Seth Ananda

Well, since you mentioned Kashmir Shaivism earlier, ParamaShiva is called the supreme subjectivity, while everything else is hmm, just subjective? Infact the subjective and intersubjective perception is inherently relational in nature, yet does not blur into homogenization as it is utterly diverse. Mystical experiences, regardless of whether it describes an accurate map of the universe {everything floating in one big superconsciousness for instance} is more easily achieved and integrated, as the ego softens and gains more flexibility I don't really see that way. The experience mystics describe is still subjective. As is any foundational consciousness. One might argue that a 'supreme consciousness' could be objective if it literally was everything, and was experiencing everything from every possible point of view, but to me that still seems subjective No one has ever been emerged in objective experience, and no, believing in objectivity causes only pain, separation from our inner beings, distance from nature and environmental destruction. It does not have a single redeeming or positive feature.

It takes decades... That depends on how long it takes for people to gain 'understanding' of the word.

We will probably agree to see things differently then. I get your meaning, but to me as I already stated, 'experiencing' is just as subjective as thinking. Really, how do you know? I still contend that there 'may' be some kind of objective foundation underneath our shared experiences, but I cant 'know' that, because nothing sentient or aware has ever experienced it in any manner. Sure. It matters to us and our world here. Believing that one is truly objective, and thus truly right {in relationship to everyone elses wrong} is a basic prerequisite for a sociopathic mind. They are often quite certain that they are the only ones who 'see' clearly. In an emotionless non relational manner. I agree. In fact I believe that what really causes us to inflate our value and self worth so extraordinarily above everything else, is this persistent mind virus called 'objectivity' or supreme truth. Having that 'truth' makes us feel above everything, and moves us out of interconnected relationship with nature, or the 'whole'...

Awesome response Id never argue against useful! I agree, but I see the act of seeing itself as already being entirely subjective. To then add a judgement would be just another layer of subjectivity. My argument is that 'intersubjective' is a better more accurate understanding, that allows for the same practical useful side that one gets from thinking they are seeing the 'real' world, but it also exclude all the extra baggage and massive negatives that come from believing in 'objectivity'... As there is nothing to support it, I think we need to scrap the term 'objective' entirely, and let it go the way of the flat earth theories. {to dingy back corners of the internet}

Hehe, I have ski'd into a tree, and fallen out of a few... I think its entirely intersubjective. Interaction is happening, but anything I could say about it is all coming through my own sensory capabilities, my own interpretive mechanisms, and is entirely subjective. I said earlier on, there could be an objective reality underneath our experience, but not one that can ever be known, as our very experience is subjective in nature.

break it down for me, what is the objective part of the overall experience? Is my experience of walking into a tree Objective? Thats all I can talk about. Is someone elses experience of walking into a tree exactly the same as my experience?

Another consideration I have however is whether the desire for 'Truth' above all else, is actually part of a sick and twisted worldview? Say its a pathological side effect of being told (the Lie) that there is an Objective final capital T Truth out there? Its a meme infection or virus within the mind that causes us to abstract further and further away from reality, causes us to become less and less relational, with each other and nature? So many of the worlds famous philosophers and thinkers were hard nosed assholes. Impatient with their wives, mean to their kids, impatient with the ramblings of lesser minds, willing to ignore their families and the world in favour of the supremely important quest for Truth! They basically betrayed their family and friends and world, to live a dry intellectual life for an Idea. Objectivity. An Idea that can not be seen, touched, experienced, or proven in any way! Say we are here to relate and be relational, not to discover 'Truth'? What if living relationally is actually Living the 'Truth'?

