Images
ta
essentially making our brains databases that store and organize these
images, then isn't our knowledge of the world really incomplete since images
are abstractions - mere representations of "what is"? And if we use our
brains to create our understanding of the world - adding, controlling,
organizing these images - including our perception of ourselves, then aren't
we just another image? Then don't we (the observers) become inseparable from
the things we see (the observed) since the things we see are created by us?
The observed and the observer are the same, right?
Giancarlo Marchetti
I am pleased to announce the publication of a new enlightening book
Gemma Corradi Fiumara, The Mind's Affective Life. A Psychoanalytic and
Philosophical Inquiry, Brunner-Routledge 2001.
'... a major contribution to the neglected subject of human feelings' Arnold
H. Modell, Harvard Medical School
'This book is a remarkable contribution to an understanding of the role of
affects in the construction and survival of psychic life' Joyce McDougall,
Member of the New York Freudian Society
`Professor Fiumara's rich, detailed, thoughtful analysis both enriches and
sharpens the reader's understanding of a complex and highly actual subject
of psychoanalytic and philosophical inquiry' Otto Kernberg, President,
International Psychoanalytic Association
The Mind's Affective Life is a refreshing and innovative examination of the
relationship between feeling and thinking. Our thoughts and behaviour are
shaped by both our emotions and reason; yet until recently most of the
literature analysing thought has concentrated largely on philosophical
reasoning and neglected emotions. This book is an original and provocative
contribution to the rapidly growing literature on the neglected "affective"
dimensions of modern thought. The author draws on contemporary
psychoanalysis, philosophy, feminist theory and recent innovations in
neuroscience to argue that in order to to understand thought, we need to
consider not only both emotional and rational aspects of thought but also
the complex interactions between these different aspects. Only through such
a rich and complicated understanding of modern thought can we hope to avoid
what the author identifies as a significant contemporary problems for
individuals and cultures; that is, suppression or denial of intolerable
states of feeling.
Contents: Introduction. I. The Fragility of "Pure Reason." The Island
of"Pure Reason" and the Sea of Passions. The Contigency of the Subject.
ACulture of Hierachised Knowledges. II. From Philosophy to
Epistemophily.Latent Functions of Knowledge. Alternative Modes of Inquiry.
III. Thinking Affects. The Problem of Thinking Affects. The "Conquest" of
Affects.Ulterior Perspectives. IV. A Passion for Reason. Passions in Reason.
ThePleasures of Mental Efficacy. V. Minding the Body. Mental Life and
Embodied Existence. Knowledge as an Organismic Derivative. VI. The
"Terminology" of Affects. The Question of Classification and Terminology.
Familiarity and Continuities. Vocabularies and Perception of Affects. VII.
Affective Knowledge. Affective Components of Reason. Expanding the
Conditions of Knowledge. Relational Knowing. Affects and Cognition. VIII.
The Price of Maturity. The Question of Maturity. The Legitimacy of Affects
and Moods. Silencing Affects. IX. Toward Affective Literacy. Naming Our
Inner States. Cultural Influences. X. Affects and Narratives. Joint
Narratives. Narrative Constructions. Psychoanalytic Narratives. XI. Affects
and Identity. Affects and Identity in the Psychoanalytic Relation. Empathy
and Identity. Reprocessing Our Inner Past. XII. Affects and Indifference.
The Question of Indifference. Psychodiversity and "Co-optosis."
Preliminaries as Conclusions
Author Biography:
Gemma Corradi Fiumara is Professor of Philosophy at the Third University of
Rome, and a training member of the International Psychoanalytic Association.
She is the author of The Metaphoric Process: Connection between Language and
Life, Routledge 1995
best wishes
Giancarlo Marchetti
Edgar Svendsen
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:K5408.5053$V55.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> If it is true that memories are really only images in our brains,
> essentially making our brains databases that store and organize these
> images, then isn't our knowledge of the world really incomplete since
images
> are abstractions - mere representations of "what is"?
But ANY substitute for the world is a representation. Since the world will
clearly not fit in our brains, we must think about the world with
representations of some kind. What makes these representations "mere"?
And if we use our
> brains to create our understanding of the world - adding, controlling,
> organizing these images - including our perception of ourselves, then
aren't
> we just another image?
Our representation of ourselves is "just another image" just as our
representation of the world is "just another image". But because our
representation of ourselves is an image, that doesn't mean that we are just
images; just as the world is not an image just because our representation of
it is an image (in our memories).
Then don't we (the observers) become inseparable from
> the things we see (the observed) since the things we see are created by
us?
> The observed and the observer are the same, right?
>
>
>
Our representation of them is encoded the same way in our brains. Errors
and incomplete transcriptions will be characteristic of our view of
ourselves as observers and the observed because when we talk of ourselves as
observers we are really making ourselves the subject of our own observation;
we observe ourselves in the mode of being observers. The sameness is in the
observation; it does not imply anything about the actual relationships in
the world of the things observed.
Ed
Mike Dubbeld
There is no separating the mind from the observed. This is well known in
psychology and philosophy and more recently in Quantum Mechanics.
But we are not our minds. We are immortal souls. The soul is the true
seer. All else is the seen - including the mind and the ego. The image of
a tree forms on the retina. That image is a replication of the actual tree.
'What is outside is unknown and unknowable' John Stuart Mill.
The unknowable is a noumena. The fact that more than one person
can experience the noumena in their own way lends evidence to the
fact that 'something is out there'. Two people are being impacted by
'something'. It becomes a phenomena when we add our bias to it.
The replicated image is passed to the vision center in the brain by the
optic nerve. The intellect scans memory for similar such phenomena and
if a match is found ('I know' happens) the experience/phenomena is put into
that bucket/word model. When 'I know' happens the notion of egoism
flashes and that combination of identification and egoism is what is
presented to the soul - the real seer. 'I know' is a reaction from the
action of the vision centers presentation to the intellect. These events
transpire so rapidly that they do not appear as discrete events.
Mike Dubbeld
ta
Edgar Svendsen <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E9608.26088$Vz3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:K5408.5053$V55.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > If it is true that memories are really only images in our brains,
> > essentially making our brains databases that store and organize these
> > images, then isn't our knowledge of the world really incomplete since
> images
> > are abstractions - mere representations of "what is"?
>
> But ANY substitute for the world is a representation. Since the world
will
> clearly not fit in our brains, we must think about the world with
> representations of some kind. What makes these representations "mere"?
>
They are "mere" because they are not the actual thing. There is a gap
between what we know and reality. Call it the time/space interval (I guess
this is what it is called in quantum physics?) or what have you, but these
images are "mere" because of this gap.
> And if we use our
> > brains to create our understanding of the world - adding, controlling,
> > organizing these images - including our perception of ourselves, then
> aren't
> > we just another image?
>
> Our representation of ourselves is "just another image" just as our
> representation of the world is "just another image". But because our
> representation of ourselves is an image, that doesn't mean that we are
just
> images; just as the world is not an image just because our representation
of
> it is an image (in our memories).
>
That's true, good point. So we are part image, part physical matter (bones,
tissue, muscle etc.), and what else?
ta
Mike Dubbeld <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a1reov$2bk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:K5408.5053$V55.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > If it is true that memories are really only images in our brains,
> > essentially making our brains databases that store and organize these
> > images, then isn't our knowledge of the world really incomplete since
> images
> > are abstractions - mere representations of "what is"? And if we use our
> > brains to create our understanding of the world - adding, controlling,
> > organizing these images - including our perception of ourselves, then
> aren't
> > we just another image? Then don't we (the observers) become inseparable
> from
> > the things we see (the observed) since the things we see are created by
> us?
> > The observed and the observer are the same, right?
> >
>
> There is no separating the mind from the observed. This is well known in
> psychology and philosophy and more recently in Quantum Mechanics.
> But we are not our minds. We are immortal souls. The soul is the true
> seer. All else is the seen - including the mind and the ego.
OK, but what is the soul exactly?
> The image of
> a tree forms on the retina. That image is a replication of the actual
tree.
> 'What is outside is unknown and unknowable' John Stuart Mill.
I don't know about this. Some people claim to be able to transcend the
images and actually *become* the objects they are looking at. I was reading
that in ancient China for example, that an artist would not actually begin
painting the tree until he *was* the tree. So if some people are able to
transcend these images and experience these objects on a different level,
without the time/space interval, then perhaps it is possible.
> The unknowable is a noumena. The fact that more than one person
> can experience the noumena in their own way lends evidence to the
> fact that 'something is out there'. Two people are being impacted by
> 'something'. It becomes a phenomena when we add our bias to it.
Right. This is why relying on these images for a complete picture of reality
is inadequate.
Edgar Svendsen
>
> Edgar Svendsen <solo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:E9608.26088$Vz3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:K5408.5053$V55.8...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> > > If it is true that memories are really only images in our brains,
> > > essentially making our brains databases that store and organize these
> > > images, then isn't our knowledge of the world really incomplete since
> > images
> > > are abstractions - mere representations of "what is"?
> >
> > But ANY substitute for the world is a representation. Since the world
> will
> > clearly not fit in our brains, we must think about the world with
> > representations of some kind. What makes these representations "mere"?
> >
>
> They are "mere" because they are not the actual thing. There is a gap
> between what we know and reality. Call it the time/space interval (I guess
> this is what it is called in quantum physics?) or what have you, but these
> images are "mere" because of this gap.
I suspect I'm missing your point here. We HAVE to use representations; we
could not think with the actual thing. The actual thing won't act as
something you can think with; it won't fit inside our heads and even if we
could, somehow, incorporate the real thing into our head only one human at a
time could think about that thing.
The gap betwen what we know and reality is ineveitable. For example,
there's the temporal gap. Because we think and perceive quite slowly,
there's always a gap between wht we know and the way reality has become
since we began our "knowing".
