The time wasn't right...

[Mikha'El]

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.

Brilliantly stated. All of it.

To your first point, yes I agree.

I could be a little sensitive to ways that some people post, so I apologize if that is the case. For example, I really dislike having my posts cherry picked.

You're right about 'civil' and 'nice'. I should not have used the word 'nice'. That was not my intention. All I hope for is civility of tone not content.

Also, I could point out the few posts that I feel are uncivil but that wouldn't accomplish anything.

As to your reading behind the lines, spot on. I won't argue any of that (except maybe the self important part), and I am fully aware of those parts of my personality. They have served me well, in fact, because I have accepted them. I make a special effort to not allow those parts of my personality to affect other people, however.

You misread part of my post, though. I never implied or tried to imply that people don't read between the lines, so to speak. We all do that and it is a powerful tool for growth to allow others to share their perceptions of you. I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, I welcome it.

The issue is tact. You, sir, are very tactful in your approach and you are able to state the things that other want to say in a manner that is fairly inoffensive. I can deal with that and I respect that ability. I hope that I have a fair amount of that ability myself when I choose to apply it.

That was the thrust of that statement, it would be better to not say something if it will be ill received. Especially when pointing out personality foibles. Nothing will dissuade someone from contributing faster than if they feel they are being made the brunt of an attack. Regardless if that is the case or not, it is the individual's perception that is paramount in that type of situation.

Having said that, it is also easier to deal with direct criticism when it comes from a trusted source. I don't really know anyone on this forum at all, and no one can say that they know me. It is irrelevant whose fault that is. So it makes it a bit harder to accept criticism from a) someone you don't know or trust b) couches that criticism in language or a tone that is offensive to the one being criticized.

Thus, since we can't always know what will offend someone, it would be better to either leave it to someone else with better people skills, take the conversation offline or just let it go.

I would always welcome a pm from anyone and you could be as rude or direct as you like. In a public space however, I feel that we should have a higher level of respect for each other.

I don't know about you but my understanding of what we are to be doing to prepare right now is looking to ourselves and fixing what is there. At least that is what I have understood from the readings.

 

[Mikha'El]

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.

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 :)
[/quote]

I'm sorry but you're on the wrong tack.

Having one's beliefs challenged is very important to the Work. I know this and would never argue it.

How one goes about helping others to accomplish growth is a different matter altogether.

I am constantly challenging other people's beliefs, I just choose to do so in a way that takes that person's perspective and personality into account. That, in turn, allows me to challenge my own beliefs in contrast to theirs. It is a mobius.

The worst/greatest thing about our limitations is that we accepted them wholeheartedly. Regardless if we were tricked into it or not, we are the ones who made that choice. The only thing we need to break free of those limitations is to make the choice to do so. The rest will fall into place.

I have to disagree with you that we can grasp any knowledge empirically, though. There are just too many factors to weigh in that cause doubt.

I feel that we can get close and that we need to network in order to accomplish that. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

 

[Alada]

Well, I'm chagrined once again to have my post cherry picked. Why would you disregard the rest of my post to dissect one little portion of it? I'm saddened that my words have so little meaning to you. Do you have nothing to say about the content that I posted?

[...]

I definitely don't expect, or want, everyone to agree with me and/or my beliefs. However, in a forum that contains mostly 'enlightened' people, I have received what I perceiveto be a lot of negativity. Much more than I would have expected. (My perception could most definitely be skewed, however.)

The fact that my ideals and conceptions have not changed over the years, regardless of countless hours of soul searching and introspection, tells me that I am still firm in my reasoning. I have yet to find a significant flaw in the way that I see the reality that we are in.

Well right there in the highlighted statements there are two possibilities, on the one hand the thought that perception and thinking can be skewed, on the other that reasoning is still firm.

The point of asking about ‘Strangers to Ourselves’ is that one of the paths to gaining better understanding of ourselves, our thoughts, our emotions and our machine, is in working with exactly the idea that we do not know ourselves. That as we are we have little or no understanding of exactly what it is that makes us tick.

