The time wasn't right...

[Joe]

I still stand by this belief that 'truth' can only be subjective and that it is extremely limiting and short-sighted to believe that one 'truth' trumps all other truths. Isn't that the kind of attitude that radical, violent people adopt?

Let's clarify a few things first. There is truth and there is lies, objectively. Then there is "personal truth" which, IMO, is a misnomer. People do not have "personal truths", they have beliefs. Those beliefs can be based to a greater or lesser extent on objective truth. But more important than that is personal values. We adopt personal values, or we 'grow' them through life experience and make them our own, and then lives our lives by those values, because we have chosen those values. People wrongly describe conflicts between such values as "truth vs lies", but that's not what it is about, it's about values.

 

[Mikha'El]

I still stand by this belief that 'truth' can only be subjective and that it is extremely limiting and short-sighted to believe that one 'truth' trumps all other truths. Isn't that the kind of attitude that radical, violent people adopt?

Let's clarify a few things first. There is truth and there is lies, objectively. Then there is "personal truth" which, IMO, is a misnomer. People do not have "personal truths", they have beliefs. Those beliefs can be based to a greater or lesser extent on objective truth. But more important than that is personal values. We adopt personal values, or we 'grow' them through life experience and make them our own, and then lives our lives by those values, because we have chosen those values. People wrongly describe conflicts between such values as "truth vs lies", but that's not what it is about, it's about values.

Hey Joe, thank you for taking the time to reply.

So do you feel that we can perceive objective, empirical truths? I have found that an argument can always be made to discredit what we perceive to be objective. Is there anything that can't be argued away?

One could say that the sun will always rise in the morning, but is there no situation where the sun doesn't rise? Is it impossible to conceive a situation where the sun wouldn't ever rise again?

It is my opinion that it is much more important to be willing to change everything that you believe to be real when proper contradictory evidence is presented than it is to hold true to a reality that may not be accurate.

I feel very strongly about anyone who takes a hard stance on any subject, there is always room for an argument to be made that will contradict what one may perceive to be real.

I totally agree in the concept of beliefs over personal truths. My belief is actually that all things we hold to be true are in fact only beliefs and that it is impossible for us to understand true objectivity from our 3rd density perceptions. Those things that we agree to be real as a group are just the group's belief. I was trying to be subtle in bringing that concept to light as I know from past experience that this concept can really freak people out.

Again, quantum physics and the concept of the observer will back this up. We create our reality through the power of belief. As above, so below.

Do you agree with that concept?

I place full stock in the power of personal values, in my opinion that trumps pretty much everything else as it is really the only thing that we can control.

The thing that matters the most to me in my personal universe is making sure that I have strong moral values and that I treat everyone according to those values. In that context, objective truth matters little. The values that drive a person's personality and actions have much more merit than any mistakes in transient information that they may have.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I feel very strongly about anyone who takes a hard stance on any subject, there is always room for an argument to be made that will contradict what one may perceive to be real.

That's a very hard stance to take on the nature of truth and belief.

My belief is actually that all things we hold to be true are in fact only beliefs and that it is impossible for us to understand true objectivity from our 3rd density perceptions.

In other words, you think that the premise "the things we hold to be true are actually only beliefs" is true.

 

[Mikha'El]

I feel very strongly about anyone who takes a hard stance on any subject, there is always room for an argument to be made that will contradict what one may perceive to be real.

That's a very hard stance to take on the nature of truth and belief.

My belief is actually that all things we hold to be true are in fact only beliefs and that it is impossible for us to understand true objectivity from our 3rd density perceptions.

In other words, you think that the premise "the things we hold to be true are actually only beliefs" is true.

Omg, finally.

You have seen directly through to the heart of my personal contradictions.

There can be no truth, is a lie. There can be no lies, is true.

Although, you're a little off on the last statement, that is my belief not my truth.

This is what I see to be the nature of our 3rd density reality, ultimate contradictions in infinite variety.

 

[Joe]

So do you feel that we can perceive objective, empirical truths? I have found that an argument can always be made to discredit what we perceive to be objective. Is there anything that can't be argued away?

I don't think we're talking about argument here, are we? Arguments are not usually objectively true, they are based on opinion, which is based on experience, bias, programs belief etc. But an objective *consensus* truth about something can be determined of course. I'm sure you can think of examples.