>
> > And if we use our
> > > brains to create our understanding of the world - adding, controlling,
> > > organizing these images - including our perception of ourselves, then
> > aren't
> > > we just another image?
> >
> > Our representation of ourselves is "just another image" just as our
> > representation of the world is "just another image". But because our
> > representation of ourselves is an image, that doesn't mean that we are
> just
> > images; just as the world is not an image just because our
representation
> of
> > it is an image (in our memories).
> >
>
> That's true, good point. So we are part image, part physical matter
(bones,
> tissue, muscle etc.), and what else?
>
We are many, many things depending on the level of abstraction. At one
level we are a web of relationships with other human beings. At another
level we are an electrochemical process of considerable complexity. I guess
we are what we do; that is, a functional description would seem the most apt
definition of what we are.
Ed
ta
> > between what we know and reality. Call it the time/space interval (I
guess
> > this is what it is called in quantum physics?) or what have you, but
these
> > images are "mere" because of this gap.
>
> I suspect I'm missing your point here. We HAVE to use representations; we
> could not think with the actual thing.
Right. We could not function on a daily basis without creating all of these
images (this is how we do work, carry on business etc.). So on a practical
level, this capability is a survival mechanism. The point is that if there
is a gap between the thing and our very subjective images we have created to
represent the thing, then there is conflict, and that is a problem. Some
people claim to be able to transcend the mind's inability to understand
things without images - to directly experience the thing - to become the
thing. That's what's interesting to me, and I am just exploring the idea.
> I guess
> we are what we do
That's true I think. If our actions are thoughtful, productive,
compassionate, and positive, then that's what we become, and that's what the
world becomes.
Urthman
Just as a point for clarity, memories are loops of captured and filtered
sensory-experiences, with all necessary input information and their
interpretations, and not specfically still-images.
Our understanding of the world is an interpretation of sensory experience,
and sensory experience is the result of cause-and-effect phenomena that we
interpret as 'reality'.
Actually, that is backwards. This is the long way around ...
Matter and energy exist as a result of [still working on that]. Reality
exists despite our notice of it.
Matter exists as an unstable quality whose instability is caused by [still
working on that].
Instability results in change (or movement) as matter is caused to resolve
that instability favoring stability because of [still working on that].
This instability-resolution process results in the appearance of (and as a
summary of all of it) what is called 'time'.
[Optional: insert evolution or other development process that resulted in
us]
As a side effect of instability and resolution, matter and energy affects
other matter and energy in a number of different ways, and this opportunity
has resulted in the development of sensory equipment to respond to resulting
circumstance, and other structures for processing this information.
Matter and energy interract in constistent ways which provides the
opportunity for the brain structure to identify patterns occuring within the
sensory input stream. Thus, we can isolate the content of memories for
reference toward understanding.
Sensory input becomes meaningfull because of repetitious patterns, although
they are not absolute matches, just close-enough approximations. This
provides opportunity to the end-user for recalling similarities and
responding (also) consistently to the same set of perceived needs or other
experiences,
A 'detail' is identified by this same recognition and causes an attraction
for the sentient observer to the familiar portions of sensory input. An
anomalous detail is one that is either unidentifiable or simply out of
place, which also causes such an attraction.
Beyond all of this, what is 'actually' observed is assumed to be the
resulting interpretation of sensory data stream input as I have described
here. Exactly how things exist is a mystery to me, but *that* they exist is
good enough for me.
Our sense of reality is good enough (or suitable) for survival, and that is
all that really matters. We can only strive to take it further if we can.
JMO, of course.
ta
> can experience the noumena in their own way lends evidence to the
> fact that 'something is out there'. Two people are being impacted by
> 'something'.
OK, after reading this again, now I believe I understand what you are
saying, and I think we are saying the same thing. That there is perhaps
another level of knowledge beyond the knowledge of images . . . another way
of knowing that cannot be defined precisely, but can be experienced. Is this
what you are saying?
meko.p
Memories include sounds and the other senses. The word image deals only with
vision.
The things we experience are not created by us. They are created by the
relationship between us and what is there.
Observed and observer are distinctions that operate on a different level of
reality to the level where they are the same thing. So you are wrong about
that.
We do not use our brains we *are* our brains and the rest of our bodies. Do
you feel like a database? You'd be very simple if you did.
Only the Pope claims absolute truth. So no, knowledge is never complete. The
future is always a mystery unless you over-generalise. This is one point
where many people misunderstand science.
Regards
Meko
Jonathan West
>
>
> > The image of
> > a tree forms on the retina. That image is a replication of the actual
> tree.
> > 'What is outside is unknown and unknowable' John Stuart Mill.
>
> I don't know about this. Some people claim to be able to transcend the
> images and actually *become* the objects they are looking at. I was
reading
> that in ancient China for example, that an artist would not actually begin
> painting the tree until he *was* the tree. So if some people are able to
> transcend these images and experience these objects on a different level,
> without the time/space interval, then perhaps it is possible.
I think you are taking literally words and phrases that were meant to be
understood metaphorically.
--
Regards
Jonathan West
Mike Dubbeld
It is not possible to say exactly what the soul is anymore than God. Both
have infinite attributes and the mind is incapable of functioning in an
infinite capacity. The essence of both the soul and God are truth/
knowledge/bliss/love and perfection. While it is not possible to understand
the soul and God through the mind - one can conceive of God and soul
through the mind. If I tell you to visualize a 1000-sided 2 dimensional
geometric form (a chilligon) you will have great difficulty. However if
I ask you if you can conceive how such a thing is possible you would
agree that such a thing could be. Same way with God and the soul.
All intuition comes from the soul. It is not like the soul is some abstract
hidden (and equally useless) idea. We have intuitions all the time.
However unless a person becomes consciously conscious at all times
(even in dream!) they are unable to discern which understanding comes
from reason and memory or is actually intuition. When something
'dawns' on you as the answer from 'out of the blue' that is intuiriton.
Intuition, unlike reason - does not opreate in time and space. It is
not subject to those restrictions. Concentration and meditation are
conductive to increasing intuition.
>
> > The image of
> > a tree forms on the retina. That image is a replication of the actual
> tree.
> > 'What is outside is unknown and unknowable' John Stuart Mill.
>
> I don't know about this. Some people claim to be able to transcend the
> images and actually *become* the objects they are looking at. I was
reading
> that in ancient China for example, that an artist would not actually begin
> painting the tree until he *was* the tree. So if some people are able to
> transcend these images and experience these objects on a different level,
> without the time/space interval, then perhaps it is possible.
That's true but requires states of consciousness that are not available
to the vast majority of people.
It requires concentration/meditation/contemplation as a minimum. Most
people live all of life and may have a single contemplative experience
if any. It would be silly to think that an artist for the sake of
improving their art would strive to achieve such states. It is also hard
for me to conceive of movement of the physical body in such a state
unless the person was Enlightened. You are right on target with
'becoming' the object however there is no question about it. It is
not until we drop the notion of 'I am playing the violin' to simply
playing the violin - becoming part of the experience that true
creativity comes out. The "I" only gets in the way. Contemplation
requires an extended period of sucessful meditation. From a successful
extended period of contemplation comes samadhi.
>
> > The unknowable is a noumena. The fact that more than one person
> > can experience the noumena in their own way lends evidence to the
> > fact that 'something is out there'. Two people are being impacted by
> > 'something'. It becomes a phenomena when we add our bias to it.
>
> Right. This is why relying on these images for a complete picture of
reality
> is inadequate.
>
>
>
>
I am working on a psychology lecture by Dr. Daniel Robinson at Georgetown
University that is entitled 'Perceptual Constancies and Illusions' which is
a fascinating account of the manner the brain/mind interprets/makes sense
out of our sense perceptions. It also explains what someone in these pages
asked about 'When I go to sleep at night - how do I know it is the same
person in the morning if we are nothing more than our memories?' John
Locke was the first to ever deal with this question. Of course the answers
provided are based on psychology for which I map to yogic understanding.
Mike Dubbeld
Edgar Svendsen
> Some
> people claim to be able to transcend the mind's inability to understand
> things without images - to directly experience the thing - to become the
> thing. That's what's interesting to me, and I am just exploring the idea.
>
I've never seen anyone become the thing they were observing, so if they say
that that they become the thing they are observing, they must be speaking
metaphorically. I believe that some people can have a mental experience
which is a metaphor for experiencing the world directly.
I doubt whether it makes sense to say, for example, that I experience the
planet earth directly. It's a big, complex thing and it seems unlikely,
somehow, that a mere human could experience it directly, I mean there's
thousands of cubic miles of activity in the core alone! I think parallel
arguments apply to experiencing anything directly, any real thing is
immensely complicated.
Just my thoughts.
Ed
ta
> > images and actually *become* the objects they are looking at. I was
> reading
> > that in ancient China for example, that an artist would not actually
begin
> > painting the tree until he *was* the tree. So if some people are able to
> > transcend these images and experience these objects on a different
level,
> > without the time/space interval, then perhaps it is possible.
>
> I think you are taking literally words and phrases that were meant to be
> understood metaphorically.
>
> --
> Regards
> Jonathan West
No, I am not taking it literally. I am not talking about a physical
transformation from a human being to a tree. I'm talking about understanding
a tree on a different level of consciousness, not allowing your image of
what a tree is to interfere with the experience.
ta
is
> all that really matters. We can only strive to take it further if we can.
