Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is just a matter of definition, I think. There is obvious value in defining that which all observers (or what seem to be observers, since my perception of them could also be an illusion) agree on.
The purpose of that post was much more narrow.
But there is just as much value for an individual in what he uniquely observes and understands. Shared human experience and understanding are great for those times when we need to cooperate with each other. But our unique experiences and insights are great for when we need to find our own meaning and purpose in life, as we all need to do. As this is just as important a task as mutual cooperation is.
We can use whatever terms we want to. But it's important that we be clear in our minds about what exactly they are implying. Unfortunately, in English, we use the term "reality" to refer to both our imagined conception of what is, and to 'what is' regardless of our conception of it. Yet those are two very different phenomena. And then because we do not clarify which phenomena we are referring to when we use the term, we generate a great deal of confusion; both in our own minds and in the minds of others.
Silly conversation.
OK it looks to me as if we are not disagreeing much really.
Step 1: You explain precisely what you mean by "spirituality" to the person you want to prove to.
Step 1: You explain the full details of that invisible realm to the person you want to prove to.
You need to proven to them by present evidence or provide the method which they can use it to prove the existence of spirituallity/invisible realm, if you wish to convince them to believe those things exists as real beings, vice versa.
All this "possible gaps in logic", is coming up with a mutually shared perspective amongst individual within the group. It has more to do with coming up with a shared perspective, then actually understanding something beyond the individuals. The technical term for this is "consensus reality". Consensus reality, or what we like to call "objective reality" will vary from group to group.
And that testing typically is devised to test against basic premises that the consensus reality brings into the criteria for testing. It's kind of like self-fulfilled prophecies, seeing what you expect to see. True "objectivity" is an illusion.
Yes, that is what we call objectivity because it's an agreed upon perception held loosely around a common perception. But as I said, it's an illusion that what we think together upon what something is, makes that something what we think about it is. A cat, is not a cat. We call it a cat. To the cat, it does not know it's a cat. "Cat" is our concept of reality imposed upon it. And then we pat ourselves on the back for believing we are understanding the truth of reality, objectively.
Yes, internally also. And that is the pitfall. Because by languaging it, we change its nature from raw experience to a memory that has a wrapper of words and ideas around it. Doing that changes it, reduces it to fit within the conceptual frameworks and boundaries of our ideas. Words create boundaries around something, and when we think "logically", we actually filter out and disallow what does not fit into that. We "forget" pieces which cannot be compressed into that framework of reality we hold in our minds through language.
This is why listening to others how they frame and express reality is important. If we limit the metaphors to "Science", then we limit reality, reducing it to propositional truth statements. I think what comes naturally for most every person who has ever lived, is to be programmed with language to see reality as the group they are part of sees it. This is an evolutionary feature, repeating functional patterns for the sake of social cohesion. It usually takes something comparable to a baseball bat to the head to make someone questions these inherent ideas of reality. We call these Awakening experiences. These are Enlightenment moments, which forever change one's assumptions about truth and reality, or objectivity.
This illustrates my point. To call symbolism "merely", proves a lack of understanding of what metaphors and symbolism in particular are and perform for us. Carl Jung stated that "the mechanism that transforms energy is the symbol". To say "merely a symbol" makes little sense. A symbol is far more powerful than a simple descriptor of reality as held by conventions of the programmed mind. It leads one to new depths of understanding and being in the world.
Symbols are pointers to help someone break free from their programmed conventional thought patterns. To truly have an experience beyond those, the symbol stands as the doorman at the gate, ushering your into transcendent experience. The other way is to simply and deliberately deconstruct this illusion of reality, our "consensus reality" or ideas of "objective truth" and enter into meditative states. But reasoning and using logic to "figure it out", will always end you right back to the illusion of the mind.
But what you believe about it is not its "objective reality". It's your metaphors reduced to descriptors of reality, taken as facts, thus collapsing reality to a mental construction, shared or otherwise.
I don't see the need.
If two people, both looking into a "spiritual realm" see different things, then they aren't seeing the same thing.
That’s why I posted my rabbit/duck. You can see the same thing and interpret it differently.
I agree that the fact they don’t match weakens the claim. I just don’t think it’s enough to definitely conclude anything.
All i speak about is from a spiritual point of view.