Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What is 'Enlightenment'?
Dan
post May 27, 2003, 02:38 PM
Post #61


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



this is my world.  If you don't like it, find your own

tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 03:09 PM
Post #62


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Joe

How does one relearn innocence?  And what benefit does this process confer to the individual?  Happiness?  Virtue?  Enlightenment?  And how does one define this answer?  Personally, I am of the opinion that the moral end of humankind is happiness (which is distinct from pleasure).  Of course I have been schooled (some might say indoctrinated) in the western tradition of philosophy and all of this is new to me.

John

Yes Derrida (is that how its spelled--bah french!) is a bit of an anaesthetic isn't he?  I prefer Rorty, but mileage varies.

So there are two worlds--a rational/objective, and a inuitive/subjective.  Both are true in part, but neither is representative of reality holistically?  Therefore it is necessary to identify the more harmonious path of balance (a razors edge indeed) and set precedent for the social development of future generations?  Is this accurate?

So where do you go from here, and how do you envision the journey?

-Timothy
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 27, 2003, 05:00 PM
Post #63


Unregistered









QUOTE
Joe

How does one relearn innocence?  And what benefit does this process confer to the individual?  Happiness?  Virtue?  Enlightenment?  And how does one define this answer?  Personally, I am of the opinion that the moral end of humankind is happiness (which is distinct from pleasure).  Of course I have been schooled (some might say indoctrinated) in the western tradition of philosophy and all of this is new to me.


Does one learn to suffer or is it a natural part of you. When you were born did you remember how to suffer, how to be sad what was good and what was bad, or were these things learned. If you didn't have any preconceptions about what was wrong with anything would you know and without knowing what would your life be like without any worries

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 06:31 PM
Post #64


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Dan,

Yeah, High noon at God's corral was acomin'.  Oh, My mention of Denver-I knew you were going for your brother's graduation and was wondering if his degree was in the bio or neuro fields?  You know family covering the waterfront type thing.

Timothy,

Yes, Derrida is correct, the other spelling just boiled off my finger tips.  Rorty?, Will put him on my list.  Derrida was erudite but could have taken his material into a compactor and nothing would have been lost.  He ground me into dust in no time, saying much about little, I felt.

You are a quick study.  Two worlds if taken as a thesis in physics rapidly sorts out everything into two catagories, not only in physics, but in many other sciences and philosophies as well.  So,I would go a step further and now call it a two world theory.
It would be helpful if you would go to the Welcome page and read my first clumsy post on this.  Then we can take it from there.

John
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 06:33 PM
Post #65


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Perhaps I was not aware of my dissatisfactions or expectations, my innate emotions as such, but as a fragile biological organism, I must have experienced various levels of distress and elation.  It is unlikely that I understood these conditions as right or wrong, but I'm sure my mother can attest to the fact that I did a great deal of worrying in my own nonverbal way.

Are you suggesting that society 'stunts' the natural development of the personality by repressing certain expression based upon a pre-existing and artificial framework of morality?  And is this state of innocence something that must unfold in time within a nourishing environment or is it fully manifested, but unrefined, in the psyches of 'uncontaminated' children?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 27, 2003, 06:46 PM
Post #66


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Joe,
Have you ever been to India?  I have.
5,000 years of Brahmin control, the highest ruling cast.
The filth, death in the streets, hunger and poverty are overwhelming and you have the audacity to dismiss what has happened there with the below tripe.   The belief system is useless with out the action to carry it out. You are a wind bag.  Shame on you.
Joe said:



John's Quote:Read what I actually said, not what your clever mind leads you to believe.  I was talking about your desire not your ability to change me.  In the future, I will stop responding to this child like way you have of distorting what I have said to you.  You are only interested in your own music.  



".......You may do something you think to be noble to change the outside of ones environment but if the subtle self defeating programs that created the environment in the first place are not changed then the poor self deluded person that has not the will to stand up for himself or try, will suck off of the person or persons who feel sorry for their disposition and expect more from the world and do less for themselves. You use India as an example and you have overgeneralized the spiritual process of meditation and religions and applied your lack of knowledge and interpretation to what I am. How could you hope to help anyone from a position of extreme prejudice and ignorance.
Have you ever studied the process of meditation from anyone? Ever made any comparisons of the different methods? Do you know of the different processes, like the hair shirt approach, the sitting in a cave approach or the natural process of the inward movement of the mind that expands consciousness in the self and everyone around you?
Would you give the hungry man a meal and leave with him no hope or would you give him hope so that he may get up and try to create his life anew? What would you think to be the most enlightened approach?
Giving things away to the undeserving ungreatful will do nothing to help them rise above self defeating thoughts. The American welfare system is full of underachieving coniving people that will milk the system for all its worth so they will not have to do anything.
You will have to do better than try and use the Indian people and your interpretations of what you think they represent in your comparisons to religions, meditation and you own frustration with me and you inability to take the time to really understand what is happening here for you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 27, 2003, 07:27 PM
Post #67


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



John

After reading your introduction I feel that I do not have the requisite background to make a very meaningful contribution.  I still am curious.

RE: India -

Anyone read Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie?  Been addicted to chutney ever since.  He also wrote The Satanic Verses which I have not read, but hear is good.

Tim
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 27, 2003, 07:43 PM
Post #68


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



Synch,
my bro in Denver is just graduating highschool, and I don't know what he's going to do.  He is intersted in medicine, though

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 27, 2003, 09:26 PM
Post #69


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



Admittedly, I haven't kept up with this entire thread, but there were a few things in Joe's last reply to me that I'd like to take up, because I don't want silence to be misinterpreted as acquiescence.

QUOTE
Who then sets the standards for what is known by the actions or works?


This is like asking, who sets the standards in a field of science?  The answer is that you have groups of competent individuals that, more or less, cooperate with each other to set the standards.    How do you define competence?  Again, look at any field in science for the answer, because the same answer applies here.



QUOTE
All actions and experiences that you do have a reference point to you. They all come back to you for final judgment and interpretation.


Great, but what am 'I'?  I am the Universe conscious of Itself.  Hardly a personal sense of identity, now is it?   So, if all my actions and words point back to the Universe as reference, or more precisely, point back to the 'Universal Mind', or 'I of the Universe', then what's that say about individual 'reference points'?   That they're merely illusion.  




QUOTE
Depending on how clear a person is, how free from stress or ego would determine the amount of light emanating without RELATIVE (my emphasis) filtering.


I hope you don't think that's how I'm using the term 'relative'.  It's not.



