When I was younger, as a teenager I would get in lengthy and emotionally draining debates over ideas where I couldn't understand how the other person could not see things the way I did. It would infuriate me that people could be so closed minded and stuck in their belief system. Why? Was I doing this to help make them a better person, or for my own ego? It was not a concious "I'm right and you're wrong", I simply couldn't take someone discrediting my perspective. Even though my 'beliefs' and theories are always changing and evolving, I hold them very close to my heart. In my mind, if I can't successfully back them up and convince another person it is valid, what good is it? I think we all know it's pretty much impossible to forcefully change somebody's view on something, if anything you're approach will shut them down to new ideas. Over the years I 'learned', for lack of a better word, to keep my mouth shut and let people believe whatever they believe, even if I know in my heart there is information out there to make them see things differently. Now I rarely express my ideas or theories with people and even if they ask I am reluctant. It's now nearly impossible for me to talk about something so close to my heart for risk of being mocked or discredited. Now I will not debate someones idea still for my own ego but in the opposite way.
I don't know if this makes any sense. I guess as an example I'll use flouride. There is plenty of information available to show that flouride is a poison, causes all sorts of auto-immune illness, used in rat poison, a flouride compound is used in the zombi-fying drug Prozac, and calcifies the pineal gland (third eye) more aggressively than ANY other area in the human body. This, to me, is fact. It's available for anyone to know if they choose to look. But still you have mothers insisting on buying those childsize Dannon Water w/Flouride because it it's 'good for their children's teeth'. Things like this make my stomach turn. But is that because I am concerned for her child, or because I am angry she doesn't understand what she is doing (my ego)? I truely don't like that I am like this, I'm just being honest about what I see in my own motivations.
I guess I'm wondering is it better to let people harbor ideas that can be spiritually de-evolving because it's their journey, or is it one's 'duty' to risk ridicule and try to offer a different perspective to people? Even if showing someone the 'truth' is not for them, but for my ego? Is it ok to do the right thing for the wrong reason?
Just rambling because I felt like it...
Best Regards
Teh Bear
It can be tuff to watch other people unknowingly suffer from their own foolishness. My grandfather has been a pharmacist for over 40 years and the same people keep coming back week after week for medication. After 40 years of taking 10 medications a day they are getting sicker and sicker, not better, yet they take the medications anyways because their doctors tell them to.
Quote from: Smokeytehbear on January 03, 2010, 19:56:33
I guess I'm wondering is it better to let people harbor ideas that can be spiritually de-evolving because it's their journey, or is it one's 'duty' to risk ridicule and try to offer a different perspective to people? Even if showing someone the 'truth' is not for them, but for my ego? Is it ok to do the right thing for the wrong reason?
You can try all you want to help others but most of the time it won't work. I tried helping someone and he said he didn't want my help because his religion didn't allow him to believe in what I was doing... :lol: I Believe that everyone will find their own truth in their own time, they will understand when they are ready to understand.
QuoteI guess I'm wondering is it better to let people harbor ideas that can be spiritually de-evolving because it's their journey, or is it one's 'duty' to risk ridicule and try to offer a different perspective to people? Even if showing someone the 'truth' is not for them, but for my ego? Is it ok to do the right thing for the wrong reason?
Yeah, I agree with KurtyKurt. My sister takes her family to a church that I think is materialistic and probably does more harm for society than good. I was telling my friend about it and he said to tell her what's up and that they should get out of there, andt it's one of those things where I'd like to, but don't want to harm my relationship or overstep family boundaries. If that's what they want to do, who am I to tell them otherwise? My sister knows me as a person and what I reflect into the world, and hopefully that has some spiritual influence in itself. How you act and carry yourself as a person probably has more influence than preaching.
If I may interject rather briefly, I believe people will believe what they want to believe, because people only know what they've been told (and on a further note people only listen to people they relate to). I personally believe that some people - not all - will be difficult to communicate effectively on certain ideas because the ideas that you're discussing may be firmly grounded in their perspective and ergo - who they believe they are. So by offering an alternative perspective, they may interpret it as an attempt to invalidate who they are. It really depends on each individual and what it is you're trying to say. If the individual you're addressing is completely unwilling to debate the argument rationally by - for example - insisting on the production of evidence relating to the matter, then there's not much you can do except allow them the right to exercise their freedom in understanding whatever it is in their own way.
