Shroomism said:

No.. I'm just saying.. if your beliefs are destroying beliefs.. what is sacred?

---

You choose what is sacred to you, I choose what is sacred to me; and unless it is brought up in this forum, never the twain shall meet.

Without reading any of these subsequent replies yet, as I don't wish to lose my train of thought...

Shroomism said:

Do people get some kind of satisfaction out of shooting down other people beliefs, experiences, and opinions?

---

I think it is questionable whether or not anyone perceived as acting in such a manner do feel some sort of satisfaction out of doing so, and also that it is questionable if these people perceived as acting in such a manner actually perceive themselves as acting that way. I also call into question whether or not this is actually even happening in the first place.

Even then, under the assumption that it has been happening and that the person is consciously aware that they are acting in exactly that manner, if they do derive a sense of satisfaction from doing so... so fucking what? I would seem to think that some sort of satisfaction is derived by everyone (as in, some aspect of each individual, it isn't as if individuals are actually one singular state of existance ) from whatever manner it is in which they are interacting with their environment. Do you derive satisfaction from your own pursuits? Does that imply a negative trait about yourself?

Quote:

What do you hope to gain from this practice, if you practice it?

---

Whatever it is that one wishes to gain from whatever practice. We are crazy critters like that.

Quote:

Are you so sure that your subjective perception is so assuredly correct and perfect as to be infallible and universally applied to all beliefs and experiences that fall under any related categories?

Isn't that called self-righteousness?

---

No, it is simply that of being a human being that has a subjective meaning applied to itself that interacts with the environment in which the human being exists and is an aspect of. I think it is a brazen, ignorant assumption for one to assume the motivations and intentions of another. To do such is for oneself to think that their interpretation of reality is infalliable and universally applied.

Ironic value can be appreciated here in that the way that a person sees the other person is merely the result of who the person doing the interpretation themself is. Your reality is more a reflection of yourself than your environment (which is an aspect of and is a result of one's environment! You thought time existed? ).

Quote:

That all religion, spirituality, and philosophy can be explained utterly and completely, by primitive.. empirical science? And if it cannot.. then it must be a fallacy?

I think that's a lot of nonsense.

---

Just as I think it is a lot of nonsense for it to be implied that people here are thinking through such a concept. The meaning something has is a result of one's experience. To think that one would represent one abstraction through another would transform the abstraction that is being represented. Everything stands on its own.

Quote:

Discuss.

---

I wish to thank you for actually letting us discuss this one.


Peace.