GENIUS FORUMS

1. All truth is subjective.

2. Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

3. Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

5. Imagination is not the opposite of truth, but a means to truth.

Steven,

All truth is subjective.

Is there something non-subjective? If not, can’t I consider it objective from my point of view, since there is no other view available to me? Or is there?

Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

How do you define fact?

Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

Illusion that it may be, but not even comparatively?

What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

What do you mean by ‘lucid dream’, and what do you mean by ‘life’?

Imagination is not the opposite of truth,

Who says that it is?

but (imagination) a means to truth.

You mean a subjective one?

.

Hey Sapius,

Steven: All truth is subjective.

Sapius: Is there something non-subjective? If not, can’t I consider it objective from my point of view, since there is no other view available to me? Or is there?

Are you familiar with the super-ego?

When it has been activated, simply by honest A=A perception, fear of our own thought slowly evaporates.

Our mercurial intelligence begins to kick in.

Steven: Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

Sapius: How do you define fact?

I define a fact as an inert generalization.

Useful for thought, but can ultimately limit perception.

Steven: Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

Sapius: Illusion that it may be, but not even comparatively?

Memory, when belief in time exists, can diffuse the space-time continuum - overlapping the past or the future inside of the present.

When time is viewed as fluid, neither here or there, and not existing, then memory can stand apart as existence.

Steven: What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

Sapius: What do you mean by ‘lucid dream’, and what do you mean by ‘life’?

A lucid dream is a dream which is as vivid as waking life, if not more.

Since both are properties of the mind, and both a component of the brain, what can be said to separate the two?

Steven: Imagination is not the opposite of truth . . .

Sapius: Who says that it is?

Those that do.

but (imagination) a means to truth.

You mean a subjective one?

A subjective one.

What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

Lucid dreams come to an end. Life goes on.

Steven,

Are you familiar with the super-ego?

Is that the same as some call that a Self, that is something beyond a natural-human-ego? Or is it something beyond nature hence considered ‘super’? Ego for me is simply the recognition of the “I” against all other things that is non-I, and not an egotistical belief that I exist independent of nature, neither that “I” in particular has no beginning or end as a consequence of that dependency, so there is something super aboout me, nor that that renders me nothing whatsoever. That according to me is false-ego.

When it has been activated, simply by honest A=A perception, fear of our own thought slowly evaporates.

My natural-ego already does operate through an honest A=A perception, there cannot be any dishonesty in that regard, unless “I” perceive things as A=not A. There must be something wrong with me then. Now how can one find out what is right and what is wrong?

In my opinion, animals too operate through a simple honest A=A perception, super-ego?, so would it be wise, that I leave for the wilderness?

And what fear? Should I fear my own thoughts for some reason?

Our mercurial intelligence begins to kick in.

I take it that has kicked in for you, of course, so what happens next?

I define a fact as an inert generalization.

Useful for thought, but can ultimately limit perception.

As in the general understanding of A=A? Rather than an honest A=A perception? But how can a normal A=A perception be dishonest?

Memory, when belief in time exists, can diffuse the space-time continuum - overlapping the past or the future inside of the present.

When time is viewed as fluid, neither here or there, and not existing, then memory can stand apart as existence.

So in other words, irrelevant of time being viewed as fluid, existence does exist, as memory.

A lucid dream is a dream which is as vivid as waking life, if not more.

Since both are properties of the mind, and both a component of the brain, what can be said to separate the two?

Hmm… definitions perhaps? The fact that you are able to call it a ‘lucid dream’ and the other ‘waking life’, but end of the day if you consider both to be dreams, then why bother? Super-ego could well be a dream as well, irrelevant of it being achieved through an “honest” A=A perception, since that too would necessarily be a component of the brain. No?

By that same logic, that them being properties of the brain and hence cannot be separated or differentiated, what can I separate then? Memory? Super-ego? Natural-ego? False-ego? Fluid time? A=A? A=not A? ad infinitum.

Steven: Imagination is not the opposite of truth . . .

Sapius: Who says that it is?

Steven: Those that do.

So how come it bothers you? Would it matter since All is but a dream?

Stv: but (imagination) a means to truth.

Sap:You mean a subjective one?

Stv: A subjective one.

So where does mercurial intelligence fit in? I guess then, super-ego = non-subjective. Would that be correct?

.

Steven: All truth is subjective.

Sapius: Is there something non-subjective? If not, can’t I consider it objective from my point of view, since there is no other view available to me? Or is there?

Steven: Are you familiar with the super-ego?

When it has been activated, simply by honest A=A perception, fear of our own thought slowly evaporates.