Again, quantum physics and the concept of the observer will back this up. We create our reality through the power of belief. As above, so below.

Do you agree with that concept?

Do you mean, do I agree that it's empirically true? I mean, are you saying that it is empirically true that there is no such thing as empirical truth? If so, then there is at least one empirical truth.

I think you might be heading down a sort of solipsistic road here. Let's assume we create our reality through the power of belief. The things that we create, or that one group creates through consensus, can be said to be true for that group, i.e. they have chosen to make those things true or real for them by living them. Are they objectively true? Probably, in some part of the universe, or they soon may be if the group is able to make them true. But then that is true for pretty much all other things in the sense that they all exist as ideas that can be given life, made manifest in some way, by conscious beings.

You may have missed it, but the philosophical or spiritual underpinnings of this forum is the theory that reality can be created in this way and that, as one group might choose one particular reality, they "move away" (in more ways than one) from those who do not choose that reality. So, far from bringing something to the forum that might "freak people out", you're actually just stating our philosophy 101. There is caveat though.

The idea that we can "create our own reality" is not something that is a birth right of everyone. You don't just wish it into existence. To create one's own *particular* reality one has to first divest oneself of all the things within oneself that are opposed to that particular reality. In addition, lies probably don't have a very long "shelf life" in terms of continuing in any kind of active existence. I'll give you a 3D example. I believe that moving cars don't hurt me. I walk in front of one. I'm dead. Or, I determine that, as a flesh and blood human being, cars can kill me. I stay away from them, my existence continues on longer.

So at this level, you could say that the belief that a fast moving vehicle coming into contact with a human being has a high probability of ending that human being's life, is pretty close to being empirically true.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

There can be no lies, is true.

That's self-evidently untrue.

Although, you're a little off on the last statement, that is my belief not my truth.

So you believe things that you don't even think to be true? That's the definition of irrationality. But you are trying to be rational by making arguments (i.e., reasoning based on evidence and logic). The fact that these arguments are contradictory should tell you something: that your reasoning is faulty.

 

[bjorb]

Hi Mikha'el

Correct me if I am wrong.

You don't believe in Objective Truth? You think everything is subjective?

[quote author= Mikha'el]I have always followed the practice of 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'. Isn't that the higher road, the better, more ideal way to behave in an enlightened environment?[/quote]

If everything is subjective. Why should we even disagree with each other? Why not uphold everyone's subjectivity? Since your truth or my truth are just opinions and proclaiming otherwise against each other is not being nice? If everything is subjective anyhow, there is no need to confront each other?

Am I heading in the right direction?


You see, there it goes wrong I think. Objective truth is real, so at times we have to disagree with each other for the sake of Truth. Because lies cause suffering.

Wouldn't you agree that the situation in our world is horrible? We have to tell this objective truth, because only the truth can address the situation correctly. Only the truth can allow people to realize that something positive much be done to stop all of the suffering.

So your practice of ''if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'' Wouldn't work if we want to chance the World for the better

Compassion is more than just being kind, it's about being creative enough to wake someone up. That's taking the higher road I think.

That's doesn't mean that we should be rude. But more than often it happens so that we have to be direct to get the message accross to help other see. Including ourselves.

We are not here to agree with you. We are here to figure out the Truth together. So whenever someone's observes your inner way of thinking and addresses this. Know that it's part of your false-personality, something that is not a part of you, something that has to ''die'' in you.

It's Self-Defeating to take it personal. You are free to disagree or agree with that. But I think it's important to at least consider it and take it at heart. :)

 

[Mikha'El]

So do you feel that we can perceive objective, empirical truths? I have found that an argument can always be made to discredit what we perceive to be objective. Is there anything that can't be argued away?

I don't think we're talking about argument here, are we? Arguments are not usually objectively true, they are based on opinion, which is based on experience, bias, programs belief etc. But an objective *consensus* truth about something can be determined of course. I'm sure you can think of examples.

Again, quantum physics and the concept of the observer will back this up. We create our reality through the power of belief. As above, so below.

Do you agree with that concept?

Do you mean, do I agree that it's empirically true? I mean, are you saying that it is empirically true that there is no such thing as empirical truth? If so, then there is at least one empirical truth.

