TED Conversations

Kevin Brian Carroll

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

"Perception is Reality"

The first statement - taken completely out of context from its original application, as part of Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics, in reference to energy usage within a closed mechanical system - has been used to argue for the notion that infinite physical existence is not a logical aberration, and the second statement is an irresponsible colloquialism that's been elevated to axiomatic status and is now used to deny the fact of ramification, progressive development, time, and reality itself as being real.

And this is regularly occurring among people whose job it is to translate reality indications for the rest of us.

The implications, as these kinds of blatant errors are propagated throughout all levels of modern culture should be obvious, but it seems as if the insidious effect of these sorts of fundamental level errors are actually blunting the obviousness of these implications as well as promoting additional errors that would normally not be allowed to persist in an intellectual atmosphere that's more responsible and less casual.

If reality itself can't be, or won't be, successfully defended, then what chance do we have as a thinking species? It seems as if, as our advancing technologies debunk our wisdom inaccuracies, we respond by dismissing the notion that accuracy exists at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our traditional truths concerning reality, so we declare reality to be whatever we perceive it to be. And the crowd goes wild with approval.

Reality exists, and it's not malleable per individual perception. Nothing exists that did not first come into existence. Eternal existence is not the same as infinite presence. There is a foundation that allows for the existence of all that exists, and that foundation can be determined. Someone needs to make a stand on behalf of reality, or we're not going to survive as the only intellectual species on this planet. The foolishness has to stop.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 6 2012: I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have, as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'. On the contrary, "Perception is Reality" would suggest that reality does NOT have an inherent value as we only can create the 'is' through perception - a subjective process in which we give things values, in this context.

    For the remaining part I tip my hat to Frans Kellner for his insights, as I too believe that intellectuality only is one aspect of the human (mind).
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2012: And this is exactly the problem that I'm seeing. Convoluted phraseology being presented as intricate wisdom. Your statement "I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have, as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'." appears at first glance to be a profound statement, but upon closer analysis, it really starts to come undone.

      Let's look at it - "I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have,"

      Suggesting inherent value? And in what way is allowing a factually established contextual relationship between two or more existential wholes to be labeled with a identifying term suggesting anything other than what any such term - given to anything at all - suggests? I'm stumped. Maybe if I examine the 2nd half of your assertion I can make sense of what you're suggesting.

      Okay...here goes - "as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'."

      Huh? um....what? I'm completely baffled as to how the 1st half makes sense with the 2nd half of your declaration, and how either (or both) presents anything at all relative to the topic being discussed. It's as if you threw a box of refrigerator word magnets down the stairs and then cobbled together something that sounded profound to you from the pieces that were face-up in the wreckage. I really can't connect the 2nd sentence with either half of the 1st sentence, so I don't know if you agree with "Perception is Reality" or not.

      It's not wisdom if it doesn't make sense, and to be blunt about it, it's not good that this kind of Yodaism is what is passing for philosophy and profound thought these days.
      • Mar 6 2012: It's not meant as wisdom, it's presenting the problem in the way that I perceive it.

        I find it extremely hard to define reality as (so to say) "being" objective, because once we define something we give the word(symbol) an inherent value, meaning that once we say the word we tell others how they should (in their interpretation) perceive whatever we are talking about. At that point, we may not even be talking about the same thing any more, and then who knows what reality really is supposed to be defined as?

        "Suggesting inherent value? And in what way is allowing a factually established contextual relationship between two or more existential wholes to be labeled with a identifying term suggesting anything other than what any such term - given to anything at all - suggests?"
        Yes, words have the value that we give them. So how can you be sure that you are talking about the same thing? You cannot, so that is why I think "Perception is Reality" is a better as a common middle ground. Why? Because then we can truly have an objective middle ground, that our reality is subjectively created, and that there is "something unspoken out there" that we can measure so that we can merge our realities together in the best possible way. And that would in my opinion be a much stronger ground for objective studies as it can acknowledge subjectivity and objectivity at the same time, without confusing one for the other, ie the base problem of "reality is".

        ", so I don't know if you agree with "Perception is Reality" or not."
        Don't worry, I don't know either.

