Thursday, 15 January 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
I should point straight out that this is a scientific/psychological way in looking at this question, this doesn’t infer that every other concept, religious/spiritual or not, is incorrect. This however is going to upset a number of people who believe God is just all loving, this is only my view and shouldn’t be taken personally, we all have our own views that don’t fit in with other people’s views, it’s no big deal.
I stated in my last post, “This however doesn’t mean objective consciousness doesn’t play a part in creating a reality; the objective consciousness gives a bases for subjective consciousness to create from.
What is this objective consciousness that gives subjective consciousness to create from? In my view it’s what many call God. What I mean by objective is this objective consciousness is unbiased; it has no preference of one over the other which also means it can neither be of love nor hate. This is inferring that God isn’t of love, so where does this love come from? From ourselves and each other by having intentions to either express love or hate.
By being subjective we are the one’s doing the creating however we don’t at this point in time physically create universes as such, this means we are not the creator but only a part of the creator. What is this creator? To me it’s objective energy without intentions but without subjective consciousness it can’t create so how could this objective consciousness be the creator?
It’s not, not on it’s own, it needs interaction of energy to create like matter and anti-matter for instance, however, I think without this objective unbiased consciousness we wouldn’t have anything to create from. It would seem all forms and sources of energy is the creator not one particular energy source either it be objective or subjective. This actually makes this objective and subjective energy we call God a super consciousness not just a God of man. We seem to have taken this objective or subjective as this God instead of looking at both objective and subjective conciseness energy sources as God, the creator of all.
It makes sense to why we would take an unbiased (objective) consciousness as being of this God, in this state it has no bias or prejudice, it’s quite impartial, this explains why human can do as they do, be expressive of any kind of emotion either it be constructive or destructive.
Now in certain religious/spiritual concepts and beliefs, God is all loving so God can’t be just objective consciousness (unbiased) to be all loving; this means God would have to be subjective (bias) instead of objective. I don’t think this is the case for the main reason we are able to be expressive of all of what consciousness is either it be destructive or constructive.
So which one is this God’s consciousness, subjective or objective? To be all loving it’s subjective but to be unbiased it’s objective, however, if we bring together these two different concepts of God together from different religions and spiritual beliefs, we actually end up with a super consciousness of neither one or the other but all of what is.
Does this also mean this God’s consciousness is of hate? Only through our own interactions but it’s also of love through our own interaction, this is why I think it’s important to understand our intentions which determine our interactions which again determine what kind of reality or existence we will experience. If we all truly believe God is all loving, that is the kind of reality we would experience, this of course hasn’t happened, this is wholly due to our intentions while believing God is all loving. To believe in God you had to believe in particular religious concepts, this is where I believe our intentions have interfered with creating a more loving existence; we have disdain for other religious concepts and doctrines. This of course has determined our intentions which have created numerous wars and conflicts.
In all it’s all up to us what we create from this super consciousness, becoming aware of our intentions is vital for us to create a reality that is going to be more harmonious. I think we need to understand and become aware of our intention more than anything, a good start is to ask yourselves are my intentions subjective or objective or both?
Monday, 12 January 2015
Written by Mathew Naismith
This post came about through a discussion with another person in regards to scientist Robert Lanza and his theory of biocentrism which supports a consciousness existing outside of the human mind. What I have done is relate subjective consciousness to active intentions and objective consciousness to passive intentions. This post will probably be a little too heavy for anyone who is only into passive intentions.
Extract: “Humans use aesthetic rules for defining truths, including what is good and evil, what is moral and immoral. Common rules include conditions of beauty, symmetry, color, tone (light versus dark), fashion and order.
Even if the rules were valid, it would mean truth is subjective. If truth is beautiful, your definition of what is beautiful differs from others' definitions. Further, an individual's perception of beauty changes with time and experience. A culture's perception of beauty changes with time. Compare the depictions of the desirable feminine body from 1450, 1850, 1950 and this year.
Cultural definitions of 'objective truth' are formed by cultural sensibilities, including fashion, politics, gender, race, beauty, geography, self interest, desire for social order, etc. There is no indication these are identifiers of objective truth, or are even related, but they are still used as criterion.”
