I don't think I have ever read such a clear description of dualism. I am looking forward to hearing more from you not only on dualism but also on dependent origination which is the consequences of dualistic thinking.
Measurement should be an objective thing, while perception is subjective. In this do we have something that crosses the line of duality or do we, in fact, have a contradiction?
Measurement should be an objective thing, while perception is subjective. In this do we have something that crosses the line of duality or do we, in fact, have a contradiction?
I don't understand the question.
I'll say this: "measurement" as I am using the term is the objective assessment of what you value (or evaluate), whether it is objective information (choosing from a list of mutual funds), or subjective (choosing from a menu).
In other words, do you feel better about wearing the white blouse, or the pink, with your gray skirt? You only know subjectively what you like, but you know objectively (by the intensity of your feelings, an internal "measurement") what you prefer.
Not sure if that answers the question. What this has to do with forgiveness should become clear later on.
A measurement is a fact about something. It is done with some sort of standard - as you would might measure customer satisfaction, unit sales per quarter, etc. This is what I mean by it is objective - it is done with a standard and results in a "truth" about the subject.
However, the paradox in your initial post is when you introduce "perception". That is something that is not objective. It is in the opinion of the person who has the experience. For example, I can go to a doctor who I perceive is competent in his practice, while someone else might perceive he is a quack.
The best way I can think of to re-word my question is "Can perception be measured? Wouldn't that really be a contradiction?"
I guess the thing that makes me go "hmmmmm" about your post is when you say, "objective assessment of what you value". I don't see my opinion as "objective". I see opinions as subjective - they can change as a person changes. Life is a constant.
Einstein used to think that about the universe, and he apologised later, or maybe I am thinking thoughts i should really have a proof a quote Einstein and his constant ... help me on this one eh~~~
Song - when I say "Life is a constant," I'm not talking about the universe, but about the individual. If you read the context of what I wrote you'll see that I'm talking about people changing (opinions changing), etc.
quote: If you judge anyone else for any of these things, you cannot help but judge yourself as well. In the court of your conscience, if one is convicted, all are convicted, including yourself.
Satori,
Do you mean literally judging another's character or their actions?
Nothing personal meant by this response, but humans are not good at "coincidence" we have very poor natural grasp of randomness and risk. And we have a natural tendancy to find patterns in things (whether the patterns exist or not).
This has had great benefit for our survival as a species, but now that we have adapted our world so that the risks we face are much different from those we evolved to face, perhaps these traits don't serve us as well any more.
Is this what you are talking about? Having looked at 3cents's reply, it is making sense to me, that we are trying to define that which we do not know anything about, by the finite standards that we either live by, or are accustomed to through acclimation.
Me-thinks that our (my) "mental yardstick" you spoke of, is (seemingly) effective only to the person using it, since it measures the known against the unknown for each person. Yet the unknown holds so many undeterminable variables, it really is not possible to "measure" the unknowable by our individual yard stick, (comprised of our life experiences) -- therefore rendering our measurement of such (in the big picture) -- a non-entity.
Now -- to answer your question about me forgiving myself, I can answer that in one word, despite all the philosophical arguements -- pro or con. That word is yes. While I have been forgiven for my sins by the Father, because of the finality accomplished by Jesus Christ, I realize that I have a daily battle to do, and my choices do make a difference in my personal place in Paradise.
Because of the rewards given to believers for correct deeds, or the lack there-of because of in-correct deeds -- I try to choose to do the good thing, take the high road, speak less impulsively, condemn less, try to see the good in an ugly situation, be accomodating to those who I consider to be wrong in either action or speech, and realize that by my actions, I am doing good, or not.
Am I always successful? No. Do I try? Yes. I try to "do unto others, as I would have them do unto me", realizing the old adage "what goes around, comes around".
So yes -- I can forgive myself, since I understand that in my own limited way, I am trying to do what my "yardstick" tells me is best. And when the various occurances show up that happen to be "outside of the circle" that define me, and what I have gone through in my past, I am comfortable using that same measuring tool -- regardless of whether it is (philosophically) competent, or not. :)-->
Do you mean literally judging another's character or their actions?