Superego (social conscience) -- in Freudian terms (unless you provide another definition) -- keeps unrestricted/unconscious desire/drives in check, manifesting individual impulses in the form of Freud’s Ego: the socialised (or, as "socialised" as possible) individual.

Making a connection between that and your reply to Sapius on his questioning that all truth is subjective implies that the Superego comes into existence through the law of identity (A=A), which belongs to (when conscious) the faculty of logic and not “perception,” unless you’re an animal who can’t think and especially because you have made the claim that all truth is subjective. What “perception/s” to you assign to subjectivity, exactly?

This part of your reply, Steven, is in direct conflict to Freud’s Superego:

fear of our own thought slowly evaporates.

Since Superego is “the Law” -- social conscience -- that barrier between your unchecked desires/drives and society (subjective or otherwise), the last thing it does is evaporate fear of "your own (are you thinking Ego or Id?) thought." Depending on the mental state of the individual Ego in question, it can keep fear quite alive indeed in direct opposition to unconscious desire/drives.

Making a connection between that and your reply to Sapius on his questioning that all truth is subjective implies that the Superego comes into existence through the law of identity (A=A), which belongs to (when conscious) the faculty of logic and not “perception,” unless you’re an animal who can’t think and especially because you have made the claim that all truth is subjective. What “perception/s” to you assign to subjectivity, exactly?

All perceptions, with the Superego opening up my mind to consciousness of its own logical faculty.

Steven: fear of our own thought slowly evaporates.

Leyla: Since Superego is “the Law” -- social conscience -- that barrier between your unchecked desires/drives and society (subjective or otherwise), the last thing it does is evaporate fear of "your own (are you thinking Ego or Id?) thought." Depending on the mental state of the individual Ego in question, it can keep fear quite alive indeed in direct opposition to unconscious desire/drives.

Since fear is related to the social conscience transmitted unconsciously from the parents, the rising Superego (along with knowledge of Truth), helps to eliminate it.

My natural-ego already does operate through an honest A=A perception, there cannot be any dishonesty in that regard, unless “I” perceive things as A=not A. There must be something wrong with me then. Now how can one find out what is right and what is wrong?

Through intense examination and analysis of your self.

In my opinion, animals too operate through a simple honest A=A perception, super-ego?, so would it be wise, that I leave for the wilderness?

I don't think so.

If you're interested, do some research on the subject.

And what fear? Should I fear my own thoughts for some reason?

No, I was projecting.

Steven: Our mercurial intelligence begins to kick in.

Sapius: I take it that has kicked in for you, of course, so what happens next?

I'm still sorting through it myself.

I'm working on knowledge of my flaws, this new understanding has helped me to think with some more clarity.

Steven: Memory, when belief in time exists, can diffuse the space-time continuum - overlapping the past or the future inside of the present.

Sapius: So in other words, irrelevant of time being viewed as fluid, existence does exist, as memory.

Yeah, in a sense.

Steven: A lucid dream is a dream which is as vivid as waking life, if not more.

Sapius: Hmm… definitions perhaps? The fact that you are able to call it a ‘lucid dream’ and the other ‘waking life’, but end of the day if you consider both to be dreams, then why bother?

If you can consider life a dream, it may open up new possibilities of perception.

Of course, this would take some research and interest.

So how come it bothers you? Would it matter since All is but a dream?

Good point.

So where does mercurial intelligence fit in? I guess then, super-ego = non-subjective. Would that be correct?

There should still be belief in your thoughts.

Steven,

There should still be belief in your thoughts.

You mean belief in a dream? But I don’t need to believe, since I Know it is a dream, albeit a Real one, without any exceptions, including that ‘lucid dream’ you mentioned, and including what others call illusory. And I don’t posses any “super-ego” as such, nor does my Knowing make a “lucid dream’ and “waking life” one and the same Thing.

To quote someone thoughtful:

R. Steven Coyle: I think you are over-complicating the issue.

.

R. Steven Coyle wrote:1. All truth is subjective.

2. Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

Does this mean that one should consider "facts" subjective as well? how does one guage whether tested theories are indeed "factual" especially considering the phenomenon of "facts" of the past being turned on their heads as falsity after time and more knowledge is obtained......

I'm trying to distinguish between the two.......

3. Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

I am not understanding this.... how undetermined? the experience was not real? what of qualia?

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

the depth of consciousness?

5. Imagination is not the opposite of truth, but a means to truth.

and sometimes the author of it.....



Sophia

1. All truth is subjective.

-truth's subjectivity

2. Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

-a fact is a figment of a truism.so all facts are inconclusive.

3. Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

-the frequency of time we relate is our measure of space,and works inversely:apperception,digestion,and gestation are slow.

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

-as a suggestion that each have their content to different means or build-up ?,depends on how you be-live the contrast between them.that the dream overlapse the fragments of life?life is a be-lived dream?!

5. Imagination is not the opposite of truth, but a means to truth.

-when used sufficiently,and as it is stated...,yes

Does this mean that one should consider "facts" subjective as well? how does one guage whether tested theories are indeed "factual" especially considering the phenomenon of "facts" of the past being turned on their heads as falsity after time and more knowledge is obtained......

Facts are. As A=A is.

Subjectivity is another word for "I."

Steven: Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

Sophia: I am not understanding this.... how undetermined? the experience was not real? what of qualia?

It depends on what you define as real.

Every 'thing' in the world is impermanent. All is an illusion as a result. When the mind recieves perception as an illusion, this is defined as emptiness. The mind can begin to communicate with its environment as a result.

The tree is no longer a tree. Your body no longer a body. But an extension of your mind.

Its like when you observe clouds forming shapes. Or the ripple of a concentric circle. There's something there. But the connection to it hasn't been learned yet. Emptiness is an artform. Its the flow of the mind without "thinking."

R. Steven Coyle:
It depends on what you define as real.

Every 'thing' in the world is impermanent. All is an illusion as a result. When the mind recieves perception as an illusion, this is defined as emptiness. The mind can begin to communicate with its environment as a result.

The tree is no longer a tree. Your body no longer a body. But an extension of your mind.

Its like when you observe clouds forming shapes. Or the ripple of a concentric circle. There's something there. But the connection to it hasn't been learned yet. Emptiness is an artform. Its the flow of the mind without "thinking."

Yeah!

A Thing is a Think.
So, Thinking is Thinging...hehe

frank

R:

It depends on what you define as real.

Every 'thing' in the world is impermanent. All is an illusion as a result. When the mind recieves perception as an illusion, this is defined as emptiness. The mind can begin to communicate with its environment as a result.

Here's my take on this.

Every thing in the world is impermanent. All does not thereby result in illusion, but infinity. The mind cannot receive what it perceives as illusion though it may go on to do so after the event. Nothing is empty. The mind is in constant communication with its environs.

The tree is no longer a tree. Your body no longer a body. But an extension of your mind.

The tree is a tree, your body your body, and all in thought. Infinity means eternity. The future is already ours.

Its like when you observe clouds forming shapes. Or the ripple of a concentric circle. There's something there. But the connection to it hasn't been learned yet. Emptiness is an artform. Its the flow of the mind without "thinking."

What is it that we must change with our thoughts?

:D

R. Steven Coyle wrote:4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

Dictionary.com tells us that an axiom is

A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

None of your points strike me as self-evident, and number 4 is not even a statement, it's a question.

Maybe you meant something more like slogan or motto?

R. Steven Coyle wrote:3. Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

Always? If they are really undetermined, same goes for your axiom and becomes meaningless, which is not the same as emptiness by the way!

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

Everybody knows only the first, while only the enlightened knows the second.

5. Imagination is not the opposite of truth, but a means to truth.

Imagination begets reason. Reason begets truth.

Steven,

I would like to know what you think about this difference: the difference between “perception” and “discernment.”

Perception could be considered to be discernment coloured by femininity -- that is, there is an unconscious quality to the relationship of the thing perceived and the perceiver. On a spiritual/psychological level, the active component of perception is mutual association. To postulate a oneness -- an “I am everything” proposition -- through perception is to unify by mutual association -- a flowy kind of interdependence; or, perception. It is discernment and not perception that understands this, and this is why:

Discernment, in its common usage (which is sufficient enough), is the capacity to comprehend that which is obscure; that which could be said to appear as perception, or the component of it that makes it unifying by association rather than discriminating.

It’s the difference between the artist, the talented one, who, say, listens to music and becomes one with it (enraptured) and plays perfectly whatever he has heard and become sympathetic with as if inspired by the Gods themselves and the genius who has the power to discern, to discriminate to the enth degree and, therefore, the skill to create the masterpiece itself.

Steven wrote:

All perceptions, with the Superego opening up my mind to consciousness of its own logical faculty.

I see. Do you mean to imply that the faculty of logic exists only in/as Superego (social conscience)?

Since fear is related to the social conscience transmitted unconsciously from the parents, the rising Superego (along with knowledge of Truth), helps to eliminate it.

Are you saying that fear appears in direct proportion to the degree that Superego is unconsciously (paternally and maternally) transmitted and that Truth brings about what could be called a “healthy” Superego? If so, what would replace the unconscious parental transmission as the source of “social conscience”? Or, would it eliminate Superego altogether?

