I’ve previously stated that the highest aim is the desire to be in accordance with reality and the fulfillment of that desire across time. However, built within this is the understanding that only the real can access the real and that the unreal must also exist. Otherwise, how can I not be in complete accordance with reality across time unless there is the unreal?

Naturally, the question of whether or not I am part of the real or unreal arises. This was the issue that Descartes understood when he declared, “I think therefore I am.” He realized that he needed to first establish himself as real before he sought out reality. Otherwise, his efforts to become one with reality would ultimately be futile.

Now, if the supernatural exists, then the real has to be associated with God and the soul. Like Descartes, Jesus also understood that in order to pursue reality, one must first identify with the real, which is why he emphasized to his disciples that they are one (“You are in me, and I am in you”).

At the same time, the son of God (or the soul) left behind teachings about what his followers are like. In other words, what does it mean to be real. This is fine as long as I am able to meet the teaching, but what happens when it becomes too difficult? I will inevitably become discouraged and fall into identity crisis. I will doubt whether or not I am real.

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Disassociating with the real puts one in an extremely dangerous position. If the real is associated with life, then what is the unreal associated with?

To identify with death fully is to perish. In order to prevent the human individual from disassociating from the real, the soul will lay down its life and deny its own existence. This allows the human individual to deny the supernatural and identify with the real on their own like Descartes did.

Although this resolves the crisis in the immediate, it makes hidden the path to reality since the real has hidden itself. The human individual who allows their soul to hide itself avoids the pain, and serious danger, of identity insecurity but cuts themself off from reality.

The soul will never push the human individual beyond this point. It is up to the human individual to insist that the soul pick up its life, cease hiding, and continue the quest toward reality. Or the human individual can choose to deny the supernatural and cope with the consequences. It is a personal choice.

How do you define real?

Here are the three definitions of real from dictionary dot com in the context of the word's use in Philosophy:

REAL

in philosophy

a) existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.

b) actual as opposed to possible or potential.

c) independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.

Thanks.

Reality is that which we desire to be in accordance with, but it’s also the fulfillment of that desire across time. Further, it’s the narrative which emerges in our quest for it.

Real would be ‘of reality’.

Honestly, I think you're probably fake.

I Raped reality. Repeatedly!

If I am of the real and the soul is real, then I am of my soul. What I am experiencing is what my soul is experiencing.

What belongs to the soul belongs to the human individual. What belongs to the father belongs to the son. I am entitled to reality, or the Kingdom of God.

If something belongs to me and I want it, then I get it. No conditions. It belongs to me. Capeesh?

Listen, if you believe the natural world, which includes the social world, is the only reality, then you can’t ever truly feel alienated from it. How can you feel detached from the world without there being another reality which transcends it?

The Descartes "I think therefore I am" is a bit too specific. Better probably is "I experience therefore I am" (with thinking just being one of the specific types of experiential self-sensing). It's important because we don't have to be thinking at all to experience ourselves and our beingness. Intellectual pursuits are just a subset of this experiencing, and often, at that, a corruption of it (intellectualization, rationalization ... in which we attempt to get away from our being or from truths via thinking).

To completely whiff on what this means for the phenomenon of self-alienation such as in above posts, is to be a religious idiot in the business of parroting whatever spiel seems to justify the religion ... with no knowledge or appreciation of something more real, like, say, how human consciousness actually works, functions, and malfunctions. In lieu of this kind of understanding, we go to ancient texts and sources expounding upon killing witches and homosexuals ... and parrot it as a substitute for a reasonable code of morality.

I'm tempted to rest my case, a thing that apologists should have the self-awareness, the meta-awareness about what they are doing ... to do themselves.

Descartes was attempting to ground his relationship with reality. It’s a common experience, which is why it has resonated. Was he fully aware consciously that’s what he was doing? Clearly not.

Calling me an apologist for religion is laughable and lame. My aim is much more audacious.

The thing about being in my position is that you see clearly the frauds and posers. Nobody else may be able to tell, but I see right through the pathetic posturing.

The grounding of our being in the world is experience, not thinking per se. It is the fact that we are experiencing the thinking that quickens being. A computer can process the info far more effectively, but does not experience it. It resonates as an early attempt to delineate along these lines, but is some 400 years old so of course has progressed.

What is this audacious aim of which you speak? I tell you one thing, whatever it is you need to meet people where they are and with what they care about instead of all this sophistry doctrinal spiel that sounds like deluded grandiosity. But why worry about that? Let's get back to the stoning witches and killing homosexuals scriptures. It's such moral wisdom.