        "It's not wisdom if it doesn't make sense, and to be blunt about it, it's not good that this kind of Yodaism is what is passing for philosophy and profound thought these days."
        If I didn't hold high respect for you I'd go on much harder, but consider this: If it is true that our Universe exists inside of a singularity, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, then tell me, would that still not qualify as wisdom?
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: [meaning that once we say the word we tell others how they should (in their interpretation) perceive whatever we are talking about.]

          Not necessarily. Language is required for detailed communication, and yes an agreed upon glossary is helpful, but terms aside, the defined something is still a true something - regardless of the label. That means that a person's perception cannot change what it is.

          [ I think "Perception is Reality" is a better as a common middle ground. Why? Because then we can truly have an objective middle ground, that our reality is subjectively created, and that there is "something unspoken out there" that we can measure so that we can merge our realities together in the best possible way.]

          You don't have that authority. Sorry. I know that this seems unfair, but reality exists and you are only one aspect of reality. It doesn't belong to you and it's not subject to your interpretation of it. This is what's wrong with neo-philosophy. It's not responsible and it's not even trying to determine the true nature of reality. Go as hard as you wish. It won't reconfigure reality to suit you. You're not holding the cards that you think you're holding in this hand. Believe what you like. It doesn't matter what you believe in this case.
      • Mar 8 2012: Have you never wondered why so few can read your writings? And even fewer actually bother to read your book? And then again even fewer actually understands you? Because they don't share your vision of how the nature of reality is. They don't even share base definitions on all words with you. Heck, most doesn't even know what you are saying, to them you may just as well be speaking French. They don't understand you, Kevin. I do, and I offer you an alternative interpretation of your precious reality that still would keep your sense for objectivity happy, while at the same time, people who think you may be speaking French also can be, within the same definition without having to affect or change anyone else. Until I looked it up in the dictionary, I thought that corporeal was some sort of incorporeality, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when words, and in particular doggerel expressions are used and distort the core message, the essence that you want to speak about. I'm looking you in the eyes, here and now.

        I never claimed to have any authority whatsoever. The only authority that I claim to have is over my own opinion.You don't have to agree with me, because I understand that an unstructured world may be uncomfortable to some in the same way that a structured world is uncomfortable for me. I simply offer something that can unify us both, but if you rather keep insulting me I can't help you to look outside your concrete box. The cards that I hold are not of unquestionable logic and truth, but that of emotion and subjective perception, and yours is out of sync with most other people. That's why no one understands you, and you try to resort to more accurate wording, when in reality (no pun intended), you alienate yourself further from everyone else and reality.

        I don't demand that you from now on have to appreciate abstract concepts, but the very least you can do is to open that bubble, or concrete box of yours, and look me in the eyes when you say something.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: Ha!

          Well, I certainly got your attention.

          Corporeal is a very common word. Doggerel - not so common, but I do know what it means and it's pretty derogatory, but that's okay. I did invite you to be blunt with me. No harm done or perceived.

          We all have our perceptions, but the fact that those perceptions exist demands the existence of a rigid and immutable structure of contextual precedence, and whether you believe it exists or not is not germane to the issue of whether it does exist or not. Your belief is your own creation, and only you can possibly experience it. You can try to share it, but since it is subjective to begin with, any perception translation of that belief will be inherently incomplete or erroneous in some manner. That's the nature of subjectivity. Especially within the realm of communication.

          You make the claim that "no one understands" my writing. That's quite a statement, since you have no idea who it is that has ever tried and succeeded or failed to do so. I wouldn't have ever made such a statement, since I realize that I could never know such a statement to be true about anyone else or about how their written views have been received by others. I do not have a capacity for impossible knowledge, and I wouldn't ever claim such capacity.

          As for your authoritative opinion, this is the TED community, and all opinions are welcome and open to challenge. You're free to express your opinion and so am I. I welcome your challenges here, and see them as an opportunity to vet my own assertions. I have no illusions concerning the original nature of my ideas, but I have published a very concise and - so far - extremely sound logical argument for the veracity of my ideas as a defined and fully developed theory concerning the true nature of physical existence within the reality confine that contains all of us. Over 30 professionals have offered to debunk it, and none have succeeded (by their own admission).

          That might be an important indication.
      • Mar 8 2012: lol, well Swedish is my native tongue, not English, so I used a dictionary in both directions.

