On Reality

[Joe]

It is what it is.

Whatever that may be.

What can we possibly know about it?

[Bridge]

We know we can seem to experience it? ;-)

[JFG]

According to some, what we experience is illusion. What say you?

[Bridge]

A lot of it, yep.

I picture the memes feeding on us all. The woman who keeps an attitude
in her pocket is doing so as a defense mechanism. In effect she's
paying the demon of attitude to stand watch because the real her got
scared.

Her ego is plugged into the illusion that she's not safe or that she's
better off giving control over to a persona instead of...her deep
inner voice. I contest that the demon she pays to keep her safe is the
same one causing her to interpret life through fear.

It's surviving by tricking her and feeding off of her attention/focus,
her life.

[JFG]

O.K., some very good stuff here Mike.

I would like to reintroduce my seven-dimensioned model of reality as a
conceptual map. Recall, three dimensions of space, one of time, one
of interior experience, one of interpersonal experience, one of
spiritual experience. By 'interpersonal' here I mean with other human
beings, i.e. those on the same spiritual plane as ourselves. Thus by
the seventh dimension I mean interaction with spirits on other planes,
thus "spiritual height." We normally do not see them, since they are
either on a higher or lower plane, but we and they can and do still
interact.

How this relates to what you said is that that thing that is creating
that illusion in that woman comes from some realm, either the realm of
her own thought, or the spiritual realm of other actual beings. The
practical difference between these two, i.e. either the fifth or the
seventh dimension coloring the sixth for us, is that if it comes from
the realm of our own thought, then it is under our control, if we but
exercise that that control; whereas if it is an unseen spirit, we do
not control that. This is key to understanding ourselves on a
practical level, since our response to those two various sources of
the coloring of perception ought to be different.

If it is our own thought that is coloring our perception, then the way
to fix that --- should we so desire --- is to change or eliminate our
thought. Pure perception would be thoughtless, but normally, speaking
for myself, I witness a landscape littered with my thoughts. When it
is my own thought, I can normally shut it off with a little effort.
But when there are thoughts that arise unbidden, and persist despite
efforts to subdue them, these, I hold, come from other spirits, and
here it is not a matter of changing them or shutting them off, but a
matter of whether to heed them or ignore them; if they are good, I
ought to heed them, and if evil, I ought to ignore them.

Anyway: my original query was not so much directed at this phenomenon
of the "littered landscape," as it was the position, put forth by some
here, that (unless I am misinterpreting them), the realm even of our
pure perception is fundamentally an illusion. I find myself in
disagreement with such a position. If it is an illusion, what is the
source of the illusion, and why should it be that that source would
produce an inaccurate rather than an accurate perception of reality?

[ornamentalmind]

“…(unless I am misinterpreting them), the realm even of our

pure perception is fundamentally an illusion. I find myself in
disagreement with such a position. If it is an illusion, what is the
source of the illusion, and why should it be that that source would

produce an inaccurate rather than an accurate perception of reality?”
– TC

My guess is that the apparent disagreement is based on many things. I
for one, do not share the view that it is an either/or situation nor
that one is ‘right’/accurate and one is ‘wrong’/inaccurate in the
common meaning of the terms.

Your questions are the primary and central issues when it comes to
both epistemology and ontology. Of course, for this topic/group,
theology and on occasion psychology and science are mixed into the
query.

For those who embrace the notion that what is perceived, say through
sight, is ‘an accurate perception of reality’, in one sense this is
the case. It is the case if one accepts how most humans project upon
their senses a fabric and reality of what is perceived. It would be
quite a different world if one only saw the energy and motion of
atomic structures. So, while both exist at the same time, what we
think we see is the former. It has been demonstrated that even our
sense of touch is not what we think it is since we can never actually
touch anything due to the atomic structures and polarity of both
‘touched’ and the one who touches. Yet, we interpret the associated
pressure as touch. Similar situations arise when the senses are fully
analyzed without even having to resort to the shortcomings of our
senses such as color blindness etc.