I'm not sure what you mean by "further", but mere survival is not all that
matters to me, nor to a large percentage of the human race. (I'm not making
value judgements about your position, just stating a fact). I think one of
the unique qualities of human beings is that survival is not our sole focus;
rather, survival is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for
happiness (which is what we are all after isn't it?). We seem to have a
drive to understand our world beyond the physical, in spite of the mind's
capacity to pacify us with the familiar. And I think for humans, happiness
entails more than just satisfying physical necessities and pleasures,
although many people might define it strictly in those terms. Happiness
requires an emotional and spiritual element for many, and I think that
implies delving into matters beyond the sheer struggle for survival.
ta
say
> that that they become the thing they are observing, they must be speaking
> metaphorically.
Exactly, I did not mean it literally.
> I believe that some people can have a mental experience
> which is a metaphor for experiencing the world directly.
Or is it the absence of "mental" that allows the experience? (i.e., refusing
to let the mind interfere). Perhaps it is the cessation of thought that
allows the experience.
ta
in
> > > psychology and philosophy and more recently in Quantum Mechanics.
> > > But we are not our minds. We are immortal souls. The soul is the true
> > > seer. All else is the seen - including the mind and the ego.
> >
> > OK, but what is the soul exactly?
>
> It is not possible to say exactly what the soul is anymore than God. Both
> have infinite attributes and the mind is incapable of functioning in an
> infinite capacity. The essence of both the soul and God are truth/
> knowledge/bliss/love and perfection. While it is not possible to
understand
> the soul and God through the mind - one can conceive of God and soul
> through the mind. If I tell you to visualize a 1000-sided 2 dimensional
> geometric form (a chilligon) you will have great difficulty. However if
> I ask you if you can conceive how such a thing is possible you would
> agree that such a thing could be. Same way with God and the soul.
> All intuition comes from the soul. It is not like the soul is some
abstract
> hidden (and equally useless) idea. We have intuitions all the time.
Gotcha, I follow you.
> However unless a person becomes consciously conscious at all times
> (even in dream!) they are unable to discern which understanding comes
> from reason and memory or is actually intuition. When something
> 'dawns' on you as the answer from 'out of the blue' that is intuiriton.
> Intuition, unlike reason - does not opreate in time and space. It is
> not subject to those restrictions. Concentration and meditation are
> conductive to increasing intuition.
I don't know that "concentration" and "meditation" are the same thing. On
the contrary, they are quite opposite, aren't they? I understand meditation
to be a total lack of concentration, allowing the mind to stop its
chattering so that it can go beyond "thought".
> > > The image of
> > > a tree forms on the retina. That image is a replication of the actual
> > tree.
> > > 'What is outside is unknown and unknowable' John Stuart Mill.
> >
> > I don't know about this. Some people claim to be able to transcend the
> > images and actually *become* the objects they are looking at. I was
> reading
> > that in ancient China for example, that an artist would not actually
begin
> > painting the tree until he *was* the tree. So if some people are able to
> > transcend these images and experience these objects on a different
level,
> > without the time/space interval, then perhaps it is possible.
>
> That's true but requires states of consciousness that are not available
> to the vast majority of people.
> It requires concentration/meditation/contemplation as a minimum. Most
> people live all of life and may have a single contemplative experience
> if any. It would be silly to think that an artist for the sake of
> improving their art would strive to achieve such states. It is also hard
> for me to conceive of movement of the physical body in such a state
> unless the person was Enlightened.
Right. I did not mean a literal, physiological transformation, as I tried to
explain to others in the thread. What do you mean "Enlightened" (with a
capital "E")?
> You are right on target with
> 'becoming' the object however there is no question about it. It is
> not until we drop the notion of 'I am playing the violin' to simply
> playing the violin - becoming part of the experience that true
> creativity comes out. The "I" only gets in the way.
Yes, that is what I am talking about: a state in which there is no awareness
of "I".
Urthman
Is it safe to assume that survival is something we understand sufficiently
to state that what we do is more than mere survival? Certainly, we extend
our reach beyond merely feeding, clothing and protecting ourselves - this is
covered in any decent Boy Scout manual, but the pursuit of the more mental
things - happiness, understanding, companionship, warmth of another human
soul - how certain are we that these things are not a necessary issue
required of the human being?
I would state simply, and as an opinion, that we are generally turned inward
in our focus - that by becoming distracted by our self away from the outside
world had caused new a problem we call confusion originating with the notice
of self and escallating with an awareness and subsequent expression of self.
I would then argue that the pursuits that exceed basic needs-fetching
becomes also necessity for survival - to clarify the confusion of self
against the backdrop of the also-noticed world and to keep onesself busy
against the nagging empty thoughts we call boredom.
Art, music, language, activity, involvement, organization, understanding,
companionship - all driven elements of a self-aware mind required for
sanity's sake - for survival - to qualify the self; to give it substance and
shape; to give it meaning. It isn't food or threat but it needs to be
qualified and categorized somehow. So, we find ourselves on a constant quest
for identity - to find it, to invent it, or to flee it.
This is pure opinion and likely to be wrong.
Mike Dubbeld
The noumena is the 'real' thing. It is unknowable to us because we can not
know it without inflicting our bias upon it. We see it through our own
rose-colored glasses. Everyones opinion is unique from all others.
Our perception is not the raw data/physics of the situation.
The various independent bias's we bestow on it - I am working on a
complete list. First the way we see it is based on the sum total of all
past experiences that influence our opinion of that object at that
particular
instant in time. Then there is the survival mechanism bias's that nature
gave us to make sense out of experiences in a hurry. But then there is
also 'active filtering' which means at the time our eyes come into view
of the object - is any percentage of the incomming data being screened
due to our 'shadowing' other events - Are we multi-tasking experiencing
the object with some other experience? Also is a distal que affecting
our judgement at the time - does the object seem vaguely recognizable
and we are half looking at the object and half hoping memory will complete
the picture before we have to take the object apart by other means/
proximal ques to identify it? Complex distortion.
If you for any moment
doubt the difficulty/how complex this is - imagine 2 robots that are exactly
identical in every respect. They have been programmed exactly the same.
One robot (A) scans an object with its camera and tries to do a match of
that particular set of pixels against say a mere 10,000 images stored in its
tiny little memory. It arrives at a 'fuzzy' memory match with a dog and
also 'fuzzy' match with a cat - each with some sort of probability of each.
It calls the other robot to view the object by giving it certain coordinate
locations and magnification of the lens for the where abouts of the target
entity. Robot B then does the exact same thing. Unfortunately robot B
is not facing the same angle and worse he is in a small ditch 4" lower
than robot A. And worse still the amimal layed down. How do you take
the physics of the situation and capture it into pixels and convey the
same meaning - tricky business. 'People' do this by something called
constancy. This sort of thing is a big problem - training machines to
'see' things/perceive things the way we do because we bestow order
on the world/add information to the raw data to make sense out of
it. But machines that use pixel by pixel comparisons never will operate
very well. I am not saying they cannot and are not doing it now. Just that
it is not as simple a task as it might appear. A example of this
is a cruise missle. They hug the ground to avoid radar detection. So they
have to be able to avoid hills and trees and power lines. They use
'look down terrain comparison' (terrcom) to identify target location.
They don't want any cruise missles mistaking a church cross for a
radar tower!
Many years ago in the particle beam weapon craze
engineers were given the thought of what it would take to guide the
barrel of a lazer of pinpoint size to knock a fly out of the air as a
'control systems' project. The reasoning being that if you could do
this sort of thing then one might have some sort of chance of intercepting
an ICBM from the Soviet Union. Like knocking a bullet out of the sky
with another bullet.
Mike Dubbeld
object of meditation as vividly with the eyes closed as it is
seen with the eyes open. The image becomes effortlessly focused
immovably on target. The mind is long since left behind. Only the
meaning of the object is conveyed without thought. One becomes
the object itself. 'They' vanish. In this state which is contemplation
arises samadhi. In the state of samadhi with all traces of self,
all 'I' gone - in this 'selfless' state the object can become known.
The object is at that time a noumena. Not a phenomena. The use
of the organ of vision is no longer required in this state. At that time
it would make no difference if the object existed in another galaxy.
Time and space vanish. You have no reason to believe this and
I would not expect you would either. But if you were to attain
the state as described above you would understand what I am
saying and believe it. (should you be so lucky)
Also I blew it on the quote - actually it was Vivekananda that said
that. John Stuart Mill said 'Matter is the permanent possibility for
sensation'. in this regard.
Mike Dubbeld
"Jonathan West" <jw...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:a1t3gu$26t$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Mike Dubbeld
This is where I understand science all too well.
"meko.p" <mek...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:96o08.10166$WQ1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
GeneIn
welcome to the artists world......michaelangelo could "see" the image in a
slab of stone.. artists in general "become" the subject....not literally
however...it is in a sense a different level of consciousness, one cannot
attack the canvas with words......when standing in front of a blank canvas,
one does not begin until a certain relationship is established....
>
>
>
meko.p
I said:
> > So no, knowledge is never complete. The future is always a mystery
unless you > > over-generalise. This is one point where many people
misunderstand science.
Then you said:
> This is where I understand science all too well.
You're probably just using a figure of speech but if not then you understand
science too well for what precisely? Too well to beleive it's useful? If it
ain't a figure of speech then it's very ambiguous. If it is a figure of
speech then it's meaningless 'cept to convey your concurrance with my
opinion in a somewhat sinister sounding way.
Best regards
Meko
Mike Dubbeld
Hi,
I believe you know that I am not just trying to be cute with words or
anything.
> Memories include sounds and the other senses. The word image deals only
with
> vision.
>
> The things we experience are not created by us. They are created by the
> relationship between us and what is there.