QUOTE
If this point is within you and this point is not recognised as being in others than it could only be based on your expereinces which have no other reference point but what you have determined to be relative only to you, and not relative to all things.



The notion (and experience) of Universal I is sufficient to address the above passage.   Again, you're throwing around the term 'relative' in a way that I've never used it.   Do you understand the distinction between levels of Being (levels of consciousness) and reference points?    When I talk about levels of Being (and consciousness) being relative, I do not mean that reference points are relative.   'Reference point', as I understand your usage of the term, refers to our particular perspective, how things appear to us being in our body.  Using this definition, it's obvious that 'reference points' are relative, and to represent my arguments in terms of 'reference points' instead of levels of Being and levels of consciousness is nothing more than a 'straw man'.   You've misrepresented my case, and have merely attacked something that is altogether different from what I've been saying about levels of consciousness and levels of Being being relative.

Let me give a clear example to hopefully prevent any more misunderstanding.   Consider the following two levels of consciousness:  1) you first wake up and are very groggy, sleepy, and disoriented, and 2) you're wide awake and experiencing an ecstatic quasi-mystical experience.    Now, how do the two levels of consciousness compare and contrast?   Obviously, one level is higher, more intense, and is characterized by greater consciousness and greater Being RELATIVE to the other.   This is the sense that I'm using the term 'relative'.  I am not using this term to describe relative perspectives, but rather relative levels of consciousness and levels of Being.

QUOTE
I am saying to you that you can't base anything that could be beyond the relative in any relative experience or teaching.



but it's all relative.  



QUOTE
This awareness [of the infinite unbounded Self] relative to the mutidimensional states of consciousness never goes away in and beyond the relative states.


To counter the above claim, consider again my sleepy vs. awake example.  Your awareness of the Self is surely qualitatively different in these two states because awareness of the Self is dependent on level of Being and level of consciousness.   Do you think you're aware of the Self in dreamless sleep?   If so, then the Self is something unconscious, and hence not discernible in consciousness when one is awake.  If not, then the Self is something conscious, and hence part of the relative states or levels of consciousness that we experience.

Joe, you seem to give the state of one-pointed consciousness (i.e., the conscious state induced by meditation) some special status, but it has none, and is only one state among an infinity of infinities.   To focus on one state of consciousness is to close yourself off to so much experience, so much Being.  You close yourself off to your world and make yourself insular, and you seem happy by that, but it's just a delusion.   It's like you've left Plato's cave, and are now closed off in a different cave.  But it's a cave, nonetheless!  


QUOTE
You have misinterpreted what you have read and heard for they never made any reference to themselves being in a highest state of awareness


But I never claimed that they made such references to themselves.  Hence, I am not the one who misinterpreted.   All I stated was that they never experienced the 'highest' state of consciousness because such a state does not exist.  It's merely a fiction, and people who believe in the reality of a 'highest' state are pleasantly deluding themselves.....sort of like the ostrich that sticks it's head in the ground.


QUOTE
 You reject what you have not understood.


I could easily say the same for you, but didn't, because it was too easy.


QUOTE
 I experience the One infinte reality


You mean, you 'believe' that you've experienced the one infinite reality.   Whether I or others believe such a claim is questionable.  Perhaps the one infinite reality that you experience is mere delusion.  

QUOTE
You are the one that made the interpretation that I have reached the ultimate place


But Joe, you just said above that you experience the One Infinite Reality.  If this isn't the 'ultimate' place, then what is for you?     Of course, I don't believe in the 'ultimate' place (i.e., the 'highest level of consciousness and Being') since even the 'highest' and 'ultimate' can be overcome and transcended, but I'm still curious to hear your answer.



QUOTE
You limit the infinite in its posiblities due to your relative experiences.


Again, I could say the same about you.



QUOTE
God is foreign to you


now you're just being silly!   I could just as well say, "The Experience of God" is foreign to you, because had you experienced It, then you'd know where I was coming from, and what I am.


QUOTE
Anything that is limited to the relative is not going to fulfill the infinte part of yourself


they certainly are not mutually exclusive.  There are different types of infinities, and just juxtapositioning the 'relative' to the 'infinite', like you did above, makes absolutely no sense.  


QUOTE
 I have not expereinced all of the many different realities nor do I need to in order to experience the one constant that is still there, like the self that experiences.



It's obvious your personal experience is limited, as is everyone's.    What amazes me is that you think your self is constant thru all experiences.  Our experience of Self is dependent on our level of Being and on our level of consciousness.   To what extent have you transcended your own self?


Perhaps our differences, Joe, ultimately stem from our different temperaments.  You do not seem like a manic fellow to me, and so perhaps this is the reason for our differences.   Alternatively, I'm a second-born, and hence more likely to be iconoclastic, whereas you seem to want to keep the old icons around (i mean, you seem to accept the truths of the Gita and Upanishads as some sort of Ultimate Truth, whereas I regard them as merely the beginning of wisdom), which makes me wonder whether you're a first-born or only child.  


I wish you'd read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, even if it's just the first 30 pages.  I think you might find a few worthy gems, and perhaps even look out onto the world with new eyes.

namaste,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 27, 2003, 11:10 PM
Post #70


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



I think the absolute is relative, too. Because if it were absolute it wouldn't be able to change or else it would lose its absoluteness. There would be no development in it.

You can make a logical construction called the absolute which is the superset of everything existing, with each relative reality being a subset of it, but I don't think God would prefer to be like that. It would mean that he's static, that spontaneity and creativity don't exist for him. He would be bored.

I think God is happy with being a relative being, too. Like that life is much more interesting. He's one of us. (Although being a little bit bigger.) And the absolute remains being a logical construction, like the infinite in maths, which is always approached but never reached.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 28, 2003, 12:35 AM
Post #71


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Tim,
If I may.  I am a boy, underneath the various personalities my ego has collected and shines out in a defensive splay as a dogs back hairs bristle,  I am a boy.
I am very glad you do not know, as then I do not have to pretend.  I have found a treasure that I am not sure of so I am groping in the semi-darkness.  It is a serious treasure maybe worth two frogs or a trip to the movies.
I really like to share the wonder of it and to maybe make a club house out in the woods.  I am excited and want to make sure that it is real.  I would like to have a gang, but before that I don't want to be embarrassed.  When I was a young boy they used to extoll my virtues and embarrass my personal treasures.  I never want this to happen again.  I'll show you because you are persistently interested, if you want.  If nothing else it may be fascinating science fiction, nothing lost.  But, just, maybe....  Have you got trading material?  Maybe a genuine slingshot?  With marbles, not rocks?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 28, 2003, 12:48 AM
Post #72


Unregistered









QUOTE
Joe,
Have you ever been to India?  I have.
5,000 years of Brahmin control, the highest ruling cast.
The filth, death in the streets, hunger and poverty are overwhelming and you have the audacity to dismiss what has happened there with the below tripe.   The belief system is useless with out the action to carry it out. You are a wind bag.  Shame on you.