Very perceptive question. Most people don't make the distinction, but even those who do have difficulty keeping actions separate from character, and I'm not sure they should. But I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Good post. I only introduced the "yardstick" metaphor to suggest that we all use one, and it is by nature imperfect.
To the degree we hold that yardstick up to life, it rules us, and therefore judges us. Yes, our yardstick is our ruler. (Awful pun warning! Damn, too late.)
quote:To the degree we hold that yardstick up to life, it rules us, and therefore judges us. Yes, our yardstick is our ruler. (Awful pun warning! Damn, too late.)
Now You've got me looking for a metaphysical one, that can help me measure those abstract meanings -- outside my personnal realm of experience!! :D-->
Do you mean literally judging another's character or their actions?
Very perceptive question. Most people don't make the distinction, but even those who do have difficulty keeping actions separate from character, and I'm not sure they should. But I don't want to get ahead of myself
If it is character or simply judging another as being bad/useless, etc. then I disagree with the concept in general.
If if it judging another's actions then it absolutely acceptable and necessary. Society must be able to define minimal standards of behavior.
I knew you didn't Exie. I did know what you meant and I am sorry if I added to your confusion. But after all the years of harsh words via TWI, and all the harsh words that are frequently posted here, I guess I was just trying to make a point.
Sorry.
p.s. If its any consolation, I cannot even begin to imagine you saying words which would cause someone permanent damage inside. Even if you could, you would feel so bad afterwards that you would be apologizing and working overtime to fix it and make it right. :)-->
i couldn't agree more with you what you mean about words.
i still am wondering about....
quote:Have you ever wounded, maimed or killed? How far up the food chain? Bugs? Fish? Mammals? Other human beings? Or you've just wanted to, now and then?
If you judge anyone else for any of these things, you cannot help but judge yourself as well. In the court of your conscience, if one is convicted, all are convicted, including yourself
if i step on an ant, is that the same as killing my brother ?
satori, i can't remember wanting to wound, maim or kill.... i swear
my heart bled for my brothers when they were molested by a priest before they reached puberty. i don't know what i wanted to "do" to father butler. i was glad to see him exposed years and years later but i was hurt it took so long
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
22
6
6
Popular Days
Nov 12
20
Nov 5
8
Nov 2
8
Nov 10
7
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 9 posts
satori001 22 posts
Abigail 6 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 6 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2004
20 posts
Nov 5 2004
8 posts
Nov 2 2004
8 posts
Nov 10 2004
7 posts
oenophile
Satori,
I don't think I have ever read such a clear description of dualism. I am looking forward to hearing more from you not only on dualism but also on dependent origination which is the consequences of dualistic thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
For my own emotional/mental health, I have to forgive myself.
Stress and guilt are killers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i love you, dear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear = satori
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Measurement should be an objective thing, while perception is subjective. In this do we have something that crosses the line of duality or do we, in fact, have a contradiction?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I'll say this: "measurement" as I am using the term is the objective assessment of what you value (or evaluate), whether it is objective information (choosing from a list of mutual funds), or subjective (choosing from a menu).
In other words, do you feel better about wearing the white blouse, or the pink, with your gray skirt? You only know subjectively what you like, but you know objectively (by the intensity of your feelings, an internal "measurement") what you prefer.
Not sure if that answers the question. What this has to do with forgiveness should become clear later on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
A measurement is a fact about something. It is done with some sort of standard - as you would might measure customer satisfaction, unit sales per quarter, etc. This is what I mean by it is objective - it is done with a standard and results in a "truth" about the subject.
However, the paradox in your initial post is when you introduce "perception". That is something that is not objective. It is in the opinion of the person who has the experience. For example, I can go to a doctor who I perceive is competent in his practice, while someone else might perceive he is a quack.
The best way I can think of to re-word my question is "Can perception be measured? Wouldn't that really be a contradiction?"
I guess the thing that makes me go "hmmmmm" about your post is when you say, "objective assessment of what you value". I don't see my opinion as "objective". I see opinions as subjective - they can change as a person changes. Life is a constant.
Food for thought...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
just wanted to say I am reading with interest and looking forward to more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
"The past is the vast sum and totality of your personal history - that which you know, and that much more which you don't."
satori,
You speak of the past which is nothing more or less than the past and future combined into the present?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
"Life is a constant."