Actually it is one and the same thing. Everything that everyone experiences
at all times is the result of causes they generated in their past. Thus, all
experiences are 'created' by us in that respect. An expression worth kicking
around is 'You are the creator of all you attract.' At no time is anyone
ever
the 'victum' of circumstance. Blame for experiences (or any other sort
of adjectives) is false. The ancient expression for when someone feels they
have been dealt with unjustly is 'The slings and arrows of outrageous
misfortune.' But there is no misfortune. There is only ignorance of the
causes that generated the circumstances that led to the particular set of
experiences one is having at a particular instant in time.
Unfortunately this can be misunderstood to mean that we have a 'choice'
or free will. 'We' do not have free will. The mind - because it is unable to
determine/predict the future - associates this particular brand of ignorance
to believing it has free will. In reality everything you have ever done or
ever will do was determined long long ago. This very same thing can be
said/applys to the entire universe. So the mind appears to have free will
because it can not determine the future. But we are not our minds. We are
an immortal/perfect/all-knowing soul.
>
> Observed and observer are distinctions that operate on a different level
of
> reality to the level where they are the same thing. So you are wrong about
> that.
>
The seer is the soul. The seen is all else - including the mind and ego.
Mind and ego are nothing more than refined matter. (as is intellect for
that 'matter' - no pun intended!) It is only the mind that draws
distinctions
between things/assigns goods and bads as sets of opposites - this notion
is called 'duality'. There is only one sort of reality to the bound
soul/jiva.
That reality is experience. There is only experience. Nothing else in the
objective world has any reality whatsoever. As a fine distinction I
categorize thinking itself as a 'thinking' experience. Our individual
awareness
travels through the mind. When it is directed toward the senses we
experience the 'outside' world. When it 'thinks' about the experience in
the external world our awareness travels through our 'internal' thoughts
and awareness at that time experiences internal thoughts. Experience is
the purpose of our existence. We are here to learn in a cosmic learning
game. We evolve spiritually through experience. The only sort of reality
in the objective world is what you are experiencing RIGHT NOW. Not
what you have experienced. Not what you will experience. The past
and the future are dreams of the mind. This is called the Eternal Now.
Scientists today in Quantum Mechanics are only now piecing together
just exactly how true this is. But this knowledge was around for 1000's
of years BC in India and was 'revealed' to Enlightened rishis and sages
at that time.(Vedas)
Observed and observer are actually illusions/distinctions drawn by
the limited duality of mind. It is not that the soul is not distinct from
nature - it is. But drawing this distinction is only of value of any sort
to the mind that can only understand one thing in terms of another.
The soul does not require this distinction and the only reality is the
experience. The experience comes to the soul as a result of a
phenomena - with the minds perceptual bias - so it is only phenomena
that is real.
In philosophy the idea of noumena is the phenomena
minus the perceptual bias bestowed upon the experience. Phenomena
is biased noumena is not. It is useful in understanding the way the
mind interpretes things. But not reality - much to the distress of
'realists'. ( I (my mind) does not side with either realists or
existentialism.
An exeistentialist says 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. A realist
would say beauty is noexistent as a subjective entity. A realist would
say there are 9 planets that circle our sun. Your forgetting one and
thinking there was only 8 makes it no less true that in reality there are
9 planets. The existentialist would say your reality consisted of our
solar system containing 8 planets because that is real for you.
Einstein is the most famous realist).
> We do not use our brains we *are* our brains and the rest of our bodies.
I see you have asteriks around are above. But there is no explanation so
it appears that you are identifying who you are with your brain. The brain
is the physical counterpart of the mind. The mind caused a brain to
happen - it is a result of/effect of the mind. In any case we are not our
minds. We are immortal souls.
It is for this reason that I said I understand science all too well.
Science
would have us believe that we are our brains. That the material universe
is the only reality. Science is very useful but is extremely
limited/constrained.
Science will tell you F=MA and gloat over how great it is for having
discovered this. There can be no question that Newtons second law of
gravitation has had profound impact on the lives of 'people'. However
all science ever can or will do is explain HOW things work. Never WHY.
It excused itself of this category of reality long ago. I could list a large
list of the fallacies of believing science is the answer to everything but
I leave it to you to discover this on your own if you have not already. It
is not my intention to somehow convince people of the things I say.
All I or anyone else ever can do is present information and allow
it to either stand or fall on its own. As Swami Viviekananda says "I
could preach you a thousand sermons - but that would not make you
religious [believe]' Religion is not intellectual understanding. It is
an experience and the truth of things has to 'come alive' in the experience
of someone before any sort of belief follows.
Do
> you feel like a database? You'd be very simple if you did.
>
> Only the Pope claims absolute truth. So no, knowledge is never complete.
The
> future is always a mystery unless you over-generalise. This is one point
> where many people misunderstand science.
>
Already expounded on the fallacy of believing we are our minds. The Pope
is no one special. I do not believe that the Pope is enlightened. 'He' is
undoubtably
very spiritual. Just like 'us' the pope has a mind and a soul. He knows he
is
not his mind. Christian doctrine is centered around each of us having a
soul.
The future as I said above is only a mystery to the mind. It is actually a
dream of the mind and has no reality whatsoever. The future stands in
the present for the soul which can read it like a book. Knowledge is
never complete for the mind. The soul is omnicient/all-knowing.
So you know everything. It is not a question of what you do and
do not know. It is a question of how do you recall this knowledge
from the soul into the mind. That is the difficulty.
Confusion abounds as long as 'we' identify ourselves as the mind.
The means to come to know the reality of your being a soul and not
the mind comes from concentration and meditation. That is the central
basis/theme of all of yoga. Yoga is not based on faith like religion.
Yoga provides aphorisms - short truthful statements that one attempts to
disprove by any and all means available. Through actual techniques
that employ experience the aphorisms are tested. This is the same thing
modern science does under the Philosophy of Science technique
established by Carl Hempel in his 'Falsification Theory'.
Ran over in explaining but these are not simple word games to find
fault with some silly logical point as is so often found in these pages.
Half of the 'people' in this newsgroup I dare say never even heard
the word Sophist. Else why would they use one-line ambiguous
catchy phrases to pretend they know something when they did
not/are simply trying to hide under confusion and ambiguity.
I do not accuse you of this as I believe you approach this in a
constructive spirit as if 'I' did not I would not have bothered to reply.
Mike Dubbeld
> Regards
>
> Meko
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
Hi,
I believe you know that I am not just trying to be cute with words or
anything.
> Memories include sounds and the other senses. The word image deals only
with
> vision.
>
> The things we experience are not created by us. They are created by the
> relationship between us and what is there.
Actually it is one and the same thing. Everything that everyone experiences
at all times is the result of causes they generated in their past. Thus, all
experiences are 'created' by us in that respect. An expression worth kicking
around is 'You are the creator of all you attract.' At no time is anyone
ever
the 'victum' of circumstance. Blame for experiences (or any other sort
of adjectives) is false. The ancient expression for when someone feels they
have been dealt with unjustly is 'The slings and arrows of outrageous
misfortune.' But there is no misfortune. There is only ignorance of the
causes that generated the circumstances that led to the particular set of
experiences one is having at a particular instant in time.
Unfortunately this can be misunderstood to mean that we have a 'choice'
or free will. 'We' do not have free will. The mind - because it is unable to
determine/predict the future - associates this particular brand of ignorance
to believing it has free will. In reality everything you have ever done or
ever will do was determined long long ago. This very same thing can be
said/applys to the entire universe. So the mind appears to have free will
because it can not determine the future. But we are not our minds. We are
an immortal/perfect/all-knowing soul.
>
> Observed and observer are distinctions that operate on a different level
of
> reality to the level where they are the same thing. So you are wrong about
> that.
>
The seer is the soul. The seen is all else - including the mind and ego.
> We do not use our brains we *are* our brains and the rest of our bodies.
I see you have asteriks around are above. But there is no explanation so
it appears that you are identifying who you are with your brain. The brain
is the physical counterpart of the mind. The mind caused a brain to
happen - it is a result of/effect of the mind. In any case we are not our
minds. We are immortal souls.
It is for this reason that I said I understand science all too well.
Science
would have us believe that we are our brains. That the material universe
is the only reality. Science is very useful but is extremely
limited/constrained.
Science will tell you F=MA and gloat over how great it is for having
discovered this. There can be no question that Newtons second law of
gravitation has had profound impact on the lives of 'people'. However
all science ever can or will do is explain HOW things work. Never WHY.
It excused itself of this category of reality long ago. I could list a large
list of the fallacies of believing science is the answer to everything but
I leave it to you to discover this on your own if you have not already. It
is not my intention to somehow convince people of the things I say.
All I or anyone else ever can do is present information and allow
it to either stand or fall on its own. As Swami Viviekananda says "I
could preach you a thousand sermons - but that would not make you
religious [believe]' Religion is not intellectual understanding. It is
an experience and the truth of things has to 'come alive' in the experience
of someone before any sort of belief follows.
Do
> you feel like a database? You'd be very simple if you did.
>
> Only the Pope claims absolute truth. So no, knowledge is never complete.
The
> future is always a mystery unless you over-generalise. This is one point
> where many people misunderstand science.
>
Already expounded on the fallacy of believing we are our minds. The Pope
Mike Dubbeld
Meditation flows effortlessly out of concentration. Concentration is the
only
thing that is strived for. The other states follow on their own account.
The mechanics involved in concentration and meditation are extremely
elaborate and mystical. Mystical things are 'caught' not taught as
Subramunia would say. While trying to hold the image of a yantra (a
geometric form is a popular yantra but it could be a pencil or card or
apple - anything) in the mind the mind wanders and must be brought back
time after time - on the order of hundreds of times in minutes for
beginners.
It takes great skill to concentrate and is the most difficult thing 'that a
man can do'. When the mind no longer wanders and rests in tranquility
of the yantra image only then can meditation flow. Meditation arrives like
sleep. If you are aware of going to sleep you are not sleeping.
