true story, if 'gods' and 'enlightened sages'
definitely existed.

but since both SEEM to exist, or at least some people want them to,
it still makes for an interesting story.

It's THIS sort of stuff that is worth knowing.. the nature and limits of knowledge and belief.

It helps teach one to dogpaddle, rather than drown, in infinite uncertainty.

a reply to: Never Despise

Until ALL bits of knowledge are obtained, fully understood and put into objective practice, nothing can be certain.

Which means, that only 'god' would seem to have objective facts.

And APPARENTLY 'god' is doing everything that he/she can, to ignore objective reality, thus gaining the ability, to love, laugh, learn and grow.. through us and all other sentient beings, by proxy.

That is my position.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Interesting, as usual.

I've entertained similar thoughts...the universe as a game that denies some deeper underlying reality "just for kicks"...This might explain entropy, decay, and change in general in some sense: our world is not "real enough" to persist so it is always falling apart and takes the conscious effort of (ourselves or a Supreme Being, choose one) to sustain.

Your comments the other day about quantum mechanics having no direction like the entropic "time's arrow" have been haunting me...I can't help but think that the quantum level may be what lies beneath the "universe game"...

a reply to: Never Despise

Yup.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Personally, I find the "mask behind mask" version of "reality" quite beautiful. Ingenious, really.

I know it's due to my perspective as a curious infantile ape hybrid who passes time by absorbing quixotic information, but having all the answers seems existentially terrifying... depending upon the answers, I suppose.

a reply to: Baddogma

'enlightenment' is the perception that 'god' does his/her best to hide from ultimate answers.

It really cuts down on the lugging around of books and such to appear wise.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'm rather an expert on economical, ignorant projections of "wise."

Too bad succinct wisdom is the true form... for the pricey academic labels, anyway.

Ignorance, however, is another (very Russian, long) story.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Haha. Gratified to learn more of your view of 'enligtenment' (which I will put in quotes -- British style quotes no less -- in the spirit of a respectful visitor to your vantage point).

A certain earth-born sage with an interest in 'enligtenment' also did his best to avoid certain questions, it seems.

a reply to: Baddogma

you could start a T-shirt slogan business...

a reply to: Never Despise

If he had known some quantum mechanics, he could have done better.

but a big fan actually..

the common wisdom is that the 'buddha' was a conflation of like 5 different people..

I find that humorous.

Not even the 'Buddha' has any true certainty.

born in china? born in nepal? born in india?

LOL

a reply to: Never Despise

You have far more book knowledge than I do.. on a number of topics.

It's delightful to hear some of your quotes.

I always understand them.. I don't tend to learn much of anything, but they feel like a cool summer breeze.

Very appreciated.

I think you'd like to hear about kundalini yoga at some point?

It's the most weird-ass way to come to 'enlightenment' imaginable.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
One could argue that Buddha was born anew each time the religion moved from one culture to the next. Translating Pali and Sanskrit into Chinese entailed borrowing a lot of Chinese characters that were heavy with Taoist connotations...giving rise to something very different than had existed in India, for example.

The whole concept of Buddha being born anywhere is a little shaky in some circles anyway.

And of course use of the singular or plural with that title raises hackles depending on who you are talking to...


...but I digress as usual. Please carry on without the musty relogico-historical baggage. I like your pared-down view of things, although I also like to travel with lots of said baggage too.

a reply to: Never Despise

Naw.

You are the teacher sometimes.

Speak to me of 'buddha mind' and 'pure mind' if you will.

So I can throw some rocks at it.

And somewhat agree.