Pages

Sunday, July 19, 2015

[general_theory] Objectivity versus subjectivity

Hey, Errol,

It's Sunday. I just finished livestream from http://www.citychurchfamily.org/ where I also enjoy hearing my oldest  son play keyboard.  The message, one I truly need to hear and heed,  was on justice, mercy and faith, also, on becoming trustworthy, looking out for and being FOR people; Love God Love our neighbors -- asks: how we are  in our relationship with God and how we are in relationship with people.  The latter sounds like the positive sentiment you express/ed in a recent post in this thread encouraging good relations between people (minimizing the judgements and hypocrisy that people and our organizations also have the tendency to express).

 I am somewhat mesmerized by JR3's mantra on love-fear, or how fear grows from love,etc., yet I wonder  where that rather new age imagery can get us?  How does that acknowledge and honor  God?

I say, mesmerized, but more so, I don't quite buy that "I/we are God" mainly because that has not been my experience.  Also, if you consider the cycles and food chains and patterns of metamorphoses within nature, from our perspective, how reasonable is it that we get to our position and assume that the (nesting) pattern stops and that, AFTER we hear the original story,  ~we conclude that we, individually and separately  are the beginning and end?   

For my money, and my soul, that self-centered transposition is simply not true.  Of course, I admit that in 1980 I turned to and did that thing you may have heard about:   accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Yes, I can also acknowledge the apparent irrationality of such an action.  But also, consequently, since then, over the long term  I have seen and experienced changes in my life and behavior that align within the accounts presented by other followers of Christ.   So, irrational or not, from my experience, there is truth in the belief and in the expectation and inclination and the commitment, however weak and vacillating, as in my case, my implementation of it is. 

It is also true, since the two roads do diverge in the woods, that to experiment with the other consciousness study alternative, I'd need to recant and/or make a different decision or set of decisions. And even then, if you can entertain God as yet another ~objective truth,  another level of nested fields within nested fields, then WHAT one individual decides can also be a bit irrelevant. That is, our particular level of organization is important in the nested fields within nested fields, but ours is  not necessarily or certainly yet in control of all reality, particularly from beginning to end.

So the entire matter of faith is a challenging horse of a different color and love, I believe, is a many-splendored thing. 

What I do like about JR3's mantra and please note my own self-centering here, is the analog between his "love begetting fear..." imagery and the observation that I express about repulsion being attraction with one-half spin and vise versa. My observation can be demonstrated empirically and within physical intuition with two rod magnets in short order, and. of course, we all sort of associate love with attraction and fear with repulsion. But does the glib generality about "love" and/or "fear"  hold?

My impression is, again with love as a many-splendored thing, is, that while the glib generality may be indicative and similar to the repulsion being attraction with one-half spin,  as you point  out about fear being a helpful indicator of danger, and happiness and joy being present/magnified when shared, or if you somehow strike a smooth, balanced equilibria on just the right concentration of oxytocin,  there are always other factors and features that impinge in the experience and the assessment.  These multi-dimensional structured~dualities are standard features of life of nested fields within nested fields. 

There may be a connection between this type of sentiment and simply observing that we are essentially ALWAYS running, parsing or balancing multiple (sensory) equations. Part of un/sub/conscious processing is simply  acquiring/maintaining a ~balance.

We may be over-powered by our dominant    visual or auditory or other sensation, for example, but the so-called consciousness is generally always parsing all the ~five+ sensory+ streams plus all relevant associated memorabilia.  True to form in a nested fields within nested fields system,  the given is multi-dimensional -- complex , as is our recognition and processing of and within it.

In the trial theory I am presenting, perhaps just for simplicity sake, I assume and project that ~five+ sensories are all translated and processed in the one single underlying  tactile internal analog language, leading to some ~active balancing response.

Thus, perhaps readers may track on my interests in nested attraction-repulsion, nested hydrogen-bonding, metabolic and enzymatic equilibria, plus the genetic and epigenetic and protein-synthesis/folding structural coding.

Some time or place after an event/observation/reaction, potentially, we may create a partial report of key elements or features of the event/reaction. Is such a verbal re-creation complete or entirely accurate? No. Not really.  It is transformed into word-full, sound-full and perhaps visual symbols WHILE concurrently, if you notice, being forged and structurally coded internally into various useful forms and memorabilia.

Similarly, in a nested fields within nested fields system, is the benefit of considering and adopting common spiritual understandings. 

Best regards,
Ralph Frost

http://frostscientific.com

With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3





---In general_theory@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

I' sorry Joseph,

I feel like I am missing your point.  Yes, love can engender fear of loss.  That makes sense.  Cortisol and Oxytocin modulate each others' effects to a certain extent.

Perhaps you are saying that this fear is not good.  But that can't be right because fear helps us survive; we evolved fear to support survival.  Maybe you are just talking about the fear of losing love.  But even that encourages us to grow our love so we don't lose the object of our affection. 