Contemplation
flows out of sustained meditation and at that time you will be glad you
were born. From that single experience alone everything you have ever
done in life pales in significance. I say you will thankful for having been
born because if everthing you ever did was for the purpose of having
that single experience you would not be dissapointed if you then were
to die. (More accurately cast off youf physical body) You have long
since abandoned the thinking mind but you are not in any sort of dull
stupor as you might imagine. Instead the exact opposite is true. You
are so intensely alive that you can not move. Samadhi flows out
of sustained contemplation.
There is lots of nonesense and balony in the world. To make a buck,
there are groups that will have meditators waste there time in every
imaginable way. For only 15 dollars you can go attend a group
'guided meditation'. Everyone shuts their eyes and the speaker
has them imagine one thing or another. Many people do this on a
regular basis and call it meditation. Others think all they have to
do is cross their legs and sit up straight and put their hands on their
knees and and touch their index finger to their thumbs and start
dreaming about something. Total waste. Others will buy expensive
music and listen to it while they 'meditate'. The world is full of fraud
of every sort. When I talk about meditation - I ever am only talking
about 1-pointed yogic meditation. Learning to concentrate like I
say is very difficult. It takes a great deal of time and practice and
patience. It is like learning to play the piano. The good thing is that
once you learn it you do not forget it. The bad thing is that because
it is so difficult few can do it. That is why there are so many fake
meditation groups around. It is far easier to have someone play some
nice music while you are laying down and tell you a fairy tale than
you sitting by yourself controlling your awareness/mind. There are
very few wizards in the world for this reason. People want things
NOW. It there is no immediate gratification - forget it lets go to
wrestling tonight.
Without concentration no progress of any sort is possible. Because
yoga knows that there are different types of people in the world and
all are not suited to one method of training - there has arisen several
major forms of yoga. All yoga strives for the same thing which is
samadhi and further to Enlightenment. But each of the major schools
emphasize different things that different 'personalities' are attracted to.
I empahsize Raja Yoga and Vedanta but there is also Hatha Yoga/
Karma Yoga/Bhakti Yoga/Kundalini Yoga etc. All of these in the
end require concentration for progress. I would be happy to
elaborate. The other branchs do not necessarilly appeal to the
intellect however the means they employ irregardless of whether
the practicioners in these other branches know it or not is completely
within a coherent rational framework. Also psychic powers arise
from concentration.
An Enlightened being has attained what all 'humans' seek. Few know
their purpose for walking the planet. Enlightenment is it. An Enlightened
person is has freed themselves from nature. They are not subject to
the laws of nature. They do not need to maintain a physical body
or any other such nonsense as we do. They are no longer subject to
the laws of cause and effect of any sort. Participation by them in
a physical body is done for compassionate reasons only as they
are free in every and all senses of the word. They are God in a
physical body. People flock around them by the thousands for
their words and miracles. The las Enlightened being that I know of
died/left his physical body in Nov. 2001. His name is Master Subramunia
and his brand of yoga is Raja Yoga. You can find his literature on the
web. Another such person was Swami Sivananda who likewise has
an enormous following with centers all over the world.
There is no evidence or any other reason for you to believe
what I say. Enlightenment comes from attaining the highest
state of samadhi - asamprajnata samadhi. It is as difficult or
more so to go from attaining a lower samadhi to this highest
one. The number of people that have ever walked the planet
to have done this you can count on your fingers. Jesus was
Enlightened as was the Buddha. An Enlightened 'person'
sees things as they are at all times. 'Their' perspective has no
bias whatsoever. That is impossible because they no longer
have an ego and indeed are 'selfless' in its original meaning
of the word. They do not act on their own behalf because
they no longer have a 'behalf'. When we look at something
we can ever only see a phenomena. When they look at
something it is the noumena that they 'see'. They see the
thing as it really is/with no distortion. When you 'gain audiance'
with one of these people after waiting for a couple of years
- as soon as you take one look at them you become glad
you did. They have enormous power/spiritual energy and
their eyes twinkle with childlike simplicity. When they look at
you - you can see that they are looking right through you.
You immediately know the greatness of that moment
and may feel like trembling with humility and gasp in
awe when he touches you and tells you something.
You can see the happiness and peace that spill from
his eyes. A truely uncanny and profound calmness in them.
You may have gone there thinking God only knows what
but at that moment you would come to know that
things in the world are not as they appear. It is a life
changing experience without even a single word ever
having been said. And so it is with all the other people
he greets. Then, all wonder why you had to stand in line
all day in some remote spot in the world after waiting for
2 years for him to simply smile and shake your hand - you
know why it is so hard to 'gain audiance' with an Enlightened
being. You know why he is surrounded by a small army
of followers who jealously seek his attention. Like honey
to the bees. (pranayama/darshan)
None of the above description is logical or reasonable.
Couldn't tell you what the premise are let alone the
conclusion. Like I said mystical teachings are 'caught,
not taught' as Subramunia says. It is the ego that dies on
the cross/gets crucified. Everyone becomes Enlightened
in the end. It could be no other way in this cosmic
learning game. People that are striving toward spirituality
are 'Awakened' and the rest are 'Ignorant'. Enlightened
people strive for nothing. They have everything already.
It makes no difference whatsoever what people believe
one way or another. We all eventually arrive at the same
place. All of these things of which I am speaking are
not new in any way shape or form. All of the information
is already out there and has been for thousands of years.
It is my hope that you will be able to identify that there
is a consistent unchanging underlying theme in everything
I am saying and have said. It is an indication of the
truthfulness when no matter where one goes in subject
matter the same underlying principles surface. Because
the things I am discussing are based on inner laws that
are true and timeless it is relatively effortless for me to
understand things because I always resort back to the
same underlying inner laws of yoga. Immanuel Kant
would call these laws 'Categorical Imperatives' Like
time and space are prerequsites for all experience he
said (not true). He said that if you are going to play a
moral game you need to decide on the rules up front
like time and space. So if you decided to be truthful
no lie no matter how small would be acceptable if
truthfulness was a law like time and space. Lying then
would no longer be a possibility anymore than doing
something ouside of time and space in the Kantian
Categorical Imperative universe. In the same way
yogic inner laws are interconnected and a yogi
'constructs' his universe according to those laws.
This means that all 'games' played in that universe
follow the same orderly rules. In the same way I
am saying that it is easy for me to go anywhere/
play any games because at all times I do not lose
perspective. I know what I could or could not have
said at any time whatsoever with little or no effort.
In all of Western religion one must rely on faith.
It is an all or nothing affair.
All of Western philosophy is nothing more than an
anthology/collection of unrelated ideas with no
underlying inner laws/themes that are consistent from
one philosopher to the next. You will find not order
of the nature of a categorical imperative in western
philosophy. Western philosophers intellectual theories
do no show evidence that they actually spent their lives
trying to live by the silly theories they construct.
Western science is good for what it is. Nothing more.
Science never will provide the purpose/answer to
WHY of existence. Only How.
Confusion abounds. Yoga and Vedanta are far and
away more profound than these.
Mike Dubbeld
meko.p
<snip>
I disagree and agree. I agree that at the level where people are as much
part of the cosmic soup as everything else and indistinguishable from
everything else. However this level is never experienced because experience
is in it and not outside looking at it. So the entire notion is only
theoretical in terms of human experience. I think of that particular reality
as on a level logically removed from human experience.
So in terms of human experience and living it is useful to forget that
theory and focus on the experienced reality of objects and stuff. So in one
sense I am the TV as well as everything else and in another I am just me and
you are you and we can watch TV. Ideas and thoughts are a logical level
removed from the reality of things and so even further from the reality
where everything is one thing. Things about things in the big thing.
Causes? At the level of reality where all things are one thing every cause
is itself an effect. No process begins without being caused by something
which in turn needs a cause. Alfred Korzybski calls this cause-effect.
However in humanly experienced reality it is very useful to understand
causes of death (for example) and work out ways to cause to avoid it. I
agree blame for the sake of punishment is not worthwhile but blame for the
sake of learning is very valuable. Without you and other people judgeing
your actions you don't have much to go on.
Mind is refined matter? I think I get you. I'd say intellect was even more
refined being a product of mind. Do you mean ego in psychological terms or
metaphysical?
It strikes me that you think you have an identity in the reality where all
things are one. You call it a soul and call the development of it
spirituality. This is ridiculous to me. I laughed, I really did! It is so
far fetched unless you site religious hearsay as evidence. Pah! I think that
maybe you feel a need to have an identity when everything points at your
non-existence along with every other thing with the big thing. You can have
an identity, be a something in this reality, but in the one where observer
and observed are the same thing - no way.
Living in the so called now is all well and good but I prefer to think about
the future and the past a bit as well. I know that future and past are
concepts just like now is but they are so useful in the reality of things or
objects within the one thing that I wont give up remembering nice times or
planning to have more.
Sorry I agree the *'s were careless. My brain is definately part of me. I
have not been without it ever. It is part of what makes me alive as opposed
to dead or dying very quickly. I can lose my head and get away with it only
metaphorically.
> It is for this reason that I said I understand science all too well.
>
> Science
> would have us believe that we are our brains. That the material universe
> is the only reality. Science is very useful but is extremely
> limited/constrained.
> Science will tell you F=MA and gloat over how great it is for having
> discovered this. There can be no question that Newtons second law of
> gravitation has had profound impact on the lives of 'people'. However
> all science ever can or will do is explain HOW things work. Never WHY.
> It excused itself of this category of reality long ago. I could list a
large
> list of the fallacies of believing science is the answer to everything but
> I leave it to you to discover this on your own if you have not already. It
> is not my intention to somehow convince people of the things I say.