        I agree with you, but my reasoning is that there is a significant and more beneficial objective truth to the statement that everyone has their own subjective reality. Then we can agree on the fact that we experience things differently, a highly objective observation. Trying to mash subjective and objective reality together as one is pointless, as it only will create more confusion. Let me give you a concrete example: If it's real to me that subjectivity is important, and it isn't real to you that subjectivity is important we can actually agree to disagree, and from there have a platform to stand on together, we have then successfully created a common reality between us.

        And this bears repeating, the cards that I hold are not of unquestionable logic and truth, but that of emotion and subjective perception. Something told you to go here, and it wasn't logic: "Since then I've been nearly everywhere in search of someone who can successfully debunk the information and conclusions that are contained within that book."

        You bent the universe to your will, didn't you? I hold some of the keys that you have been yearning for. We're not all that different you and I, the best thing we know is when we are proved wrong, because we simply love the sensation of expanding our consciousness even more. You had someone who always seemed to know things that you never could understand, didn't you? Isn't that what took you here, to me, on your journey for wisdom? I'm not genuinely authoritative, I'm just trying to shatter the box you made for yourself out of concrete, because you really did pray for it to happen. Don't ask why, ask how. I can confirm that you're not delusional, you're just a bit tied down at the moment.

        Oh, I almost forgot: Challenge accepted. (But you have to meet me half way though, I'm not good with cold facts and can easily wander of to daydreaming)
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: The human mind is naturally gifted with the capacity for subjective experience, and while this is its brilliance and priceless value to the objective realm, it has to deal with the fact that the rest of reality is not subjective and is incapable of subjectivity. We, as human minds, are exceptional. That said, we are at a crossroad - as Earth-centric Homo Sapien human beings - where our scientific and technological advances have created a true perception/perspective crisis within the societies that embrace those modern scientific and technological advances as being proven and dependable translations of what does and can exist as opposed to doesn't and cannot exist.

          My effort has been to find commonality between what has traditionally been believed and what has come to light in recent times as being obviously true. And I believe that I have found that common ground. That said, it does require a very different and fundamental way of approaching the nature of physical reality and the structure that provides stability and consistency to that reality as a physical manifestation of progressive development.

          Subjectivity - in this case - is acknowledged and even celebrated. However, what I'm working to verify is not the nature or limitations of human subjectivity, but the true nature of objective reality and the impact it has on the human being as a subjective perception author that exists within an otherwise objective reality.

          In the meantime, what I've run into is a lot of negative reactions to my efforts to validate fundamental reality anchors, by those who see my efforts as oppression of human imagination or, even worse, the imprisonment of the human mind; preventing it from taking command of reality and configuring it to serve its own view of what it should be. It's become quite an experience, and even somewhat threatening in isolated instances.

          If you or anyone else is interested in helping me vet this notion, then let me know. It's published and available.
      • Mar 10 2012: You know... I think I can see what you are going for. The problem is however, that there isn't any practical way to differentiate between objective and subjective reality. Subjective reality will always interfere with the objective reality, and the objective reality will always interfere with the subjective reality. And this is what your work is all about, if I'm not mistaken?

        Then let's be rational and see reality as a duality. That's probably the only way that we reality can grasp the true nature of reality. You can't really separate Subjective and Objective in the same fashion that you can't separate Satan from God, they both are dependent on each other and have different views, yet there is only one universe. How can they both fit in to one universe? Religious people have been trying to debunk this for thousands of years in a logical fashion.

        The problem is, now we face a similar duality with Science vs Religion, they both describe the world, but there only is one universe. So how can they both exist at the same time? One has the Thinking Logic, and one has the Intuitive Feeling. Could it perhaps be that they share the same source, that we subjectively only can experience one OR the other the same way that we experience matter as solid OR energy, never both at the same time. we can only determine the speed OR position of an electron, and the list goes on.

        Just maybe, should we try to understand our own limitations before imposing a judgement on how reality is? I think that we have to close our eyes for the Universe to truly try to experience it, because if we don't we only get one half OR the other.

        Humans have a good sense of duality, we somehow feel that it's true that both objective and subjective reality exists, yet we don't feel the need to ask why, because that's how we feel it to be. Once you start applying logic you take the route a OR b, and that is the biggest human limitation of all, and of science as a whole.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2012: Regardless of whether we can establish the full nature of objective reality, what can be established is that reality is objective, and what constitutes the objective nature of reality. That can be accomplished, with the value achieved that what is easily determined to not be real can be qualified as such to prevent such fallacies from being introduced within debate and/or examination in the future.