For me, If I feel that If my perspective is impinged upon by another persons point of view and I feel some sort of resentment - I believe it is because I think there may be a chance that I'm wrong in what I know, and therefore wrong in my actions and wrong in who I am. The reason being because they might know something I don't, or have seen something I'm not seeing. They have a different perspective of the world from mine, and although I trust in my senses and my ability to interpret the world around me - there's still a possibility I could be wrong, no matter how small I might like to believe that chance is. So from there, we can see that it comes down to right and wrong. Because we come from two different perspectives - we'll do whatever we do because we believe it is 'right' from our perspective. We can't accommodate anybody else completely because we're not anybody else - we are who we are. And there's nothing wrong with that. Not on the finite perspective we share as is.
When two perspectives clash - usually someone has to be seen as right and someone else has to be seen as wrong. If I told you the world was flat today you'd laugh at me - If I said it way back in the day (which was a Tuesday, I believe), they'd have nodded and gone about their business as If to say "yeah, and?". Because at the time the evidence to prove otherwise wasn't available and the evidence to support the theory of a flat world was. In the case of verifiable evidence - the evidence will illuminate us as to what our environment holds. But when the evidence is interpreted through multiple perspectives detached from our own through a filter restricted by the rules of time and space - things might get difficult. Especially when you begin to entertain the possibilities inherent within the weird and wonderful world of the metaphysical.
So from this brief rant, I can see that what I perceive as truth - is relative. What I perceive as right and wrong - is relative. So on a much larger scale - My interpretations may be considered moot. But to me, on an individual level - I am right. To someone else I may be wrong. On a larger scale? Perhaps I simply am. Thank you for your consideration.
Quote from: Herewini1985 on March 07, 2010, 03:57:58
So from this brief rant, I can see that what I perceive as truth - is relative. What I perceive as right and wrong - is relative. So on a much larger scale - My interpretations may be considered moot. But to me, on an individual level - I am right. To someone else I may be wrong. On a larger scale? Perhaps I simply am. Thank you for your consideration.
I try not to think about things as either right or wrong. People get carried away arguing back and forth, when the only thing that matters in the end is the truth. You may believe that we all perceive the truth differently but somethings are true no matter how you look at them.
Dear folks,
is it really so suprising, considering humanity, at large is in a quickening state of devolution.
Naturally, in a system based on mutual exploitation which we have here and with which most humans agree, corruption at large is the norm and most systems including the medical systems are not even designed to help anybody.
peace
Quote from: kurtykurt42 on March 07, 2010, 05:03:04
I try not to think about things as either right or wrong. People get carried away arguing back and forth, when the only thing that matters in the end is the truth. You may believe that we all perceive the truth differently but somethings are true no matter how you look at them.
I don't believe that one persons perception of truth is vaild and another persons perspective is invalid in a larger sense (which is what we're talking about here considering we share the same space, a level of absolute truth). That would mean that - on a larger more congruent scale - there are flaws. I personally don't believe there are flaws on a larger scale. I believe everything is as it is. Everyones personal truth is right - to them. But on a larger scale, everything simply
is, perfect in its chaotic symphony. The only reason we even perceive right and wrong is because we're disconnected from the whole, but in retrospect - considering the lack of information available to us concerning the bigger picture - who's to say it's right or wrong? We only know what we see in front of us, and what we see in front of us is subject to a constant state of flux - invalidating any solid perceptions regarding the 'bigger picture' and its validity.
Quote from: kurtykurt42 on March 07, 2010, 05:03:04
I can see that what I perceive as truth - is relative. What I perceive as right and wrong - is relative. So on a much larger scale - My interpretations may be considered moot. But to me, on an individual level - I am right. To someone else I may be wrong. On a larger scale? Perhaps I simply am.
This previous statement illustrates both relative truth
and absolute truth.
You simply cannot show annother person the truth, you can only inspire them to a different way.
I dont talk to annyone about my spiritual evolution since i dont have annyone near that could understand it.
I think that when you can offer a different path to people. a path that you think is good. then you should share your ideas for everyones best. i belive that it is our duty to share the knowledge that we posses.
Peace!
truth is subjective at best
Quote from: personalreality on April 12, 2010, 19:56:19
truth is subjective at best
I'll bite. ;)
*sets an apple down infront of PR*
*points to the apple*
PR, that's an apple.
Subjective or Objective? :)
Seems pretty objective to me. :evil:
Quote from: Xanth on April 12, 2010, 22:33:36
I'll bite. ;)
*sets an apple down infront of PR*
*points to the apple*
PR, that's an apple.
Subjective or Objective? :)
Seems pretty objective to me. :evil:
Nope, still subjective. :)
Maybe a better one is "What's 1 + 1?" It's 2, right, "objectively"? ;) Nope, it's still subjective. There were huge debates about this at the beginning of the 1900s, and Kurt Godel pretty much destroyed all the debating when he produced his famous theorem around 1930 and proved conclusively that it is possible to construct "contradictory" or "meaningless" theorems using calculus (and using it properly, too). Moral of the story is that the external world is a completely baffling mystery and we humans just try to overlay as much sense as we can make onto it, always subjectively, and if there is no subject then there can never be any object. Including an apple. It simply would not exist without an observer. If you want to prove me wrong, annihilate all observers in the universe and get back to me. :)
Gandhi said be the change you want to see in the world.