That you could return after two years, and still find issues with the forum and apparently still be upset by same, seemingly gave you no pause for thought. A reasonable man might stop and think for a minute, begin to question himself as to why it seems to be so that while he thinks the way he thinks, the majority seem to think otherwise. Begin to ask what might be the reasons for that.

It is an important question if one is aiming at discovering what is true.

But I am always open to suggestion and good, honest debate. I welcome the opportunity to better define my perceptions.

Think back through all of Laura’s work, the many hints from the Cs, the references to Gurdjieff, Casteneda, Mouravieff all pointing to the fact that our perceptions are indeed skewed. And there are many, many layers to uncovering where our reading errors are and learning how to account for them. A cornerstone to which is the process of gauging one’s thoughts, feelings and impressions against those of others who are committed to the same aim.

I would ask you, Alada, why it was so important for you to point out my weakness as you perceive it? Why did you take the time out of your day to write a, mostly, negative response to my post? What is it in your makeup that caused you to focus solely on the parts of my post that offend you?

Well it is the same weakness in all of us, myself included. Perhaps it was aimed at getting your attention, if you wished to take the hint. As you have observed yourself, there is wheat and there is chaff.

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?

No, I disagree and most especially because 'if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all' does not help those whose aim is to truly know themselves.

It is your decision as to how you will behave, I have absolutely no control over that. In fact, I would never try to control that. I am not a fascist. I invite any and all discussions. I would just hope that we could move the focus off of me as a person and towards the content of my posts. The Universe knows that I am not perfect. I have many aspects to my personality that could be perceived as negative or harmful. Who doesn't? There are many aspects to my personality that could also be considered enlightened and beneficial. Again, that is pretty much the same as every other person on this planet. If we but take the time to see it.

Perhaps it can help you, to focus on yourself? Learn to account for the reading errors, to navigate the self-defense mechanisms, emotional reactions and other distortions that we all have. Wouldn’t we stand a better chance then of knowing what may or may not be true? In fact, how can the process of reading reality be divorced from learning to read oneself?

To discount good information because we don't like a particular aspect of the deliverer's personality is an exercise in stupidity and bigotry, in my opinion. Even the most 'evil' person can be a vehicle for truth. Just as the most 'good' person can be a vehicle for lies.

Then I think you misunderstand the aim of the post: Learn to account for the reading errors, to navigate the self-defense mechanisms, emotional reactions and other distortions that we all have. Wouldn’t we stand a better chance then of knowing what may or may not be true? In fact, how can the process of reading reality be divorced from learning to read oneself?

In fact, I have learned way more about myself and how I perceive things in my dealings with people that I don't agree with. Dissension breeds discourse which leads to deeper understanding.

Indeed. But always remember that this forum exists for a specific purpose, it’s aim is not in promoting dissension and debate (discussion yes), but in helping those who find some resonance with the work and who wish to better understand it and how to apply it to themselves, with and for the benefit of others.

I have not had the chance to read 'Strangers to Ourselves' yet, but I will add it to my schedule if you feel that it may present me with more information about how this forum truly operates.

It is recommended, as is 'Thinking Fast and Slow’ by Daniel Kahneman.

Together they begin to get to the heart in terms of a modern scientific understanding of what was meant in 'The first initiation’ when it says "You will see that you are different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two." Or don Juan’s statement "In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre, stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators’ mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.”

It seems a bit contradictory, though, that a forum that is supposed to be dedicated to revealing truths has to be deciphered in this manner.

As mentioned above, this forum exists for a specific purpose. There’s nothing hidden or which need deciphering, but there is work and learning how to apply ourselves in the process of gathering knowledge. Sometimes we have to 'pay' with our efforts, and that can involve going through the recommended reading. But many here will attest that the 'price' is well worth paying.