Maybe I am looking it from a good/bad perspective when that dichotomy is not applicable.  After all, who can  say if something is ultimately good or bad.  From a subjective point of view we make these judgements, but objectively, who can say?


From: "Joseph Rouse joseph.rouse3@... [general_theory]"
To: general_theory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [general_theory] Re: Objectivity versus subjectivity

 
Errol,
 
>Errol wrote: These are uplifting concepts. 

JR3 wrote: Yes, they are. 

>Errol wrote: I wish I could believe them. But the idea of a God who lives to show love to his creation seems to have a basis in our desire to be valued.

JR3 wrote: Your 2 comments, "These are uplifting concepts."vs. "But the idea of a God who lives to show love to his creation seems to have a basis in our desire to be valued." remind me of a little  story about thinking, and how we think. 

Every human thought, and every human action, is based in either love or fear. Your first comment is love, the second is the product of fear.  Your thoughts, and consequently your experiences, produces repeat experience after repeat experience. You become uplifted, and then cynical, one idea following the other.  Always there is the swing from one emotion to the other. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear…This is reflected in your comments.

I have observed myself doing this constantly. I call it going to the dark side. If you are attentive to your thoughts, you can also see the pattern. 
 
And the reason is found in the first lie—the lie which you hold as the truth about God—that God cannot be trusted,  that God’s love cannot be depended upon; that God’s acceptance of you is conditional; that the ultimate outcome is thus in doubt. For if you cannot depend on God’s love to always be there, on whose love can you depend? 
 
… And so it is that in the moment you pledge your highest love, you greet your greatest fear.
 
If you are attentive to your thoughts,  the first thing you worry about after saying “I love you” is whether you’ll hear it back. And if you hear it back, then you begin immediately to worry that the love you have just found, you will lose. And so all action becomes a reaction—defense against loss—even as you seek to defend yourself against the loss of God.

Are you defending yourself against the loss of God, by not trusting God? 

>Errol wrote: Universal love is a wonderful concept and likely a way out of all the human problems we see around us.  But it's not yet practicable in an evolutionary world driven by survival of the fittest. 

JR3: O.K. See? You just did it again. 

>Errol wrote: Humans have to kill to eat;  to survive.  Where is the love in that?  Are the wheat stalk and the grapevine loving in dying for our betterment, or is their desire for life thwarted by our desire for life?

JR3: There was an earlier time when the sheep was an integral part of life on a farm. Consider the possibility that the sheep is quite aware of its role. The sheep exists, has life, because of the farmer. The sheep knows he has value to the farmer and the farmer's family. The sheep has a life with meaning and purpose. The sheep is cared for knowing all the time that its physical life is limited, and that the spirit of the sheep will continue to exist after the death of its physical body. Just like us. 

Hence, (I am switching to the dark side) the industrialization of meat, the production of meat that grants the animal no quality of life is, I believe, nothing short of cruel. And so, for 40 years I have been a vegetarian. Our gluttonous appetite for meat is, I believe, going to come back and hurt us, through the inefficient use of our available natural resources, depleting the soil, and making food prohibitively expensive, etc. This extends to the wheat. The wheat, the sheep, and the grape love us unconditionally. When we recognize that we are a part of nature, a not apart from nature, our own quality of life will continue to be degraded. 

>Errol wrote: In accepting a belief system, we seem to take all the possibilities for good that are in ourselves and put them in God's purview.  It releases us from personal responsibility for meeting all the needs out there. But if we take the opposite view and live for the contribution we can make in alleviating the evil in the world, and meditate on it to effect changes in our brain structure and epigenetic changes in our genome, we are on the way to creating the God that we want to believe in.

JR3: See? You did it again. Love sponsors fear sponsors love sponsors fear...

>Errol wrote: Sensual information is recorded inside our heads.  We use it to guide our actions to achieve outcomes which have proved salutary in the past. We become very proficient at killing to survive.  Now we feel a higher need;  to be valued by our peers.  Things like love and loyalty emerge.  But the baser instincts of the evolutionary world still intrude, and jealousy and greed appear;  'Why am I not appreciated as much as him?'  But we remember what comes of such feelings, and, albeit slowly, we learn.

JR3 wrote: Am I wrong, or did you just speak in polar terms out of fear and then love?   

>Errol wrote: In the end we come to see that what we need most is each other.  No success is a success unless we see others appreciate it and value us for it.  No happiness is available to a single person.  Humanity functions as a unit, just like the trillions of cells in our bodies function as a unit.  With greater cooperation, a nation becomes a functional unit.  With greater cooperation, the world becomes a functional unit.  Until eventually, we hone our cooperation to the point where we lose ourselves, where we have become the perfectly selfless loving God that we desire so greatly.