It is obvious that physical subjective thought/consciousness creates realities either that be created through active or passive intentions, would not a non-physical consciousness also be able to create such realities?
Let’s ask another question to define this; can a reality be created without a subjective consciousness when we have physically proven, through our own human intentions, that you can create realities through subjective thinking/consciousness? Try creating a reality without subjective consciousness; it’s virtually impossible as I will explain further.
Now let’s see where passive and active intentions fit with objective and subjective consciousness.
Passive intentions are about intentions that are not forceful and domineering, this means passive intentions are more about objective consciousness. If we tried to create a reality based primarily on objective consciousness, it wouldn’t evolve because of it’s passive nature. To force an action you need subjective consciousness to do this. This however doesn’t mean objective consciousness doesn’t play a part in creating a reality; the objective consciousness gives a bases for subjective consciousness to create from.
For an example; actual spiritualists don’t express active intentions, they are very objective within their consciousness, it’s the interactions of other consciousness’s that are subjectively responding to such spiritual people that cause an effect. If this objective spiritualist was totally on their own, they couldn’t create any kind of reality without subjective intentions.
It is obvious going by this that passive intentions or more of objective consciousness and active intentions are more of subjective consciousness.
This means even though objective intentions are the bases for creation, they actually don’t create themselves, creation obviously comes from subjective intentions.
Now what type of reality are these subjective intentions going to create? This depends on our active and/or passive intentions, a more active intention is going to create more change but passive intentions are just going to go with the flow of life not against it. Passive intentions actually mean making less changes to the environment as a whole including ourselves.
Take a science discovery for example; they are supposed to be produced by an objective consciousness without an intention, as soon as this discovery has an intention, it becomes subjective. At this point it can either become passive or active within it’s intentions, in other words destructive or constructive, the atom bomb is a good example of a subjective intention becoming destructive. To create anything from objective consciousness you need a subjective consciousness to do so no matter what.
Objective consciousness is just sitting there for any subjective consciousness to create from, it's motionless until we give it intentions, in other words motion to create.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
I had an interesting discussion with a bloke in relation to my last post titled, Subjective and Objective Analysis, it seems I didn’t explain myself too well. The post wasn’t about being anti-subjective thinking, which is analysing through feelings, but balancing out our subjective analysis when we have distaste for something we are analysing. To me the world at present is a good example of how subjective analysis of each other is distorting our reality making it more volatile, all I am saying is in this situation, we need to use more objective analysis to balance out our over emotional reactions. Hopefully the following will elaborate on this a little further starting off with this blokes queries of my last post in question.
I do not believe we disagree on the general thrust of your claims. I take issue solely with one claim: the imaginary possibility of objectivity as a perspective from which we may safely acquire knowledge. There is no other perspective than the one into which we are thrown. Mood or emotion is part of our experience, as it is with our memory. It may no more be extracted and preserve the original experience than we may detach ourselves from our bodies and imagine that experience is possible without them (dreams, perhpas, although they will still reference the body and the physical sphere). That emotions can cloud our judgment or distort what we are seeing is not being denied. What is denied is that we can (or should) be without emotion in the appropriation of experience that becomes knowledge. We achieve critical distance from our emotions and biases by re-examination of our experiences and by making conscious that lens by which we came to understand this or that experience.
It sounds like a claim doesn't it, it's just a generalization brought about by my own observation.
I don't think we are disagreeing as a whole, we just don’t see each other’s perspectives on this matter that is all.
Emotions are a part of how we learn, there is no doubt to that however, what the post is about is analysing something we are anti to, if we are analysing anything we have distaste for, what I’m am stating is subjective analysis will distort our feeling even more where’s objective analysis will balance out such feelings. We don’t need to add more fire to the fire for the fire to burn, it’s burning quite well on it’s own, the world at present, with it’s subjective analysing, is to me quite clearly showing how subjective thought is emotionally distorting reality.