Yes, you should not be afraid to tell people what you really think, but might as well be loving about it too. It's my choice to tell you this now.
As co-creators we are all making this up as we go along. Truths are personal but you can radiate them outwards and those who sympathize with them will find a friend, and the more of us that band together in love and for love, the more powerful OUR reality that WE create.
People everyday are wrapped up in all kinds of turmoil that shouldn't concern them, so that they are bonded, myself included. I would very much like to know about it and be reminded of it every time I forget. If others were more in touch with their true selves I can't help but think they would like to be reminded as well.
This thread only goes to show whose heart is empty. Those can definatly see no truth for their souls are hollow on the inside.
These empty, soulless ones can never experience the subtle vibration of truth that the spiritual children can recognize and vibrate with.
I hope they will never be able to fool those whose hearts are still faithful.
This spiritual degredation is painful to witness.
But soon the day will come when there will be no more way for this kind of falsehood to exist.
kind regards,
Paul
Quote from: no_leaf_clover on April 13, 2010, 12:39:24
Nope, still subjective. :)
Maybe a better one is "What's 1 + 1?" It's 2, right, "objectively"? ;) Nope, it's still subjective. There were huge debates about this at the beginning of the 1900s, and Kurt Godel pretty much destroyed all the debating when he produced his famous theorem around 1930 and proved conclusively that it is possible to construct "contradictory" or "meaningless" theorems using calculus (and using it properly, too). Moral of the story is that the external world is a completely baffling mystery and we humans just try to overlay as much sense as we can make onto it, always subjectively, and if there is no subject then there can never be any object. Including an apple. It simply would not exist without an observer. If you want to prove me wrong, annihilate all observers in the universe and get back to me. :)
Gandhi said be the change you want to see in the world.
Yes, you should not be afraid to tell people what you really think, but might as well be loving about it too. It's my choice to tell you this now.
As co-creators we are all making this up as we go along. Truths are personal but you can radiate them outwards and those who sympathize with them will find a friend, and the more of us that band together in love and for love, the more powerful OUR reality that WE create.
People everyday are wrapped up in all kinds of turmoil that shouldn't concern them, so that they are bonded, myself included. I would very much like to know about it and be reminded of it every time I forget. If others were more in touch with their true selves I can't help but think they would like to be reminded as well.
Sorry, but I don't buy it one bit. :)
After all that conjecture, the truth remains that the apple I put down infront of PR is still an apple.
Trying to see any deeper than that is some kind of desire to see further than the truth... which can't exist.
EDIT: I will, however, read up a bit on that chap. :)
how do you know the apple is there?
you saw it, you touched it, you're seeing it.
if you turned around, your back to the apple, how do you know it exists at all still?
you have a memory of it, of touching it, seeing it, 'not tasting it' :lol:.
the only part of that apple that remains is your experience of it, the solidity of the apple is fleeting.
The only way you can ever know the truth of an apple is through your experience of it.
what objectivity assumes is that i am having the same experience of the apple as you are.
You know that I'm not, intuitively. It is a literal impossibility for me to experience that apple as you do.
The experience of consciousness is truly infinite, there is infinite creative potential.
Why exist if we're going to experience the same existence, even for something as minute as an apple?
That's a waste of energy. Reality doesn't waste energy, all energy is recycled and reused.
We are having unique experiences. When I turn away I too only have my memory of my experience with the apple.
We could then go deeper into subjectivity from here but it's not necessary now.
What's necessary is to recognize that you can't prove that the apple exists independent of your or my experience of it, other than in our minds, which in my opinion is in the astral.
Quote from: Xanth on April 12, 2010, 22:33:36
I'll bite. ;)
*sets an apple down infront of PR*
*points to the apple*
PR, that's an apple.
Subjective or Objective? :)
Seems pretty objective to me. :evil:
smart butt
Would it matter if the truth is subjective or objective?
there is no use in observing the truth since it does not exist for the observer.
the truth is your essence and its your potential to shape it.
there is no doubts about the real truth or maby the real truth is the one you doubt must about but still inside you know for sure that it is the real truth.
peace
I agree with Kurt aswell. Everyone has different believes and everyone are sure that their belief is the right one, which can't be true. And that everyone is wrong doesn't sound right either. So I think everyone has a belief that is right for them. Your feeling that someone else's beliefs are wrong is the same as their feelings about your belief being wrong :)