I think you might be heading down a sort of solipsistic road here. Let's assume we create our reality through the power of belief. The things that we create, or that one group creates through consensus, can be said to be true for that group, i.e. they have chosen to make those things true or real for them by living them. Are they objectively true? Probably, in some part of the universe, or they soon may be if the group is able to make them true. But then that is true for pretty much all other things in the sense that they all exist as ideas that can be given life, made manifest in some way, by conscious beings.

You may have missed it, but the philosophical or spiritual underpinnings of this forum is the theory that reality can be created in this way and that, as one group might choose one particular reality, they "move away" (in more ways than one) from those who do not choose that reality. So, far from bringing something to the forum that might "freak people out", you're actually just stating our philosophy 101. There is caveat though.

The idea that we can "create our own reality" is not something that is a birth right of everyone. You don't just wish it into existence. To create one's own *particular* reality one has to first divest oneself of all the things within oneself that are opposed to that particular reality. In addition, lies probably don't have a very long "shelf life" in terms of continuing in any kind of active existence. I'll give you a 3D example. I believe that moving cars don't hurt me. I walk in front of one. I'm dead. Or, I determine that, as a flesh and blood human being, cars can kill me. I stay away from them, my existence continues on longer.

So at this level, you could say that the belief that a fast moving vehicle coming into contact with a human being has a high probability of ending that human being's life, is pretty close to being empirically true.

When I speak of people being able to argue something away, I mean it from the sense of debate. If an argument can be successfully made that discredits any particular idea, then that idea intrinsically cannot be empirical.

There is an old mental exercise about asking a person if they are a liar. How could you ever believe the answer that they give? If they say no, they could be lying. If they say yes, how do you believe it?

I don't think that I have missed the underpinnings of this forum. In fact, it was that concept that brought me here in the first place so many years ago. That concept has been solidified in my personal belief system by all that I have read from the C's, Laura's writings and various other articles.

I also understand that a lot of people (not necessarily the people here) don't truly have a grasp of what that means and I feel that it is a fairly advanced principle to appreciate. Hence why I don't like to jump to that. I guess that in this forum, I can be a little less stringent in editing myself. Old habits die hard.

When you say that, "The idea that we can 'create our own reality' is not something that is a birth right of everyone." I hope that you mean that the idea is not a birthright, not the ability. It is my understanding that we are all equal in our potential for creation or destruction.

You are right in that I am heading down a solipsistic road (thank you for helping me learn a new term, btw). But is that all that bad? My opinion of the outside world is completely subjective being filtered through the lens of my belief, but my internal universe is completely objective to me. How can I know anything outside of myself? For that matter, how can I know, empirically, anything? An old riddle that I use a lot: What is everything to one man and nothing to everyone else? His mind.

The way that I see it, everything is nebulous and mutable. Nothing remains constant, even that ideal of non-constancy is not constant, ironically.

It is again that universal contradiction that exists and doesn't exist at the same time, infinity coexisting with nothingness. The Grand Dynamic, as I call it, that generates anima.

My inability to truly conceive this concept in all its aspects is what leads me to believe that we, as physically limited beings, do not have the capacity to understand the fundamental truth of the Universe. I guess that clarifies my opinion. There is, possibly, empirical wisdom out there but we are incapable of understanding it.

To approach your example of the moving car and my soft body. You are totally correct, imo. I cannot argue that you will not be hurt if struck by a moving vehicle. But that is working with the knowledge and experience that I currently have. What if, one day, we find a way to convert our bodies to be mist (just as an example)? Then that car would not hurt us as we could simply turn to mist and allow it to pass through us.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, just trying to hammer this out one way or the other. My point is that it is unwise to limit ourselves to any one viewpoint. There are so many things in the Universe that we are completely oblivious to that could change all of our preconceptions in the blink of an eye. I'll bring up that tired old argument about how, just a few hundred years ago, most people believed that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe.

My goal in life is to be prepared for any contingency. By denying that empirical truth can exist, I believe that I leave my mind open for any possibilities and that I won't freeze from shock when things change. I also allow for the fact that I could be totally wrong.

Is it harmful for me to think that way? I know it seems extreme but I actually feel more comfortable and relaxed in life than when I believed otherwise.

 

[Joe]

To approach your example of the moving car and my soft body. You are totally correct, imo. I cannot argue that you will not be hurt if struck by a moving vehicle. But that is working with the knowledge and experience that I currently have. What if, one day, we find a way to convert our bodies to be mist (just as an example)? Then that car would not hurt us as we could simply turn to mist and allow it to pass through us.