Subjective analysis is about analysing a wrong or right, black and white, if we are too emotional when we analyse in this way, we will over exemplify what actually is. Yes, in a situation where we are not showing distaste, subjective analysis works fine but what I am saying, if we are showing distaste to something we are analysing we will distort reality, the truth. As soon as we show distaste, we quite automatically use subjective analysis instead of objective analysis, in my mind we need to be more aware of this.
I’m not anti-subjective thinking but the post is about subjective and objective analysis when in distaste of anything we analyse.
The funny thing is, spirituality takes away the black and white judgment of subjective analysing when using subjective analysis, this in turn gives us more of balance between subjective and objective thought however, I might not be totally correct in this analysis but I think I’m close to it. Being spiritually aware, feelings become a major part of our lives and that is what we analyse through however in this case because we are spiritually aware and non-judgemental, the black and white are not judged as being opposite to each other or opposing each other. Because we are not judging, we are less likely to be influenced by our over exemplified emotions allowing us to be as objective as we are subjective within our analysis giving us balance.
There is also big difference between emotions and feelings when spiritually aware; we actually become less emotional even though at times it seems to be the other way around. What we feel makes us emotional but the feelings themselves aren’t emotional, they create emotions within us through us opening to such inner feelings but these feelings aren’t themselves emotional. How do we become less emotional? We end up taking these feelings within our stride, in other words we become less emotional about these feelings the more they become the norm. Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t take away the feelings we get and in actual fact the more the normal these feelings are to us the more we will feel.
It is quite interesting observing how spiritualty quite automatically balances out the way we subjectively and objectively analyse, this kind of mentality dispels fanatical thinking, a thought process that over exemplifies it’s opposites causing further chaos. We no longer see extremes but a reality of similarities brought about by our inner feelings that are no longer emotionally controlled or choke by such emotions, we become balanced with our truer selves. There is no longer a struggle between the push and pull effect, subjective objective analysis.
Yes I could be incorrect with this analysis however I could also be correct, each to their own perspective.
Supplement: My Reply
This is why I concurred with what was written in the link supplied that referred to the psychological aspects of this, instead of just analysing through objective analysis, they need to also analyse through subjective analysis. This is turn balances out the analysis between objective and subjective thought giving us a better evaluation.
What you seem to be saying is you deny such equivocation exist, there is no separation between subjective and objective thought, this is true to an extent. To us this separation exists, that is true, however in true reality this separation doesn’t exist, but we don’t exist in a true reality as per se.
To un-separate such mentalities, we need to give balance back into our thinking by using both subjective and objective analysis at the same time as stipulated in the article on psychologists abandoning the subjective—objective divide.
The reason I stated that subjective analysis is about a wrong and right, black and white is it’s about judgment and separation of supposed opposites giving us a more emotional response. What I am saying is we don’t need to be any more emotional when we are analysing anything we have a disdain for and gives us more separation. What I am also saying is objective analysis gives us the balance we need in this case.
I agree with you, there is no true separation between objective and subjective analysis however at present, we are living as if there is, that is what I’m working with at present. It is easy for people like you and I to see this but is it that simple for others to see this without bringing in balance between subjective and objective analysis? The answer is no, we could tell them there is no separation but is this alone going to change their mentality? They need to become aware of living in balance between objective and subjective analysis before they will realise there is no separation between these two modes of thought.
Friday, 5 September 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
Extract: Objective analysis
“The testing procedure that attempts to eliminate emotion and feeling, and analyze facts and quantitative comparisons among subjects.”
Extract: Subjective analysis
“Testing that attempts to measure the otherwise unquantifiable. These tests would analyze likes, dislikes, and otherwise subjective intangibles.”
Can religious/spiritual people, who are anti-science and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? I would think the answer would be no.
Can anyone in the science community, who are anti-religion/spirituality and fixated to their principles, question and/or judge science principles unbiasedly and objectively? Again the answer would be no.
The reason for this is anyone who is anti-anything they are analysing, will only analyse through subjective reasoning, not objective reasoning, which of course will only give us a bias/subjective evaluation not a true evaluation. A religious/spiritual person who is anti-science will evaluate science and the science community using subjective analysis giving us a bias evolution not a true evolution. This is of course the same with science minded people who are anti-religion/spirituality; their analysis is governed by subjective analysis which is more emotional than objective analysis. As soon as you bring emotions into the equation, any final evaluation is likely to be flawed even though we have supported our claims with evidence. This is due to being subjective instead of objective within our analysis of anything we are anti to, due to our emotions.