          Case in point - the claim that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" being introduced within a debate concerning the eternal existence of the human consciousness or of consciousness in general. The issue here is that the statement (in quotation marks) is not being accurately applied to the argument under examination. This is an objective fact, since Newton never made that statement in reference to the physical existence of energy being eternal or primordial, but made it in reference to energy production within the confines of a closed mechanical system (1st Law of Thermodynamics). How its improper application is revealed is the logical implications inherent within the nature of ramification, with all relative emergence requiring impetus and incident. Energy is measurable and has a dynamic effect upon that which is physical and relative, therefore it can't posses an absolute being state (or be infinite, which is what is being suggested). Simply put, the statement's improper application is immediately exposed when a very broad and well established reality anchor is applied as an objective comparison/qualifier.

          This is what objective reality reveals by inference and how it does it. The establishment of objective staples will allow this sort of logical inference to stabilize even the most subjective interpretations of what is and what simply cannot be. Why this is something to be objected to is beyond me.
      • Mar 14 2012: How can we establish that reality is objective? Where is the hair that separates objective from subjective?

        Our minds polarize reality, we view it as X or Y when we in reality cannot separate X from Y. We can't even find the defining and dividing hair that separates death from life! We view them as different, but we still hasn't been able to separate them, so what we have now are practical definitions.

        You are so focused on the objective reality that you don't acknowledge the subjective reality being part of it, despite being different at the same time.

        You are trying to draw a map of a paradox, the only one who get's disoriented is You. People who accept subjective and objective at the same time as equals seems to feel so balanced, they don't have to split themselves in two, they just want To Exist and experience everything that comes their way.

        Don't get it? Then think about this:
        Let's say you are to find the hair that separates Black from White on a gradient color scale. At the ends it's very well polarized and you can easily tell, well, that's black and that's white. After you do that you cut away the pieces that you concluded are more Black or more White. Once you start hitting Grey on both ends you can probably tell one from another, but the further you go towards identifying the hair that splits the two, the harder it becomes to separate Black from White. Eventually you'll probably be slicing molecules just to find that "exact spot" where Black and White are separated. I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm only saying that it's highly impractical to do so. What we can conclude is that we have Objectivity (Black) and then Subjectivity (White) at each ends, but somewhere along the transition it's simply not practical to distinguish one from the other. The most practical thing to do is to call it Grey and let people decide for themselves.

        We don't need to establish anything about objective reality that hasn't already been done.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2012: The basics are what matter, and the basics are definitely determinable. Here's a quick list of reality basics.

          * Time exists and while it can be perceived as malleable, in reality it isn't. Planck's Constant established the consistency of progression, and by direct logical inference the stability of Time.
          * Logic is the yes/no development foundation of reality's necessary structure and consistency.
          * Ramification can't be "unwound", which means that Time's forward progression can't be reversed by anything that exists as physical in nature.
          * Perception (human consciousness) is an isolated experience that can only be entered into by one human mind.
          * Consciousness, in general, is not primordial, but is the result of an epitome level of progressive development within a contextual environment.
          * Truth exists, even if it generally serves as a relative qualifier.

          So, what is the problem with these basics being agreed upon? What's the problem with their vetting as accurate and immutable anchors? If you can prove any of these assertions to be inaccurate, then have at it. And be sure to include links to responsible (peer reviewed) arguments that definitively support your disagreement with what I've listed above.

          None of the above violate anyone's freedom to fully express themselves or act in a way that they want to act. No one is restricted from doing or being anything that they can actually do or be. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Reality only allows a specific latitude when it comes to what can and can't happen. Impossible isn't just a word.
      • Mar 14 2012: - We seem to be able to "unplug" from the linear time somehow. Daydreaming, astral projections and OBEs seems to acknowledge this. But this is highly theoretical and abstract, but shows why I disagree.
        - Logic is illogical. Logic is just a polarized paradox, like black and white. Applying logic to reality is like forcing a square root out of 25, you get both -5 and +5 at the same time, a logic polarization. But how practical is it to impose one over the other?
        - Perception is not an isolated experience, it's not unheard of for people intoxicated by psychedelics to walk in to each others minds. theoretical and abstract again, but I'm just giving you basis of disapproval.
        - How can you conclude that a 500 year old oak doesn't have a consciousness? I'm interested in the reasoning here. Being unable to express itself intelligibly by us is automatically disqualified as explanation.