No offense, but I don't think there is much point in discussing hypothetical scenarios like that because there are endless permutations. That's why a lot of the Work of this forum is on dealing with what is in front of us each day, the little details, the "living in the moment", the issues we have, the "small stuff" that so many of us still have fairly big issues with.

 

[Joe]

When you say that, "The idea that we can 'create our own reality' is not something that is a birth right of everyone." I hope that you mean that the idea is not a birthright, not the ability. It is my understanding that we are all equal in our potential for creation or destruction.

I don't think so. I have personal experience of people who are not very creative in any sense, and others who are very creative in many ways. So I don't think "all are created equal" in that sense, or at least, all are not at the same level of ability or understanding. Surely you have experience of this yourself?

My point is that it is unwise to limit ourselves to any one viewpoint. There are so many things in the Universe that we are completely oblivious to that could change all of our preconceptions in the blink of an eye. I'll bring up that tired old argument about how, just a few hundred years ago, most people believed that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe.

We have working hypotheses and reserve the right to change our minds at any time. In fact, I think we all expect and even work to change our minds through the process of learning more and more about all and everything.

How can I know anything outside of myself? For that matter, how can I know, empirically, anything? An old riddle that I use a lot: What is everything to one man and nothing to everyone else? His mind.

The way that I see it, everything is nebulous and mutable. Nothing remains constant, even that ideal of non-constancy is not constant, ironically.

Just wondering, do you think that at behind your focus on this area of philosophy, there is a (perhaps unrecognized) need or desire for certainty about the future? What I mean is, is it possible that the uncertain and, as you say, mutable, nature of reality is scary to you?

My goal in life is to be prepared for any contingency. By denying that empirical truth can exist, I believe that I leave my mind open for any possibilities and that I won't freeze from shock when things change. I also allow for the fact that I could be totally wrong.

I think that's a good way to go about things, as long as you don't get too dogmatic about being open-minded. But I again wonder if some negative emotion or fear is involved for you.

 

[Mikha'El]

Hi Mikha'el

Correct me if I am wrong.

You don't believe in Objective Truth? You think everything is subjective?

[quote author= Mikha'el]I have always followed the practice of 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'. Isn't that the higher road, the better, more ideal way to behave in an enlightened environment?

If everything is subjective. Why should we even disagree with each other? Why not uphold everyone's subjectivity? Since your truth or my truth are just opinions and proclaiming otherwise against each other is not being nice? If everything is subjective anyhow, there is no need to confront each other?

Am I heading in the right direction?


You see, there it goes wrong I think. Objective truth is real, so at times we have to disagree with each other for the sake of Truth. Because lies cause suffering.

Wouldn't you agree that the situation in our world is horrible? We have to tell this objective truth, because only the truth can address the situation correctly. Only the truth can allow people to realize that something positive much be done to stop all of the suffering.

So your practice of ''if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all'' Wouldn't work if we want to chance the World for the better

Compassion is more than just being kind, it's about being creative enough to wake someone up. That's taking the higher road I think.

That's doesn't mean that we should be rude. But more than often it happens so that we have to be direct to get the message accross to help other see. Including ourselves.

We are not here to agree with you. We are here to figure out the Truth together. So whenever someone's observes your inner way of thinking and addresses this. Know that it's part of your false-personality, something that is not a part of you, something that has to ''die'' in you.

It's Self-Defeating to take it personal. You are free to disagree or agree with that. But I think it's important to at least consider it and take it at heart. :)
[/quote]

I made a new post before I saw this.

I cannot say that empirical truth exists or doesn't exist somewhere in the Universe.

My point, which I don't think I expressed fully is that we are unable, as human beings in this 3rd density existence, to understand or appreciate empirical truth. So, in effect, empirical truth cannot exist within the human psyche. Since all things we do in this existence begin with the psyche, for all intents and purposes empirical wisdom does not exist. Perhaps we will evolve to the point where we can truly appreciate empirical knowledge, but then would we still be 3rd density at that point?

At the same time, I cannot make that statement empirically. Do you see the irony? It drives me a little nuts trying to work it out sometimes. Hence why I bring it up here.

People can disagree with me all day long and all it will do is inspire me to learn from them. It doesn't need to be in the form of an attack or rude, however. That is what I meant about not saying something if it isn't nice. There are a plethora of ways to contradict someone and still remain civil.