It seems to me that things have gotten too complicated around here. How is a movement supposed to take hold if it can't be described easily and succinctly in a few paragraphs? People have the attention spans of gnats these days. (Please be aware that I have been a member here for many years as well as at SOTT and FOTCM)

Then perhaps this forum is not quite for you, we all have our own paths. Take a look out of the window though and it soon becomes quite apparent that the problems we face are complicated. To understand them requires knowledge, effort, and quite precise definitions if we are to stand any chance of understanding ourselves and the world around us.

Simple explanations can often lead to misunderstandings it seems.

"If we only knew what illusion is, we would then know the opposite: what truth is. This truth would liberate us from slavery" - Mouravieff

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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?

Mikha'el, I think one more aspect of this is that just being uncertain in general makes you very uncomfortable. I can understand that. But it seems to me that this negative feeling (not having much 'solid' to hold on to) is causing your intellect to usurp energy, which results in wiseacring. I know what that's like! ;)

So let me just say this: it's possible to be comfortable with uncertainty. When you realize that your beliefs can be wrong, and that everything you believe may be false, that is shocking. It's a mental 'disintegration' that can be very unpleasant. But that lack of inner stability IS possible to overcome. However, you won't get it by having 'stable' beliefs/facts about the external world.

You have a good intuition about this: no matter what you believe, new evidence may come along that forces you to revise your belief. But that does NOT mean that there is no such thing as truth. In fact, it is the reality of truth and reason that allows you to realize you have to revise your beliefs in the first place. As others have said, we cannot know the absolute truth absolutely, but we can always get closer. For example, take 9/11. Some people believe what is demonstrably a fairy tale about 9/11. Those with more knowledge know that this story is misleading and even flat-out wrong in many ways. But none of us here knows exactly what happened, every individual involved, what all their personal motivations were, etc. We can only approach a truer understanding based on how much data we have. That's why it's healthy and fun to always search for more data - it helps us get closer to the truth.

Falling into solipsism and relativism won't help get you that 'inner stability' either. In fact, you'll be believing a lie on a very fundamental and deep level, and lies are not good for the soul. So where to find that stability? Joe already gave the answer: by developing your own inner, coherent system of values to the point where it directs your life and your action. This is an emotional development, not an intellectual one. And when you have this inner stability, you will not be crippled by uncertainty. But it WILL drive you to seek knowledge consistently and continually. Anyone can go to university and learn a bunch of stuff. But the Work deals with your inner nature, your emotional dynamics.

With that said, you mention your fear of women. I'd suggest that looking at this, networking about it, and working on it would do you a WHOLE lot more good than ruminating on the subjectivity of truth.

 

[Soluna]

Unfortunately I can't articulate with as much clarity as I have read here but I hope I can share a small thought on this subject.

I have been in a similar place - feeling adrift where I couldn't be sure anything was 'real' or what the truth of anything was. A common 'argument' my husband and I would have would be about 'Laws' of science, where I would profess that there is so much more to learn that we could be certain of nothing - and my husband would express his displeasure and disappointment, that it must be a sad world I live in with no certainty in anything.

I feel I am open to much possibility with few expectations, where all that we think we 'know' could be turned on it's head at any opportunity.

However, on the flip side, if I am certain that subjectively I 'know' nothing - then there is always the possibility that objectively, I could 'know' something, and I simply don't realise it.


- I found the analogy earlier in the thread, regarding a car hitting a person and causing damage, interesting. The argument to imply the body 'could' turn to mist, altering the result of the encounter is possible but it is incorporating other factors into the equation 'making' the result change. So, if it were possible, to remove any other factors from the event, and simply have a massive object moving at speed, impacting a soft and fragile object, it would always cause damage, would it not?

I find the act and practise of living in the moment far more grounding and productive than losing myself in headspace - it is sometimes difficult to pull myself back together.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Mikha'el]I have to disagree with you that we can grasp any knowledge empirically, though. There are just too many factors to weigh in that cause doubt.[/quote]

If I stay for 5 min under water I drown. I don't know exactly what happens, I don't know all the details, I also can't tell what happens between layers of possible realities during this event and after. But I can assure you, if I stay for 5 min under water, I will drown. That's enough Empirical knowledge for me to not kill myself when dealing with water.