If we subjectively analyse anything we are anti to, we will only find evidence to support our emotions, we will not look for any evidence to support anything we are anti to, but if we do, we will discard or ignore such evidence due to our emotions. As soon as a person who is of an ideological principle we are anti to points out evidence to support their claims, we will ignore or discard any such evidence of being of evidence, this is again due to the way we subjectively analyse.
What this is saying is try to be more of an objective analyser than a subjective analyser unless we don’t want a correct evolution of course, but a bias evolution that supports our dislikes. A correct evaluation can only be sought through objective non-emotional analysis, once we bring in such emotions; our final analysis is liable to be incorrect and bias.
The strange thing is the bellow article, on subjective and objective analysis in psychiatry, tells us that psychologists needs to bring this divide between subjective and objective analysis together to give us a truer evaluation which I totally concur with. So should we be using both subjective and objective analysis together as equal partners to give us a more precise evaluation? I would agree with this however if whatever we are evaluating we are anti to, any kind of subjective analysis isn’t going to give us a true evaluation, this is due to our subjective emotions. If we are evaluating anything we are anti to, we must be totally objective within our evaluations otherwise we won’t get a true precise evolution, it will be bias and untrue.
“In the mental state examination, a standard method of describing the clinical encounter is to contrast the patient's supposedly ‘subjective’ account with the doctor's ‘objective’ description. In this model, the doctor is granted a privileged position: the clinician's perspective is taken to be superior to that of the patient. The doctor's objective approach is considered neutral, scientific and representing the truth of the matter. In contrast, the patient's subjective report is regarded as unreliable, distorted and potentially false. The lowly status of the subjective perspective is further emphasised by the frequent use of the accompanying prefix, merely.”
So in all the use of subjective and objective analysis’s at the same time gives us a more balanced view however, we must at times realise the ideological principles we are anti to, we are likely to be subjective within our analysis, therefore there is a need to be more objective within our analysis in these cases rather than just being subjective. It all comes down to being more aware when we evaluate everything within our environment.
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
Written by Mathew Naismith
Try to be kind to oneself, we can be focused too much on others especially if we are influenced by our own femininity and forget or neglect our responsibility to ourselves. Being spiritually aware can also bring on,” we should be close to being perfect “try accepting who you are at any given time. The Dahlia Lama admits he still loses he’s temper at times, just because we are spiritually aware and even connected doesn’t mean we should even try to be perfect in our own eyes. We can tend to allow these imperfections in other people but we tend to, at times, disallow these seeming imperfections within ourselves. I did say seeming for the main reason to define a cause is judgement or a wrong, imperfections aren’t a wrong and can’t be wrong in anyway especially in ourselves.
This is ironical, I wrote the first paragraph of this post two days ago and left it at that which isn’t normal for me to do, once I start writing I usually finish what I’m writing. Something happened to me to do with another person which I will get to later, what I experienced is significant to this post.
If we see in ourselves what other less aware people do, we are making judgement and as soon as we see any trait that is unbecoming in us in any way we are looking down at that trait or even ourselves or another person, as soon as we do this we are judging that there is a flaw. To see a flaw, either in ourselves or another person, is of judgement. Being spiritually aware, we expect ourselves and others like us to be above normal human behaviour and when we fail in this we tend to often judge ourselves accordingly, either consciously and/or subconsciously. As soon as we see a negative in another person and try to stay away from that negative person we are making judgment and as soon as we judge in this way we have failed in our expected behavioural pattern of perfectionism. We should at no stage expect ourselves to always behave in an expected appropriate way beyond our present habituations.
Yes I have myself in the past judged people negative and stayed away from them mainly because they were disruptive to myself and/or others around me, in doing this I have made judgement. Am I less of a person because of this? If I was to judge that I am less of a person for making such judgement, it is obvious I will see myself as a less of a person mainly because spiritually aware people are not allowed to judge. Who has judged that one is not allowed to judge in the first place? By making such an initial judgment in the first place that spiritually aware people shouldn’t judge is slightly hypocritical it would seem.