Meet people where they are and with what they care about.. You think the strong man is going to show you sympathy because you weren’t catered to? That the debt will be cleared?

Do you think the strong man is going to ease up on you because you were harmed by religion in the past? That you can opt out because you call yourself a victim? You think that you are going to wait him out?

The debt continues to accrue and he will collect, little by little. Time will not free you. Death will not free you. And he doesn’t give a s**t about your beliefs or your agency.

This!

And mark this date for posterity: I agree with Fella-Gaga-52 on something!

Probably more interesting than this thread.

If you’re going to repeat yourself from your other account, then it pretty much defeats the purpose of using multiple screen names, doesn’t it?

The soul is split into the real and unreal, or split between the son of the living God and the son of the dead god.

Once the real soul is brought into conscious awareness, during a time of pain, it allows itself to be defeated and suppressed in order to avoid the identity crisis. It’s the same concept as exposure therapy.

At the same time, the unreal soul, serving the dead god, is commanded to deny itself once the real soul is brought to light and self defeats. The idea is to sever conscious relationship to the soul as a whole.

Anyone who doesn’t consciously acknowledge their soul and anyone who doesn’t consciously identify the split - they unknowingly serve the unreal and deny the real.

*dead god -> god of the dead would be a better wording

The god of the dead, who is dominant, is the god of the past heaven. He is backwards looking and so interprets any movement forward in the story, any movement toward reality (Kingdom of Heaven), as a movement away from his reality/heaven, or as a movement toward death/unreal.

As a result, this god is constantly trying to maintain his position and deny the real God (“Place no other god above me!”). The human individual is caught in the middle of this drama. To intervene and pursue the living God, the real Kingdom of Heaven, and the true reality is to partake in the Hero’s Journey.

I am able to say all of this since I have navigated through the story and the god of the dead no longer has a hold on me.

Prior to this, the following applied:
Do not let your left hand know what your right does. Be sly as a snake and innocent as a dove.

Going forward, this is the bare minimum of what it means to be a follower of Christ:

1) Acknowledgement of your soul
2) Identification with your soul
3) Acknowledgment of the division

Each moment requires all of the above. If in one moment someone fulfills all three, but fails to in the next moment, then that person is no longer a follower of Christ in that next moment.

To help us do this, we can look to the Cain and Abel story. Cain has been rejected by God in the past so he feels a sense of distrust and resistance to anything supernatural.

Abel is the true believer. He is certain that he is a child of God and is completely receptive to the supernatural due to his naive/deluded enthusiasm, which also never allows him to see and face when he is actually rejected by God.

Because of his past, Cain can not and will not fully transform himself into Abel, but he can let Abel into his house and make him his brother. Cain is still himself but once Abel is let into the house, then what Abel experiences is now accessible to Cain.

After this, Cain will be capable of identifying with his soul, even if it isn’t easy.

(1) I have not yet attained truth or reality in its fullest form
(2) I will demand from myself and make a stand against myself until I attain truth in its fullest form

When most people dig on denying (1), it’s not out of naivety or ignorance. Everyone realizes and accepts (1) in some capacity initially, but then (2) eventually becomes too heavy of a burden. When that happens, many seek to find a resolution by compromising on (1).

When we recommit to progress, it’s important that we fully focus on no longer denying or suppressing (1) before moving to (2). Only those people who are the best at holding onto (1) can accomplish (2). In fact, once you fully commit and hold yourself to (1), then (2) follows naturally.

Fulfilling (2) is impossible. There are a seemingly endless number of possible truths and realities to wade through. It’s impossible to not get lost within it.

There are levels of commitment to (1). The test of our faith is our level of commitment to (1) knowing the impossibility of achieving (2). For the person who is willing to fully commit to (1), (2) becomes not only possible but inevitable.

To fully commit to (1) despite knowing the impossibility of fulfilling (2) is to cast yourself out from your current reality and to sentence yourself to being dead and lost. It’s Neo in ‘The Matrix’ taking the red pill even while knowing that the Oracle is going to tell him that he is not the One and that redemption is inaccessible to him.

It’s having the trust to enter into a story of tragedy even when redemption within that story is being denied (or at best hidden) from you.

Unlike in the movie, in this world we are allowed to take the red pill and then if we later change our minds, take the blue pill. Moreover, the blue pill is actually forced upon us after spending time in red pill reality unless we actively look out for it and consciously deny it.

The only chance we have to navigate through the story and fulfill (2) is to give and keep our word to ourselves that we are no longer going to allow the blue pill into our mouths.

1. Does it bother you at all that probably nobody has a clue what in the world you're talking about?

2. Does it bother you at all that probably you have no idea what in the world you're are talking about?