And so it is for many things in life. We don't know exactly how our World operates. But we can beyond a shadow of a doubt assess that psychopaths rule our World.

I think you are intellectualizing this to such an extent that you should seriously ask yourself why you do this.

I suppose it can be 'comfortable' to drown oneself in subjectivity. If we never can't be sure about anything why take responsibility for the horrible things around us. Or to put it more down to earth. If we can't handle to be criticized very well, let's convince ourselves that it's all subjective anyhow. It's not a unique way to think in this manner. It infected the New-Age movement quite a bit.

You might disagree with all of what I have written. But know that you agreed with the following written by Carl: ''You'll see this if for a moment you grok the fact that people can see us better than we can see ourselves.''

That's what this network is for. So to at least consider the advice what is given is what it means to participate healthy within this Network. :)

 

[3DStudent]

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

Mikha'el, you seem to think a lot about these kinds of things and you have been given good advice. But I wanted to point out the emotional fear that you mentioned. Mostly because I can relate to it. I never really associated with girls/women after childhood and I think what it can represent is being afraid of emotions themselves. And it manifests outwardly as distancing ones self from females. At least that's how it seems for me. I find now that a lot of the most special people in my life are older women. For what it's worth.

A common 'argument' my husband and I would have would be about 'Laws' of science, where I would profess that there is so much more to learn that we could be certain of nothing - and my husband would express his displeasure and disappointment, that it must be a sad world I live in with no certainty in anything.

I feel I am open to much possibility with few expectations, where all that we think we 'know' could be turned on it's head at any opportunity.

Exactly. It's the journey that counts. And we're in the practice of learning. It's a continual refinement of gaining more knowledge. Certainty can be comforting, but uncertainty allows for a more fluid existence, and more creativity.

 

[Alada]

A common 'argument' my husband and I would have would be about 'Laws' of science, where I would profess that there is so much more to learn that we could be certain of nothing - and my husband would express his displeasure and disappointment, that it must be a sad world I live in with no certainty in anything.

I feel I am open to much possibility with few expectations, where all that we think we 'know' could be turned on it's head at any opportunity.

Exactly. It's the journey that counts. And we're in the practice of learning. It's a continual refinement of gaining more knowledge. Certainty can be comforting, but uncertainty allows for a more fluid existence, and more creativity.

I was thinking along similar lines this morning, wondering whether an analogy could be made with a web browser cache. Sometimes when you load or re-load a page (which you know has changed) the web browser will still load the old version from the memory cache. You have to then to stop, manually empty the cache and load the data again to see whats actually there.

Maybe it would be better to empty our cache every morning, or at least have it in ind so that when we meet with new or difficult ideas and situations, we stop and consider whether the cache needs to be emptied, just to be sure. Rather than go the automatic route of "oh yeah, I know that already" which loads the stored data without double checking.

 

[timmyman]

A common 'argument' my husband and I would have would be about 'Laws' of science, where I would profess that there is so much more to learn that we could be certain of nothing - and my husband would express his displeasure and disappointment, that it must be a sad world I live in with no certainty in anything.

I feel I am open to much possibility with few expectations, where all that we think we 'know' could be turned on it's head at any opportunity.

Exactly. It's the journey that counts. And we're in the practice of learning. It's a continual refinement of gaining more knowledge. Certainty can be comforting, but uncertainty allows for a more fluid existence, and more creativity.

I was thinking along similar lines this morning, wondering whether an analogy could be made with a web browser cache. Sometimes when you load or re-load a page (which you know has changed) the web browser will still load the old version from the memory cache. You have to then to stop, manually empty the cache and load the data again to see whats actually there.

Maybe it would be better to empty our cache every morning, or at least have it in ind so that when we meet with new or difficult ideas and situations, we stop and consider whether the cache needs to be emptied, just to be sure. Rather than go the automatic route of "oh yeah, I know that already" which loads the stored data without double checking.

wow nicely said :)