Objective Existence vs Subjective Existence

[JJ Burke]

it would appear that you prefer absorbing yourself rather than outside ideas. enjoy

[luxcthonis]

Ah, so you were speaking to me.

If you mean to say that I don't much care for what anybody else thinks, you are quite right.

I don't mean to appear conceited or anything really. When I was younger I did not have the same view of reality as I now have. I have become jaded over the years and am in complete rebellion against the worldwide spiritual-awareness crap, so many of my views are in stark oppostition to more than one thing on this discussion board.
That does not mean to say the opinions of others aren't relevant; indeed, my own view is an "outside" opinion. Feel free to absorb yourself and discard mine.

[JJ Burke]

yeah taxi driver, who else would i be talking to? in my first post i shared a link to some excerpts to summarize the incompleteness theorem. had you bothered to glance at them instead of saying 'meh,' we might have interesting things to talk about. but you chose to deflate and discount a subject without even looking at it. your pretentious world-weary rhetoric is no substitute for thoughtful debate. not only is it boring, but coming from a moderator it reflects rather poorly on the forum. like hal 9000 said, 'this conversation can serve no purpose anymore.'

[I AM the Way]

tf.tribes.cc/telfort/px/url/346/www.miskatonic.org/godel.html


ok, i've read it. and i think it's good. the argument actually makes simple sense which most scientists get confused about (remember Y2K when computer tech people thought that not having all 4 digits in the year and the date reading 00 for 2000 would cripple the machine brain).

this idea is more or less intuitive to those with common sense (philosophers also have a tough time wrapping their mind around the simplest concepts). and it's conclusion is something i've spouted for years now. no one can totally prove or disprove anything, nothing can be taken as 100% fact. as well as the much more interesting inverse... nothing can be taken as 100% falsehood.

thanks for bringing this to our attention. interesting that the web page mentions Miskatonic University... have others linked this idea with Lovecraft's Mythos? oh, and don't mind H. that's just his way...

Ia Ia,


Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

[luxcthonis]

Aug 16, 2008 10:05:43 GMT -6 I AM the Way said:

oh, and don't mind H. that's just his way...



Venger As'Nas Satanis
Cult of Cthulhu High Priest

Indeed it is.

It is never my intention to cause strife, and truthfully, its not really my fault if something I say rubs someone else the wrong way. Shit just happens.
Actually, I had glanced at the article in question, but refrained from studying it in depth. You see, I have had quite enough of the spiritualism of the age, and all of its surrounding ideas.

I don't think I'm being pretentious, at least I don't mean to be. I make no claim to importance.

I have heard some one say "I am a spiritual being having a human experience." I could simplify this to say that "I am a subjective creature having an objective experience."

Good conversation doesn't rest on the debate of a single article.

"Taxi driver?" Oh man, I liked "Subliminal Geobbels" hahaha

No offense people, I mean no offense. Lighten up

[I AM the Way]

I have heard some one say "I am a spiritual being having a human experience." I could simplify this to say that "I am a subjective creature having an objective experience."

yes, i like that.


VS

[JJ Burke]

i realize there was talk of spirituality earlier in the thread, but it really has nothing to do with gödel's theorem. the basic implication is that logic is a limited tool, and intuition is indispensable, but even with the best of our tools, all human perceptions/conceptions are inherently flawed. but so what if they are? what else do we have to work with?

[Madguten]

the basic implication is that logic is a limited tool, and intuition is indispensable, but even with the best of our tools, all human perceptions/conceptions are inherently flawed.

I think that this is correct, we are blind to all the things we do not experience in existence, and that is A LOT of things i think. In my view, the best we can do (as seemingly limited creatures) is to balance out everything, every thought, every sense, every thing. But that is just one path out of countless.

Some say that the mind is endless in its ability to understand, i would rather say that the spirit is endless in its appreciation of existence.

Which brings me to...

I believe that (in theoretical terms at least) it is easiest to talk about the elements Flesh and Spirit when discussing the human being, I have limited it down to those two elements because i believe that both what we call "physical" and what we call "phycological", has one part that is tied to the flesh and one that is tied to the spirit. Den Store Ånd or The Great Spirit, from which we all have drunk in the beginning MAY actually be an eternal phenomena, BUT we are enormously tied to our flesh, it is AT LEAST half of what makes out our full being.

My point is, Our flesh is dictated by our "earthly" surroundings. Our spirit is most likely dictated from an even higher (or lower) source.

Hey, is this offtopic? Sorry.

Oh and by the way, why does phycological (of the mind) get a red line in the spelling tool?

Is it the same as what you call Physiological, you MUST have a word for it. On danish we just say FYSISK & PSYKISK.

[luxcthonis]

Aug 17, 2008 4:21:57 GMT -6 Madguten said:

On danish we just say FYSISK & PSYKISK.

That sounds an awful lot like FIRIK and PIRIK from the Necronomicon...

haha, now thats off topic, lol

excuse me.