Written by Mathew Naismith
I had quite long & in-depth conversation with a bloke of
the name of Pier about realities being an illusion or not. I was so impressed in the way he handled me
because I can be quite obnoxious within my views mainly because I also use
philosophy & modern day psychology to look at a particular subject more
openly/objectively. This infuriates most
people but not Pier which I take my hat off too. To me it takes intelligence not
to indulge in unintelligent personal criticisms when in disagreement with
others.
It is infuriating when you came across a person who questions
your personal beliefs, concepts & ideologies to the degree that you then
start questioning your own beliefs. The
human mind, when it fixates itself to certain beliefs, can become rigid within
these beliefs not accepting any other possibility. When this belief is question
the mind reacts to defend our belief but when we are coaxed to questioning
these beliefs ourselves all hell breaks loose within the psyche. This of course
is quite understandable especially if we are fixated to this belief.
Pier was quite amazing, he seemed to have a fixation on a belief
but within he’s actions he showed he was also interested in hearing my view on
the subject of realities. If Pier at any time resorted to unintelligent personal
criticism I would have known Pier wasn’t at all interested in what I had to
say.
So what do I perceive as an unintelligent personal criticism?
Actually it’s not name calling as in pointing out if someone is obviously lying
or deceiving for example but if I lowered myself to obscurely call other people
inappropriate names, that to me is unintelligent personal criticism. It’s also unintelligent to me to indirectly criticize
others when in disagreement, either say it how it is or don’t say it at all!!
The problem I see with beliefs, concepts & ideologies is
they are governed by our present conscious understanding, how could anything be
set in concrete (be the utter truth) when our conscious understanding is obviously
limited by our present perception. The mind cannot comprehend anything beyond
what the mind can psychologically cope with. Once the mind goes over this fresh hold it
becomes flawed within it’s reasoning process. Anything that is obviously beyond this point can’t
be set in concrete.
Why are so many scientists introverts? If they psychologically
stay within their own reasoning process they are fine but when they go beyond
this point they begin to psychologically falter & at times produce
delusions. I actually personally know someone
exactly like this. Of course not all scientists
are like this, it depends on what their fixations are and how fixated they are
to a certain reasoning process. No reasoning
process is flawless as all reasoning processes are fixated to a certain reasoning
process; religion is another example of this obvious fixation in some cases.
Can any of us truly say, without a doubt, that God does or doesn’t
exist, thoughtlessness is better than thought; realities do or don’t exist and
so on, should any of us be that affirmative & call what we believe in to be
absolute truth when we are obviously limited by our conscious understanding to
what is absolutely true? There are many
people who are affirmative about these things but spirituality to me is about
awareness and we should be aware that our conscious understanding is limited by
what we are aware of. This means we can only perceive to what we only want to
be aware of or are unable to perceive past our conscious understanding. In one consciousness the world was flat now it’s
round, flight was impossible now it’s common practice & so on. When we knew
the world was flat or flight was impossible we couldn’t perceive past this
fixation to a certain conscious understanding, today it’s no different in my
mind.
I believe the best thing to do is try to keep an open mind
and anything we can’t possibly understand and perceive without a doubt……….train
your mind to accepting it just is!!
