CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Rachel Bishop › Posts

Posts by Rachel Bishop

80 posts shown.

Donna Campbell6 said:Does suffering even mean anything if you don't have faith? How can anyone actually know for sure... I mean, since you (I'm assuming) are a believer, you aren't exactly in a position to experience suffering without faith anyway, right?
Just because I don't believe, and yeah, it hurts, doesn't mean my suffering is pointless... It might just mean I'm not obsessed with proving I've found some grand purpose behind it all. And honestly? It definitely means I'm not about to let some half-baked priest with a fancy degree lecture me on the deepest, most fundamental questions of what it even means to be alive...
Basically, yeah... Believe......not really... thoughts....
If you're the type who lives by faith, then everything needs to be crystal clear...🙄 If you actually give a damn about thinking for yourself... you’re the only one who can really afford to admit when you don't know something...


So... you believe in meaning even if you don't claim to have grasped it?😉
Convenient.🙂

Let's see what I actually said...
...I said that... even if you want to, you cannot question the experience of faith (if you haven't had it and don't possess it), nor the strength that comes from it... that's what I said... which isn't to say you need to listen to semi-educated priests...😉
Whether pain and suffering are meaningful or senseless to you or anyone else is a personal decision... I am merely stating what happens in the case of meaninglessness:

Facing (meaningless) pain and suffering without any faith cuts off the possibility of receiving the strength needed to endure it... so then people resort to those "various methods"... to numb the experience.


Don't put words in my mouth... I prefer candy.🙂
Donna Campbell6 said:I really hope your friend doesn't end up going through what I suspect might happen later on.
But like you, I'm not religious, so I won't sit here and analyze her reaction or debate whether religion acts as some kind of sedative.
Still, just one thought: I think, in the long run, it’s probably better to just walk straight through the fire... look the horror right in the face, cry your eyes out, shake, and scream if you have to. But man, that's almost impossible. We just can't handle it. So we find ways to cope... and sometimes, that includes religion.

Even if you wanted to, you shouldn't question something you don't understand...
just as you don't realize that faith doesn't lessen the suffering...it just provides what suffering lacks without it...meaning, and the strength required to push through to the very end...to look terror in the eye...to cry until you're spent...to shake and scream toward the heavens...
essentially, enduring it is only truly possible through faith...
facing (senseless) pain and misery without (any) faith cuts off the flow of strength needed to actually process it all...
which is why those "various means" are used...to numb the experience...😢
Is there anything beyond human perception? in Philosophy ·
rustygull12 said:"In light of this, when we address the realm of sensory perception and cognitive processing, one simply cannot rely upon it as a definitive metric or concrete proof of any actual existence."
Well, they aren't wrong, are they? It strikes me as a rather futile exercise to even bother asking whether something exists if we lack the fundamental capacity to perceive it in the first place.

It truly makes no sense... mostly because the question regarding perception is framed
entirely backwards.🙂
When a premise is fundamentally flawed, a logical answer becomes impossible.
The catch lies in the punctuation... there it is...

The issue is that the question "does something exist that we cannot perceive?"
assumes our senses act as a window to reality. They don't. What we experience doesn't actually exist in that specific form—nor in that spatial-temporal configuration—outside of our own sensory processing (as Jack so aptly noted, perception isn't a metric or proof)
So, what is worth questioning?
The real inquiry shouldn't be about what exists beyond perception... but rather, what on earth is perception actually doing if it isn't performing the function we assumed it was. If it isn't accurately mirroring some supposed "external world"—which it clearly isn't—then what is its purpose? 😉
What does this explanation even mean? in Philosophy ·
Peter Jackson4 said:A person isn't a total mystery. We know certain things about ourselves. Right? And we know things about other things, too. So, the claim that we can't know what we aren't doesn't hold up.

You seem to think knowledge is something external that we need to uncover. As if some absolute truth exists out there. Knowledge is internal; it belongs to the individual. Truth resides within us, not outside. For us, there is only our own reality. What we perceive. Just phenomena. Even perception itself is a phenomenon. By studying perception, we are merely studying our own reality. There is nothing more to grasp.

