Haiku of Day (REALITY)

Can REALITY
Go anywhere if THAT IS
What Never Changes?

REALITY by
Absolute Standards IS THAT
which Never Changes

***

"This Awareness" is
Relatively Absolute
"Appearance-wise."

"Knowledge I Am" is
Relatively Absolute
"Appearance-wise."

***

The "Only Ever-
Present Thing" is the Conscious
Aliveness I Am.

The "Only Thing" that
Is with "me" always is this
Awareness I Am.

***

Truth by Absolute
Standards is not subject to
Any Circumstance.

Truth by Absolute
Standards is not subject to
Relative matters.

[Rich Note: Inspired by the following impromptu edited text dialogue:

George: "Book by Jim Baggs...at the ocean city library titled "Farewell to Reality...How Modern Physics Has Betrayed Search for Scientific Truth"....This book (is) a little too deep for me....but thought you might enjoy on truth search.   Has six principles, one of which is reality is a metaphysical concept, and thus beyond reach of science which at best can generate knowledge of empirical reality, ie, things as they appear and can be measured.   Bottom line is (he) thinks much of modern physics is non-scientific fantasy that sells to popular audiences ans for government funding.

Rich: Mr. Baggs doesn't seem to realize that "things as they appear" (the measurable stuff science is supposed to stick to investigating) are themselves a "conceptually self-projected, energetic world of secondary causes and related effects" (Re: transitory images and mental self-reflections --individual, collective and universal).

George: I don't think he'd debate with you, and things you see as truth is a reality beyond science.  However, he is very good at communicating and defining his premises and terms with great precision.  No fuzziness and ambiguous terms, in fact he is trying very hard to communicate clearly and non/egoistically.   In fact, (he's) reacting a bit to a popular theoretical physicist on TV claiming to know more then scientifically proven, and this fellow (Baggs) is very precise on defining limits of knowledge from a scientific method point of view.   He classifies their claimed scientific knowledge as belonging to philosophical debate and science fiction and fantasy (more) then science; and thus confusing the mass media on what is science and what is not.  More out of Einstein's experimental school of science, (which is based) on what we know and don't know scientifically.  He...attempts (to use) principles as... premises in developing...arguments and conclusions.  

[See related e-mail response and Bill Samuel "2+2=Reality" (comped link: http://williamsamuel.com/TwoPlusTwoEnglish.pdf ) for a masterful effort in defining Reality in a way even pure logicians can agree with.]

Related E-Mail: I understand the argument that the scientific method can only deal with "measurables" and that, as such, "real scientists" (technocrats actually) should mind there own business with respect to subjective/metaphysical matters (even though the scientist himself is actually trying to transcend his own innately subjective nature, from the outside-in, instead of the inside-out).

I would disagree, however, that "Reality," in and of Itself is a metaphysical concept, when properly apprehended and defined -- pointed to (see 2+2=Reality link above) and known in the same direct way "I Know I Am"; and, as such, isn't going anywhere but Here and Now, where "It Always Is, Was and Ever Will Be" as "That which Never Changes."

Neither do I care for "Science as Religion and Savior," at least as portrayed by the media, belittling metaphysics, conceptual and otherwise, philosophy or religion (if seen from an "Inner Teaching" perspective), as inherently illogical and so the provence of weak minds and inferior intellects.

[Rich Note: Those "six principles" (whatever Thant may be) have to originate from One Source Principle that necessarily "includes, embraces and transcends" the six (or however many) sub-principles (Re: partial, relative perspectives)" espoused; or assume Absolute Relativity (Re: a non sequitor as their ultimate premise) in its stead.]

Rich: calling it "...science fiction and fantasy..." is pejorative, clearly indicative of "subjective bias" and reveals a likely atheistic premise in a thinly veiled disguise.

Again, it would appear to be "science presented as religion" that needs to be kept in a nice, neat, well-defined, well-ordered, sacred but closed and very dead box/coffin.

What ever happens to open-minded, intellectual honesty?

George: Read the book.....its physic folk defining their own field on what it is and isn't. Sorry I brought it up.   Never mind.   Don't want to debate....Just thought you might find interesting.  But never mind.

Rich: Re: "...Einstein experimental school of science..."

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."  Einstein

Rich: Philosophically, I see any attempt to re-unite what our partial human frame of self-reference projects on an otherwise Seamless Reality as positive.

[Rich Note (Added): "A dual state of mind projects its relative limits in much the same way that looking through a pair of binoculars projects its circular limits." (From OOMM intro to Chpt. 7, "Purify Your Hearts Ye Double Minded")]