I would hope that, in the context of discussions in this forum, we would not attack each other on a personal level. If you read something into a post that is not expressly written then it would be better to keep that to yourself until it is confirmed. Even then, that is a situation where personal opinion factors very heavily and it may be best to not say anything at all. Or if you do feel compelled to say something, at least couch it in language that is not overly offensive.

Also we need to bear in mind that not all of us can express ourselves as well as we may wish. I complain about that a lot actually, because I am constantly having to go back and correct presumptions that people have made about me. Most of these presumptions were made because I either misstated myself or left out relevant information.

 

[Mikha'El]

To approach your example of the moving car and my soft body. You are totally correct, imo. I cannot argue that you will not be hurt if struck by a moving vehicle. But that is working with the knowledge and experience that I currently have. What if, one day, we find a way to convert our bodies to be mist (just as an example)? Then that car would not hurt us as we could simply turn to mist and allow it to pass through us.

No offense, but I don't think there is much point in discussing hypothetical scenarios like that because there are endless permutations. That's why a lot of the Work of this forum is on dealing with what is in front of us each day, the little details, the "living in the moment", the issues we have, the "small stuff" that so many of us still have fairly big issues with.

I will reply to these in the manner received for clarity's sake.

I agree that is a silly situation to discuss, but aren't most mental exercises silly? If a tree falls in the forest...

I do feel that it does express my point, just in that we can't know everything that is out there that could potentially contradict what we 'know' now.

 

[Carl]

I cannot say that empirical truth exists or doesn't exist somewhere in the Universe.

My point, which I don't think I expressed fully is that we are unable, as human beings in this 3rd density existence, to understand or appreciate empirical truth. So, in effect, empirical truth cannot exist within the human psyche. Since all things we do in this existence begin with the psyche, for all intents and purposes empirical wisdom does not exist. Perhaps we will evolve to the point where we can truly appreciate empirical knowledge, but then would we still be 3rd density at that point?

Of course we can't know the full empirical truth, but that doesn't stop us from getting as close as we can while in human form.

People can disagree with me all day long and all it will do is inspire me to learn from them. It doesn't need to be in the form of an attack or rude, however. That is what I meant about not saying something if it isn't nice. There are a plethora of ways to contradict someone and still remain civil.

Civility and niceness are 2 different things but yes of course - I don't think you've been treated in any way other than civil if that is what you're saying. In fact discussions almost anywhere else on the internet apart from here would have devolved into insults by now.

I would hope that, in the context of discussions in this forum, we would not attack each other on a personal level. If you read something into a post that is not expressly written then it would be better to keep that to yourself until it is confirmed. Even then, that is a situation where personal opinion factors very heavily and it may be best to not say anything at all. Or if you do feel compelled to say something, at least couch it in language that is not overly offensive.

Also we need to bear in mind that not all of us can express ourselves as well as we may wish. I complain about that a lot actually, because I am constantly having to go back and correct presumptions that people have made about me. Most of these presumptions were made because I either misstated myself or left out relevant information.

Sometimes people make mistakes in judgement - most of us try not to write in very direct terms too much because of this. But the stuff about 'not reading what is not expressly written' is just nonsense. You'll see this if for a moment you grok the fact that people can see us better than we can see ourselves.

To avoid going into too much wiseacring on the nature of truth etc., let's tie together the ideas of 'arriving at truth via networking' and the idea of 'don't read between the lines in my posts anything that is not expressly written' into an example:

For instance if I make a guess based on my first 'blink' reaction, and then upon further reading between the lines in your posts, about some of your subconscious beliefs about yourself. I.E. You pride yourself somewhat on your intellect, have a pretty self important and morally superior attitude, and have a fair bit of perfectionism thrown in there too. Quite common stuff that many of us have, and often don't see until it's pointed out.

I could be totally wrong and just based on my unconscious reactions to you. But then if 15 more people all observe the same thing and thought similar things, then it is much more likely to be true, no?

Especially when you read the enormous amount of research out there that shows that we can't trust our own thinking too much and that other people see us better than we see ourselves.

I hope you don't just end up feeling further attacked by this anyway, that's the best way I can put it tonight.

 

[Mikha'El]

When you say that, "The idea that we can 'create our own reality' is not something that is a birth right of everyone." I hope that you mean that the idea is not a birthright, not the ability. It is my understanding that we are all equal in our potential for creation or destruction.