> produce an inaccurate rather than an accurate perception of reality?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bridge]

This is tough for me because I don't process a seventh dimension. I
look at the seventh as the fifth and the sixth combined on a macro
level.

It seems to me that the Bible reveals humans to have power through
their faith, a fifth/seventh overlap, right?

I would never be afraid of independent spirits because a) I need
nothing from them and b) Christ has empowered us to be free.

It's *all* under our control, from any aspect, IMO.

>
> If it is our own thought that is coloring our perception, then the way
> to fix that --- should we so desire --- is to change or eliminate our
> thought.  Pure perception would be thoughtless,

But shouldn't there still be a stream of consciousness, the stuff of
thoughts.

but normally, speaking
> for myself, I witness a landscape littered with my thoughts.  When it
> is my own thought, I can normally shut it off with a little effort.
> But when there are thoughts that arise unbidden, and persist despite
> efforts to subdue them, these, I hold, come from other spirits,

I would categorize these as...spirits(memetic parasites) embedded
within us. IMO, it seems like their foreign because at the level of
understanding we are at, they are integrated into our sense of self.
Einstein has a great quote having something to do with, "no problem is
ever solved at the level of understanding that created it.."

The thing to do is keep dying like Paul suggested. With each death,
the spirits are flushed out. We have to out-wait them. With every
death we let them know that we are staying and they must go...or
suffer pain from the light that comes with each rebirth.

When I say dying I mean emptying our cup. Saying, "I don't know, but I
hold faith that I will be shown." This openness brings a light that
expands us, burns the dross, and refines us.

and
> here it is not a matter of changing them or shutting them off, but a
> matter of whether to heed them or ignore them; if they are good, I
> ought to heed them, and if evil, I ought to ignore them.
>
> Anyway: my original query was not so much directed at this phenomenon
> of the "littered landscape," as it was the position, put forth by some
> here, that (unless I am misinterpreting them), the realm even of our
> pure perception is fundamentally an illusion.

At a certain point I only worry about practicality. I guess my belief
that I'll never know pure perception is kinda like saying pure
perception is an illusion, right?

 I find myself in
> disagreement with such a position.  If it is an illusion, what is the
> source of the illusion, and why should it be that that source would
> produce an inaccurate rather than an accurate perception of reality?

All I know(meaning believe) is that I have discovered illusion and am
humble to the fact that a greater me inside shall be the cure. I have
faith that if I desire, this higher me will reveal itself and solve
the problem/demon/meme.

[Joe]

The sixth already includes the fifth, so the fifth and sixth combined
is just the sixth, I think.

> It seems to me that the Bible reveals humans to have power through
> their faith, a fifth/seventh overlap, right?
>

There is an important distinction between thought and reality. Mere
thought that does not correspond to reality is called illusion. One
who believes his thoughts are real is said to be deluded, but if there
is a perception of some reality, then it isn't mere thought.

> I would never be afraid of independent spirits because a) I need
> nothing from them and b) Christ has empowered us to be free.
>

They are exceedingly subtle. Yes, Christ has won our freedom for us,
but He also commanded us to pray and watch. I would not say we should
fear them but we should be watchful.

> It's *all* under our control, from any aspect, IMO.
>

Why our control? Are we in charge of everything?

It seems to me God is in control, and we are only parts of His
Creation. Attachment to our own control seems to me to be attachment,
that could work against us.

>
>
> > If it is our own thought that is coloring our perception, then the way
> > to fix that --- should we so desire --- is to change or eliminate our
> > thought.  Pure perception would be thoughtless,
>
> But shouldn't there still be a stream of consciousness, the stuff of
> thoughts.
>

It is a matter of semantics --- where do we draw the line? Are our
thoughts among the things we perceive? If so, then "pure perception
would be thoughtless" is incoherent. But there is a difference
between my perceiving a pipe sitting in front of me and my having
thoughts about the same. What I meant by pure perception was what
Pirsig called "pre-intellectual awareness," by which I would have
*only* the perception, not any thought, not even the thought, "here is
a pipe."