.
R. Steven Coyle writes:

1. All truth is subjective.

Isn't this really just saying that truth as truth is the affair of humans and humans alone? -- the affair of subjects and subjectivities?

As an affair belonging to humans and humans alone, does this exclude any possibility of any singular truths belonging to them all? - or simply precludes the impossibility of singular[ly satisfying] expression of them?

Further, all linguistic expression relies upon truth to come into being, for truth is the expression of the what-is -- the what-is of even our lies. We cannot open our mouths to utter a single sound without reflection of the what-is somewhere in mind - that's what our words and our choice of them strains to realize. We are more or less eloquent; more or less accurate; with a more or less understanding in obscurity or alacrity; or more or less intentions or awareness toward accuracy or deceit ----- but all of this is measured and created by the what-is, the truth of things, as sensed well or obscurely by the speaking subject.

Truth -- if not a paramount thing -- is most certainly a paramount operative

This is the only sense in which all truth is subjective. Perhaps you are right if you really mean that all truth is only the [linguistic] affair of subjectivities. Truth is a metaphor for the what-is --- across the board for all subjectivities; speech is impossible without it, and as I mentioned, even our lies and lackings. It is a sophisticated step to assuming certain truths to be belonging to us all; it is a simple-minded step to see a difference between everybody's individual experience of the what-is and think that means there's nothing that applies to us all, and then, to everything.

R. Steven Coyle writes:

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

I understand lucid dreaming as that moment of awareness of dreaming whilst one is dreaming. Most everyone has experienced a moment of this flash more or less frequently.

How lucid are you about the dreams of your waking mind?

.

Perception could be considered to be discernment coloured by femininity -- that is, there is an unconscious quality to the relationship of the thing perceived and the perceiver. On a spiritual/psychological level, the active component of perception is mutual association. To postulate a oneness -- an “I am everything” proposition -- through perception is to unify bymutual association -- a flowy kind of interdependence; or, perception.

I agree with it.

This is one of the reasons why I disagree with the notion of androgyny as a negative trait.

Alchemists, believed that in order to acheive true psychological wholeness, one must essentially become a hermaphrodite, pairing all opposites, integrating all polarities.

Discernment, in its common usage (which is sufficient enough), is the capacity to comprehend that which is obscure; that which could be said to appear as perception, or the component of it that makes it unifying by association rather than discriminating.

It’s the difference between the artist, the talented one, who, say, listens to music and becomes one with it (enraptured) and plays perfectly whatever he has heard and become sympathetic with as if inspired by the Gods themselves and the genius who has the power to discern, to discriminate to the enth degree and, therefore, the skill to create the masterpiece itself.

The genius must recognize both aspects of the process that you've (skillfully) described. In order to create the masterpiece, his vocabulary (sympathetic symbosis), must also be intact in order to edit and compose.

Do you mean to imply that the faculty of logic exists only in/as Superego (social conscience)?

I mean to imply it.

While logic may be said to exist prior to Superego development, it is in reaction to parental influence - a precursor on the road to the Superego.

Since fear is related to the social conscience transmitted unconsciously from the parents, the rising Superego (along with knowledge of Truth), helps to eliminate it.

Are you saying that fear appears in direct proportion to the degree that Superego is unconsciously (paternally and maternally) transmitted and that Truth brings about what could be called a “healthy” Superego? If so, what would replace the unconscious parental transmission as the source of “social conscience”? Or, would it eliminate Superego altogether?

Ultimately, consciousness of Truth would become the Superego. Social conscience would no longer be restricted by objective morality. Subjectivity would replace it.

wow,leyla,

I don't know what has struck you,anyhow,you have my compliments.


steven:

Alchemists, believed that in order to acheive true psychological wholeness, one must essentially become a hermaphrodite, pairing all opposites, integrating all polarities.

yes,that's how I do it.
Man implies Woman,I transcend these by the Hermaphrodite,this again implies a Eunuch(sex-less);all these conditions I transcend by a "Neither",it is vague,but conceiving it proves its palpability,and again implies another "Neither".
That is the state where you have passed beyond conception,it cannot be balanced.

Isn't this really just saying that truth as truth is the affair of humans and humans alone? -- the affair of subjects and subjectivities?

Yes,

But the human mind easily becomes separated from its environment, the subject becoming the ego and not the subject.

As an affair belonging to humans and humans alone, does this exclude any possibility of any singular truths belonging to them all? - or simply precludes the impossibility of singular[ly satisfying] expression of them?