Chas,
Einstein used to think that about the universe, and he apologised later, or maybe I am thinking thoughts i should really have a proof a quote Einstein and his constant ... help me on this one eh~~~
a static universe~~~???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Can You Forgive You?
HMMMMmmm, seems this thread took on something else of thought beyond "immeasurables" are important, sometimes immeasurably important."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
Song - when I say "Life is a constant," I'm not talking about the universe, but about the individual. If you read the context of what I wrote you'll see that I'm talking about people changing (opinions changing), etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Satori,
Do you mean literally judging another's character or their actions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
In the open forum, on the "coincidence" thread, 3cents had this to say about what I said there:
Is this what you are talking about? Having looked at 3cents's reply, it is making sense to me, that we are trying to define that which we do not know anything about, by the finite standards that we either live by, or are accustomed to through acclimation.
Me-thinks that our (my) "mental yardstick" you spoke of, is (seemingly) effective only to the person using it, since it measures the known against the unknown for each person. Yet the unknown holds so many undeterminable variables, it really is not possible to "measure" the unknowable by our individual yard stick, (comprised of our life experiences) -- therefore rendering our measurement of such (in the big picture) -- a non-entity.
Now -- to answer your question about me forgiving myself, I can answer that in one word, despite all the philosophical arguements -- pro or con. That word is yes. While I have been forgiven for my sins by the Father, because of the finality accomplished by Jesus Christ, I realize that I have a daily battle to do, and my choices do make a difference in my personal place in Paradise.
Because of the rewards given to believers for correct deeds, or the lack there-of because of in-correct deeds -- I try to choose to do the good thing, take the high road, speak less impulsively, condemn less, try to see the good in an ugly situation, be accomodating to those who I consider to be wrong in either action or speech, and realize that by my actions, I am doing good, or not.
Am I always successful? No. Do I try? Yes. I try to "do unto others, as I would have them do unto me", realizing the old adage "what goes around, comes around".
So yes -- I can forgive myself, since I understand that in my own limited way, I am trying to do what my "yardstick" tells me is best. And when the various occurances show up that happen to be "outside of the circle" that define me, and what I have gone through in my past, I am comfortable using that same measuring tool -- regardless of whether it is (philosophically) competent, or not.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Very perceptive question. Most people don't make the distinction, but even those who do have difficulty keeping actions separate from character, and I'm not sure they should. But I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
dmiller,
Good post. I only introduced the "yardstick" metaphor to suggest that we all use one, and it is by nature imperfect.
To the degree we hold that yardstick up to life, it rules us, and therefore judges us. Yes, our yardstick is our ruler. (Awful pun warning! Damn, too late.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Now You've got me looking for a metaphysical one, that can help me measure those abstract meanings -- outside my personnal realm of experience!!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
If it is character or simply judging another as being bad/useless, etc. then I disagree with the concept in general.
If if it judging another's actions then it absolutely acceptable and necessary. Society must be able to define minimal standards of behavior.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"but murder, for instance, is a lot different than hurting someone's feelings with, say, an angry word"
Yes and no. Hurt the wrong persons feelings with the wrong angry words and you could kill something very important inside of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i didn't mean it that way, abi
i'm confused. what else is new
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I knew you didn't Exie. I did know what you meant and I am sorry if I added to your confusion. But after all the years of harsh words via TWI, and all the harsh words that are frequently posted here, I guess I was just trying to make a point.
Sorry.
p.s. If its any consolation, I cannot even begin to imagine you saying words which would cause someone permanent damage inside. Even if you could, you would feel so bad afterwards that you would be apologizing and working overtime to fix it and make it right.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thank you dearest abi.
i couldn't agree more with you what you mean about words.
i still am wondering about....
if i step on an ant, is that the same as killing my brother ?satori, i can't remember wanting to wound, maim or kill.... i swear
my heart bled for my brothers when they were molested by a priest before they reached puberty. i don't know what i wanted to "do" to father butler. i was glad to see him exposed years and years later but i was hurt it took so long
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i wasn't hurt i was distraught
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.