There is no shame in failing to stereotype the name of unconscious pretenders that call themselves Brahmins nor the tendancy to make God or the enlightened responsible for changing the free will of people to make choices around their development or social conditions.

QUOTE
This is like asking, who sets the standards in a field of science?  The answer is that you have groups of competent individuals that, more or less, cooperate with each other to set the standards.    How do you define competence?  Again, look at any field in science for the answer, because the same answer applies here.


Not being a big fan of groups of individuals who take what they believe in the moment to be the end all of creation like the appearance of myself and other followers of the experience of God. I don't see the validity of another group of individuals who think they are responsible for the answers to lifes questions.
Both sides have their pitfalls and this point of reference is pointless. Educated individuals once thought the world to be flat. Science today is still growing and improving upon itself, where one idea evolves into another to answer one question, then prompts 2 or more questions as to the source of the first. Responsible scientists created the technologies that have helped mankind both in creating more comfort and also the byproducts that have been destroying the earth. Waking state relative responsibility without conscious awareness is as dangerous as a child with nitroglycerin. There are more illnesses related to contaminated food air and water than ever before because of the responsible 10% ability of the brain to try and reason what is real and productive. Science hasn't but more than a few ideas about the brain and its capacity to become self aware. No group that touts logic can ultimately influence anyones free will. Only the Self being aware of itself can recognize true guidance from source. All other interpretations of authority are illusions.

QUOTE
Great, but what am 'I'?  I am the Universe conscious of Itself.  Hardly a personal sense of identity, now is it?


What is your point? I can make the same claim but in your terms it is a fantasy of the present state of awareness or consciousness.
I would ask you where the idea comes from and how you would recognise or label it as something to establish as a point of reference in the many that you say exist?

 
QUOTE
So, if all my actions and words point back to the Universe as reference, or more precisely, point back to the 'Universal Mind', or 'I of the Universe', then what's that say about individual 'reference points'?   That they're merely illusion.


Individual reference points, point back to the one reference point, beyond mind and universe to the infinite one. It is present in all individual points of reference and all relative states of consciousness.
Where I am is the statement of the Ego I am that is more accurate and closer to the one reference point of the Self. The illusions of the self always bear the infinite within as the essence of all things illusiory and the infinite cannot be separated.

QUOTE
The notion (and experience) of Universal I is sufficient to address the above passage.   Again, you're throwing around the term 'relative' in a way that I've never used it.   Do you understand the distinction between levels of Being (levels of consciousness) and reference points?    When I talk about levels of Being (and consciousness) being relative, I do not mean that reference points are relative.   'Reference point', as I understand your usage of the term, refers to our particular perspective, how things appear to us being in our body.  Using this definition, it's obvious that 'reference points' are relative, and to represent my arguments in terms of 'reference points' instead of levels of Being and levels of consciousness is nothing more than a 'straw man'.   You've misrepresented my case, and have merely attacked something that is altogether different from what I've been saying about levels of consciousness and levels of Being being relative.

Let me give a clear example to hopefully prevent any more misunderstanding.   Consider the following two levels of consciousness:  1) you first wake up and are very groggy, sleepy, and disoriented, and 2) you're wide awake and experiencing an ecstatic quasi-mystical experience.    Now, how do the two levels of consciousness compare and contrast?   Obviously, one level is higher, more intense, and is characterized by greater consciousness and greater Being RELATIVE to the other.   This is the sense that I'm using the term 'relative'.  I am not using this term to describe relative perspectives, but rather relative levels of consciousness and levels of Being.


I understand what you are saying and the semantics that separate the understandings is due to interpretation.
You speak of experiences that vary in the process of evolution and the changing states of consciousness and you use these varying changes in states of awareness as reference points.
There is but one point of reference that is available to all experiences and states of consciousness, In and away from the reference of the body. The egoless originless. Consciousness or different states of consciousness experiences the one in varying degrees. The Experiences themselves change but the infinite itself never changes. It is omnipresent, omniscient, still and unchanging. Leaving all experiencial reference points aside consciousness can experience the originless Self experiencing the Self in its infiniteness. In pure stillness the Self never changes, only the ideas that create movement and the interpretation of that.

QUOTE
but it's all relative.


Only the descriptions not the infinite itself. IT has no boundaries or limits, it is as real as your awareness. Your awareness can change but [b]it[b] never changes. what may manifest from it looks like something but that is the illusion, the manifest idea.

QUOTE
To counter the above claim, consider again my sleepy vs. awake example.  Your awareness of the Self is surely qualitatively different in these two states because awareness of the Self is dependent on level of Being and level of consciousness.   Do you think you're aware of the Self in dreamless sleep?   If so, then the Self is something unconscious, and hence not discernible in consciousness when one is awake.  If not, then the Self is something conscious, and hence part of the relative states or levels of consciousness that we experience.


The one is present in all states of consciousness,  it is simple. Why do you want to make it any more complicated than that? Too simple to be valid? Need more scientific proof to back up your ideas and give meaning to it? All states of relative consciousness can be witnessed, including dreamless sleep.But then I suppose you wouldn't call it dreamless, but then why call dreaming, sleep?

QUOTE
Joe, you seem to give the state of one-pointed consciousness (i.e., the conscious state induced by meditation) some special status, but it has none, and is only one state among an infinity of infinities.   To focus on one state of consciousness is to close yourself off to so much experience, so much Being.  You close yourself off to your world and make yourself insular, and you seem happy by that, but it's just a delusion.   It's like you've left Plato's cave, and are now closed off in a different cave.  But it's a cave, nonetheless!


The many ideas that are created in experiences are infinite and the self can get lost in the infinite for eternity. believing in its purpose to create and be creation but to be the creator is far beyond the insular ideas of being something. To be everything is only possibel by returning to the source, the infinite potential. There free from the web of any particular reality all realities can be known simultaneously, with the awareness in a thousand or more places at the same time.
Meditation is one form to know the infinte. It is simply a tool, nothing more. All forms of religion and spiritual drive is linked to the source and will always create a pathway for the individual who will return to the source of the Self. Once there infinite joy is the reality, not closed to any experience or world. Not limited to the world or its appearances or ideas. Discipline to direct the mind inward to release it from the 10% level of thinking and release the 90% of untapped potential and enliven the dormant DNA opens up much more than the typical world experience that follows logic and its boundaries. You limit yourself and have built the cave that tries to convince yourself the infinite is unreachable and delusional. You may throw your logic at me but for what purpose? To share your experience or convince me that I am wrong. What do you think I am if you are so expanded in your awareness?