        I've listed a few problems with it, more people will probably have even more objections. You wouldn't have to be on a goose chase if you instead had worked on an enclosure for it to be in.

        The straight-up problem with your definition of reality is that not everyones reality can be contained within it, and that is a huge flaw in the concept. If you still go about the A/B logic stuff, then you have to make sure that exactly everything in this universe can be fit to either A or B in a practical manner (think of the black/white gradient scale). Most goes fine, but eventually you'll run in to serious issues.

        If I define reality as "Everything and Nothing" I kind of win this game, because my definition can fit all other explanations of reality within it. It's bulletproof. By it, logic is just a byproduct of polarization.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2012: So much of what you've posted here is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

          "it's not unheard of for people intoxicated by psychedelics to walk in to each others minds."

          What does that even mean?

          "How can you conclude that a 500 year old oak doesn't have a consciousness? I'm interested in the reasoning here."

          That's patently ludicrous, since the damn thing hasn't got a brain. Sentience isn't a casual byproduct of longevity. If it was, then rocks would be the most brilliant things on the planet. Then again, maybe you think they are. Hell, I can't understand how this last post of yours could be anything other than a joke, so I'm going to let it alone. If you want to believe that you "won" then whatever makes you happy, y'know?

          As it stands right now, there's no available platform here for continuing this exchange. It's just devolved to the point of there being no basis of communication whatsoever.

          Have a nice spring.
      • Mar 16 2012: I didn't say that it was based on science, it was showing how much we can miss if we see philosophy and more subjective realities as nothing but mumbo-jumbo.

        We know that an intellect requires a proportionally large brain, but have we ever established the exact definition of consciousness? Trees are alive after all, they probably can't understand logarithms, but that's not something that is mandatory to even be considered to be part of an intelligent specie. So where do we draw the line? We have to draw a line in the sand if we want to be logical about it, but most people probably don't give even the slightest care if the world isn't logical.

        I haven't "won", if I am to "win" I have to make you understand my viewpoint. I don't have to make you think different about whatever you call "reality", I just have to show you how I think.


        Just for a brief moment, let's simply assume that fate exists.
        Fate, is a ruthless lover. If you are doing right according to the path that was laid down before you Fate will indeed reward you for following through, but if, or rather when you fail, Fate will ruthlessly and with brutal force smack you down to earth, covered in blood, bruises and broken bones. The harder you work against "Fate", the harder you will be punished as a result. If you run around confused, disoriented that is a clear sign that you are heading the wrong way in life.


        This may seem like a paradox to you, but, mental clarity can only be achieved when the thinking mind is silent. You get inspiration and your "Aha!"-moments when you stop thinking logically. Gazing out over yonder at the landscape from the window of a train can easily induce this state of mind, and as such it's also why inspiration and sudden understanding of a complex problem comes "when least expected" by the norm. This is one of many practical implementations of the way of being that I promote.


        I think, therefore I am not;
        Only when the mind is silent, I am
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2012: By your definition of Fate, Jesus battled against Fate his entire ministry until Fate nailed him to a cross and killed him. Gandhi absolutely worked against his own Fate until finally someone took him off the planet entirely. The soldiers who took the beach at Normandy were certainly violating their pre-determined fate when they stormed the guns and got ripped to shreds in the process. Hell, everyone that's ever accomplished anything in defiance of oppression and withering opposition has been uselessly wasting their lives in pursuit of their own ego-driven delusion concerning what their lives were all about.

          Really?

          Achieving serene mental clarity is not the only reason that the human brain is gifted with sentience. In fact, a lot of crippling delusion can parade as mental clarity, but that's something that only life can teach anyone. I certainly can't make that case in 2000 characters or less.