As we become more and more spiritually aware judgement and anything else to do with the controlling factors of the ego will automatically dissipate, all we have to do is be aware. However by staying away from negative people because they are not positive or they make us feel bad isn’t a good way to judge, this seems to denote a controlling ego for the main reason we have judged subjectively not objectively. When judging subjectively that we should stay away from a particular person because they don’t make us feel good is prejudicially making judgement by putting ourselves up above them. We have unwittingly compared others to us and judge them inferior to us, this is subjective judgement. How would a person be deemed as being negative, for us to stay a way from, unless we subjectively compared them to us?
I don’t actually stay away from so called negative people, I try to become aware of the difference but I don’t try to judge others of being more or less negative or positive, as soon as I have done this I have subjectively judged. Objectively judging is not seeing that others around me are more or less negative than me, what I see is a difference within our behavioural pattern. As soon as a person who is different to me in behaviour becomes too disruptive I say something instead of ostracising them, as soon as I start to ostracise people I have become subjectively judgmental. However confronting others about their disruptive behaviour doesn’t always work so the only recourse we have is to ostracise them or persist in our endeavours to get through to them either on our own or with other people assisting. When we persist we are being objective as opposed to subjectively ostracising them for being negative and making us feel bad. We should also remember here, spirituality isn’t just about feeling good, it’s about awareness as a whole which at times means feeling bad as well.
How many spiritually aware people who see negatives in others and the world let a person who is suffering from terminal cancer suffer without giving assistance when needed? These people couldn’t help because they would judge such a negative situation as being bad or negative which of course would make them feel bad instead of good. I try not to judge a person suffering from terminal cancer separate from a person who is just being different to me, this way of thinking is very collective.
This brings me back to my experience with a particular person very few people want anything to do with because of his disruptive behaviour at times.
I wasn’t feeling my usual sparky self & this bloke knew this. Latter on that evening he ended up making an unbecoming gesture towards me that was quite uncalled for. Sadly enough this bloke can be quite narky within his gestures. I confronted him to what he meant, I was met with silence, he couldn’t look me in the eyes at this stage which suggested what he said he meant to say. I know a little about body language. Eventually after asking three times what he meant by what he said to me he replied, “It was a joke”. A person who just sees a negative person would have judge him subjectively and most probably ostracised him however that isn’t what I did. I objectively brought other people into the equation and showed how disruptive and unbecoming he’s behaviour was. Being the person this bloke is, he didn’t or couldn’t apologise but according to he’s body language I got through to him. After this altercation we, somewhat, sedately continued to converse into the night without further altercations. And yes I will have further contact with this bloke for the main reasons I don’t try to subjectively judge plus spirituality isn’t just about (me) feeling good, it’s about becoming aware of the collective.
On the opposite of the coin, I have very little contact with a few of my rellies because they are too disruptive. Yes I stood by them and tried to reason with them for years on end however at the end I had no choice but to break my ties with them. This is subjectively ostracising them however this course of action can’t be helped at times and one shouldn’t be too judgemental upon oneself in cases like this. If we think perfection all we will do is cause more fragmentation which will cause us to judge more frequently subjectively.
In all, when we judge, either it be objectively or subjectively, we shouldn’t be too hard on ourselves for doing so, we are not divine perfect beings nor are we in a perfect world. Judging objectively can be quite helpful to yourself and others, making ourselves and others aware of their own disruptive behaviour. Making subjective judgement can, at times, have the reverse effect. We also need to be aware of the difference between objective and subjective judgement, one denotes a controlled ego and the other is just of the ego self, remembering we all have an ego self I believe. This makes ostracising some of my family of the controlling ego however I will not subjectively judge myself so but objectively look at the positive effects of such actions which are many.
Either subjectively or objectively judging ourselves and others, we must keep in mind when we judge is it going to be helpful for all concerned even if the other parties can’t see the benefits of such judgement!! The safest and kindest way to judge is objectively however that can’t always be the case when forced in a corner, don’t judge yourself too harshly when forced into that corner.