I don't know how to put this. Things-in-themselves—true reality—don't contain truth or knowledge. Knowledge and truth only exist regarding "our reality," which is just things as they appear to us. These are phenomena.

Peter Jackson4... honestly... where on earth did you get the idea that I believe truth is external...🙂
just read what I wrote again...
perception isn't a phenomenon... and what can we actually know if we understand how and what we perceive, and how and what we interpret... that's for you to figure out...
we won't know anything more, and we don't need to... except for "our" reality... but the issue, as I noted, is that most people assume it's "mostly" understood... when in fact, they couldn't be further from the truth.
And really... "things-in-themselves don't contain truth"... rather, those "things-in-themselves" *are* the truth...
truth doesn't exist in, at, near, or between things... truth simply IS...
that's why truth can't be known any other way than through LIVING..
which is why you can't know what you aren't... go ahead, test it... then come back to me...
it seems we've stumbled into a serious debate over the definition of "knowledge." Perhaps knowledge should only count if it equates to power and control... say, if you have total mastery over yourself, you possess self-knowledge... if not... let's just call it self-ignorance.😉 👋
What does this explanation even mean? in Philosophy ·
Peter Jackson4 said:Explaining a phenomenon just means linking it to other things. It’s essentially knowledge of relationships. To understand something is simply to possess that network of connections.

Flawed logic. You can't explain one mystery by tethering it to another, nor through their relationship. That just uses one unknown to mask another, creating a third mystery out of thin air...
Take a simple example. Try explaining the concept of a human being. Or if that's too much, try explaining an apple. To truly explain one apple, you'd have to account for the entire universe—its origin, its structure, space-time, matter, consciousness. It's impossible.
That doesn't mean farmers stop watching the weather and growing apples, though.😉
Explaining or "understanding" an object isn't the same as knowing reality. Understanding is just shaping an object within the mind. Consciousness is reduced to mere intellect. For practical purposes, I suppose it suffices.
👋
Nancy Fowler61 said:Since nobody on the other subforums bothers to give me the time of day, I’m slinking back to where I started. At least here, even if you all enjoy tearing me down, you actually respond. 😢
Don't be angry :fearfully covers head with hands: it's about consciousness again. 😢

image

Grey, where it says 'nothing,' that means—just imagine 😲—NOTHING. I couldn't bother cutting it out, so I left it. It simply shows there is nothing else outside of consciousness.
'Consciousness' is yours, mine, someone else's (billions of fragments) attached to the 'Main' (Consciousness).
'Projection of consciousness' (dark grey)—what the 'Main' created so the fragments have something to float in 😢 (the purpose of projection is sensory stimulation; I suspect projection is everything we see, hear, and smell).

A simpler example. Imagine an electrical circuit where n appliances are plugged in, and electricity represents consciousness. You have mixers, computers, and light bulbs; the mixer might represent, say, a dog, the computer a human, and the bulb a puppy (since human consciousness is more complex than a puppy's).
Therefore, when the dog dies, the mixer is disconnected from the circuit, but the circuit remains closed and the current continues through the computers and bulbs (after all, consciousness is higher quality than those cheap Chinese Christmas lights where one dead bulb kills the whole strand 🙄 ). The current will flow even without the appliances, but it’s as if it won't. 😢 How pathetic. 🙂

...
Now I wait for Sandra Wilson68, the skeptics, the void, and the rest of the crew to bury me under something I won't even be able to comprehend.

And why are you crying, poor thing.... can any of them actually switch you off (from that current)?
🙂
Is it just me? in Philosophy ·
nobody says anything:

From that secondary perspective, ethics becomes impossible to establish—certainly not a Kantian ethic rooted in equal respect for others who are free and conscious just like me.

that isn't right... from that second standpoint, one can only find a justification for ethics... otherwise, it lacks ANY actual meaning...
Only when you truly realize that those "other beings" are one and the same WITH your own being do you grasp the true purpose of ethics...
Otherwise... by viewing them as separate and distinct from the "self," there is no real reason to respect them AS YOURSELF... quite the opposite
The proof lies in the total collapse of any ethical framework due to its inability to find "justification," alongside the tendency to view even the slightest difference as a valid excuse for hatred and exclusion...

