Reed wrote:
>Such a state may exist. I have not experienced it, but to limit ones
>conception to what one currently imagines possible is not effective. You
>are disabling your ability to perceive.
If consciousness is valid, then certainty is determined by evidence from this
world, whether or not another state exists. This doesn't prevent me from
imagining other universes or hyperspaces, or whatever.
> Do you recall arguing with other Objectivists? Why
>were you arguing, considering you all professed to believe and follow the
>same doctrine? In those agruments, who's vision of Objectivism was (is)
>correct?
There seems to be an assumption that objectivism is a doctrine. It is a natural
way of common sense thinking that was put into a system which has some
mind-blowing implications. When I was arguing with these objectivists, there was
something I was not right about and a few things that they were wrong about. Any
particular point of view about reality has a better point of view, and I'd say
that neither of our visions of Objectivism were definitively correct, just as
there is no ultimate truth. Yet we all may have gained an improvement in our
views of objectivism, among other things. It's like a group of chemists reaching
a better understanding through disagreement.
>> All subsequent positions from
>>non-Objectivist premises would be self-refuting.
>Also clear. I disagree. Buddhism uses the same words but does not come to
>the same conclusions. Buddhists, especially in Zen, are very insistent on
>comming to grips with "reality" and in knowing the "facts" of existence.
>Centuries of philosophy have brought them to an extremely complicated and
>subtle understanding of the way in which things have their own identity,
>what the nature of this identity is, etc.
Buddhism used the same words, in a different context. Without getting into
Buddhism or Zen, have you ever asked yourself the question, "If Buddhism or Zen
are so great, why are all the heavily Buddhist countries like Burma, Thailand,
Laos, etc. in such bad shape socially, politically, and economically?" Buddhism
influences people to retreat from society, weakening the economy, causing all
sorts of suffering, which the Buddhists claim to reduce. The Buddhists *are* the
problem, since they are running a hoax of pretending to fix the problem which
they created. You admitted that you haven't experienced states like nirvana.
What makes you think the Buddhists have something?
> "In the beginning there was
>Objectivism"...
Yes, Objectivism has primacy
>In the beginning there was nothingness. All conciousness in constructed
>from that basis. This is what I believe. But from your perspective I am
>already "wrong-thinking" for disagreeing with you.
Reed--You've been infected with a certain type of wrong thinking commonly known
as "Singularity"--a scam based on the Big Bang Theory that something comes from
nothing. The Vatican jumped on this science backed concept in the 1950's to
promote the idea that an omnipotent God exists.
>Can't you see me out here?
Yes, and you look ridiculous! Just kidding! :) -David