QUOTE
But I never claimed that they made such references to themselves.  Hence, I am not the one who misinterpreted.   All I stated was that they never experienced the 'highest' state of consciousness because such a state does not exist.  It's merely a fiction, and people who believe in the reality of a 'highest' state are pleasantly deluding themselves.....sort of like the ostrich that sticks it's head in the ground.


Here you and I differ because I don't see them as people only pure manifestation of Consciousness. The manifestation points to the source of the Self. You wish to see them as the knower when you are still the knower and they the known you still make real,  the interpretation of what they represent relative to your limited point of reference.

QUOTE
on May 26th, 2003, 12:15am, joe wrote: You reject what you have not understood.  




I could easily say the same for you, but didn't, because it was too easy.


Oh go ahead, I love a the way things fit together in the relative world. I promise I won't be offended.

QUOTE
on May 26th, 2003, 12:15am, joe wrote:God is foreign to you  




now you're just being silly!   I could just as well say, "The Experience of God" is foreign to you, because had you experienced It, then you'd know where I was coming from, and what I am.


I know exactly who you are and the direction of this conversation, I also find it amusing the point of reference you take in stating if I had known God I would have said something different. You wouldn't want to limit God from playing this type of game or anything else
would you?

QUOTE
they certainly are not mutually exclusive.  There are different types of infinities, and just juxtapositioning the 'relative' to the 'infinite', like you did above, makes absolutely no sense.


Oh here we go again limiting reality to logic. There is only one infinite one, we are not talking about the manifestations within the one, although they are mentioned it is not the point of conversation nor the point of reference. Why spread yourself into so many when the infinite one is so much bigger than the sum of the many?

QUOTE
It's obvious your personal experience is limited, as is everyone's.    What amazes me is that you think your self is constant thru all experiences.  Our experience of Self is dependent on our level of Being and on our level of consciousness.   To what extent have you transcended your own self?


Now what use would I have to find the guage? To limit myself to a system of limits. We are talking different languages. You experiences and constant change and me the one constant. For what its worth you haven't reached the ability to surrender yourself to anhialation, to give your individuality to the totality of God. It's much safer to control the relative than to give control to something greater than what you experience in each moment.


QUOTE
Perhaps our differences, Joe, ultimately stem from our different temperaments.  You do not seem like a manic fellow to me, and so perhaps this is the reason for our differences.   Alternatively, I'm a second-born, and hence more likely to be iconoclastic, whereas you seem to want to keep the old icons around (i mean, you seem to accept the truths of the Gita and Upanishads as some sort of Ultimate Truth, whereas I regard them as merely the beginning of wisdom), which makes me wonder whether you're a first-born or only child.  


I wish you'd read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, even if it's just the first 30 pages.  I think you might find a few worthy gems, and perhaps even look out onto the world with new eyes.


You mean through your eyes.
I am not so concerned with definitions as they vary from perspectives in relationship to the infinite ideas. Only the infinite one which contains all ideas and realities.

The Gita points the way to simple truths that always get diluted in so much complicated interpretation.

You may take your relative textbook psychological interpretations and apply them to me if you wish but it would be as pointless as performing psychotherapy on God.

I don't exist.

 











 





Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 28, 2003, 12:59 AM
Post #73


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



And on this stage we have the perfect example of NPD.
A Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Next stage on the left, ladies and gentlemen.  we have a perfect re-creation of Napoleon.
And this person on the right, coming up is Gods Twin brother.  His name is James and preforms amazing acts of death defying feats in his head at lightning speed.
And then.......
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 28, 2003, 03:07 AM
Post #74


God
******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 23, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hello Joe,

it should be obvious by now that neither one of us is going to convert the other since we both appear to be stubborn asses (stubborness can be good).  I do appreciate your thoughtful reply and would like to comment on one thing at this time:  namely, on your statement, "For what its worth you haven't reached the ability to surrender yourself to anhialation, to give your individuality to the totality of God."  I would disagree.  Your inability to take into serious consideration states of consciousness beyond the limited number that you've experienced, including what you interpret as your experience of 'Self', suggests to me a certain rigidity regarding your identity, and that perhaps you're afraid of losing yourself by transcending yourself, or admitting to more transcendent and profound states of consciousness than what you've experienced.  

I don't think you grasp just how limited 'human consciousness' is.   The typical human experience of 'Self', including yours, is nothing when compared to the vastness of Being and transcendence of consciousness that's yet to be experienced.  I know this because I've experienced a relatively small bit of it (relative to the vastness of Being and transcendence of consciousness that's possible to experience, but has not yet been experienced by anyone), though I know that the small bit I've experienced is far, far beyond typical 'human consciousness', even your stereotypical 'mystical experience' of Oneness and the 'Self'.  

I truly believe you have no idea where I'm coming from, and I know you believe likewise about me, though of course I believe this to be an error on your part, as you no doubt believe that I'm the one in error.  What I ultimately fall back on for the basis of my beliefs are my experiences, of course.   And I admit to not being content with what I've experienced.  I want more.   And this, I think, is another big difference between us, that you appear perfectly content with what you claim is your experience of 'Self', whereas I abhor such contentment as being due solely to self-delusion and a type of 'spiritual laziness'.   There are vast continents of consciousness you've never experienced, consciousness that is absolutely nothing like 'human consciousness' and the type of consciousness that you're so familiar and seemingly content with.    If you could only experience what you've been missing out on, I'm convinced that you'd see just how limited your current states of consciousness are, and would embrace the noble ideal of doing whatever is necessary to realize these more transcendent and divine states of consciousness and Being.

I know I post this in vain, at least to the extent that I know you're not going to change your mind over reading my post, but I do hope that others may see the truth in what I say, or at least that I motivate others to go beyond the ancient Indian wisdom, and in fact, to seek the way to go beyond mankind's most transcendent experiences of past.   I don't think even the ancient sages of India would've wanted the peak of mankind's spiritual enlightenment to be represented by their writings, but would have wanted future men to go beyond them, to transcend their own transcendent experiences.  