Yes, thats called good science. Accepting the sub/intersubjective nature of existence doesn't mean science and logic fly out the window. Nor does existence descend into solipsism. We have shared experience, a multi perceived universe to learn about and enjoy. There can still be correct data and incorrect conclusions within any data measurement system, except the 'correct' data looses its hard edge of Absolute Authority, and is understood to be our best set of conclusions with current tools and models we have available. This is incorrect. Subjectivity is actually more relational and less preachy as it embraces and allows for bridges of understanding between diverse perspectives. No one needs the illusion of 'objectivity' to communicate. What I am describing is in no way a decent into subjective whimsy, as it includes the intersubjective. There are still subjective truths within their appropriate frameworks. Objectivity itself however is actually untrue and bullshit.

Everything is subjective. Its really easy to see when you look. Point to anything you think is not subjective, and ask what frameworks were used to arrive at an 'objective' conclusion? Right there is your answer. There is not a single thing in existence that can be shown to be objective. Maths, perception, 'Knowing', experience, philosophy, sensing, abstract thought, computer calculations ect... Any conclusions arrived via any method are subject to the measurement system used. No. Objective can not be found anywhere, especially not here or there Intersubjective is all our shared experienced phenomena. All the things that can be fairly well understood within a collective but still subjective framework. Yes. nothing wrong with an enquiring mind though. Science has done wonderful things for us, and will stop doing much of the nasty stuff it does, when it free's itself from the shackles of believing in 'Objectivity' which is just as irrational as believing in a One True God.

Subjectivity is wonderful. Objectivity concerns nothing, anywhere, ever. Intersubjective concerns physical, commonly accepted reality. They dont need to be 'proved' to be real. There is no objective ultimate truth. But with our current measurement tools and systems, the certainly 'seem' to be real... From an old holy book full of words. Ironic huh?

Intersubjective, and based on our current measurement systems. Yes.

Its a popular thing to say, and it certainly seems that way with transmission/channeling types of healing. What happens though if you sense a 'dart' or some kind of energetic intrusion in someone, then pull it out, and they get better? It kind of was you in that situation. Nice. I can relate to that. Headaches and migranes were the hardest for me too not pick up at first, as I got them regularly at that time.

Belief in objectivity hardens people. They become obsessed with 'facts' in a rather sad way. A 'conversation' with them is a legal battle, and they justify their hard headed bluntness with a sense of righteousness over being 'Truth' seekers. These people also become more and more out of touch with their own subjective world of emotions, relationships, and blissful body sensations. The richness of life gets steam trained over as they rush to their next battle to prove their intellectual superiority, to demonstrate their mastery and ownership of 'Truth' or to come that bit closer to it. Maybe I should just say, when I have the Truth, I am justified in everything that I do.

Of course it is! I am saying there is literally no possibility of objectivity, at least of a kind that can be experienced, perceived, known, interacted with, measured, recorded ect... All scientific results are subjective, as they are subject to the tool and measurement systems used to measure them. No one anywhere has ever had the slightest experience of objectivity. Subjective/'Objective' is an utterly false duality which has lurked within our thinking for far too long, and something I suspect may be rooted in Judeo/christian thought. This Idea of 'One True God' which has so damaged our world, is reinterpreted with scientism, the new priestcraft, into the belief in 'Objectivity' or one sole 'Truth' and continues to damage the world. Scientists feeling superior with and justified by their, part holding and part pursuit 'The One Truth' continue to do hideous, un-relational things. 'Objectivity' is a disgusting poison within the mind. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity on the other hand, are relational in nature and accept the diversity of existence. Also naturally they are not anti science, nor do they result in woo woo science. Science is a wonderful tool to explore our intersubjective world, and empirical data is totally useful, not for 'objective proof' or the one supreme truth, but for 'the best understandings we have found, with the tools we have available at this time'