          Here's a link to an essay that I wrote on the nature of human consciousness. It's online and at 8,000 words (8 pages - check the menu button at the bottom), it makes an argument concerning the physical nature of the human brain's production of dynamic sentience. I'm just starting to populate that site with more substantial material, and maybe this piece will show you that I'm not a true reductionist when it comes to the human being and how it develops during the corporeal stage.

          http://www.takingdownthecurtain.com/#!__essays

          I believe in intuition, but I don't believe that it's primordial or universal. I am very familiar with the basics of your view set, and it's not as if I have never investigated its validity.
      • Mar 16 2012: Wow... Just... Wow. I read through all that unintelligible text just to reach a conclusion that pretty much is the exact same as found in standard western hermitic esoterism? Call it what you will, but somehow you reached the exact same conclusion, that your lives purpose is to create a better You, or an Eternal You. That is synonymous with being a magician...

        It's very hard to read, not only because you use unnecessary words, but also because you constantly keep mixing subjective and objective in an extremely confusing fashion. And then after trying to gather enough attention to sift through it all, I am to buy a book written in the same, or possibly worse language?

        I'm speechless... Because it's so funny that in the book that I have right here "Kabbala, Kliffot och den Goetiska Magin" by Thomas Karlsson of Dragon Rogue ( http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Rouge ) that are using "your conclusion" as an important corner stone to the book, where esoteric practices in general from a bit different perspective is presented and is is chock full with what you would call "Yodaism".

        Your work is far from scientific, so take your pick: red pill or blue pill.
        "You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."


        Oh, the irony.
      • Mar 17 2012: I want to apologize before the thread ends as well for my latest post. You do have some very strong points in your essay, it's just that I think that you are over-complicating things. It's just so much easier to have a more 'spiritual' belief that deals with the same issues in a more simplistic, natural manner. Like the brain-mind split, I can't do anything but to agree, although I may not agree with the reasoning that you used to get there.

        After the thread has closed, go check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JiYLR0tSp4
        I think that's right up your alley, and it should show you, that things doesn't have to be overly complicated, yet still reach the same result. Intellect/Logic is overrated, and I think that is the flaw of your theory in general.

        Don't hesitate to contact me if you still would like to keep up a discussion with me (although at this point I realize that you probably feel like rather having a seizure :)
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2012: The truth is that proving what many of us "feel" to be true is very different, and requires much more work, than simply asserting that what many of us "feel" to be true is - in fact - true. That essay is only 8,000 words, and while it does make assertions, it also states where (specific established theories and research) those assertions came from (assuming that one might have the ambition to go check out those sources if one actually cared enough to do so). In short, it's an essay, not a dissertation. It certainly isn't meant to prove anything, and I state that very clearly throughout the essay itself. I offered it to you as proof that I am not a reductionist, and as nothing more than that.

          You are an obvious psychological predator, and a very fragile person. You need to take a moment to examine your powerful urge to take other people down a peg, and what forces you into action when you run into anyone who seems to have any capacity whatsoever. You were correct in realizing that your previous post was abusive, but you need to realize that you were not able to prevent yourself from typing it out and hitting reply - and for you, that's a much more important issue to examine. Especially if you want to have any shot at achieving your goal of building a healthy, capable human being as your eternal expression.

          I made my points and I'm satisfied with what I've shared in this thread. My goal in life isn't the same as your goal and that's fine with me. We don't agree and I'm satisfied with that. I hope you can be satisfied with that as well.
      • Mar 17 2012: It's not your sources that I accuse, it's your way to write. Often I stopped and thought "Hold on! How did you reach this conclusion?" - that is problematic for me when I read, I don't understand if I can't see the underlying reasoning.

        As in psychopath? Hm, I guess you are right in a sense, I can get lost in the heat of battle. There's a balance between being offensive and weighting that against guilt/consequences for me personally. In this case I did go out very offensive to make sure that you will have a basis to evolve further upon. If people doesn't understand you, then your work is useless to them if they don't get it. That is very important to remember. I clearly see where you are coming from, but I'd say that my motives to that of a predator. I made the decision to let it through. Responsibility - that is one thing that is one trait that I want for my "Eternal Self". (Though if there is an afterlife I assume reincarnation to be a possibility)

        I agree to disagree, it's just that I feel potential in you that is lost without proper communication in and out. I'd say that you need someone (though probably not me) to help you express and explain these ideas, and criticize you along the way to bring out the best in You. for example, logic is not fundamental, "survival of the fittest" is not logic as it didn't require any thought process. That makes your definition of logic different from everyone else, and you need to be able to both understand and explain that to them. That is hard, and is one of the reasons why people simply object and refuse everything else that you have to say.

        I wish you the best of luck, whatever you will do in life.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.