The ancient Indian wisdom of the 'Self' is but the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.  

namaste,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 06:48 AM
Post #75


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



John

It is true that curiosity can be a lethal form of flattery, cajoling dark secrets to the surface, assuaging their guardians, cloaking malignant intent.  Was this not the fate of the Trojans?  What assurance can I give you that these are not my motives for promoting the relationship?  I will not insult you detective.  I hail from a rival gang, to which your intentions are irksome.  Your hesitancy is well-founded.  Rationalism and atheism are tyrannical masters, but I serve them for they have freed me from fates far worse.  Yet my my loyalty is not absolute, for even these masters bend knee to one that is greater and it is this that I truly serve--above all I am a Freethinker.  So long as you value the questioning of beliefs and are never satisfied with having discovered "ultimate truth" (for it is a hegemony most oppressive), you have nothing to fear from me.  

I give to you in pledge the promise that I will never betray your headquarters to those whose vulgarity will never allow them to appreciate heterogeneity of thought, and to this I add my own insecurities: I suffer from APD - avoidant personality disorder, related to NDP, but treatable.  I am particularly allergic to criticism.  I fare decently in controlled forums such as this, but in person, sometimes I can barely communicate.  This is me.

And yes, detective, my writing style is compensatory for my interpersonal handicap.


- Tim
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 28, 2003, 07:21 AM
Post #76


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



There is also a mathematical proof why God can't be absolute. It's number theory. The only way out of this proof would be to say that God is beyond numbers, but if you want to take that way I'll prove to you that this leads to saying that God is beyond anything, which would make him nothing. (A superset that contains all subsets also has to contain the content of these subsets.)

So, if God would be absolute he would have to contain all the numbers. But, the numbers are infinite. So God can't contain them all.

That means that the infinite is only a possibility, a logical projection. You can extend this projection easily from numbers to all the other things. Which would mean that the absolute can't exist in reality, only in potentiality.

However, it's understandable that humans who perceive a glimpse of God notice that he is so much bigger than they that they believe him being absolute. It's as understandable as believing the surface of the earth is endless, as long as you explore it by walking.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 28, 2003, 08:15 AM
Post #77


Unregistered









Shawn,
We both come from the same place and yet you are not satisfied with Knowing your Self.
You mistake my knowing for the conclusive experience and you still cling tightly to the experiences that you will need to further understand which river you are or rather being all the rivers rather than being the ocean that they all return to.
I will continue to progress thru the process of Karma, the desires that have been initiated at the will of Self to experience the Self. The Feelings and the experiences will progress and transmute themselves back into the One absolute.
From the relative there are many, from the infinite Self there is but One. This Is difficult for you to understand from the relative and literal interpretation you have professed to in your deciphering of the vedic signposts. Like the parables Christ spoke in that the truth is there to hear for those that have the ears to hear and the eyes to see.

Let me ask you something. When you look in the mirror and see yourself and each year as you see yourself, do you change? I'm not talking about experiences, what you accumulate over time in knowledge or the form and appearance, but the simple point of who you are.

Pure energy at its basic level is still energy. Beyond the illusions of changing form and Ideas there still exists the One self that initiates all forms, time and dimensional realities to support the many forms and ideas of time and structure.
You can have them all at the same time. They are like parlor tricks. What you base as your point of of reference in your exalted experiences is but a stepping stone to your path of return. To know the essence of your relative self and beyond to the Self, which is relative only to the limited singular approach of the self as being limited in any description of the One.

The Sum of the many equals the one. The one is the many.

God is the infinite many but in its basic formless essence is one. The singular consciousness is the many at the same time.
There is a theory that is known by some but not proven by relative experiences yet, that if you start in any direction in space and continue long enough you will eventually end up back where you started. Curved Space.
The paradox of the literal linear mind to translate the illogical into the linear logical will forever fail in trying to attempt to put any one description or definition of the infinite into form.
You and I together speak truths that lead to the one truth. If anyone is listening they will see one working as two or two separate viewpoints and points of reference. There is nothing wrong with either interpretation. God is very much capable of being schizophrenic and singular at the same time.

I'm sure you have heard of "Achems razor"
All things being equal the simplest explanation must be true.

The detrmination of scientists that need to fulfill the desire to dissect the universe and label all of its parts is an endless task and open to any that would try. The simplest Ideas are alway the most elusive and the hardest to accept for those that have dedicated themselves to the intellect and the complexity of themselves. They would try to understand each moment and each experience to elevate themselves in to such vastness, and yet the vastness is always external to the one point of reference that would try and experience itself in all of the many experiences it would call its Self, and its points of reference.
To the Ego it is self deflating to narrow itself into simplicity.

Your condemnation of the tools of enlightenment and the idea of failure in comparison to your unknowns and your awe of its complexity is that you still see the mountain to be climbed. It's interpreted by your experiences and the relationship you have to the inability to bring it all back to one source. This is only illusion and temporary for eventually it will lead you to the One.
If it takes a million lifetimes of multidimensional experiences to bring all experiences back to the one point of reference that you are God and God is both complex and simple this you will do. This God created and you are part of that creation to complete the idea of linear progression, to realize its point of origin, and yet you and all of it don't exist. You and your experiences are merely thoughts. All realities are just thoughts and ideas. You can go as deep into them as you wish or go as deep into the creative force that created you and all other ideas. It is always just a choice.

God can go in any direction even inward as is represented in the external ideas of spritual paths. God has many forms and many dimensional realities and yet the one absolute that the many infinite Gods are connected and born from is the same One transcendant isness. Literal translations only demean the reality into limited descriptions.

I'm not sure what you think you are attempting to accomplish in your ideas. Whether to master the concepts and continue with the rest of Sciences attempts to come up with a better explaination for the universe that hopefully will be the end all description.  Maybe prompted by a desire or belief that it will be greater than the other attempts? Or to disprove all of the other attempts to give meaning or point a direction to the infinite?
 Either way its a merry go round and certainly enjoyable to those that ride it, but eventually the ride gets old and habitual and will crumble for lack of any permanence.