> All I or anyone else ever can do is present information and allow
> it to either stand or fall on its own. As Swami Viviekananda says "I
> could preach you a thousand sermons - but that would not make you
> religious [believe]' Religion is not intellectual understanding. It is
> an experience and the truth of things has to 'come alive' in the
experience
> of someone before any sort of belief follows.
Science, it seems to me, would have us believe we are our brains and
everything else in so-called 'scientific reality' or what I refer to as 'the
big thing' or 'the one thing'. Science is a concept that generates a set of
practices a kind of group learning through time. Some scientists, who are
human after all, gloat sometimes however science doesn't gloat - that's as
ridiculous as tennis gloating, spirituality gloating, etc. Science certainly
is not the answer to everything, for a start there are millions of stupid
questions you could ask that science could never answer. Like 'what is mans
role in the universe?' or 'why am I here?' both of which amount to a request
for authority, for being told what to do.
As for this Viviekananda it seems to me he is saying that words alone don't
matter, you have to have something convincing happen to you before you'll
believe in the way he wants you to. I wonder what has convinced you to
believe the things you believe.
> Do
> > you feel like a database? You'd be very simple if you did.
> >
> > Only the Pope claims absolute truth. So no, knowledge is never complete.
> The
> > future is always a mystery unless you over-generalise. This is one point
> > where many people misunderstand science.
> >
>
> Already expounded on the fallacy of believing we are our minds. The Pope
> is no one special. I do not believe that the Pope is enlightened. 'He' is
> undoubtably
> very spiritual. Just like 'us' the pope has a mind and a soul. He knows he
> is
> not his mind. Christian doctrine is centered around each of us having a
> soul.
>
> The future as I said above is only a mystery to the mind. It is actually a
> dream of the mind and has no reality whatsoever. The future stands in
> the present for the soul which can read it like a book. Knowledge is
> never complete for the mind. The soul is omnicient/all-knowing.
> So you know everything. It is not a question of what you do and
> do not know. It is a question of how do you recall this knowledge
> from the soul into the mind. That is the difficulty.
If you are everything you cannot know anything. Knowing only happens with
people and other creatures which are abstractions of the one thing. The
notion notion of knowing is just a notion after all and exists only in your
mind-body. You are confusing your ideas with whats really there -
everythingallasone (do you like my new word?). One question I love is 'how
do you know you know?' and if you can answer that then 'how did you decide
that that was a good way to know that you knew'. Belief and faith are just
more words for confident behaviour.
> Confusion abounds as long as 'we' identify ourselves as the mind.
> The means to come to know the reality of your being a soul and not
> the mind comes from concentration and meditation. That is the central
> basis/theme of all of yoga. Yoga is not based on faith like religion.
> Yoga provides aphorisms - short truthful statements that one attempts to
> disprove by any and all means available. Through actual techniques
> that employ experience the aphorisms are tested. This is the same thing
> modern science does under the Philosophy of Science technique
> established by Carl Hempel in his 'Falsification Theory'.
My Tai Chi instructor also teaches Yoga and I am definately going to try it.
I also practise Taoist sexual practises so I have had lot's of experiences
of chi flowing me. This all fits happily along with all the rest of my
experience and has not affected my attitude towards spirit which is, by most
people I have talked to's definition, that I think they get pleasure from
their beliefs but they are fooling themselves. Now I don't claim to know
it's not true that you have a spirit because I have no idea what you are on
about when you use the word.
> Ran over in explaining but these are not simple word games to find
> fault with some silly logical point as is so often found in these pages.
> Half of the 'people' in this newsgroup I dare say never even heard
> the word Sophist. Else why would they use one-line ambiguous
> catchy phrases to pretend they know something when they did
> not/are simply trying to hide under confusion and ambiguity.
> I do not accuse you of this as I believe you approach this in a
> constructive spirit as if 'I' did not I would not have bothered to reply.
>
> Mike Dubbeld
>
I was interested what you meant by what you wrote. I was right earlier when
I detected a sinister tone in your comment:
This is where I understand science all too well.
You do seem to be pissed off with science. I think you should be pissed of
with the scientists that irritate you and not science. Being pissed off with
something makes it harder to learn about. I should know because I have an
adverse reaction towards religion but I do not fool myself on the matter and
I am trying to save my dislike for people and specific teachings alone. I am
changing my views and attitude because I know it will hinder the learnings I
want to undertake.
All the best
Meko
meko.p
cause-effect.' but what I wish I'd said was 'Alfred Korzybski replaces the
word cause with the word cause effect.'.
Excuse me
Meko
ta
On
> > the contrary, they are quite opposite, aren't they? I understand
> meditation
> > to be a total lack of concentration, allowing the mind to stop its
> > chattering so that it can go beyond "thought".
> >
> done in life pales in significance. I say you will thankful for having
been
> born because if everthing you ever did was for the purpose of having
> that single experience you would not be dissapointed if you then were
> to die. (More accurately cast off youf physical body) You have long
> since abandoned the thinking mind but you are not in any sort of dull
> stupor as you might imagine. Instead the exact opposite is true. You
> are so intensely alive that you can not move. Samadhi flows out
> of sustained contemplation.
I'm open-minded enough to a accept this possibility. Furthermore, I'm
intrigued by it.
>
> There is lots of nonesense and balony in the world. To make a buck,
> there are groups that will have meditators waste there time in every
> imaginable way. For only 15 dollars you can go attend a group
> 'guided meditation'. Everyone shuts their eyes and the speaker
> has them imagine one thing or another. Many people do this on a
> regular basis and call it meditation. Others think all they have to
> do is cross their legs and sit up straight and put their hands on their
> knees and and touch their index finger to their thumbs and start
> dreaming about something. Total waste. Others will buy expensive
> music and listen to it while they 'meditate'. The world is full of fraud
> of every sort.
How do you weed out the frauds from the genuine ones?
> People want things
> NOW. It there is no immediate gratification - forget it lets go to
> wrestling tonight.
(laugh) True.
>
> An Enlightened being has attained what all 'humans' seek. Few know
> their purpose for walking the planet. Enlightenment is it. An Enlightened
> person is has freed themselves from nature. They are not subject to
> the laws of nature. They do not need to maintain a physical body
> or any other such nonsense as we do. They are no longer subject to
> the laws of cause and effect of any sort. Participation by them in
> a physical body is done for compassionate reasons only as they
> are free in every and all senses of the word. They are God in a
> physical body. People flock around them by the thousands for
> their words and miracles. The las Enlightened being that I know of
> died/left his physical body in Nov. 2001. His name is Master Subramunia
> and his brand of yoga is Raja Yoga. You can find his literature on the
> web. Another such person was Swami Sivananda who likewise has
> an enormous following with centers all over the world.
Does he have cliff notes, or should I go to Barnes and Noble and get "Raja
Yoga for Dummies"? (just kidding). Seriously, this is all very interesting -
I will do a web search.
> It is my hope that you will be able to identify that there
> is a consistent unchanging underlying theme in everything
> I am saying and have said.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain it all.
twyl
"know". When in fact there really is no "Know" We don't know anything. And
you cannot prove that memories are merely images in the first place. They
could be and it would also make sence to me that they are more complex than
that. Because I don't always associate an image with a memory. Sometimes
it's a feeling, or a scent, or smell even.news:3oi08.27782$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mike Dubbeld
You are referring whether you know it or not to Quantum Mechanics. I am
tempted to say that people that believe science is a be all end all should
worship
Quantum Mechanics. Because if they knew the reality as called for by QM -
they might seek refuge in any sort of religion. In any case yoga/Vedanta
have
had the cosmic soup/QM idea for thousands of years. There are many
theoretical
physicists that compare QM to Eastern philosophy. In these pages it is very
necessary slap science around (a very simple thing to do) because there are
so
many people do worship science. The seer is the soul. Nature is the seen.
The
soul is not part of nature. It is true as you say - 'we' are all connected.
But only
if you associate 'you' as your mind/body/personality/emotions - all physical
things - right along with the finest sort of matter there is - the
intellect. This
'connectedness' is Quantum Reality. Since it is the soul that is the
experiencer
and not the mind and the soul is not part of nature - all experiences are
external to it. The mind is nothing more than a mechanical contraption. It
is insanity in its natural state. It has no intelligence whatsoever. The
mind
only appears to be intelligent by the light of the soul. The mind being part
of nature - and as you said - indistinguishable from it - the perceiver as
mind and the perceived can not be separated. That also is Quantum
Mechanics believe it or not. The inability to separate perceiver from
perceived
is not new in either philosophy or psychology. Psychology can provide
exquisite detail on this very matter - as a matter of fact. (Funny how ofter
abstract entities are given reality as concrete things) The soul is not on
the
outside looking in. The soul is on the inside looking out. It is the real
experiencer. Not the mind which is only matter itself. Matter does not
experience matter. Matter does not have any intelligence whatsoever.
Nature of and by itself serves no purpose at all.
One could construct a computer program but machines can not
creatively solve problems. They can only follow algorithms. Random
selection of algorithms is not my idea of creatively solving problems.
Nor is memory/learning by mistakes and applying heuristics. Machines
have no motive or purpose.
>
> So in terms of human experience and living it is useful to forget that
> theory and focus on the experienced reality of objects and stuff. So in
one
> sense I am the TV as well as everything else and in another I am just me
and
> you are you and we can watch TV. Ideas and thoughts are a logical level
> removed from the reality of things and so even further from the reality
> where everything is one thing. Things about things in the big thing.
>
> Causes? At the level of reality where all things are one thing every cause
> is itself an effect. No process begins without being caused by something
> which in turn needs a cause. Alfred Korzybski calls this cause-effect.
> However in humanly experienced reality it is very useful to understand
> causes of death (for example) and work out ways to cause to avoid it. I
> agree blame for the sake of punishment is not worthwhile but blame for the
> sake of learning is very valuable. Without you and other people judgeing
> your actions you don't have much to go on.
>
Alfred wasn't around about 5000 years ago. That is at least how old cause
and
effect are. You should distinguish more carefully with your words. Human
means
little to 'me'. I assume 'you' are implying that the word human means
physical
body/emotions and mind. Now that we have identified it we can talk about
'human experience'. As a human experience defined above - humans die.
We don't die. We were never born. We are immortal. Nature changes.
We do not. Finding a means to preserve our minds and bodies is worthwhile
because by living longer we learn more/have more experiences. These
experiences fulfill the purpose of the soul. To fulfill the purpose of the
soul
death should be studied to understand its causes. The purpose of nature is
to provide experiences to the soul.
Intellect is the most refined form of matter - it is seated in divine
presence.
The ego is created from intellect. Both are matter/part of
nature/interconnected
with everything.
>
> It strikes me that you think you have an identity in the reality where all
> things are one. You call it a soul and call the development of it
> spirituality. This is ridiculous to me. I laughed, I really did! It is so
> far fetched unless you site religious hearsay as evidence. Pah! I think
that
> maybe you feel a need to have an identity when everything points at your
> non-existence along with every other thing with the big thing. You can
have
> an identity, be a something in this reality, but in the one where observer
> and observed are the same thing - no way.
This dilemma of all things being one first showed up in Western history in
ancient Greece by Parmenides and his clan - the Eleatic School. Parmenides
stole his idea of 'The One' from India/Vedanta. Plato while defending his
Theory of Forms and falling on his face with young Socrates coming out
looking quite foolish - attempts a little Platonic humor by getting
Parmenides
to elaborate 'The One'. The problem is exactly as you are saying with your
'big thing'. What can you say about 'The One' It is? How can you describe
an abstraction with the qualities of Infinity? Saw a blue one yesterday? I
don't think so. So 'The One' which again was stolen by Parmenides from
Vedanta's 'All is Brahman' - places one in a predicament when faced with
articulating it. So Plato attempts to make Parmenides look foolish as he
spouts out about 30 pages nonsense. (It is the all and the not all. It
exists
but it does not exist ----blah blah) I's not football. Not popular. Not much
to discuss or debate. But Plato's fallacy as is almost all western science
and philosopher notions are based on is mistaking the mind as being 'us'.
the mind can not and never will be able to operate in an infinite capacity.
Not capable of functioning in an infinite dimension. Because both God
and the soul have the attributes of infinity - mind is at a hopeless loss
to understand it. While Parmenides stole 'The One' from Vedanta in
India - which by the way is the foremost philosophically accepted
reality in India today - sort of the Quantum Mechanics of India - Parmenides
could NOT steal the culture of India that went with it. In India it was long
recognized the limitations of the mind and means to transcend it were
developed. Concentration and meditation were used. In Greece however
they mistook the mind and reason as reality and so even though Parmenides
intellectually accepted it and Plato never could defeat it - since they were
not doing concentration and meditation they never could experience
the reality of 'The One' - only kick it around in their minds. And the
Eleatic School was around for a long time as the victor over Platonic
Theory of Forms and his Form of the Good.
You call it a soul and call the development of it
> spirituality. This is ridiculous to me. I laughed, I really did! It is so
> far fetched unless you site religious hearsay as evidence. Pah!
I guess they do not meditate in Tai Chi. Not only is Vedanta the most
profound intellectual concept on the planet today - as in Vedanta
can explain more than any other theory of any sort anywhere - as
I said before physicists today are studying eastern philosophy
with amazement - because they somehow knew of Quantum
Reality thousands of years ago - I can provide a list of resources
on this account. Not only could Vedanta not be de-throned for
thousands of years - in fact it was responsible for Buddhism
evaporating from India - What Vedanta and Yoga say are verifiable
by direct experience. As in I have had this direct experiences
many times. So it is hearsay to you. And I am not foolish enough to
think that just because I believe something that someone else would.
I am here to say that Yoga and Vedanta do not require faith of
any sort. They are scientific in as much as a technique is given
and certain predictions are made on the outcome of the technique.
Verifiable. As in current Karl Popper Philosopher of Science
'Falsification Theory'. In Yoga something is said and you try to
disprove it by any and all means available. So I don't know why you
bother to attend Tai Chi - this energy is most likely religious
hearsay ---.
>
> Living in the so called now is all well and good but I prefer to think
about
> the future and the past a bit as well. I know that future and past are
> concepts just like now is but they are so useful in the reality of things
or
> objects within the one thing that I wont give up remembering nice times or
> planning to have more.
The past and future are dreams of the mind. The only reality there is is
the Eternal Now. Quantum Mechanics. Neither Space nor Time nor
Matter can be trusted. All differ in different frames of reference.
Mind/Time and Space are like 3 sides of a triangle. If you take one
away you have nothing. The entire card-house of reality crumbles.
You can not have time without space. You can not have space without
time. You can have either space or time without mind. Mind creates
all these things. The only reality they have is with respect to one another.
It serves no purpose to just arbitrarily just go around mind bashing.
Mind bashing is even easier than science bashing. It is only to illustrate
Reality. To show that the mind can not grasp it. In other words if every
thing I said is true - then what. If we had a thought about what we ate
yesterday are we supposed to get up and say - sorry everyone - forgive
me. I thought about the past/ non-reality. In other words if everything
I said was true - what good is it? As far as 'I' am concerned it serves
to illustrate the fragile nature of what people believe is reality. To show
to understand Reality - it will not be via mind.
I guess 'you' believe you are your memories. They can replace
hearts/lungs/livers/
kidneys - what happens when your brain parts start being replaced?
Suppose it is just your thalamus. Would 'you' then still be you? How about
the vision center in the brain? Ear center? Cerebellum? Which piece of this
physical
stuff do 'you' really believe is 'you'. Or do 'you' believe that if your
liver was replaced
that actually the real you was no longer 'you'. How about the hypothalamus?
Just
exactly what physical part(s) of the brain distinguishes 'you'. Before you
answer that
question 'you' should realize that 'I' am 'up to my neck' in this very
question
and 'I' will give you a clue - psychology - at least - does not recognize
your
memories as 'you'. Again I can quote references if you like.
Hey - what can I say. When your dead your dead. 'You' know what the
'stupid' questions are already. Since they are so stupid maybe you can
'enlighten' 'us'. What in the world are you talking about 'request for
authority,
for being told what to do.'??? Have you ever heard' of Thrasymacus?
Would you say you are a moral person? Why? Do you
have a reason for mentioning Tai-chi? Based on what you said I probably
don't want to know what your understanding of it is. That is not the sorts
of things I remember Tai-chi for. Can't remember once how it talks
about us being the brain. It is about moving and identifying with the chi
energy - which is 'your' connection to your soul. About becoming your
movements - leaving your 'I' behind.
>
> As for this Viviekananda it seems to me he is saying that words alone
don't
> matter, you have to have something convincing happen to you before you'll
> believe in the way he wants you to. I wonder what has convinced you to
> believe the things you believe.
Direct experience. Based in large part on what Vivekananda/Vedanta/Yoga
said.
Not exactly. The soul knows everything at all times. Only due to its
association
with nature/maya results in ignorance. The mechanics of 'I know' are as
follows.
The experience from the external world - including the mind as part of that
external world - which is nature also - is presented to the intellect. There
flashes
the idea of egoism. A 'reaction' occurs as 'I know' (psychologically
speaking this
would be identification of the experience with something in memory)
This mixture of the reaction and egoism is presented to the soul. Where
the experience goes to the mind - here is where perceiver bias's the
actual raw data/physics of the situation presented by the optic nerve (eyes)
and how 'perceiver' as mind can not be separated from the perceived.
Can't recall the part of the intellect that bias's it further along with the
ego.
In any case the soul perceives an object (distorted) in this mixture and
learns.
You are confusing your ideas with whats really there -
> everythingallasone (do you like my new word?). One question I love is 'how
> do you know you know?' and if you can answer that then 'how did you decide
> that that was a good way to know that you knew'. Belief and faith are just
> more words for confident behaviour.
'You' are only playing with words. 'How do you know you know?' 'You'
should try to answer the question 'Who is it that wants to know how you
know you know' - because unless and until 'you' can - 'you' can not answer
this
question. Know thyself. If 'you' do not know who 'you' are - how can 'you'
answer this question? What 'you' are alluding to is and may not have
'dawned'
on 'you' consciously is explanation categories. There are many ways/models
of explanations that can be used to explain phenomena. I have a list of them
and their applications however no one ever it seems has ever attempted to
list the different types of explanations let alone categorize them. It seems
to
me that there should be a fairly ironclad set of rules based on logic in
which'
to select models of explanations. But as yet I have not found that this has
ever been addressed. (along with some other rather annoying little gotchas).
Based on the triviality with which you address these issues it is quite
clear
that 'you' never have actually given them much thought at all. Sounds cute.
Yes. To believe something is one thing. To know something is another.
Belief rests on faith. Knowing rests on knowledge. Faith is something you
walk around with until you get the facts. It is not 'human' to accept belief
when 'you' can get facts. So that you do not have to believe me and can
rely on the knowledge of what I just said - In psychology it is well known
that one of the innate/intrinsic characteristics of 'human beings' is fear
of
death. But fear of death as it turns out is simply a special case of the
more
general case of 'fear of the unknown' - another 'human' characteristic.
