Theory on Reality (Page 1 of 4)

Yeah, good post. I've often thought that labelling things may be as much of a hindrance as a help in understanding the truth of anything. Labels like 'spirit', 'soul', 'god', 'love', 'consciousness', 'energy', 'time', etc, are all just labels that describe things whose nature we do not (and can not) truly understand or comprehend through the medium of the label itself.

If your metaphysics is based on cause and effect then you could use the labels good/bad. You could judge an effect to be desirable or undesirable; right of wrong; good or bad. If your metaphysics is based on quality, then good or bad has little use. In the metaphysics of quality you would examine reality from a relative perspective. Something could be of a higher value in your world and would not require a label from which to make a dualistic judgment.

I would advise to look at labels in terms of general guidelines for communication and not solid boundary lines. In the universe there are no distinct boundaries, but rather degrees in the spectrum of existence--fields rather than sharp objects.

Relativity implies relationships rather than consistent empirical observation. Evil is relative to good, as darkness is relative to the light. One may not exist without the contrast  of the other, therefore evil is created by good; ignorance is created by the informed; hate is born of love, or the misapplication of it.

In the metaphysics of quality, love would be experienced in a degree, such as a high expression or a low expression. Hate would not be necessary, we would simply feel a low emotional resonance for our enemies, that is until we found a greater understanding for them through a greater value placed on diversity and greater sharing of common values.

Science is solidly based in cause and effect; materialism depends on the dualism between true and not true. Intuition has a more relative releationship in our universe, but intellectualism depends on memory , and therefore everything is designated a "bit" that can be catagorized and stored for later retrieval.  This lends itself to cause and effect thinking--and ultimately contradiction and confusion.  Quality is a relative measure more rooted in the current moment.  We make quality judgments from spacial thinking where lines are not so defined, whereas linear thinking supports dualism, and cause and effect intellectual analysis.

Creative and intuitive intelligence is vastly greater than linear, rational thinking.  A much smaller segment of the population can utilize this intelligence and are trapped in static linear mode. I suggest you develop your creativity if you are searching for answers outside of the box of rationalism.

"If your metaphysics is based on cause and effect then you could use the labels good/bad. You could judge an effect to be desirable or undesirable; right of wrong; good or bad."

This right here is what im trying to avoid. Im hoping to make people realize that in ANY use, good and bad are relative terms.

"I would advise to look at labels in terms of general guidelines for communication and not solid boundary lines. In the universe there are no distinct boundaries, but rather degrees in the spectrum of existence--fields rather than sharp objects."

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My entire theory is designed to convince people that nothing is definitive.

"In the metaphysics of quality, love would be experienced in a degree, such as a high expression or a low expression. Hate would not be necessary, we would simply feel a low emotional resonance for our enemies, that is until we found a greater understanding for them through a greater value placed on diversity and greater sharing of common values."

I would even take it one step further then this though. Having labels at all sets a boundary. When labeling hate and love, Hate cannot be Love. Even when viewed in degrees, it is difficult for people to wrap their minds around the two at the same time. A lot of people are so wrapped up in labels that they feel that the two cannot be the same. When you truly examine how each makes you feel, you can understand how similar the two are, but by labeling them as opposites, the similarities become hard to see.

My point is that everything in the universe involving feelings is the exact same. Even varying degrees is a label. The only thing that changes in the universe is our perception of it. In the physical world, anything that operates below "intelligent" thought displays this theory. Do you think a deer regards a wolf as evil? The deer knows the wolf is there to harm it. The deer knows to survive it has to escape or fight, and fighting isnt a very good option. The wolf knows the deer is there as food, and knows the deer is not going to want to be eaten. The relationship is neither good nor evil. It merely exists. As soon as "intelligent thought" is entered into the mix, you suddenly have the wolf, the evil predator, ripping the deer to shreds. The deer, the elegant beautiful innocent victim, must be protected because it is good. Thus far, this view has obviously worked well, what with mass extermination and all.

Anyways, back to my main point. I don't really mean to debate the meaning of labels as much as I'm trying to get you all to consider what exactly what you think is good and right, not what society has told you is right, but what you FEEL is right. I want you to look at yourself and find out exactly what you think is right and wrong. When you find out what you feel is right, I want you to force yourself to do the exact opposite of that, if for no other reason then to experience it.

I have come to believe that it's impossible for me to know the entire truth about any situation. Ego doesn't like this proposition, however. It likes to believe it knows the entire truth because it gives it a feeling of control and superiority.

"This is one reason why i hate religion with a passion."

It seems you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.  Just because religion is usually misinterpretted or misapplied doesn't mean it lacks value.  The key is to keep your eyes and mind open.  If your rejecting all religion out of hand though, that is no different than blindly accepting it, just different sides of the same coin.

if we must, could we use the terms "faith" and "intellectualism"? We could then discuss value in a relative sense rather than a polarized comparison.  I have faith and I embrace  intellectualism also. I see faith as a stronger concept for feelings and intellectualism addresses rationalism. I find intellectualism forces us into contradiction and confusion; faith is something I can intuit but cannot express in labels. isn't this your point-- to avoid labels and go with gut feelings and subjective experience?

for the sake of ease, yea, lets use faith and intellectualism. Your definitions of those seem to work very well.

"isn't this your point-- to avoid labels and go with gut feelings and subjective experience?" Perfect :-) Now the goal is to apply it to your day to day life