Neither one of us can take any of this seriously because we have the illusiory path that seems to follow the many ideas. But if one is capable of seeing the layers of reality that is within the appearances it is an awesome experience. But again experiences come and go and eventually they end up where they started. Here or there in your interpretation lies infinite Bliss.
What you determine that to be relative to experience will either dissapoint you or thrill you depending on your level of surrender and your ability to give up relative points of reference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 28, 2003, 09:29 AM
Post #78


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



Hey Shawn

I thought I'd offer an alternate perspective on this 'highest being' crap, as it just came to me:

the 'hightest' state of meditators is really a 'ground state'.  The 'highest' has to do with the lack of 'bad', not the presence of 'good'.  At the ground state, with bad gone, any good is infinitely larger than the bad (which is zero).  As one approaches ground state, vigilance is key.  The religious texts and ideas are crutches to this end, as they serve to continually aim one toward ground state (although people get trapped in an orbit close to or at ground state because the final transition is a personal experience that cannot be instructed).  The 'other side' of ground state (passing through the singularity, which is the final transition) is the holy grail of the meditators, it is the unified being-state where perception is always true and action is always right.  This would also be beyond the 'highest state', it would be 'self-actualization'.  At this point the person exists by sheer will, going back into the world because there is nothing else worthwhile.  And it is this person who is interested in new and improved brains.  ;D (It seems to me that Joe lives to profess a way to think oneself toward the ground state, although he does seem narrowed into his particular way.  Maybe he is still in close orbit?  tongue.gif )   

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 28, 2003, 09:55 AM
Post #79


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Tim,
My sentiments are similar.  Incidentally,  my NPD coment was not directed at you, but at someone who had just draped god around themselves and 'disappeared'.
My jesting posture that was also serious in its nature indicated that only as a boy can I approach this material.  I can find no other approach that does not unbalance the inquiry with technique.  I need the wonder and excitment.  I do not want the adults to come in and spoil the game at this point.
Who better than a child should do this exploration?  The only tool of the child to explore or escape is imagination.
When serious inquiry leaves what is left is soon turned into fixed opinion.  This life, if lived fully is one of continuous growth, to stop is to go unconscious.  That also is one of the premises of my two world theory.
On one side is consciousness, the other awareness driven by unconscious contents.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 10:20 AM
Post #80


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



Joe

I am not trying to be antagonistic towards your beliefs, but you must understand that it would be disengenuous for me, as Shawn eloquently stated, to acquiesce through silence (his case being absence, mine being ignorance).  As far as my understanding goes, your position seems to be, and forgive me for using western terms, a strange blend of Platoism and Stoicism, where the ultimate virtue of rational knowledge is replaced by knowledge of the self--a grandious Solipsism in a sense.

But this concept of Self is very elusive to me, and I have never experienced it.  I am very skeptical about belief systems that minimize the here and now in preference for some better, but as of yet, unrealized state of reality.  I believe that the here and now is all we have and to diminish its importance as an end in itself is to squander what little we life we have.  It's interesting.  I believe that the only reality is the material and that consciousness is illusion while you maintain that consciousness is the only reality and that the material (or world of appearances) is illusory.  But I guess my greatest concern is the unfalsifiability of your claims.  The burden of proof lies squarely upon the backs of the claimant, but an ultimate Self, or any other transcendent object for that matter, is exactly the kind of thing that cannot be proven.  It's as if I were to proclaim the existence of the IPU (Intangible Pink Unicorn).  It very well might exist, or it might not, but in either case, such knowledge cannot be objectively known but only subjectively experienced.  That leaves the unbeliever in quite a predicament doesn't it?  Not wanting to be the victim of someone's elaborate scam nor the dupe of another's halucenation, what is one to do?  Reason and compassion are finite, but reliable.  They are humanistic and I am content with that.

Shawn

Regarding the negative correlation between enlightenment and reproduction: reproduction is merely the replication of information that happens to be stored within genes.  Configurations of information (like DNA) that happen to be more successful at making copies of themselves are naturally going to survive while those less effecient at the process are atrophied.  Over time, various information configurations differentiate into distinct replicating programs based on their symbiotically adaptive fit into an environment.  Imagine a hand growing into a glove until it is a perfect fit.  But once differentiated, these 'programs' are often force to compete for resources and inevitably displace one another.  This provides the impetus for further differentiation which in some cases results in the increasing complexity of the information configuration and at other times results in decreased complexity.  Eventually self-replicating configurations of information become *very* complex and exhibit a vast continuum of adaptive mechanism.  I believe that consciousness is such a 'trait' (it is almost vulgar to reduce it to a discrete faculty).  What is interesting is that consciousness, at least in humans, possesses the ability to arrange information configurations much in the same way that natural selection does in in genes.  The human mind is the environment in which the informational configurations of ideas (or memes) are replicated--such as religion, history, ethics, scientific knowledge, etc.  These memes modify the environment in which genes are replicated and dialectically influence one another.  Some people believe that the emergence of memes, a sort of collective consciousness, heralds the transcendence of genes as the fundamental information replicator.  This 'new' configuration integrates genetic information with consciousness, resulting in the dimension of reconfiguration as an adaptive mechanism in the complex self-replicating configurations of information.

This theory gives me the 'Whoa!' factor, but the individual consciousness, in this view, is still a deterministic function of Darwinism, which doesn't leave much room for a meaningful humanistic philosophy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 11:09 AM
Post #81


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



To follow up and just to be clear - in Darwinism, the discrete biological organism is seen as the fundamental unit of replication.  This theory is being superceded by the view that sees the individual gene as the fundamental unit of replication.  And now, some people are arguing that the genetic configuration of humans has set the stage for a new kind of replication which upon reaching critical complexity will broaden what we consider natural selection.

I think some scientists, Lynn Margulis to be specific, believe that most cells are the evolutionary product of differing bacteria strains forming symbiotic relationships and eventually merging through the process of becoming more and more dependent and thus less and less distinct.  The product is a new information package able to replicate itself.  In the same way, the human gene pool and the meme pool of ideas exist in a symbiotic relationship.  Marx asked does the individual determine consciousness or does consciousness determine the individual.  His answer was that consciousness, which for him meant the cultural/physical environment one is born into, determines to a large degree (although not same degree as tabula rasa, or blank slate, theorists).  But at the same time, the individual is an inseparable element of consciousness.  If you view this relationship from a neodarwinist perspective it looks like a symbiotic relationship that is approaching the threshold a new kind of 'organism.'  That is, the organism of consciousness, which is merely a hyper-complex unit of self-replication employing human genes as its sub-structural components.  What if we are the mitochondria of some future 'organism'?

The term, organism of consciousness is confusing because it is not really an organism, nor is it conscious.  It is just a self-replicating information structure, although in principle, there is nothing to stop it from achieving self-awareness, at least not that I know of.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 28, 2003, 11:33 AM
Post #82


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Tim,

Good place to start.
My new perspective is that we live in two worlds.  Let us start with the world we are most familiar with and treat this world as the first of two, instead of the one and only world that we are familiar with, the one of sensory perception.
We can describe it in as many ways as people have throughout time.  This is the very real world of the physical.  To use just some descriptors:
The world of the brain, the particle world; the world of the electron; atomic structure, five senses; Darwin's and Newton's world of rules and order.  This world is perceived though th Kantian world of observation as detected through the senses.  Further organized through the highest organization available-the ego.  The ego uses reason and logic to organize this world and to catagorize it.  The ego is driven by complex sets of instructions that have been embedded in ints unconscious operating instructions that are the instruction set of survival.  
Now for the disagreeable part.  The part that has been failed to be recognized, since we live in this soup and do not realize it. (The Chinese Taoist teaching tale-does the fish know that it is swimming in water?).
We live in a world where the level of consciousness operates as an aware ego driven by a set of Nature's instructions that are unconscious.  We are only aware on a day to day basis of complex, unconscious habit patterns we have been trained into.  This is the current status of mankind viewed from this perspective.  We are nature's handmaidens and henchmen driven to perform her rules in a survival of the fittest game designed to hand off to the next generation the fittest that survived from the last.  Please allow me to be a reductionist here to state the core of this half of this belief system.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 28, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #83


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



And it would make absolutely no sense to seek enlightenment in a way that you disappear yourself and fall back into God. If we all would do this only God would be left. The universe would be less than it is now.

The only worthwile thing is to keep your individuality as long as you can and collect experiences about everything, included (and probably above all) the supernatural (=God). If we all do like that the universe (and consciousness as a whole) will get constantly enhanced.
That means absolute enlightenment like Joe propagates is actually a degeneration. If realized it would mean a regression.

So the only meaningful thing is relative enlightenment, where you develop your consciousness further and further, all the time. (I'm sure God is doing the same, in his way.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 28, 2003, 12:23 PM
Post #84


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



Tim,
It seems like you are saying that 'subjective meaning' is meaningless in terms of physical action (epiphenomenalism), but then you invoke subjective meaning as an agent of physical action through reference to the influence of 'mind' on natural selection.  

And memetics is logically inconsistent due to self-definition ('memetics' as a meme)

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 04:00 PM
Post #85


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



I'm not not exactly familiar with phenomenology or ephenomenology.  In fact I don't even know the difference.  But either way, I don't think your representation of my last two posts is accurate.  Subjective meaning exists only in intangible world of experience, an constructed illusion.  The processes whereby illusions are constructed and the apparatus in which they operate function in a completely deterministic fashion.  We just happen to experience these processes as executive faculty, but the experience of choice does not mean that 'I,' or the part of me that is self-aware, is actually choosing.

Secondly, when I refer to consciousness or mind (a subjective element) as able to influence natural selection, you have to understand that I am only speaking of self-modifying information structures.  It might help if you think of it as a computer program that can rewrite its own code.  Such a program is completely deterministic.  Given identical initial circumstances and identical variables, any two 'executions' of the program will result in exactly the same output.  It's just that this particular recursion is so complex that it exhibits self-awareness.  If you think about it, mate selection is just a simpler version of what I'm talking about.  Humans are selective about who they mate with.  We discriminate between potential sexual partners 'consciously' and in a sense the subjective mind is the means by which natural selection operates.  Its only a contradiction if view the subjective experience (as opposed to the information comprising that experience) as real.

I do not follow your last comment regarding the inconsistency of memetics.  I have heard no such argument before.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 04:09 PM
Post #86


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



John

I follow you agree with your overview of the modernistic conception of reality so far.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 28, 2003, 05:44 PM
Post #87


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE
Subjective meaning exists only in intangible world of experience, an constructed illusion.  The processes whereby illusions are constructed and the apparatus in which they operate function in a completely deterministic fashion.  We just happen to experience these processes as executive faculty, but the experience of choice does not mean that 'I,' or the part of me that is self-aware, is actually choosing.

I think that an important point is to ask why coherent subjective meaning should exist.  If there is no 'choice', then there is no process whereby subjective meaning could emerge in physical systems.  The fact that subjective meaning does exist in direct correlation to 'mental' systems can be taken as a strong proof that choice happens through brains.  




QUOTE
It's just that this particular recursion is so complex that it exhibits self-awareness.  

complexity does not imply self-awareness!  to imply this is logical voodoo   ???


QUOTE
If you think about it, mate selection is just a simpler version of what I'm talking about.  Humans are selective about who they mate with.  We discriminate between potential sexual partners 'consciously' and in a sense the subjective mind is the means by which natural selection operates.  Its only a contradiction if view the subjective experience (as opposed to the information comprising that experience) as real.

the definition of subjective meaning is in the meaningful perception of experience.  If there is no subjective experience, then there is no perception.  What you are talking about is computational systems, what I am talking about is the quality of meaning in perception.  One is a causal machine, one is a judging 'subject'.  If the perceived meaning is unable to affect the future of the machine, then there is absolutely no reason for the machine to support it.  The fact that such complex and coherent meaning correlates with the brain machine implies either inconceivable improbability or that choice happens


QUOTE
I do not follow your last comment regarding the inconsistency of memetics.  I have heard no such argument before.

then listen to it now
'memetics' is a meme
and, putting words in Godel's mouth, (a general 'consistency' statement for formal systems of deduction)
a consistent formal system cannot be used to define itself
therefore, if a formal system can be used to define itself, it must be logically inconsistent.  And since the system of 'memetics' clearly can be used to define itself ('memetics' as the meme that induces a belief in memes), it must be logically inconsistent.   wink.gif




8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 28, 2003, 06:26 PM
Post #88


Unregistered









QUOTE
Joe

I am not trying to be antagonistic towards your beliefs, but you must understand that it would be disengenuous for me, as Shawn eloquently stated, to acquiesce through silence (his case being absence, mine being ignorance).  As far as my understanding goes, your position seems to be, and forgive me for using western terms, a strange blend of Platoism and Stoicism, where the ultimate virtue of rational knowledge is replaced by knowledge of the self--a grandious Solipsism in a sense.

