now some people see enlightenment for sages and mystics, that it brings a person further away from reality and that enlightened people are above everyone, which is a completely false perception. enlightened people are just like everyone else. however, this article states that “Part of the problem is Enlightenment can mean many things. Bringing light to dark places, bringing clarity, and perceiving the truth are a few different interpretations. But ultimately, Enlightenment is understanding your true nature. It’s the realization that you are not a separate ego, you are the eternal, unbounded energy of the universe.” The same article explains that enlightenment helps you realize:

* Death and birth are an illusion.
* Life is a dream with the brain awake.
* Beliefs are subjective. Something is only true if you believe it is.
* Life is essentially one, everything is consciousness.
* You are eternal and there is no reason to fear death, or anything for that matter. Essentially, if you are experiencing fear, there’s a bug in your consciousness.
* What you do to others, you are really doing to yourself.
* You know yourself through the difference of others, you perceive in others the reflection of yourself. i.e. if you think everyone else is an asshole, it just might be you.
* Because we are all one, compassion and love become the highest principles.

so in reality it means “living life more fully, passionately and fearlessly.” these are all characteristics which i have begun to see in my own life over the past year or two as my own personal growth evolves. in addition to those points above, there are also a series of agreements i have made with myself to recover my personal freedom again: using the power of my word to go with myself rather than against it; never taking anything anyone does or says personally; no longer make assumptions as it only creates a lot of unnecessary drama in the end (don’t assume others know what i’m thinking or how i feel), don’t believe myself and my inner voice of knowledge when that voice is used against me; and, listen to what other people have to say, but don’t believe what they tell me unless i feel they are speaking from their integrity.

i wouldn’t say i am totally enlightened, but definitely feel that with these ideas in mind that it is the direction i am heading towards in order to bring about a greater feeling of inner peace.

“This simulation would be similar to the one in “The Matrix,â€? in which most humans don’t realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom’s notion of reality, you wouldn’t even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits…

“Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or “posthumans,â€? could run “ancestor simulationsâ€? of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.”

there have been several journal articles written about this as well, one asking “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?“, one discussing “The Matrix as Metaphysics” and another telling us “How to Live in a Simulation” just in case we really are.

so again, what is real? reality? we can’t look to truth for the definition of reality as truth is essentially a consensus among a group of two or more individuals about a particular event, interpretation or experience. if you’re a realist like myself, then you believe the world is comprised of a conglomeration of definite facts that exist independently of humans, beliefs or perceptions. as the philosopher ludwig wittgenstein stated, “The world is all that is the case.” can we arrive at reality from existance (i.e. “to be real” and “to exist” are one in the same)? though if youi feel reality is simply that which we observe, perceive or experience, then isn’t that moving more towards truth?

in the end, couldn’t it be argued that truth and reality essentially don’t exist?

first of all, i of course agree that any article you read on wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt considering that it’s based in the democratic creation of the truth rather than the selection of the truth. the fact that majority rule decides the fate of what is and what is not the truth is indeed a terrifying example of democracy at work. wikipedia can be used as a starting point for research to obtain ideas and gather sources, but definitely should NOT be the source. secondly, if conservapedia supposedly has researched and cited its articles, then why would they simply not post their ‘truths’ on wikipedia, where anyone can edit the content and is accessible by a much larger audience? therefore, it appears that the point of conservapedia is simply to create conflict rather than clearify the facts. the whole reason the author develped conservadpedia was due to the supposed liberal slant on wikipedia, but haven’t they just done the same thing? hypocritical? um, yeah!

one reader suggested that “of course this is a private site and freedom of speech and all et cetera and whatnot but, the point of the criticism seems (appropriately so) to be that, well, if this is how “conservatives” want to present themselves, they do so while risking the perception that conservatism is a view held by narrow-minded, ignorant, backwards and stubbornly stupid and foolhardy bigots.” i generally don’t view conservatives in this manner, but sites like this definitely are not helping their image.

another reader comments:

If wikipedia has any kind of “bias,” it comes in the form of majority consensus. Why is it that when conservatives are in the minority, something is wrong with the population?

Why is a belief in creationism not religious bias? It ignores the facts in favor of a three thousand year old story. Are these people really so narrow-sighted as to believe that information is only accurate when it comes either from their mouths or from the text of the Bible?

The great thing about wikipedia is that conservatives have exactly the same “say” as liberals…. an idea known as democracy. The “conservapedia” is nothing more than an thinly veiled attempt at pushing the right-wing’s agenda. I’m sure the conservapedia lists creationism as “the only idea that makes sense” and global warming as “factually incorrect.” (These are the arguments I’ve heard from conservatives… unfortunately, most are unable to explain, elaborate further, or otherwise back up their opinions with facts).

and what about political conservatism? “Lets examine just a few of the most infamous Conservatives in the History of the world were:”

The late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.), his conservative, segregationist politics,Hitler, Mussolini, and Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Rush Limbaugh . All of these men had/have Conservatism as their main psychological motivation. and shared the same traits. At the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and with that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

On the Bell curve of those who shared these propensities, with Reagan being the least and Hitler being the most extreme. Bush is just a standard deviation to the left of Hitler. Fear is his political tool just as it was other despots throughout history. I base this on the paper: “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin. They generally hide these in things called Libraries.

i never understood wikipedia as having a political slant and most people don’t as it’s equally accessible and editable to both sides (it’s democratic). finally, in the end there is one true set of facts, and “to pretend otherwise is to loose touch with reality and totally immerse oneself in the apparent psychosis of all modern american media forms.” so when you’re searching for the real truth, look towards reliable sources and even go to the library (you know…those useful houses of knowledge filled with books (and truth) in our cities).

so is it just me being overly critical as usual? you may think so, but just sit back and observe while considering that which i have merely begun to discuss here. of course not everyone reflects such opprobrious characteristics, whom i am of course thankful for as we need more realists who refuse to live in a world of plastic truth and fantasied perceptions.

so maybe ignorance really is bliss. if only i could force myself to look the other way like everyone else…