But yeah, normally there is a stream of consciousness, our thoughts.
Some of those thoughts come from ourselves, our own souls working out
how they are going to reach their desires. Some come from elsewhere,
I think, other beings who also have desires. If we have desires in
common with these other beings, then their thoughts should be relevant
to us. If not, then we have to deal with them in other ways. As it
turns out, at any given moment, some of our desires will match up and
some won't. Discernment is knowing which are which.

>  but normally, speaking
>
> > for myself, I witness a landscape littered with my thoughts.  When it
> > is my own thought, I can normally shut it off with a little effort.
> > But when there are thoughts that arise unbidden, and persist despite
> > efforts to subdue them, these, I hold, come from other spirits,
>
> I would categorize these as...spirits(memetic parasites) embedded
> within us. IMO, it seems like their foreign because at the level of
> understanding we are at, they are integrated into our sense of self.
> Einstein has a great quote having something to do with, "no problem is
> ever solved at the level of understanding that created it.."
>
> The thing to do is keep dying like Paul suggested. With each death,
> the spirits are flushed out. We have to out-wait them. With every
> death we let them know that we are staying and they must go...or
> suffer pain from the light that comes with each rebirth.
>
> When I say dying I mean emptying our cup. Saying, "I don't know, but I
> hold faith that I will be shown." This openness brings a light that
> expands us, burns the dross, and refines us.
>

Good stuff.

>  and
>
> > here it is not a matter of changing them or shutting them off, but a
> > matter of whether to heed them or ignore them; if they are good, I
> > ought to heed them, and if evil, I ought to ignore them.
>
> > Anyway: my original query was not so much directed at this phenomenon
> > of the "littered landscape," as it was the position, put forth by some
> > here, that (unless I am misinterpreting them), the realm even of our
> > pure perception is fundamentally an illusion.
>
> At a certain point I only worry about practicality. I guess my belief
> that I'll never know pure perception is kinda like saying pure
> perception is an illusion, right?
>

Or a pipe dream. But perception is what it is. Sure, it is
necessarily colored. We can't get a pure perception for more or less
the same reason we can't get pure water. But we can get closer to it,
in both cases.

It is useful in a practical way to be aware of the coloring, and even
to be aware of the sources of the coloring, I think.

>   I find myself in
>
> > disagreement with such a position.  If it is an illusion, what is the
> > source of the illusion, and why should it be that that source would
> > produce an inaccurate rather than an accurate perception of reality?
>
> All I know(meaning believe) is that I have discovered illusion and am
> humble to the fact that a greater me inside shall be the cure. I have
> faith that if I desire, this higher me will reveal itself and solve
> the problem/demon/meme.

Part of the message of the Christian Gospel is that the solution must
come from without, not within. If the solution were within, we would
all be autonomous entities. God set it up better than that. He set
us up to need each other, and Him.

[ornamentalmind]

“…If the solution were within, we would all be autonomous entities.

God set it up better than that. He set us up to need each other, and

Him….” – Joe

Joe, I see that you have charged another poster with a fallacious
argument. IF you were called upon to do that with your post above,
would it not be all too easy to come up with a long list of
appropriate fallacies too? I had started a list but decided to not be
inflammatory by posting it.

> us up to need each other, and Him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bridge]

I guess. It all starts with a mustard seed in me. I don't see examples
of anyone succeeding with less.

[Joe]

On Nov 2, 5:38 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> “…If the solution were within, we would all be autonomous entities.
> God set it up better than that.  He set us up to need each other, and
> Him….” – Joe
>
> Joe, I see that you have charged another poster with a fallacious
> argument. IF you were called upon to do that with your post above,
> would it not be all too easy to come up with a long list of
> appropriate fallacies too? I had started a list but decided to not be
> inflammatory by posting it.
>

First, not everything I say is supported by arguments, and possibly,
not all of it can be.

But, if you do see me commit a fallacy, or several fallacies, I would
appreciate your pointing them out. I won't take it personally.

It seems sound to me that if God had wanted us to be autonomous and
independent, He would have placed the solution to all our dilemmae
within us, but if He preferred us to be dependent and needful of
interaction, He would have placed the solution outside of us. That
is, if the solution and the seeking of the same is to be conducive to
His general plan.