But this concept of Self is very elusive to me, and I have never experienced it.  I am very skeptical about belief systems that minimize the here and now in preference for some better, but as of yet, unrealized state of reality.  I believe that the here and now is all we have and to diminish its importance as an end in itself is to squander what little we life we have.  It's interesting.  I believe that the only reality is the material and that consciousness is illusion while you maintain that consciousness is the only reality and that the material (or world of appearances) is illusory.  But I guess my greatest concern is the unfalsifiability of your claims.  The burden of proof lies squarely upon the backs of the claimant, but an ultimate Self, or any other transcendent object for that matter, is exactly the kind of thing that cannot be proven.  It's as if I were to proclaim the existence of the IPU (Intangible Pink Unicorn).  It very well might exist, or it might not, but in either case, such knowledge cannot be objectively known but only subjectively experienced.  That leaves the unbeliever in quite a predicament doesn't it?  Not wanting to be the victim of someone's elaborate scam nor the dupe of another's halucenation, what is one to do?  Reason and compassion are finite, but reliable.  They are humanistic and I am content with that.


Contentment is all anyone wants isn't it.
The Self would seem like a belief to those that haven't experienced it as probably would anything else. Where one has an experience and tells the story it might attract others towards the same type of experience in hope that they may also achieve something similar. However the Self can be experienced. With guidance and the proper tools and the desire anything is possible.
At first it may seem to be just the imagination at work but the subtle realities are very real and the Infinite self is more real than the illusiory manifestations of the relative world.
You may look into the world and see something but as it changes then was it or is it the same world after the change. Like looking in the mirror what you see may seem similar from year to year, even while the process of aging takes place but is it the appearance that remains stable or the person looking into the reflection?
Take any two people and put them together and although the two may share similar experiences the perception is not exactly the same. This individuality sets each person and experience apart, coupled with the free will that is within the choice to believe or interpret the experience the directions of the thoughts are rarely the same for each individual.
Impressions based on the foundations of beliefs color the perceptions. This may seem the same for all that is interpreted in life but within each interpretation is an anchor to the essence of what is percieved.
Sacred languages had at one time tonal qualities that when spoken would come close to imprinting the pattern of the idea into a common awareness. Where the human nervous system at times within the history of civilization was anchored in a common element of the Self and the infinite awareness, one who experienced and described a cow could  imprint the experience into the awareness of another who had never heard of or seen a cow. Today say cow to someone who has never heard the word and the word has no value unless it is associated with a memory of the cow. The whole present system is based on memories.
Todays languages and levels of consciousness have lost some of their luster in the more grounded basics of plain ol' here and now, what I can see hear and touch is all there is. And yet everyone sees hears and feels differently in all situations.

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to give possibility to the unknown, to the ideas that what you have not heard of or experienced may be possible, admitting that you have not had the experience.
Anytime someone places a boundary on lifes possibilities they close themselves off to experiencing beyond the lines they have drawn in perception and beliefs.
Beliefs come from the 10% level of the mind and it is pretty obvious that without the other 90% of untapped resource we as a society have barely risen to any potential. Although some are very much impressed or content with the way things are and spend most of their time finding ways to substantiate the present with reason there is always more. We experience this at a painfully slow rate as we allow ourselves to integrate small changes into our awareness. Without a post to grab onto the mind would have a hard time with the multidimensional processes of the interconnected realities that form the structure of creation. For the majority this reality is enough to handle and they don't care about anything else.
This is not bad but it is not the end of it.
This reality doesn't have to minimize the present reality it can enhance it if one can find a way to integrate what exists already and find peace with what is.
My experience is that once freed from the world of memory the universe unfolds in all its glory. Like putting down what you carry in your hands so that you can embrace more. You don't have to give up anything, you can still be happy with the things you like but wouldn't it be glorious to be freed from the aversions and feelings from the ideas and things you don't like or fear?
People are still trying to rearrange the things that are on the outside but are unwilling to change the source of the ideas and fears that created what they want to change and so they rearrange and create it all over again only to try and rearrange it again. Some would say this is part of human nature. I would say human nature is not limited to repetition and habit.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
synchronox
post May 28, 2003, 07:07 PM
Post #89


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Member No.: 461



Tim,
You said
"I follow you agree with your overview of the modernistic conception of reality so far"
I could take this several different ways.  I shall take it that there is generally nothing too far out of line save for first indicating that this world is in an unconscious fixed state of awareness.  The name chosen for this state is "arconsciousness"
There are about 50,000 paid workers I have been told looking for consciousness in this first world.  
I mean to indicate that this physical world is of fixed intelligence and that intelligence is driven by nature's programs for survival.  To restate:  Conscious awareness driven by unconscious programs rule this world.  This world is a fixed place with fixed rules and regulations described by science as represented by Darwin and Newton and their followers.  There is a reason for my redundancy other than repetition.  Not to get your agreement, just to stay on the same page.
The second major discrepancy between my view is to seperate out two worlds from the generally held concept that one world holds all the keys to all the doors.
OK, so far?  I am setting some foundations to spring  from.  This just a starting point.  Occam's razor demands the most simple answer to be the correct one.  Since this world is complex, the answer will necessarily follow this rule.  
If this is too painfully childlike we can stop at this point
Or I can modify my method of presentation, at this point.
John
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Timothy_417
post May 28, 2003, 08:42 PM
Post #90


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 234
Joined: May 21, 2003
Member No.: 479



What would be most advantageous to both of us, Dan, is to work at discerning those points of disagreement in which we are irreconcilably divided, rather than trying to 'prove me wrong' as you are doing.  To do otherwise does nothing to advance dialogue and only impedes understanding.

Based on your statements concerning the inability for consciousness to emerge from the mechanistic processes of replicating units, I can only infer that 1) you view the Darwinian model of evolution to possess inadequate explanatory power in terms of 'mind' or 2) you do not understand conventional Darwinism, or 3) you neither agree with it nor undestand it.

Furthermore, your insistence upon 'subjective meaning' as distinct from, but correlative to the anatomical constituency and present state of the brain seems to be the source of most of your dissension with me.  You seem to view it as some autonomous agency, enabled by the brain--a ghost in the machine--and capable of making real, meaningful, and nondeterministic decisions, whereas I view 'subjective meaning' as a property of the nervous system's mechanistic integration and response to stimulation--a locus of perception in which the drive to satisfy competing unconscious needs creates the illusion of choice.  All of this is in line with Darwinism.

And lastly, yes, memetics is a meme, but the meme of memetics is not the same thing as the system it attempts to describe.  Godel shows us that knowledge is tautological, that it can't correspond absolutely with what is seeks to describe, but is based upon unavoidable presuppositions.  Arithmetic succumbs to the same inadequacies, but we don't inanely go around attempting to discredit our opponents arguments whenever they try to use a mathematical proof, now do we?  This argument is only valid against totalizing systems, which memetics is not.

John

Sorta still with you.  What do you mean by keys and doors?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th July 2019 - 07:27 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com