A person cannot be ethical if they don't understand what ethics serves...
How can you respect another as yourself if, to you, the other is not yourself? How can you understand another if you don't understand yourself?
If, however, you see and understand the other as yourself, then only then can you understand and respect them as yourself...
And only then do you realize that
"Love your neighbor as yourself" only makes sense because that neighbor IS THE SAME (as you)
The greater the identification, the more naturally and powerfully respect and love grow
And the reverse holds true... the greater the distance, the division, and the insistence on differences, the more naturally discord, hatred, and exclusion "succeed"
All because humans, by any means and at any cost, DESPERATELY WANT to ensure the other is THE SAME as themselves (unaware of the origin of this drive)... and since diversity cannot be eradicated by force without recognizing it as an identity... this destroys one's own being through a hatred that leads to self-destruction...
At the cost of self-destruction, difference cannot, and will not, be understood, accepted, or respected in any way other than THROUGH IDENTIFICATION... Amen. 👋
Is it just me? in Philosophy ·
Penis said:Let’s take the cafeteria as a "thing-in-itself." This construct represents our fundamental entrapment within the phenomenal matrix—no red pill required. Everything offered is curated for us, centered strictly on the ego.
What I’m getting at is that "in-itself" has devolved into a mere "for-me." To Schopenhauer, the "in-itself" was the *Weltgrund*—the absolute bottom, the axis of existence, a blind primal will. For Hegel, it was the opposite: something perpetually accessible, a mundane, trivial givenness. The Romantics saw it as a longing, a mysterious "beyond" lurking behind an illusory world. Marx and Engels argued it’s accessible through commodity reproduction, while Adorno thought it was something else entirely (I can't recall what). For most other philosophers, the "in-itself" is just the essence behind appearance—yet another misunderstanding.
Everyone wanders aimlessly. No one wants to actually live through it or squeeze the juices out until they're dry. Is life really that short?
Is anyone actually listening patiently?


🤔 I knew he had a head... but a brain? I wasn't expecting that...😉 Well... life is truly magical... always full of pleasant surprises. 🙂

Fine then... let's attempt to practice patient listening...
...and... what exactly is "in-itself" according to Penis?
🙂
What the hell... in Philosophy ·
Jack Harris3 said:You don't really get women, do you? 🤣
It isn't about being heard; they just want to bark. They couldn't care less about what's rattling around in your head. 😛

Jack Harris3, pay attention... it's not about the woman barking, it's the dog.
👋You've swapped the dogs for women.
Has suffering become a taboo? in Spirituality ·
masterblaster said:We all suffer. But lately, it feels like there's this mandate—you either have to be happy or you have to force yourself to become happy. What happens if we fail at that? Has suffering itself become something to be ashamed of?

It seems that way...
but if happiness remains out of reach, perhaps there is some hidden truth waiting to be found within the struggle itself.😉
Just feeling cynical... in Philosophy ·
relativity said:I used to care about philosophy. Then I realized it’s all nonsense. If you look at things on a molecular level, we’re all identical—rocks, flowers, animals, humans. It doesn't matter. People talk about souls and intellect. Pure delusions.

On a molecular level, what makes a human different from a river? Not the composition. Every thought, every movement is just a chemical reaction. A plain, unremarkable chemical reaction. There are no higher values to be found in us.

People philosophize just to feed their "spirit," which is really just another biological urge. Every emotion is a chemical reaction. Even these words I'm typing are just products of atoms colliding. We don't even know what lies beneath that.

Philosophy leads nowhere. It's just another human habit.

👋

Forget philosophy and pick up a shovel. Insight isn't exactly your strong suit...

What do you think about the idea that your entire perception of rocks, plants, animals, and people is nothing more than an image projected by your mind... essentially an ORDINARY CHEMICAL REACTION. You're actually floating in a pool of primordial sludge; your whole life and the world around you are merely chemical reactions while machines wage war outside... and the sun hasn't been seen through the dark clouds for ages...🙄
Druid said:Another thing—why can't so many insufferable jerks tolerate someone actually caring about something, specifically a passion for philosophy or the humanities? I find this kind of behavior absolutely revolting, even if it’s just verbal.