[Joe]

My point here I think is that I really believe, "all you need is
love," and also, that love is always interpersonal.

[Bridge]

"Love is always interpersonal"?

Is love between you and God interpersonal?

[Joe]

Of course. How could it not be? I am a person, and God is Three
Persons.

Even God, by Himself, as Love, is interpersonal, since in the one God
there is three Persons.

My friend George pointed out the proper verb as "is" rather than "are"
in the last clause of that sentence.

[ornamentalmind]

The belief that all one needs is love misses the point. While love is
an aspect of the clarified psyche and one of the transcendental minds
of enlightenment, it is not the only one. Having said this, when one
is aware of this aspect of the divine, one is in contact with the rest
instantaneously. So, it can appear that love is all one needs.

The notion of the triune is ancient and runs across cultures,
philosophies and theologies. In one case, associating emanationism and
Neoplatonism, Plotinus developed the “…three foundational elements:
the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul. …” Using contemplation, even
using divine approximation (theurgy), one can not only recognize these
elements, one can embody and become them.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy#Neoplatonism

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Bridge]

On Nov 4, 4:02 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The belief that all one needs is love misses the point. While love is
> an aspect of the clarified psyche and one of the transcendental minds
> of enlightenment, it is not the only one. Having said this, when one
> is aware of this aspect of the divine, one is in contact with the rest
> instantaneously. So, it can appear that love is all one needs.
>
> The notion of the triune is ancient and runs across cultures,
> philosophies and theologies. In one case, associating emanationism and
> Neoplatonism, Plotinus developed the “…three foundational elements:
> the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul. …” Using contemplation, even
> using divine approximation (theurgy), one can not only recognize these
> elements, one can embody and become them.

And approaching embodiment the "interpersonal" piece is not so simple.

Two things popping to mind are Jesus saying him and the Father are One

AND

Jesus telling us to be like him.

Could the sensation of separation be the actual mental mode blocking
love?

Love thine neighbor as thyself?

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

“…And approaching embodiment the "interpersonal" piece is not so

simple. Two things popping to mind are Jesus saying him and the Father
are One AND Jesus telling us to be like him. Could the sensation of
separation be the actual mental mode blocking love? Love thine

neighbor as thyself?” – Joe

How is it not ‘so simple’ for you? If anything, I find it quite
simple.

Perhaps you could unpack your theological ruminations about JC and god
for clarity’s sake.

And, the sense of being separate is one ‘block’, albeit not the only
block nor the only one associated with love.

[Bridge]

On Nov 4, 3:50 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> “…And approaching embodiment the "interpersonal" piece is not so
> simple. Two things popping to mind are Jesus saying him and the Father
> are One AND Jesus telling us to be like him. Could the sensation of
> separation be the actual mental mode blocking love? Love thine
> neighbor as thyself?” – Joe
>
> How is it not ‘so simple’ for you? If anything, I find it quite
> simple.
>

Joe said love is always interpersonal but my intuition disagrees. I
was riffing on why.

The "thing" Joe describes as God which I identify as "the Will to
Power" seems like me, to me.

I'm musing on the idea that the actual concept of separation is the
actual creation of separation.

Like, "I'm separate from God because I believe in separation."

> Perhaps you could unpack your theological ruminations about JC and god
> for clarity’s sake.
>

I hate being clear! ;-)

> And, the sense of being separate is one ‘block’, albeit not the only
> block nor the only one associated with love.

What are some of the others?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe]

Actually, my understanding is that God is Love, and I find nothing in
what you have said to dissuade me from that Truth.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

“Actually, my understanding is that God is Love, and I find nothing
in
what you have said to dissuade me from that Truth.” – Joe

1. I agreed that god is love – at least one aspect thereof.
2. I have no intention to dissuade you from whatever truth(s) you find
nor did I express any such intention.
3. Different schools of theology and philosophy do place love at the
top of divine attributes. The ancient Bhakti Yoga is but one and
includes a relationship with god.

