Dave Moore

If you had done your work, Hyper, you would have noted that I mentioned that I wasn't here to talk about my own philosophy. What really pisses me off is how lazy you are. You should have done your work. Read the comments. Seen how things developed. I waited many months to return to this forum. Tried to avoid conflict, keep it polite. I said nothing hostile, mentioned I wasn't interested in grandstanding my own philosophy. Couldn't even do that. Just wanted to enjoy connecting with like-minded souls. But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to read your specifics. I don't like you, Area54. You are an arrogant pompous forum rat who makes personal attacks. If you knew how to be polite, I would gladly read and respond to your comments. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't see too well so I miss things sometimes. In any case, it's a bad idea to judge. There are more polite ways to discuss things. I never invited conflict. Your words did. I would gladly converse with you without the personal stuff. To me, discussion deteriorates when people insult others by applying negative personal attributes to people they disagree with. I'm not exaggerating. These things escalate. Why can't we just talk. ask questions, etc.?

I am not trying to tell you all anything beyond what I personally believe. The idea of contamination is real to me. Because I have found this to be true I just listen and then I sketch another self-portrait and again you comment. But please. be yourself. Don't change for me. You think this is a debate but I don't care to debate. If I have muddled thinking, LEAVE ME ALONE! Don't act as if I am speaking to you personally. First day, and already pounced on along with judgements of mental function and references to animal's sexual parts. I don't bite.

What is? What I wrote is bollocks??

Sources I don't do. I don't know how consensus improves knowledge, especially when it is only a collection of subjective opinions. Most -people probably believe in the death penalty. But they are wrong. So say I. So, as I see it, sources (assumably internet links) are suspect. Here is the problem, where this is not supposed to be a scientific thread, I've been told. It could be discussed either way, but there's a reason why it's called philosophy. The subject is very broad, and in a sense it is the opposite of science exactly because the subject is so broad. It is not science because if it were, it would be called science, which it is not. Given that it fails to "rise up" to the level of science, why ask for links to prove history? I derived my comment from experience. I may be wrong according to you, but I can only speak for myself most of the time. Unfair, I know. But It isn't black and white. I do not personally demand proof nor offer it, preferring (like the author of this thread) to avoid contamination of the thought process. This won't yield empirical knowledge, but in a practical sense, it will force self-evident conclusions. Very unscientific, but more effective in developing the thinking mind. I say, we are not messengers. We are the source. There is no universal right or wrong. A thing can be both good and bad, both right and wrong, large or small, real or unreal. All arbitrary in my opinion. I am taking this from a philosophy that argues that we create our own realities and no external universe exists. This is based on what I believe is infallible logic, but I am not selling this philosophy, only admitting it exists. Most developed societies have settled into reasonably workable codes of law. Morality is a practical consideration. Personal morality will differ within the group, of course. Buddhist society has lasted a long time. Australian aborigines are believed to have existed UNCHANGED for 25 thousand years or more. Maybe we could copy their ways. The only proof that their beliefs are validly moral (or the source of any morals) is their simple presence in a state so similar to their ancient lifestyle. I see no better example of a basis for a moral society, if there is one. Yet, I don't agree with them completely. I think no society's laws ever match exactly any individual's personal beliefs. It's hard to argue a subject that hasn't established whether one is speaking of the individual or the group in terms of coming to any conclusion. It matters whether one is stepping out beyond the self and arbitrarily shifting to simply accepting facts that are externally supplied. Philosophy is a personal knowledge. External information should not be trusted to help to "prove" philosophy. Science that depends on accepting without self-proof can't be trusted.

I noticed. But I have been on the forum before. Watch me. I could get kicked off this thread just for talking about my own philosophy. Such a threat am I. Yes, morality is an invention of man's. You are right. There is great value in adherence to social rules--- for some, nut not all. Mostly for the ones who wrote the rules. Does your comment reflect a personal belief in determinism?

Addressing the first comment: How could morals be derived from purely rational information? And since emotional or taught morality is always derived from the person's personal belief that his morality is fundamentally rational anyway, no single person can know he is right in any empirical sense. He cannot, by use of rational or subjective means judge right from wrong except by habit or training. A man might commit murder. His rational mind might tell him he is justified if the murdered one had gotten free on a technicality after murdering the child of the man first mentioned. Where is there information enough to justify any action except a personally motivated one? Even while society as a whole would condemn eye for eye vigilantism, it needn't be a moral issue. It can be assumed that morals don't arise from someone's definition of a society of laws. There is no compass. Only a very human need to believe there is one. Like the dollar, morality is a fiat currency. Morals begin with agreements that a thing is right or wrong (abortion, e.g.) regardless of which side of the issue you're on. No source in the universe short of a believed god can tell us which is the right choice or if there even is one. We torture ourselves to come up with "moral" answers to our questions. I suppose a little torture is going to provide a more committed inquiry. But all we end up with is a good guess in the end. Somewhere between society's laws and our own moral "compass", we decide on how to proceed. Our decisions are usually based on personal safety but can also be due to an adherence to a religious belief or a strong personal code. The word, "rational" as applied to morality is only a term that states a condition, meaning a current state of events. Not whether that condition has a basis in anything. This is because the base question deals first with another initial question: What is the value of a thing to an individual or a society or a group? How can one compare an aborted fetus to a life of drugs and despair? Which is better? We should get rid of the whole idea of morality. The concept of good and evil and right and wrong is an illusion. Those terms seem to state, "Truth". There is no evil. To believe so is to be paradoxical. To allow a grizzly bear to eat us so as to save her cubs from starvation is probably a bad decision, even if she has many cubs. Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject. It's as if they justified their study of morality to ensure their value to their patrons (universities and government).. This, to me, is a cheat. If no real answers can be found in discussion or study of philosophers no ,matter who they are, it has to be admitted that philosophy as applied to morality is nonsense and probably most philosophers would admit this. The question is just unscientific.

I never was given the chance to provide any evidence. Now, I simply have run out of time. Nothing to say any more.

Us, us us. We, we, we. Speak for yourself. You aren't a child (I'm assuming). You think you are a team. Did you notice that? BS power politics. I can prove subjective reality is a better explanation. That would be either a positive or negative .But you don't want an explanation. You are in love with your ignorance. "Please, oh please, Anything but an explanation!" Next?

No one here can prove I'm wrong. It isn't that I've had any opportunity to present my work. Interestingly, no one cares. I didn't lay out my explanation beyond a paragraph or two that was misunderstood but not clarfified. You all (and I mean ALL) after so many of my posts, have only attacked and belittled and yet... you are attacking the idea, not the ex[planation, because it never was presented. You feel confident as a group, as if safe in your numbers, but never examine the fact that your minds were made up long ago, and you can't learn any more. It is childish behavior. If you examine the thread and other related ones, you will see that you have written far more about what you bet I am saying than what I'm trying to have the opportunity to say. What I expect as an answer to this comment is, "Because you don't know what you're talking anout1" And what did I talk about? Nothing yet. Nothing in terms of an explanation. I find that ridiculous for grown-ups who would claim to be open minded. All I see is a lot of childish behavior. I could normally understand how difficult it might be to explain a different way of seeing things, because it's very hard to grasp this explanation. People might politely say, "I just don't get it! Sorry!". But here, I am dealing with aggressive and not particularly curious people who pretend they know a lot more than they do. I can explain why I say subjective reality makes sense. That won't happen though. Will it? Not in a blue moon. Maybe just one of you, someone with a few ounces of integrity, will ask me, "Okay, I will stick with your explanation until I find a problem with it." That's not what this forum is for, is it? I thought it was like this: 1) Make a claim. 2) Discuss explanation. 3) Find weaknesses in Explanation (or not). 4) Adjust thinking if necessary to accommodate new information. Not complicated. Real science, not BS power politics.

The value of those books would not be available to most people. You might as well burn them. I still "read" the books (audiobooks). They have value to me and people like me. I never understood them the first time I read them. It all seemed like a lot of nonsense. I could never have known whether they represented a real knowledge or a clever ruse. They are far from a ruse. It was so cool to go back and read them and discover they made complete sense. It's funny. For 99% of the readers, they are just colorful and fanciful fiction. Only a very few see through that. As Don Juan was known to have said, the world is a far more mysterious place than you think. I never would have imagined how true that would turn out to be. The hypnosis of everyday reality is a truly effective trap. There is so much more. I used to be enthralled by mystery of the paranormal and claims of UFOs or Chupacabras, or any number of strange things. Then one day thirteen years ago, I lost all interest in those things. Once I knew those things were no different from a trip to the Dairy Queen, I lost all interest, Now, just pondering the miracle of the taste of good food, or the scent of Summer in the morning through an open window, I can't understand any more what it was I had spent so many years seeking. I read the link supplied. That isn't how I get information. It is possible to find truth in the words of a fool. It doesn't matter whether that article was "true". Fiction is as useful as documented "truth". The knowledge was real. It is obvious to one who knows. If you know subjective reality, you realize that the human subconscious is not inside your skull, but is constantly displayed in the features of what appears to be an objective world (and the memories thereof). This causes coincidences and supposed paranormal occurrences. One begins to see and experience these things as a matter of course. Believe it, or not. And incidentally, if you find yourself mocking me or talking down to me, such as comparing me to Castaneda in terms of what I might write,I am okay with that. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your inability to come to terms with something that you can't understand. This is typically what I've experienced here. I have no doubt it will continue as long as it provides you with some entertainment. I'm done pretending reactions I am not really experiencing. let us see how so many of you deal with the fact that your posts seem childish. I have produced some active threads. Nothing has been learned by the readers, but they keep coming. Perhaps they themselves might wonder why. We all perceive threats at different levels. A threat of an opposing belief system often creates an attitude of discrimination in the larger group. No true intellectual work is produced, while one liners, jokes, and other reactions abound. I could and would spend many hours explaining my knowledge to anyone. However, the chance anyone here would show the least curiosity or involvement is near nil. I wonder what so many of you are doing here. None so far have followed up on the beginnings of my explanations. Everyone so far wants it all handed to them in a nutshell. a five minute description of reality and consciousness. This thread is about the nature of reality if it is about precognition. To most here, it is a quick trip to google and a link dropped and a one liner response. If you all disbelieve in precognition, that it's been "proven" to be non-existent, and you won't even listen to an explanation you're purpose here must be something else. It's fun to mock, to discount, to belittle. I think adults do this more than children. It's okay with me, albeit boring. Ask yourself, though, why do you do it?

Practice, to write a book.

Have you ever asked yourself what the "world" would be like if you knew you were personally projecting it? I find that most people have no capacity for this particular kind of imagination. As soon as they are asked to do so, they immediately show me that they are failing. It took me years to do it well. One 'forgets" that the world would not be physically contiguous. Any objective test would be useless in describing what was really going on. Only the individual's subjective experience would be applicable. Belief is very important. In a subjective reality, belief is projected and it always manifests the closest perceptions to the subject's existing paradigm. I listened to an audiobook last night. Castaneda's Separate Reality. I think. I had read these books in my late teens and early adulthood, and later, during the nineties. It was only after an experience in 2004, which I call my "awakening", and during the following years. that I realized that those books were far from fiction. Before, I had no reference to qualify Don Juan's knowledge but it became obvious that Castaneda's teacher was a real shaman who possessed real knowledge. I realized that all of those who doubted Castaneda's writings were true were absolutely unqualified to know the difference. Don Juan never used the term, "subjective reality". Instead, he said that each of us has our own reality, that there was no common world, and that dreams were as real as waking life. He taught Castaneda to see another description and also to know that no description was the right one. All descriptions were arbitrary. Belief is a strange thing. It is no more than a description imposed on each of us. Within the realm of our imposed beliefs, we are trapped. We can't any longer see outside of our boxes. Only intense retraining can provide an escape from out world view that only objective conformity of beliefs is a true description of reality. This training that loosens the bonds of materialism (mine was self-imposed) always seems to culminate in a mental shift that has various names throughout the world. But in essence, whether Buddhism, Indian Shamanism, or Australian Aborigine Dreamtime, among many others, the mental shift is noted as a very defined experience that reveals a new subjective reality. This happens in an instant, I can tell you. Afterwards, it is no longer difficult to imagine what would be true if subjective reality were true. Your difficulty in understanding these things is natural. As children, we are forced to see our invisible playmates as a feature of imagination. Abused children often retain subjective paradigms into adulthood due to the lack of appeal of the supplied objective "training". They end up many times in mental hospitals. Their personal realities are called into question. Our benevolent mental health system then labels them as mentally ill. It is no wonder everyone I've met here "knows" I am wrong. None can imagine how I see reality, and like the mental health system, they do the only thing they know to do. They dismiss everything I say as a lot of hokum. I wouldn't expect any other response. You all have to dismiss the established knowledge of thousands of years of study of the human mind by intelligent and insightful cultures. The Aborigines in particular have survived for 50,000 years of more without any change in their culture. Only recently has their culture been dismembered by modern man encroaching in their lands and treating them in the same way our ancestors did the American Indian. My point is that such cultures as the Tribal Indians of Mexico and Australia and Northern India have spent eons working out very specific guidelines for understanding reality. These teachings are not religious in nature. They are gateways to a more meaningful reality that is far more sensible than Western man's scientific method. Science is useful in doing one thing well. It stabilizes belief through language and mathematics and by collective agreement, it becomes a powerful tool that can accomplish a lot of control over technology. The flip side is that it also limits the human mind. It hypnotizes us to believe no other knowledge can exist. It promote arrogance concerning what is real and what isn't. I It strangles off any competing paradigms, calling them superstitious or quacks, or whatever derogatory term would by attachment imply uselessness and childish thinking. Until you begin to look within rather than outward, no true understanding will arrive.

Ten oz: The burden is too great. I am nearly blind now. I have to use bold typw just to see the monitor, which is a 50 inch screen. I know exactly why I can't get anyone to listen and it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the (completely normal) entrenchment of those who would not allow me to explain my knowledge of belief as relates to subjective reality. That would take more effort than anyone here would put out----- not to say that as a judgement. When dealing with belief, one is always limited by the experiences of the one he is trying to convince. It is completely normal. I've said a few times, I would work very hard to explain my knowledge to anyone, nut this hasn't happened yet. It's useless to talk about something that doesn't exist in most people's realities. Innate knowledge arises out of an awakening experience. Such an experience is very rare. Before I had this experience many years ago, I was as hard-boiled an objective science type guy as could be found. What was so strange was the way my mind changed at the time. It was a really new and wonderful experience. I can't describe it in words, but I can say, it was nothing like I had ever experienced before. You can look up "Kundalini Awakening" and get an idea, but unless it happens to you, it's useless to explain. I can say this: Those who have it understand what I write about without hesitation. They fully embrace the concept of subjective reality without equivocation. It's very odd. If you read about it, it just sounds nutty. It's not religious, although many people who experience it are Buddhists. There is this other way of seeing things and it isn't about not being discriminating. I am still very discriminating but I am able to imagine much more than I ever could before the awakening. And I only found out this experience even had a name within the last couple of months. I have been writing on this forum knowing well nobody here would get it. I did it for practice writing for a book. Now it's getting harder to write. I will have to switch to a recording device. Even the bold text is hard to make out.

Bender, Ten oz., I have no idea what the odds are and you know what I mean. Further, my own work in examining subjective reality and what that reveals tells me that it is enough circumstantial evidence to trump objective reality as the truth. I am comparing the two realities. I have favored subjective reality due to my experience. You are both convinced that objective proof is the only way to prove subjective reality, and you are dead wrong about that. I should say, for obvious reasons, but I don't think you will see that. The circumstamtial evidence has led me to a means to use objective evidence, but as said many times, I haven't yet been able to tell my tale, so to speak, due to a lack of interest by anyone here. So be it. I don't care that much. I know what I know.

I agree with all comments that speak of human nature and people exaggerating and misremembering. I know that accounts for the vast majority of supposed precognitive dreams. I, however have had truly precognitive dreams--- three earthquakes. one nuclear poser plant leak. They stand as extremely good examples of what ought to be accepted as anomalous dreams. Particularly, as I sai, because I have always mentioned them to another person as unusually strong dreams, and I have not ever done this and nothing happened. They are qualitatively different in nature. The two strongest, the Algiers earthquake and the nuke leak, were unique in character. Since I myself am sure of this, but can't prove it, I would ask, what reason would anyone even comment on a precognition thread. No conclusive proof exists for it. Go ahead and talk about how you see no evidence for it. I KNOW. And if you don't believe me, that's fine. But I am presenting good examples of what would constitute precognitive dreams. I keep getting responses like, "Most precognitive dreams this or that..." I agree. Now what? I'm lying? Then why respond? These are significant examples. Unless I'm lying. I am not, but you have to assume some things on a forum. Otherwise, what use is it to comment at all? But I seem to get a lot of people who can't accept the possibility that precognition exists, citing a million examples of false positives. I KNOW. I AGREE. Now what?