If their actions were actually rational, you wouldn't feel such disgust... and clearly, that's why you're asking, isn't it?

Look, the answer to your question lies right there, in your own disgust and intolerance...
you're assuming it stems from ignorance or a lack of understanding.

There. Hopefully, that clears things up and makes it easier for you.

Now, go enroll in a philosophy program already.🙂
Math, baklava, and the self-proclaimed experts in Philosophy ·
Did someone... hm... invite me... hm... for baklava?

Atlantic:
I don't know which matrix this is (I’m agnostic), but it's all too much sugar for me—a total sugar bomb. You have a much higher chance of developing diabetes than actually living the sweet life.

Well, look at that... I'm genuinely surprised you can't recognize the scientific-materialistic-medical-commercial-whatever-it-takes-to-live-to-a-hundred-egomaniacal-fantasy-power-control-matrix...
See... in that matrix, the baklava is just sugar, and diabetes is the killer.
Meanwhile, there's no baklava, no diabetes, and certainly no hope of enjoying the good life... hm.😉

Go ahead then. Enjoy yourself.👋
Eric Wells3 said:And what exactly would constitute proof of Santa Claus? There isn't even a single witness to the matter.😁

You're being incredibly blunt... as if everything needs a blueprint laid out for you...😉

A child accepts their parents' word as sufficient proof of Santa Claus... therefore, parental testimony serves as evidence. 😉 Not to mention the reliable witnesses who have seen him at every major department store like Macy's before Christmas... 😉 or on movies and TV specials...
To reiterate...
Every faith requires some form of evidence, yet no single piece of proof is ever enough on its own; it requires consent and a certain amount of faith in the evidence itself and its reach...
Thus, assessing the value of proof lies beyond the proof itself, following entirely different rules. 😉
Eric Wells3 said:If someone claims they believe in Santa Claus, does that carry the same weight as believing it will rain tomorrow based on actual experience and observation?


Every belief rests on some shred of proof.
And every proof requires a baseline of faith...😉
Essence... you put it well...🙂.. but what was left hanging in the air remains the real question...
is there an elementary school out there where the little kids actually study for their reading assignments...😉
Sending love and empathy in Spirituality ·
Compassion is merely recognizing one's own pain in another...
or seeing someone else's suffering as our own.....😢

The issue with pity lies in its delusion. Instead of truly connecting, a person postures as a fortunate observer, distancing themselves from the victim's misery. It's a lie.

In this life, nobody is exempt. Pain, suffering, and misfortune are universal constants—the inescapable fate of any human being.
Once you accept that truth, compassion becomes nothing more than recognizing your own agony reflected in another. It feels much more honest that way.

🙂 🙂
Philosophy & everything else in Philosophy ·
George Washington...
It’s clearly about the matrix, but that doesn't change the reality. Not understanding the matrix—the blueprint—is no different than failing to grasp the "details" of spacetime itself... specifically regarding its "origin."

To truly understand the nature of spacetime as deeply as a designer does...
...the structural matrix of the whole, much like the blueprint for a machine, an apparatus, or a complex facility....

one would have to be the architect of spacetime itself. One would need to recognize within oneself the singularity from which spacetime—the matrix—emerges...
Which isn't the case with your prophet. He thinks too "linearly"
predicting a leap in evolution where man and machine merge. According to him, that union would be the singularity, the whole, or... God, give me a break....
And frankly... it's nonsense. It isn't a singularity, a totality, or God....
That kind of realization, that growth, that forced unification? It isn't my future. It isn't "my" wholeness. If someone else wants to lose themselves in it, fine, but it's not for me...
I still maintain that wholeness—singularity—is accessible at every point in existence... in every single person. Every individual is that singularity, the source itself. There is no need for a massive accumulation of data or some external, hybrid merging with a "machine." What's required is internal unity... being one with oneself and recognizing the INNER matrix. That requires a different kind of intelligence—the intelligence of love. This can only be achieved through expanding consciousness, and expanding consciousness is simply becoming aware
of the ONENESS—the WHOLE—that already exists (always and everywhere).