I like to add another view of the subject. There are probably 3 {maybe more} types of energy healing. They can all be amazing and they all have there time and place. There is the mediating balancing type, where excesses and deficiencies are addressed. ~ Like various elemental balancing methods, or methods that seek to alchemise an energy into a more harmonious state. There are the transmission/addition types where 'higher' frequencies are emitted to flush out 'disharmonious' energy. ~ think Reiki, some qigong healing, and laying on of hands methods. And there are extraction types where energy is pulled or sucked or scared out. Think of some faith healing {psychic surgery}, shamanistic type 'pulling and sucking' out of sickness or soul intrusions. Some advanced Tonglen and the Celtic sin eating practice {where sin is seen as anything that burdens the soul} also mirrors this. When I first started learning transmission style healing, I would occasionally take on a symptom, and my teachers would tell me I had to strengthen my field, not take it on, and just be a conduit. Which I did. But occasionally during a session, I would 'know' that if I really wanted to help this person, I had to take it into myself. so occasionally I did, and they were some of my best healings. Usually I would go somewhere afterwards to vomit or dry retch out the 'stuff' but I had no one helping me learn how to cleanse myself properly at the time with these kind of practices. I have since seen Australian aborigines sucking and spitting crap out of people {to great effect} I have watched footage of various shaman doing the same thing, and read up on the development of TCM's cupping from the earlier shamanistic sucking techniques, although I dont think its nearly as effective, but its definitely more pleasant if that is important to you. Now though I am learning a version of the sin eating practice, and have very efficient ways to pass the energy on from my body, and I find it to be a very powerful method. I dont think people should approach this kind of healing lightly or without a good teacher, but it is an amazing method, and has sometimes saved a situation where transmission style was not working.

I dont believe in objectivity at all, as I have not, nor can ever experience it. I believe in subjective, and intersubjective. Subjective is all the personal sensations, ideas, perceptions and so on that are not shared with others. Intersubjective is all the shared phenomena in the world. So if we take a tree as an example, people might say "look, we all can see it, its 'real' and 'objective'!" Wrong! Each person will only ever have their subjective personal experience of the tree. There might be an actual objective tree underneath all our sub/intersubjective perceptions but no one anywhere will ever see it. Even the tree within its own plant kind of awareness will only ever have a subjective experience of itself. So for me Objectivity is an utterly useless and subjective construct, and a very very dangerous one at that.

Nothing.

I dont know why I keep looking at this thread? I mean it was started by someone who's main interests seem to be soft drink...

Spirituality is far more than feeling wonder or appreciation, which are still great by the way. Spirituality has to do with the word 'spirit' and the experiences and development that come from interacting with it. Science can crap on all day about 'not repeatable' 'unverifiable' 'anecdotal' and so on, but most of the experiences that come from spirituality all fall in these categories... It does not neatly fit in a rational box. When I sit in a space of sympathy with nature, in my local environment, 'opening' my senses and start to quite literally see a spirit living within a tree, a spirit which initiates dialogue, tells me that humans have stuck something in its trunk and that I should climb up and have a look, and that if I fix it, it will remove an ongoing physical malady for me. I agree, climb up, {which I have never done before} and find part of a rusty star picket hammered in to it. Something I had no way of seeing from the ground. Its a lengthy process removing it, but I check the next morning and my condition is gone. Permanently. Or {and this happens over and over again} I work with certain spirits, nature spirits, and I don't speak about what I am planning or do. I don't use paraphernalia, incense, or anything to clue her in to what I am doing. My daughter will see those spirits later in the day or night. With startling accuracy. Things i have not spoken about, ever. She is not 'always seeing spirits either' so its not a lucky strike based on saying she sees things every day and occasionally having them line up. Its only after I have done a working. These kind of experiences are real, but they can not be neatly boxed up, cannot be measured or replicated. But what is the nature of the experience itself? In asking about the nature we must first look at the standard answers/interpretations from outsiders. There tends to be 3 typical responses from skeptics: 1.) Mental Illness It can not be written of as mental illness, because it is brought on by practices designed to bring those experiences on, and does not plague you afterwards {usually}... Not to mention various shaman have been diagnosed and are shown to have exceptional mental health. Fairly rude and ignorant {and unscientific} a claim, to assume someone is crazy without diagnosis. 2.) Just Imagination! Saying its just a flight of fancy of an overactive imagination, in no way does justice to the power of such experiences, and you have absolutely no control over what the spirit says or does {just like anyone else} which to me rules out 'visualization' or day dreaming. Also just a rude condescending statement. Its assuming someone is naive, soft in the head, or too simple minded to know the difference between a daydream and the 'real' world. 3.) You could say the 'experiencer' is just a charlatan making it all up because they want money, authority, or are so afraid of death they would rather live in a delusion. {this in all fairness would accurately describe some people, but all of them?} When I hear that one I think "Wow! Really?" Some people live so securely in their prison of rationality that they would rather call someone a liar and a fraud than consider that there are very very different ways of experiencing the world? I think there is a fourth way: 4.) I am not saying they have to accept the 'interpretation' of the experiences that spiritualists give, {such as the reality of spirits} but if they actually want to reach understanding of anothers actual experiences {not just demonise it} they must consider it carefully. Even be willing to try it on to see for themselves. Do what you need to do to actually 'meet' a spirit properly. Then analyse the experience afterwards, and include any physical world interactions/alterations that may have come with via the experience That really is the only way to have an informed or valid opinion on the subject. Anything else is sitting on a cloud of rationalist bullshit, staring through a black and white telescope at a distant village that you have never been too, that is filled with awesome interesting people doing strange strange things, and while you peer at them, you pat yourself on the back saying: "I know with total infallible comprehension everything about those tiny people and what they are up too"

There is evidence to suggest that some early Christian movements, as well as some Jewish traditions believed in reincarnation/transmigration. For Instance, some use as evidence for the belief, Jesus saying: "But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…" Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13) This in itself is a new testament follow up to the old testament: "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the LORD you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. (Malachi 3:1) And: "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes." (Malachi 4:5) Anyway there are numerous mystical ways of interpreting Jesus teachings. Some see life as a process of transmigration towards wholeness, modeled for us by Jesus, who came suffered and died to show the way out of the cycle... Some say he was a Meditation master teaching a form of concentration practice {let thine eye be single (samahdi) and thine whole body shall be filled with light}, right living, and so on... There are a heap of interpretations, but the single eye one, the "be still and know..." one are great advice for the meditator...

Yes!!! ...please?

Apple will soon release its i-path brain chip...

What do you guys think of these? http://www.daniloff-art.it/Tarocchi%20gallery/Tarot%20by%20Alexander%20Daniloff%202012.htm

I want to make that more succinct. 90% of the problem is people thinking that they are weak or helpless against things like this, and well, its usually bullshit. Even in the rare occurrences of something stronger than you bothering you, thinking you are weak and helpless will make its job much easier. Tell it where to go, feel firmly in your guts that you have a sovereign right over your own skin, and that it has no rights over you. Laugh at it. Call it an astral dork if you must, cause really it is a 'bit' pathetic, hanging around bothering you... Did the other spirits ignore it on the playground or something?

If 'something' does decide to bother you, don't curl up in a ball. Take a stand, call on what ever higher powers you believe in and then deliver it a serve of "DONT YOU EVER FUCK WITH ME AGAIN!!!" Seriously these things 'tend' to be fairly useless if you don't go passive and fearful. But if you take a stand like I described then your going to be fine, and even in the very very rare worst case scenarios, maintaining the attitude that if it comes near you, you will fuck it up in epic proportions, well that will do a lot for you, and will help greatly while you seek out more skilled help. Its such a pain in the ass seeing websites like that qigong/demon one. Among the millions and millions of qigong practitioners who happily live their lives with their improved benefits, you get one random, ignorant and cowardly fool who freaks out over a spirit occurrence, catastrophizes it into an 'impossible to deal with demon' rather than a temporary bump in his path, and never questioned why all the others weren't joining Islam with him as its obviously the only way.