[Joe]

On Nov 7, 4:43 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> “Actually, my understanding is that God is Love, and I find nothing
> in

> what you have said to dissuade me from that Truth.” – Joe
>
> 1.      I agreed that god is love – at least one aspect thereof.
> 2.      I have no intention to dissuade you from whatever truth(s) you find
> nor did I express any such intention.
> 3.      Different schools of theology and philosophy do place love at the
> top of divine attributes. The ancient Bhakti Yoga is but one and
> includes a relationship with god.
>

According to Srila Prabhupada, Bhakti is the Supreme Yoga.

I don't think we're going to get any farther in this by arguing, o.m.
I do very much enjoy reading your posts, though.

> ...
>
> read more »

[ornamentalmind]

"I don't think we're going to get any farther in this by arguing,
o.m.

I do very much enjoy reading your posts, though." - Joe

So I can understand how to communicate with you in the future better,
do you see any/all of my 3 points as being argumentative? Do you see
any of them as not being true?

Thanks for the feedback too.

OM

[Joe]

On Nov 7, 7:09 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "I don't think we're going to get any farther in this by arguing,
> o.m.
> I do very much enjoy reading your posts, though." - Joe
>
> So I can understand how to communicate with you in the future better,
> do you see any/all of my 3 points as being argumentative? Do you see
> any of them as not being true?
>

I'll address them individually below.

> Thanks for the feedback too.
>
> OM
>
> On Nov 7, 3:06 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 7, 4:43 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > “Actually, my understanding is that God is Love, and I find nothing
> > > in
> > > what you have said to dissuade me from that Truth.” – Joe
>
> > > 1.      I agreed that god is love – at least one aspect thereof.

I guess I should ask you for clarification of this statement. Do you
mean that God is one aspect of love, or that one aspect of God is
love?

But in either case, you would appear to be saying either that there is
more to love than only God, or that there is more to God than only
love. In the case of the first, I would agree that there is more than
one definition of love; but under a certain definition, what we mean
by love is something very specific, and there is a love that is God.
In the case of the second, I would say that to assert that love is but
one aspect of God is to miss the point of what is meant by saying God
is Love. It means that the essence of God is love, that love
characterizes who God is. Love is not merely one of God's attributes,
but rather, that is Who God Is in Himself, and all the attributes of
God are the attributes of Love.

Thus Wisdom and Power, for example, are attributes of the Love that is
God. Love defines God. To say anything less downplays the
significance of love.

> > > 2.      I have no intention to dissuade you from whatever truth(s) you find
> > > nor did I express any such intention.

You seemed to be disagreeing that Love is Who God Is.

> > > 3.      Different schools of theology and philosophy do place love at the
> > > top of divine attributes. The ancient Bhakti Yoga is but one and
> > > includes a relationship with god.
>
> > According to Srila Prabhupada, Bhakti is the Supreme Yoga.
>
> > I don't think we're going to get any farther in this by arguing, o.m.
> > I do very much enjoy reading your posts, though.
>

You wrote, below, "The belief that all one needs is love misses the
point."

I disagree. I think love is the whole point. And if God is Love, how
could one need more than God?

[ornamentalmind]

…
> > > 1. I agreed that god is love – at least one aspect thereof. – OM

“…I guess I should ask you for clarification of this statement. Do

you mean that God is one aspect of love, or that one aspect of God is

love?...” – J

What I meant when I typed it was the latter. And, when you later say
that “…there is more than one definition of love;…”, I agree here too.

“… but under a certain definition, what we mean by love is something
very specific, and there is a love that is God….” – J

Are you using the royal ‘we’ here or is there some specific group you
are discussing? Either way, I don’t disagree.

“…I would say that to assert that love is but one aspect of God is to

miss the point of what is meant by saying God is Love. It means that
the essence of God is love, that love characterizes who God is. Love
is not merely one of God's attributes, but rather, that is Who God Is
in Himself, and all the attributes of

God are the attributes of Love…” – J

From a particular perspective, I wouldn’t disagree.