In short... unity cannot be reached
through progress, by hoarding knowledge, or by cramming information into some vessel that dreams of becoming a god. Unity is found exclusively through the INDIVIDUAL who realizes the TRUTH within themselves... who grows through love enough to become capable of recognizing the TRUTH that IS.

The idea that human capacity is "limited," necessitating the transfer of all knowledge into a larger medium, is false. Every single person is CAPABLE of receiving the COMPLETE TRUTH. Current limitations are merely a defense mechanism; we aren't ready for it. At our current level of "heart," the Truth would literally consume us.
I don't know how to emphasize enough that a shift in the human heart is the only thing that leads toward the Truth—away from any matrix. All the knowledge in this world isn't just insufficient; it's knowledge tethered strictly to "this" world, this level, and its specific matrix. It only binds us tighter, leaving no way out.
Good grief, George Washington, I don't even know how to tell you to take your own claim seriously: that the matrix is NOTHING, that it doesn't exist on its own (it's unreal), and therefore, so do we.
But the question remains: what IS actually real?.....

However, things work quite differently in non-linear perception. There, the whole is defined as a matrix—something non-existent, merely an idea, or what we might call a blueprint. Every matrix consists of a specific number of fields, one or more, which expand twice four-dimensionally within spacetime perception. Such a matrix doesn't care about details; it knows beforehand that each field holds only one specific detail, which may vary in many ways but always stays within certain constraints. This is what confuses most people, and it seems to confuse you as well.

Yes... one must exist outside the matrix to truly perceive its totality, wouldn't you agree?
The matrix itself cannot be—nor is it—the actual reality I am referencing. It isn't what interests me. My focus remains on the Architect of the matrix, the entity existing beyond all frameworks... the force by which any matrix becomes... ALIVE.
I shall repeat myself once more, for whoever needs to hear it...
A FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTE of Truth is that it is (literally) ALIVE.
What does that imply?
It means everything else is utterly "dead"—devoid of significance or value—including all the accumulated human knowledge that fails to account for the "element" of life.
The implication? Even 2+2 will never equal 4 without the presence of life. Therefore, wherever we find that 2+2=4, we have encountered Life itself... and only through this can we move toward true UNION. This is that SINGLE LIFE which is simultaneously ONE MIND, ONE INTELLIGENCE, which is LOVE and SPIRIT... the very embodiment of LIVING TRUTH, which is God.
So, George Washington, it is not merely the fact that 2+2=4 that matters to us; rather, it serves as proof of the REALITY OF THE TOTALITY OF LIFE to which
we truly belong....
Sigh........😵
Philosophy & everything else in Philosophy ·
hollowpilot9... I suppose I agree with you up to a certain point...

...intelligence is just mental activity used for problem-solving, while knowledge serves as the resource for that intelligence to tackle new issues.

Beyond that, I find the whole premise unacceptable...

I fail to see the purpose of predicting the future—this supposed emergence of "God"...
in a reality where our past remains shrouded in mystery...
And predicting what lies ahead is impossible without knowing every single detail of the past, and the very nature of time and space itself...
There is only one intelligence. It isn't bound by time; it creates time and space. Therefore, it remains constant. The entity at the beginning is identical to the one at the end... the Alpha and the Omega... untouched by the passage of time... unchanged...
Time and space are merely the framework for creation, while the world is simply a canvas for that one, singular intelligence to express its creative nature...👋
Anyone else weirded out by people who...? in Philosophy ·
Jeffrey Brown6 said:So spirituality and philosophy are distinct, totally separate things?
Spirituality would then be for --- and philosophy for those incapable of consistent thought. 😁
Is everything truly in the eye of the beholder?
What could be ugly about a golden September sunset?
And what beauty can one find in looking at a septic tank full of filth and stench?

If everything is relative.

I feel, ha ha ha ha, RELATIVE!

Philosophy is for the man capable of grasping simple facts like this...
that to admire the beauty of a golden September sunset created within his own eye, he must simultaneously discharge his own internal waste and stench into a septic tank...

while the relativity of one person's beauty versus another's becomes crystal clear when, after days of constipation, he realizes the "beauty" of the septic tank compared to a sunset that feels just as toxic and foul as the stench held within his own gut...

and one becomes spiritual only when they manage to love both as one and the same.😁