JR3: Yes. We are God, experiencing. See. You already know that. Now you can experience it if you choose. 

>Errol wrote: Well, just saying, since things have taken a turn toward spirituality.

JR3: its about time.

Joseph


On Friday, July 17, 2015 12:13 PM, "Errol McKenzie errolmacky@... [general_theory]" wrote:


 
These are uplifting concepts.  I wish I could believe them. But the idea of a God who lives to show love to his creation seems to have a basis in our desire to be valued.

Universal love is a wonderful concept and likely a way out of all the human problems we see around us.  But it's not yet practicable in an evolutionary world driven by survival of the fittest.  Humans have to kill to eat;  to survive.  Where is the love in that?  Are the wheat stalk and the grapevine loving in dying for our betterment, or is their desire for life thwarted by our desire for life?

In accepting a belief system, we seem to take all the possibilities for good that are in ourselves and put them in God's purview.  It releases us from personal responsibility for meeting all the needs out there.

But if we take the opposite view and live for the contribution we can make in alleviating the evil in the world, and meditate on it to effect changes in our brain structure and epigenetic changes in our genome, we are on the way to creating the God that we want to believe in.

Sensual information is recorded inside our heads.  We use it to guide our actions to achieve outcomes which have proved salutary in the past. We become very proficient at killing to survive.  Now we feel a higher need;  to be valued by our peers.  Things like love and loyalty emerge.  But the baser instincts of the evolutionary world still intrude, and jealousy and greed appear;  'Why am I not appreciated as much as him?'  But we remember what comes of such feelings, and, albeit slowly, we learn. 

In the end we come to see that what we need most is each other.  No success is a success unless we see others appreciate it and value us for it.  No happiness is available to a single person.  Humanity functions as a unit, just like the trillions of cells in our bodies function as a unit.  With greater cooperation, a nation becomes a functional unit.  With greater cooperation, the world becomes a functional unit.  Until eventually, we hone our cooperation to the point where we lose ourselves, where we have become the perfectly selfless loving God that we desire so greatly.

Well, just saying, since things have taken a turn toward spirituality.

From: "Joseph Rouse joseph.rouse3@... [general_theory]"
To: general_theory@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [general_theory] Re: Objectivity versus subjectivity

 
Thank-you for those words Keith. Here are others below. So, when we evaluate comments by Verna and the participants to this exchange, we can use the following criteria. So, for example, when Verna says, "Still struggling to articulate my thoughts ...."  it is obvious that she is not feeling clarity. Do any of these posts on this thread about "objectivity" feel clear, or joyful, or loving, or true ?

The difficulty is knowing the difference between messages from God and data from other sources. Discrimination is a simple matter with the application of a basic rule:
 
Mine is always your Highest Thought, your Clearest Word, your Grandest Feeling. Anything less is from another source.
 
Now the task of differentiation becomes easy, for it should not be difficult even for the beginning student to identify the Highest, the Clearest, and the Grandest.
 
Yet will I give you these guidelines:
 
The Highest Thought is always that thought which contains joy. The Clearest Words are those words which contain truth. The Grandest Feeling is that feeling which you call love.
 
Joy, truth, love.
 
These three are interchangeable, and one always leads to the other. It matters not in which order they are placed.

Truth can be neither proven nor disproven. It just is.

Joseph : )


On Friday, July 17, 2015 2:58 AM, "tillco@... [general_theory]" wrote:


 
Hi all, about objectivity.
 
Here then some new age philosophy from a random book from my shelves
that exposed itself in this mornings' bath. 
from Keith B.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraphrased from p71   From Creative Love. Author: Ashton Wylie    .
 
Truth may be defined as the essence of God or Being that pervades the universe.
Real truth is a state of being not properly describable with words or appreciable by the mind able to be connected with by our daemon (spirit).
 
This (love) essence pervades the Universe and truth is the recognition of the effect of this essence in all of life (creation). Connecting with truth is connecting with this love essence and when that happens Joy explodes into the being. So Joy truth and love are invisibly connected , each just being an aspect of each other.
 
Consider a sphere whereat the core is the source –pure love essence and at the surface we see people plants and matter that we can see and observe. What is at the surface is this essence turned into material but retaining the essence from whence it came.
So anything in nature we should appreciate it as an expression of truth joy and love.
 
Words can help direct a person towards the truth but cannot replicate it. The truth has a oneness about it , so that all things that are of truth are totally integrated and connected. The truth is an integral part of the Source of the essence.
 
Stating here that the experience of truth joy and love is what we are here for, to accomplish so that we can become co creators in harmony with the universe.
The creative love is always there willing to help us individually or collectively , but at the same time respecting our choice as to which experience we wish to manifest. We have the choice on what our state of being is and whether we choose to live in harmony with the universe or become one with the universe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------




No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a comment