I don't think so. I have personal experience of people who are not very creative in any sense, and others who are very creative in many ways. So I don't think "all are created equal" in that sense, or at least, all are not at the same level of ability or understanding. Surely you have experience of this yourself?

My point is that it is unwise to limit ourselves to any one viewpoint. There are so many things in the Universe that we are completely oblivious to that could change all of our preconceptions in the blink of an eye. I'll bring up that tired old argument about how, just a few hundred years ago, most people believed that the Earth was flat or that it was the center of the universe.

We have working hypotheses and reserve the right to change our minds at any time. In fact, I think we all expect and even work to change our minds through the process of learning more and more about all and everything.

How can I know anything outside of myself? For that matter, how can I know, empirically, anything? An old riddle that I use a lot: What is everything to one man and nothing to everyone else? His mind.

The way that I see it, everything is nebulous and mutable. Nothing remains constant, even that ideal of non-constancy is not constant, ironically.

Just wondering, do you think that at behind your focus on this area of philosophy, there is a (perhaps unrecognized) need or desire for certainty about the future? What I mean is, is it possible that the uncertain and, as you say, mutable, nature of reality is scary to you?

My goal in life is to be prepared for any contingency. By denying that empirical truth can exist, I believe that I leave my mind open for any possibilities and that I won't freeze from shock when things change. I also allow for the fact that I could be totally wrong.

I think that's a good way to go about things, as long as you don't get too dogmatic about being open-minded. But I again wonder if some negative emotion or fear is involved for you.

I think you may have misread that first part, I was referring to the potential for creation or destruction, not the level of ability.

I have definitely come across people that you refer to, in fact, I think that we could all say that those types of people fill most of our lives on a day to day basis. The non-creative types. They could even be people that seem creative but are actually destructive. Take as a point my father, who is a housing developer and architect by trade (fairly creative type of work) but all he really cares about is money and his image (a destructive path, I believe).

I can't say that I don't have some fear of the unknown, but I think that fear is outweighed by my excitement for a better future. I know that a main part of the Work in this forum is ridding oneself of irrational fear (and I feel that I have done a heck of a job on that btw), but I feel that a small amount of fear of the unknown is healthy.

I still need to work on my fear of women, though.

I think that what I am working through with this subject is avoiding the desire to control the outcome. That has been the major focus of my Work through FOTCM and various other schools. The fear of being out of control was a big problem for me and I found that at the root of that fear was my inability to prove truth. If nothing is true then the future is this vast empty sea that is waiting to swallow me whole. At least that was the way that I used to look at things.

Once I started to let go of my desire to control things, that fear started to slip away too. I have episodes from time to time, however, when I forget some of what I have learned and the fear creeps back in. Those are the times that I need to remind myself that I am a limited being that does not have the capacity to fully understand anything and I am able to release my grip. I understand now that, regardless of the fact that I can't conceive it, empirical truth can exist and that thought gives me more hope for the future than anything else.

 

[bjorb]

Hi again Mikha'el

What I am getting at by reading your comments is that by believing that humans cannot comprehend empirical knowledge. Everything to our experience has to be subjective. And when everything is subjective for us. There is no reason to upset each other with other truths. Because empirical knowledge (truth) is something the Human psyche cannot comprehend?

So compassion to you is not saying anything that can upset the other?

I think our difference lies that we believe in Objectivity, about ourselves and the World. So 'confrontations' as you might perceive it may come over harsh and rude to you. Because you don't see the need for it. Just know that's it's not about judging each other, but about observing and pointing out for their sake.

We have this common aim to be honest with each other. We have to, because each of us possesses blind spots that only others can see. Like Gurdjieff said, you cannot do the work alone. A network is required.

So like said before, compassion is not only about being kind, it's about being creative enough to wake others up.


[quote author= Mikha'el]At the same time, I cannot make that statement empirically. Do you see the irony? It drives me a little nuts trying to work it out sometimes. Hence why I bring it up here.[/quote]

Yes I understand, it's indeed a contradiction. I think you are right to not uplift the human psyche to great heights. Because we are rather limited. But by becoming more conscious through practicing The Work. We as humans learn to understand Objectivity. Not in it's absolute form, but surely but ever slowly through struggling with ourselves.

I think it helps if you consider the possibility that at least some empirical knowledge/wisdom exists that humans can grasp. And from there get going.

OSIT :)