gettinjiggywithit said:

Is that why science says, once we start observing something, we change it and can't actually see something as it is? LOL

---

Exactly. You can't observe something objectively. The objective reality is one that exists without consciousness or awareness, because consciousness and awareness cannot know objectively (only subjectively, of course, as it is a distinct, aware perspective). We can know of an objective reality, but a pure, objective perspective is impossible to obtain by the simple fact that an objective perspective exists seperately and independantly from all other perspectives.


Peace.

shroomydan said:

Now, the only way out of this conundrum, while still denying objective truth, would be to deny the validity of the logic. However, if one denies the validity of logic then one is left with no means to argue his position.

---

shroomydan said:

The first opinion says that there are objective facts, and that we can know some things with certainty.

---

There are objective facts, and they are impossible to know. Nothing can be known with certainty.

Quote:

The second opinion says that we cannot know anything with certainty.

The second opinion is self-contradictory, and is therefore meaningless.

---

Of course it is self-contradictory, there is a reason for this. It is also important to note that all things are meaningless.

Quote:

Now, the only way out of this conundrum, while still denying objective truth, would be to deny the validity of the logic. However, if one denies the validity of logic then one is left with no means to argue his position.

---

To ever be able to communicate with someone, or to have an idea or a thought, it requires an assumption to be made. Although the very nature of our perspective implies that we cannot know anything with certainty, or that we cannot experience an objective reality, this does not mean that we make the assumption that we can anyways, to allow for communication, to allow for logic.

This is why it is "self-contradictory", because it contradicts the idea of a self, which is just an illusion. This is about opening up an illusory space so that we can be able to try to know things. This requires assuming different things are true. Do you not see how this creates a (necessary) duality in order to allow for a function?

It is obvious that a subjective experience can never know an objective fact or experience an objective reality, and it is obvious because of the logic and reason that has come about by making the false (but necessary) assumption that one can. 


Peace.

shroomydan said:

Self is an illusion? Who said that?

---

An illusion of self said it, of course.

It is interesting to note that it is impossible to find a true self. See, the self always splits, into infinity. Plenty of psychonauts have tried to find a true self in their mind, and it continues to split by the very fact that if you identify a "self", you have to ask who it was that identified that self. Very confusing stuff, but I ask you, who are you? Who isn't you?

A sense of self will forever continue to fragment and fragment further. There are no real barriers seperating anything from anything else, as well. For logic and knowing purposes, we assume there is so that we can have something to say, but what seperates these molecules from these molecules over here? This water from that water? This person from the environment that produced him, made him everything that he is, and takes him away? Everything is impermanent illusions of form and distinction. This is obvious if one thinks about it... 


Peace.

Todcasil said:

teh dna strand is fractel in nature

---

Perhaps it could also be said that nature is fractal.


Peace.

shroomydan said:

Self is an illusion? Who said that?

---

no one. it was said..