It is one thing to have faith that the bus will come on time so you will not
be late to your brothers wedding. It is another when you see the bus
come to a stop in front of you. Your fear is greater based on faith than
it is based on knowledge. You can have all the confidence in the world
that the bus will arrive on time - but never will that confidence be as
great
as when you see it pull up in front of you - knowledge is superior to
faith. Either Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine first showed this in
the West to the Catholic Church. The means of knowing things is
a question of Epistemology. 'We' can arrive at understanding things
by direct perception from our senses. From reason. From intuition.
All 3 of these are experiences. Knowledge gained from reason however
is inferior from knowledge gained from intuition. Knowledge gained
from our senses is also inferior to knowledge gained from intuition.
Knowledge gained from reason must be verified through experience.
Knowledge gained through our senses is distorted. Knowledge gained
by intuition however is at all times perfect. Intuition is knowledge from
the soul. Intuition does not take time. Knowledge comes instantaneously
in a flash. It 'dawns' on you. All intuition is quite reasonable. Reason
takes
time. Reason can be used to show almost anything. Reason is incapable
of understanding infinite entities like God and the soul. It is a limited
tool of the mind.
No. It is because I know the EXACT limitations of science.
Knowing its limits allows me to not be sucked into its limitations as so
many
people are. Like I said earlier. If half of the people I see that rely on
science
to support some of the junk they believe had any sort of a clue what the
implications of Quantum Mecahnics are - they would run for cover into some
faith-based religion with their tail between their legs. If you saw the
mountain
of science books I have all around me you would know that I have nothing
against science. I also know that I am telling someone that probably has no
clue what is meant by 'The Philosophy of Science' even is let alone the
history
or biographies of the inventors of it . And yet would freely tell me why I
should
or should or should not be pissed off at science---
Since you are such a fan of science Hawking (Stephen) has "The Universe in a
Nutshell"
out. Which I have with his other books. Also I suggest that your adversity
towards
religion stems from you inability to come to terms with the EXACT difference
between
faith and knowledge. I suggest you do not like religion because you confuse
the
idea that religion requires faith. In the West it does. That does not mean
that 'I' believe
Western religions are not true. 'I' can only praise most all religions. They
almost all have
basis.
Didn't even invent any words. I hope you learn something from your Tai Chi
instructor.
Tell him or her how you are a brain.
Mike Dubbeld
> All the best
>
> Meko
>
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
The soul is all knowing. Only the mind which is matter is ignorant. The
future
is only a mystery to the mind - not the soul.
No one would deny the usefulness of science. Few have any sort of clue
what exactly science is. That is why I am cynical. But hey - you think you
are your brain. I recommend studying science so you can come to understand
the fallacy of this belief. I especially recommend Quantum Physics.
Mike Dubbeld
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a205dl$pb5$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
meko.p
>
> The soul is all knowing. Only the mind which is matter is ignorant. The
> future
> is only a mystery to the mind - not the soul.
>
> No one would deny the usefulness of science. Few have any sort of clue
> what exactly science is. That is why I am cynical. But hey - you think you
> are your brain. I recommend studying science so you can come to understand
> the fallacy of this belief. I especially recommend Quantum Physics.
>
> Mike Dubbeld
Hi mike
You are wrong where you say I think I am my brain. What I said was: We do
not use our brains we *are* our brains and the rest of our bodies. I also
think that on another level we are everything else but where we are
everything else the notion of 'we' ceases to make sense on that level and
that level alone 'we' does not exist.
I am quite familiar with QM, relativity, string theory, etc. so don't worry
about me on that score :)
Meko
Mike Dubbeld
The brain and body are the result of incarnated desires. The after
effect. The physical necessity/counterpart manifested. We are
immortal souls - not brains and bodies. These are only our
physical vehicles for us to play with in this physical plane.
At death you keep your mind. And an identical counter part to
you physical body. It is no different than dreaming. This body is
the dream body - the astral body. It is much more durable than the
physical body and can last for millions of years. But it is peculiar
to talk about time in this way because the astral plane is at a
higher rate of vibration/frequency than physical reality. At night
when we sleep and dream - the less close we are to the conscious
plane the 'faster' events take place. You can have an enormous
number events that would take years to happen in the physical
world. That is one of the big reasons it is hard to remember your
dreams. Sometimes dreams filter down to the conscious mind
and for a moment we remember part of a dream. Then somehow
we can't remember that much else. Conscious mind on the physical
plane is not that fast many times. Depends on how close you are
to consciousness while sleeping. The soul is encased in the astral
body. It operates at a much higher rate of vibration than the
astral body. Past lives are like dreams in that way. You can not
remember them for the same reason we have difficulty remembering
our dreams. But death and rebirth are traumatic events more or
less and are blissfully repressed into the unconscious (not subconscious).
But these can be recalled. It is foolish however to do so because
you may discover a lot of things you wish you did not want to know.
It is risky. Previous lives are cloaked for a good reason and when
you play with fire you generally tend to get burned. It is another
huge and very intricate subject.
I don't expect you to believe these things but that's fine. It is not in
your or anyone else's karmic experience pattern that I am qualified
to tell you these things. You have to find them out. The things I am
talking about are metaphysics. Yogic metaphysics relate
to very definite/specific things. They, like physical things have
characteristics and are related to one another in very definite
ways. Some throw these words around arbitrarily and
try to obfuscate in an attempt to hide behind ambiguity and confusion.
It is my experience that people have come to arrive at - que on
certain words that are used to think they are an open invitation
to hide behind trite phrases and bullshit. Imply they may know
something but are really quite clueless.
There are people thatare far more knowledgeable than me in
the occult area. Since I already
know with utterly unshakable knowledge what death is exactly,
it no longer holds any sort of fascination. Death is not important.
It is nothing special. It is only the mind that fears death because
it can not recall dying before. Fear of the unknown is an
intrinsic 'human' trait. If you ever saw that movie with
Bruce Willis The 6'th Sense - you watch the whole movie
not knowing he is dead. But neither does he. In like manner when
you die little will appear to have changed. The same continuity is
there. Much of what I said is from direct personal experience.
I was taught not to become overly interested in the occult because
one can spend/waste there whole life studying out the intricacies
of it. Specifically not to snoop around in other peoples auras
and thoughts. Besides once you do it for awhile you lose interest.
This connectedness portrayed by Quantum Mechanics is a
link to science understanding psychic phenomena. Let me tell
you my dimension story! (actually this is from Swami Vishnudevananda)
In a one dimensional world the only things that are known are
forwards and backwards. Think of a train in one dimensional space.
The Engineer has absolutely no clue in this case what is on the left
or right. For him and his world there is no such thing as left and right.
The train and all he can or ever will be able to see is forward and
backward. Now imagine a dog steps onto the tracks up ahead
of the train. The Engineer gasps in astonishment. Out of thin
air a creature has materialized. The dog of course who lives in
a 2-dimensional world is clueless he has done anything at all.
Always was 4 directions for him to choose from all his life.
Forward and backward and left and right. He has a 2 dimensional
perspective of reality. The dog - seeing the train coming jumps
off the tracks on to the side of the tracks to escape death. The
train engineer pees in his pants seeing the dog vanish into thin air.
For left and right are not possibilities in a one dimensional world.
There is no side of the tracks for the train engineer. A ship on the
ocean lives in a 2-dimensional world. It can go north and south
and east and west. That is all. When a helicopter fly's down to
the level of the ship the entire crew on deck gasps and runs for
safety because an extraordinary contraption has materialized
out of thin air! For the 2-dimensional ship reality up and down
have no meaning. There is no such thing. Never has been. Never
will be. When the helicopter sees the people on the ship getting
all excited by flying even with the height of the ship, he fly's upward
away from the ship to stop scaring the crew. The crew of the
ship nearly faint as they see the helicopter dissapear into thin
air again. The helicopter lives in 3 dimensional reality. He has done
nothing of any sort that is extraordinary. He is mystified why the
ships crew is so excited at his presence. In the same way we as
3 (or 4 depending on how you look at it) dimensional creatures
that only know of 3 dimensional space are completely baffled if
an object were to appear out of thin air in a room. Some of the
things that we call psychic phenomena are a direct result of
other 'dimensions' that do not make sense in physical reality as
we know it. Do you know how long it takes a photon to travel
20 million light years? No - you don't. You don't because until
you know with respect to what frame of reference I am referring to
you can not answer this question. Some might say that is ridiculous.
It takes 20 million years just like I already said. From the point
of view of the photon however it takes zero time and did not
move. All of physical Reality is hinges on the wave/particle nature
of light. As Swami Vishnudevananda says----
'God is an experience on a particular wavelength'
Do you do QI Gong with Tai Chi?
Is Meko Japanese??
Mike Dubbeld
"meko.p" <mek...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:aLZ18.39335$Hg7.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Nick Lilavois
>Hi Meko,
>
>The brain and body are the result of incarnated desires.
Well lucky you. I wish mine were, dammit. ;-)
/*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*\
|* Unique, Artistic T-Shirts, Caps, Mugs, Mousepads and More! *|
|* * Mystical * Political * Funny * Sexy * Artsy * *|
|* MagentaStudios | http://shop.magentastudios.com/ *|
|* Nick Lilavois | http://www.lilavois.com/nick/ *|
\*'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'~-.,_,.-~'`^`'*/
CHumph8197
That's too bad. The brain dies
or gets broken. The spirit never
dies. Evidence: counless studies
of NDEs, and other aspects of
thanatology. See Psychical Research.
Dr.H
Star Travel
http://users.aol.com/thales97/
Utopia
http://users.aol.com/drhumph/
Mind and Soul
http://users.aol.com/miletus1/
CHumph8197
Just wanted to say that I agree
with all you said about mind, body,
astral body, past lives, and so
forth. Did you learn this in Yoga?
What school, what teachers, what
books, if you don't mind divulging.
PS. I agree it is generally a mistake
to try to recall past lives. We
have forgotten them for a reason.