I wouldn't be too quick to believe that only humans perceive themselves as subjects.

Human arrogance in general is partly to blame for a lack in the progression of individual subjectivity.

The only singular truth is that knowledge is limitless. We are living in eternity, eternity is living in us, we are as unbound as the light that strikes the eye.

Further, all linguistic expression relies upon truth to come into being, for truth is the expression of the what-is -- the what-is of even our lies. We cannot open our mouths to utter a single sound without reflection of the what-is somewhere in mind - that's what our words and our choice of them strains to realize. We are more or less eloquent; more or less accurate; with a more or less understanding in obscurity or alacrity; or more or less intentions or awareness toward accuracy or deceit ----- but all of this is measured and created by the what-is, the truth of things, as sensed well or obscurely by the speaking subject.

When we can take this linguistic internal motion and move it into our environment, the symbolism of picture and sound unites, and we experience eternity.

This is the only sense in which all truth is subjective. Perhaps you are right if you really mean that all truth is only the [linguistic] affair of subjectivities. Truth is a metaphor for the what-is --- across the board for all subjectivities; speech is impossible without it, and as I mentioned, even our lies and lackings. It is a sophisticated step to assuming certain truths to be belonging to us all; it is a simple-minded step to see a difference between everybody's individual experience of the what-is and think that means there's nothing that applies to us all, and then, to everything.

Well, let me take a sophisticated step.

When sight, sound, feeling, is no longer isolated from symbolic thought (a circle wholeness, a hand our mood, etc.) our mind begins to rely on its subconscious reserve, and greater and greater truths are obtained. To the point where it's possible to form our own symbolic language.

I understand lucid dreaming as that moment of awareness of dreaming whilst one is dreaming. Most everyone has experienced a moment of this flash more or less frequently.
How lucid are you about the dreams of your waking mind?

I no longer consider there to be a difference between the two. We're conditioned from birth to believe that our view of the world is the correct one, that a tree is just a solid form, a flower is just a separate entity. When the mind can be opened without fear, there is really nothing to fear, except the final transition of death, something we experience every night.

Every thing in the world is impermanent. All does not thereby result in illusion, but infinity. The mind cannot receive what it perceives as illusion though it may go on to do so after the event. Nothing is empty. The mind is in constant communication with its environs.

"Infinity" is illusion, and is therefore an illusion.

It depends on your "linguistic feeling-structure" of "empty." Emptiness is receiving information without harsh judgement, but instead with pleasant continuity - which enables the mind to accurately judge.

The tree is a tree, your body your body, and all in thought. Infinity means eternity. The future is already ours.

Slow down to light speed, I would say.

What is it that we must change with our thoughts?

:D

That depends on your own mind.

Always? If they are really undetermined, same goes for your axiom and becomes meaningless, which is not the same as emptiness by the way!

Time is a construct that we place onto eternity. It has no focal point.

Imagination begets reason. Reason begets truth.

Yeah, true.

But more often reason begets itself, and negates imagination in the process.

Steven,

I have problems with your list.

1. All truth is subjective.

If that is true, then your #2 is impossible...

2. Facts should only be used to further subjectivity.

If #1 is true then there can be no "facts". Hence, truth is NOT subjective if you are trying to use it as an axiom because you are attempting to utilize "facts" to further your subjectivity!

3. Time is an illusion - past, present, and future all always undetermined.

Absurd. Past is determined whether we know all its facts or not. Since we have NO other way to perceive but through the progression of time, THIS "axiom" of yours is pure assumption. And, being pure assumption, it does not work very well as an axiom.

4. What is the difference between a lucid dream and life?

First of all this is a question, not an axiom. Second of all it is silly. Who CARES what a "dream" is when you are trying to create axioms?

5. Imagination is not the opposite of truth, but a means to truth.

No, it is not a "means" to truth it is merely a tool. It can be used as a means to truth, but not axiomatically so. You should restate this to say that Imagination should be employed as a means to truth.

I am curious, after reading this list, what you think an axiom IS?

"Infinity" is illusion, and is therefore an illusion.

How?

It depends on your "linguistic feeling-structure" of "empty." Emptiness is receiving information without harsh judgement, but instead with pleasant continuity - which enables the mind to accurately judge.

Yes, and so nothing is really empty.

suergaz: The tree is a tree, your body your body, and all in thought. Infinity means eternity. The future is already ours.

R:Slow down to light speed, I would say.

You're right, our future is already ours.

suergaz:What is it that we must change with our thoughts?

R:That depends on your own mind.

Yes, our own minds.

I don't have problems with your axioms.