“…Thus Wisdom and Power, for example, are attributes of the Love that

is God. Love defines God. To say anything less downplays the

significance of love. ..” – J

While I can see and understand your perspective, as I see it, when one
is aware of any specific ‘mind’ of god, love included, at that moment,
all of god is apprehended. My guess is that this is similar to how you
conflate wisdom, power, love and god. So, in this sense, I see no
downplaying…at least not from my ontological view.

> > > 2. I have no intention to dissuade you from whatever truth(s) you find nor did I express any such intention. – OM

“…You seemed to be disagreeing that Love is Who God Is…” – J

No, as I said, I agree that god is love. And, even if I perceive the
nature of the divine from a different facet, my expressing this vision
in no way is meant to be evangelical. It has to do with the nature of
this group…to have a civil religious, and I won’t even use the term
debate, but will substitute the term discussion.

Taking what you said here a little further, IF one perceives the words
and views of another human being as intending to dissuade one from
their own truths, I can only imagine a very very defended position
arising. In other words, since my goal was to share rather than
proselytize, if I have to explain this every time you see it as being
an intention to change your view, to discuss anything would be just
too laborious to be worth the effort. I ask you to either accept that
I simply have my own clarity and I accept that you have your view too
or let me know otherwise. In fact, I don’t even need to nor wish to
imply that either view is ‘right’! I do hope that you grasp this.


“…You wrote, below, "The belief that all one needs is love misses the

point." I disagree. I think love is the whole point. And if God is

Love, how could one need more than God? “ – J

Yes, I did say that and still feel it is truth at a fairly deep level.
I accept that you disagree. To clarify why I said it, issues in the
world today are way too complex to just sit around and feel love…not
that said feeling has anything wrong with it…to the contrary. My point
is that for many paths, some new age ones, some yogi schools, some
other older ones, including some aspects of the cult of Mary, what has
worked historically does not address the fact that today humans, for
the first time, have the ability to destroy all of life itself. This
situation requires some wisdom beyond what is most commonly called
love. And, given what you said above when you commented that power and
wisdom are parts of love, perhaps we are just talking past each other,
using words and concepts differently.

I’ll take your last question above as being rhetorical.

[Joe]

On Nov 10, 12:58 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Forgive me, I am used to defending my views on A-v-C. It can get
pretty brutal in there.

> “…You wrote, below, "The belief that all one needs is love misses the
> point." I disagree.  I think love is the whole point.  And if God is
> Love, how could one need more than God? “ – J
>
> Yes, I did say that and still feel it is truth at a fairly deep level.
> I accept that you disagree. To clarify why I said it, issues in the
> world today are way too complex to just sit around and feel love…not
> that said feeling has anything wrong with it…to the contrary. My point
> is that for many paths, some new age ones, some yogi schools, some
> other older ones, including some aspects of the cult of Mary, what has
> worked historically does not address the fact that today humans, for
> the first time, have the ability to destroy all of life itself. This
> situation requires some wisdom beyond what is most commonly called
> love. And, given what you said above when you commented that power and
> wisdom are parts of love, perhaps we are just talking past each other,
> using words and concepts differently.
>

Probably. For example, above you seem to be referring to love as a
feeling, but to me, it is far more than that. I believe that real
love means to love, regardless of what one feels. To love implies
love as a verb, rather than a noun, an intentional activity or set of
activities rather than a feeling. From a Buddhist perspective, the
verb love is associated more with Samskara than with Vedana. This has
its parallel also in the view that God, the Creator of all, is Love.
Since volitions are formative tendencies, if God is Love, then God
created the world by willing it. Surely, we can feel love, both in
ourselves and from others, but this feeling is after the fact of love
existing. The important aspect of love is in the will. That is more
of an understanding of why I chose Thelemic Catholic for a handle.

[ornamentalmind]

With your clarification of love being a verb, what you have said makes
a little more sense to me. However, when you then link this with god
dogma, possibilities and suppositions, even including a hypothetical
that ‘god is love’, I will at least comment that I find the divine/god
to not have only one attribute, as important as love may be.
So, as a quick rebuttal, again I find that for us and/or when it comes
to god, love is not all you need.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -