Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: The inner and outer sight

  1. #1 The inner and outer sight 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    My view of myself takes me through a level of seeing the inner and outer of my self, what ever that is. I cannot explane this as a part in the division of myself. All I can say in words is, what I really am is the totality of my inner versus my outer self. One part of me is thing, the other is no thing. One side of I is sound, the other is no sound. One part is inner sight, the other is outer sight. It is in these comparisons and conclusions that I find truth, reality experience, and angle of being.
    I would like to discuss the views on the nature of outer and inner self. Can anyone understand what I am asking?


    Last edited by Mother/father; June 5th, 2012 at 04:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Welcome new member.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I cannot explane this as a part in the division of myself.
    If you are unable to explain this more clearly it will be difficult for me to comment or discuss, without running the risk of expansive, verbose phraseology with all the information content of an aardvark's fart. Could you take another stab at explaining your notion?
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    OK Thanks for input. There is a part of I that is external and a part internal. There is a part of me that I know, and a part I do not know.
    My two eyes are on the outside of my being. When I open them I see light, when I close them I see dark. In the same way I see the front of myself and the back I cannot see. When my two eyes are open I see outside of myself when my two eyes are shut I see inside of myself. When I open my eyes I see what I touch, but when I close my eyes I feel what I touch. This leads me to fact that my outer and inner state is connected but work in the reverse. Just to let you know what I am asking. The outer eyes are explainable, what is the inner eye? and what is the nature of the organ that interupt the two worlds. I am sorry but I think words can get in the way if there is no spiritual content. Some of the things I want to explain can only be felt, that is why I have some difficulty in explaing. However I am glad you picked up on the idea, lets see where it leads us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Thank you Chris, it nice to be on science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NONYA
    Posts
    5
    Brilliant!!!!!! I believe the same!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    IamScientist 13, I am very interested in the nature of the inner and outer self and the eye we look through into the dark world we enter when we close our eyes. When we speak about energy or concentrated energy, we go inside of ourselves where only dark energy exist. No matter how much food we eat, if we do not go to the dark world we cannot function.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    There is a part of me that I know, and a part I do not know.
    This might be comapred with the concept of Johari windows and is a valid and sometimes valuable insight.

    My two eyes are on the outside of my being. When I open them I see light, when I close them I see dark.
    They are on the outside of your body, yes. You do not see dark. Dark is an absence, not a presence. When you close your eyes you cease to perecive light - strictly you just reduce the input, since your eyelids are not completely opaque. Summary: it is incorrect to say that you see dark.


    In the same way I see the front of myself and the back I cannot see.
    This is a flawed analogy. You could use a mirror. Others can see the back of your head. No one can see dark.
    When my two eyes are open I see outside of myself when my two eyes are shut I see inside of myself.
    Here we are in total disagreement. Well, I accept that this may be true for you, it certainly fails compeltely for me. When my eyes are open I can still be introspective, when they are shut I can readily contemplate the universe. Indeed, I can look both internally and externally regardless of wheterh my eyes are open or shut.

    When I open my eyes I see what I touch, but when I close my eyes I feel what I touch.
    Are you seriously maintaing that if you grab a porcupine with your eyes open the experience will be dominated by sight?

    This leads me to fact that my outer and inner state is connected but work in the reverse.
    I have no idea what you mean by this. It is not substantiated by your earlier example which do not contain instances of processes working in reverse.

    The outer eyes are explainable, what is the inner eye?
    The first is a physically observable set of organs. The second is a metaphorical desciption of conscious introspection.

    I am sorry but I think words can get in the way if there is no spiritual content. Some of the things I want to explain can only be felt, that is why I have some difficulty in explaing.
    Words get in the way if they are poorly defined and thrown together haphazardly. Words that are well defined and part of a reasoned, structured argument have brought us great benefits in science, technology and society at large. If we retreat into the New Age mumbo-jumbo of flowery rhetoric with loose usage and abuse of logic it leads us down a very dark path indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Words get in the way if they are poorly defined and thrown together haphazardly. Words that are well defined and part of a reasoned, structured argument have brought us great benefits in science, technology and society at large. If we retreat into the New Age mumbo-jumbo of flowery rhetoric with loose usage and abuse of logic it leads us down a very dark path indeed.
    It would probably be a good idea if children were taught the basics of philosophy and logic from an early age.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Hi John, let me start with, "There is a part of me that I know, and a part I do not know" What I know is what is based on my truth, reality, experience. This observation of myself is based on the concept of the division of my self. There is a part of me that is devided and works individually, the other part works in harmony with the separate parts. As I see it I cannot express the whole therefore one part of my "I" is knowledgeable and the other part is not. What can I say about the whole when I can only express myself in the division of my self. Therefore what can I know about the whole.

    "My two eyes are on the outside of my being. When I open them I see light, when I close them I see dark."

    Why do you say you cannot see dark? That would lead me to ask you what is dark?, even if you determind that it was the absents of light, you are still seeing it. If light is the matter in which we express sight then light itself can only be a part of the whole, what we percieve are aspects of light, we could say the greater and lesser light, dark light and bright light.. Then it would be proper to say, seeing in the dark light. The two eyes in the outside of the head can see frequencies up to the maximum of the capabilities of that kind of matter. If light gets brighter the frequency changes and shut down the lens of the outer eye, thus opening the eye that is capable of seeing farther than the borders of the outer eye. It seems to me there must be two outer eyes and one inner eye. When one looks into the sun at some point the eye is no longer able to look into it. At that moment the eye shuts itself down and if one continue to look into the sun it could and in most instances damage the eye.

    "In the same way I see the front of myself and the back I cannot see."
    "In the same way I see the front of myself and the back I cannot see."
    At this point we are talking about inner/outer of man, not tools to help with this observation. Try to see the back of yourself without a mirrow, although you have admitted you would need to use a mirrow or it remains an illusive option.

    "When my two eyes are open I see outside of myself when my two eyes are shut I see inside of myself."
    You said you could see the inside and outside of your self whether your eyes are open or shut. My question to you is why do you blink? it becomes totaly unnecessary.

    "When I open my eyes I see what I touch, but when I close my eyes I feel what I touch."
    I am saying that if I see a porcupine with my two head eyes, the experience will be dominated by white light, touch, as opposed to catching a porcupine in the dark, the experience will be based on the feature of that light which is feeling, smell, sound. Both these states are expressed differently. The porcupine is not the center of gravity at the moment but sight is.

    "This leads me to fact that my outer and inner state is connected but work in the reverse."

    Its something like our planet, there is a dark side and a bright side. Between the bright and dark side there is a band that makes up a belt around the planet that actually separates the one side of the planet from the other side yet the planet is still together. I would say more like a twilight zone.

    "The outer eyes are explainable, what is the inner eye?"
    The first is a physically observable set of organs. The second is a metaphorical desciption of conscious introspection.

    John, what is a metaphorical desciption of conscious introspection.?

    "I am sorry but I think words can get in the way if there is no spiritual content. Some of the things I want to explain can only be felt, that is why I have some difficulty in explaing."
    How can we teach children one logic, they would grow up very narrow. I am not sure if the words that are used today brought us many blessing more so, more wars, and rumors of it. More hunger, more crime. You know sometime retreat is a refuge, sometimes we are moving too fast.






    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Hi Strange, You know I think they do not have to be taught extra, or out of the ordinary. Childrren are like sponges they pick it up spiritualy. Logics derives from a deduction of parameters that is mostly instant. It finds its base in repetition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Hi Strange, You know I think they do not have to be taught extra, or out of the ordinary. Childrren are like sponges they pick it up spiritualy. Logics derives from a deduction of parameters that is mostly instant. It finds its base in repetition.
    I would disagree. Children will "pick up" some things - language is the obvious example. But even then we consider it worth while teaching to better use and appreciate it.

    I have been involved with a group of intelligent adults learning logic for the first time. They all struggled with the concept and for about a third it was a totally alien concept. I don't think some of them ever understood even the most basic things, like the difference between a valid and well-formed argument. I think this is too important to leave to "intuition".
    John Galt likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Does sight have speed?
    By flodnag in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 13th, 2012, 05:02 AM
  2. Speed and Sight
    By rsantiago501 in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 06:44 PM
  3. Levers in outer space
    By sciency in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 11th, 2007, 12:53 PM
  4. Sight seeing in the backyard
    By (In)Sanity in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 19th, 2005, 11:29 PM
  5. Sunset From Outer Space
    By Jam in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 13th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •