Is this the Red Pill? A Metaphysical Wake Up Call?
Anandavala
It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.
An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
The discussion uses systems theory to go deep into the questions:
What am I?
What is the world?
What is happening?
What can be done?
It also addresses the issue of how does a vast complex system such as
a human life or a civilisation undergo a transition from a state of
delusion and obstruction to a state of awareness and abundance.
It may seem abstract at times but the roots of ignorance go deep into
abstract territory, subtly warping the familiar world of experience.
When experience is in conflict with reality we must challenge our
delusions and enter into the abstract (metaphysical) foundations of
our confusion.
It covers many many things. It delves to the core of certain
fundamental issues and clarifies deep seated misunderstandings, then
it explores the ramifications of this as the whole structure of
knowledge readjusts.
Some quotes from the preface...
"It contains some mind-blowing ideas (literally). As they flow through
my mind and out my fingers they are blowing my old paradigm into tiny
pieces - dissolving everything and re-casting it into a new paradigm
or vision of reality. So beware if you are attached to your familiar
world-view - you will find this discussion threatening. Read this only
if you are willing to question fundamental beliefs and assumptions,
and you seek a deep rational knowledge of your self, of the world, of
the nature of the phenomena and events in the world and how to
holistically, harmonious and effectively participate in reality. This
is the red pill, take it and I will show you "how deep the rabbit hole
goes". Or simply turn away; "take the blue pill and the story ends...
you believe whatever you want to believe."(The Matrix). The decision
is: "Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) [but for how
long?] or do you lead what Aristotle called 'the examined life'..."
"This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits
subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, subjects about which most people have hard and fast
beliefs and prejudices and they never dare look into and question
them... these ideas challenge certain core beliefs that most people
have not seriously questioned."
"if you read through the discussion you will be able to identify the
assumptions, overcome the pre-conceived ideas and be able to
contemplate the topic from a new perspective that will make it much
clearer."
"The subject itself is the essence of simplicity but because of the
complexity of our ideas I must provide a very complex analysis to make
it connect with our world of ideas. So it may start off a bit too
technical for some and it may get a bit too metaphysical or abstract
for others. It is primarily meant for people who are attached to the
world of ideas but who are open to exploring its foundations and
seeing 'beneath' the world of ideas. It is particularly aimed at open
minded, rational, and skeptical, scientists, philosophers,
intellectuals and theologians but also for open minded, rational,
skeptical and enquiring people of all kinds. It covers such a vast
territory so much of it may be unfamiliar or may seem familiar on the
surface but be totally different to what you would expect. This
discussion describes a paradigm shift"
"Through questioning and deconstructing fundamental assumptions and
confusions then exploring the ramifications of this I seek to motivate
people to clarify and overcome these distortions in themselves and the
wider culture so that we can all better comprehend and participate in
reality. I do not propose any new ideology, grand theory or belief
system, just a 'device' that can assist in clarifying awareness. After
that, awareness and reality do the rest."
Check it out if you dare ;)
An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
Holistic Science
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
Best wishes!
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
Immortalist
> I invite you to have a look at this latest metaphysical offering.
>
> It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
> inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
> and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.
>
> An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
>
Are you sure it was Aristotle who mentioned the examined life? I
always heard it was Socrates. From the link you provided;
> This is the red pill, take it and I will show you
> "how deep the rabbit hole goes". Or simply
> turn away; "take the blue pill and the story
> ends... you believe whatever you want to
> believe."(The Matrix) [ref]. The decision is:
> "Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially
> bliss) [but for how long?] or do you lead what
> Aristotle called 'the examined life'... The question
> is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth
> pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are,
> in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe
> we know. We are comfortable, we do not need
> truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting
> to work every day, or brushing your teeth. The
> red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that
> it can help us to find the truth. We don't know
> what that truth is, or even that the pill will help
> us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt
> and questioning."
>
> http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
>
The unexamined life is really not worth living, says Socrates, the
wisest man in ancient Greece. His credo has become the basic tenet of
the philosophical quest.
At his trial in 399BC by the citizens of Athens, Socrates declared
that from his incessant questioning, he found his contemporaries spend
their lives pursuing various goals -- money, ambition, pleasure,
physical security -- without asking themselves if these were
important. Unless they raised such a question and seriously sought the
answer -- through careful reflection, alert observation and critical
arguments -- they would not know if they were doing the right thing.
They might be wasting their energy, time and money in useless or even
dangerous pursuits.
How do we believe what we believe? How do we arrive at our underlying
set of beliefs (which includes assumptions, prejudices and
convictions)? It is important that we examine the process to determine
if we have acquired the correct set of beliefs because they influence
our thinking and motivate our action.
http://bystander.homestead.com/unexamined.html
Anandavala
> On Apr 20, 10:19 am, Anandavala <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>
> > I invite you to have a look at this latest metaphysical offering.
>
> > It challenges core beliefs, elucidates the nature of illusion and
> > inspires people to question their deepest assumptions about existence
> > and themselves. It Bridges the gap between science and spirituality.
>
> > An Information Systems Analysis of Mind, Knowledge, 'the World' and
>
> Are you sure it was Aristotle who mentioned the examined life? I
> always heard it was Socrates. From the link you provided;
I personally don't care who said it - I just took that quote because
it expressed certain ideas - the ideas are the only relevant part. So
thanks for drawing my attention to this point of confusion. I have
removed all mention of "who said what" just to keep the ideas clear.
Best wishes
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
ZerkonX
Just having fun...
> What am I?
What were you?
> What is the world?
What isn't?
> What is happening?
Everything
> What can be done?
What are you doing?
Your site must have been a lot of work. Seems like the 'answer' is the
process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a point of
arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is more exiting,
more electric.
Anandavala
> Hi.
>
> I read it but I didn't like reading it nor agree with it. I will start
> with some harsh criticism, which I hope you don't take personally. You
> need to take this further.
There's nothing personal about it - what I describe is a non-personal
approach to reality. I hope you don't take my comments personally
either. They are not meant that way - none of it is personal! I seek
to clarify understanding rather than just defend beliefs, that is how
I operate and I hope others do so too.
But on a personal note: thanks for providing this feedback :)
You bring up some important issues for people who are first
approaching these ideas. I think many people would encounter these
problems when reading the discussion for the first time so I address
them in detail below. Thanks!
BTW how much did you read? Because the issues you raise are actually
addressed in the discussion if you persevere. You give some insightful
comments but you mainly seem to interpret things from the old-
paradigm, which is unavoidable to begin with, but it leads to great
confusion. People are generally used to simple extensions of the old-
paradigm and a paradigm shift is a difficult process to comprehend and
navigate.
> I think the terms in the paper lack further definition and
> investigation.
I think want you are wanting is neat pre-definitions but such a thing
is impossible in this context because it is a paradigm shift and not a
simple extension of the old-paradigm. Any pre-definitions would have
to be in terms of the old-paradigm but the old-paradigm is not
meaningful in this context. The whole discussion is the gradual
creation of a context of understanding in which things are redefined.
Only then can neat definitions be given in terms of the new-paradigm.
One has to approach this much like mathematics, which many people have
trouble with. When they encounter the variable 'x' in an equation they
want a neat pre-definition of what 'x' actually means. But in most
mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
in the holistic context. In this way if you read the discussion and
discern the meanings of things from how they relate within the
discussion you will come to understand the subtle meanings. However if
you apply pre-conceived ideas you will become very confused. It would
be like trying to understand y=x^2 when you think that 'x' means "x
marks the spot" or "generation x" - such interpretations would lead to
endless confusion.
So regarding "further investigation" I think you will find that if you
are careful about pre-conceived ideas and you read the discussion
carefully you will see that there is exhaustive investigation and re-
definition of things.
> I don't think you need to add more, I think rather that
> you need to cut more out and be more delicate with your wording.
Streamlining the presentation is very important - I'm a thinker not a
writer so any help or advice is much appreciated. So please give me as
much advice as you have time for...
But what many people call delicacy is simply avoiding certain issues -
and any attempt to confront those issues will be perceived as in-
delicate. This cannot be helped if those issues need to be confronted.
Most people will not accept or like what is said, but some will gain
something from it. Furthermore I am not delicate when dealing with
people who have very overdeveloped egos, simply because they are not
ready for this discussion and it is safest for them if they are turned
away early before they encounter ideas that they are unable to
comprehend and would only confuse and agitate them.
As for cutting things out - I would love to simplify this - I could
express it all in a single sentence IF there was a common
understanding. But given that people are coming from the old-paradigm,
then everything needs to be clarified and re-contextualised within the
new-paradigm. So it is a complicated process whilst the underlying
idea is very simple. Overtime as people show understanding I could
present simplified versions but only when there is some degree of
common understanding.
> There
> is too much reliance on 'subjective, and objective' thought and this
> weakens the ideas.
Please explain how this weakens things? One of the main confusions
that this discussion seeks to clarify is the relationship between
subjective and objective - there are fundamental low-level confusions
regarding these that most people simply accept as reality - this
creates a false foundation upon which all of their later knowledge
rests. Most people assume that we have direct sensory access to
objective reality but this is TOTALLY FALSE. Even people who
intellectually state that they know we don't, still much of their
thinking is based on ideas and language usages that enshrine the
assumption that we do. All the talk of "the physical universe" as if
it is a commonly known and commonly experienced objective reality is
totally false. (There's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy later that also addresses this issue)
All we have are subjective experiences and these experiences generate
ideas based upon our pre-conceived ideas and we communicate our
subjective experiences and come to believe in the idea of an objective
reality that is essentially the same as our subjective experience.
People do not enquire into the nature of subjective experience. If
they did they would realise that shared subjective experience differs
both subtly and radically from the actual objective reality, which we
cannot ever 'see' directly but only perceive its effects in the world
- such as consciousness, present moment existence, coherence on both
micro and cosmic scales, causality, intuition, psy-phenomena, quantum
entanglement, quantum non-locality, the quantisation of all aspects of
reality, relativistic constraints and so on.
> The text is semi observational and the observations
> used are also nonfactual and incomplete, or at least it comes across
> that way in your 'word salad'.
I accept that is how it seems to you (it is after all a paradigm
shift) but please explain or give some examples from the discussion -
otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
If there is anything that you consider to be vague, nonfactual,
incomplete or inaccurate then PLEASE tell me and I will look into
them.
I deliberately create a 'word salad' because there is NO other way. If
I could state things directly I would, but only old-paradigm ideas can
be expressed directly in old-paradigm terms. If I was to speak openly
and directly to begin with I can guarantee that you would totally
misunderstand what it was I was trying to say. This happens all the
time when people with different paradigms try and communicate; it
leads mainly to confusion and agitation. So here I use a word salad,
which most people will turn away from out of apathy and the underlying
assumption that I am probably just a ranting crackpot. Such things are
unavoidable, but some people will hopefully persevere and reap the
benefits.
> How can you possibly hope to address questions such as
>
> What am I?
> What is the world?
> What is happening?
>
> using meta-physics ?
How can one hope to address them without metaphysics????????????
Is there any other way?
> Its just not practical. Metaphysics is better
> used in motivational and spiritual philosophy where it belongs at some
> extent the question 'What can be done?'.
Are we talking about the same thing when we say 'metaphysics'?
Quoted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the
nature of reality, being, and the world.
Metaphysics addresses questions such as:
What is the nature of reality?
What is humankind's place in the universe?
Are colors objective or subjective?
Does the world exist outside the mind?
What is the nature of objects, events, places?
A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into
what types of things there are in the world and what relations these
things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify
the notions by which people understand the world, including existence,
objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.
---- end of quote ----
Perhaps you are thinking of the more modern usage of the word:
Quoted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics)
More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely
to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world". A
"metaphysical bookstore", for instance, is not one that sells books on
ontology, but rather one that sells books on spirits, faith healing,
crystal power, occultism, and other such topics.
---- end of quote ----
I expressly DO NOT mean this meaning of 'metaphysics'!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems to me that you assume that there are different realities that
are totally separate? The separation exists only in our knowledge of
reality. There are countless disciplines of knowledge that seek to
understand reality and every one of them rests upon a metaphysical
foundation and an ontology - even the ones that claim they don't -
they just don't realise that they do - they enshrine certain
metaphysical beliefs and do not question them. Naive realism is a
classic example of this - it makes extreme ontological and
metaphysical statements but doesn't consider them to be a position
that can be questioned, instead naïve realists jthink that it is just-
the-way-things-are. Another important example is empirical science -
by its reliance on perception as its ontological foundation it
excludes all aspects of reality that are not directly perceptible.
This makes an extreme ontological position but empirical science does
not question this position - it just keeps to a positivist belief
system.
By the very fact that we have such fragmented and antagonistic
disciplines, this indicates that there are serious flaws in the
metaphysical foundations of our collective knowledge. There is only
one reality and that is the actual foundation for all our knowledge,
but we fragment that into artificial categories based upon assumptions
and then build separate disciplines upon the fragmented foundation.
> I don't think it works with
> phenomenal or ontological reasoning well at all.
In what manner do you think it doesn't work? I guess you are talking
about the modern (popular) usage of 'metaphysics' but that is not what
I am talking about. Metaphysics is in fact the foundation of ontology
and seeks to explain the arising of all phenomena. One cannot
comprehend ontology or phenomenology except within some metaphysical
context - so it is good to question and understand one's metaphysics
rather than just conducting one's enquiry atop of an unquestioned set
of beliefs and assumptions.
One could assume 'perception' as a given and then build an empiricist
theory atop of this but it ultimately rests upon assumptions about the
nature of perception. Because of these assumptions many paradoxes
arise and much of reality is incomprehensible. To overcome the
confusions we need to question the nature of perception and then
renovate our metaphysical foundation and propagate these changes
throughout the entire structure of our knowledge otherwise we are only
dealing with a belief system and not a skeptical science. But the
world is so entranced by the empiricist belief system and people have
an irrational aversion towards questioning these beliefs. Because of
this a paradigm shift such as this one will be VERY difficult for many
people.
> This is why you have
> resulted in word conflicts, such as Illusion and physicality. How can
> something that is an 'illusion' (in your words VR) also have a natural
> physical substrate. Im not saying that illusion's don't have a natural
> physical substrate; What is grey matter after-all ?
This issue is addressed at length in the essay. I discuss exactly how
the experience and the idea of 'physicality' arises and how it relates
to information and illusion. Only if you interpret the words
'illusion' and 'physical' in the old-paradigm is there any word
conflict. The paradox arises because of fundamental confusions that
distort the metaphysical context of common language and common sense.
The language enshrines the paradox because it relies upon the
confusion. But once the confusion is clarified one can see how
'illusion' and 'physical' fit seamlessly together. The idea of
'physicality' arises due to the voracity of certain systemic
perceptual illusions that are reinforced by our empiricist bias toward
perceptual phenomena. By assuming that the perceptions represent the
reality we end up with many confusions and paradoxes within our
language and common sense. But once one separates out the confusions
there are no paradoxes at all. There are just many subtleties that
arise due to the nature of information, communication, perception and
so on.
> The writing was also too complicated and filled with metaphors. Some
> of what you call 'metaphors' aren't metaphors at all.
Please tell me which metaphors aren't metaphors? I'm not sure what you
mean by this. Do you mean that they could be more accurately described
as analogies? Or do you mean something else?
And as for metaphors - when the language is built upon a distorted
metaphysics and it enshrines many confusions then I simply CANNOT
state things directly. The language inherently lacks the capacity to
express them and any expressions tend to reinforce the enshrined
confusions. So it is very difficult to express these ideas at all - it
is like trying to talk about 'peace' and 'freedom' in an Orwellian
'newspeak' language. Hence I must work around ideas but cannot
directly approach them and metaphors are essential for this. They help
present the basic structure of an argument or phenomenon by drawing
parallels with other similar structures, but one must look past the
surface ideas and discern the underlying structure otherwise one is
simply looking at the finger when the finger is actually pointing at
the moon. I discuss metaphors at length later in the essay and explain
how they are useful and how to use them.
> How I think you should proceed.
>
> I think you should investigate further the phenomenological theories
> that are currently being used in the arts and in cinema and apply this
> to your work. You will find yourself no-longer using words like
> 'Illusions' and rather using 'the space of the moving image' or the
> 'representation of space'.
That may be good advice; it is a relevant field, but it is such a vast
field that is very unfamiliar to me. Can you point me in some
direction? Perhaps the name of a person who's work touches on this?
But currently in my mind it seems that using phrases like 'the space
of the moving image' would just be using euphemisms. They might be
less confronting but also less accurate. Because what is 'space',
'movement' and 'image'? To whom does the image appear? By what process
is the image formed? What exactly is the image of? What relationship
do we propose between the image and reality? All these issues arise
within the virtual space and all are ultimately illusion. But you
should ask yourself, what does 'illusion' mean in the new-paradigm -
what am I actually saying by using that word?
I would recommend this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy:
Epistemological Problems of Perception
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/
Below is a quote from it:
The historically most central epistemological issue concerning
perception, to which this article will be almost entirely devoted, is
whether and how beliefs about physical objects and about the physical
world generally can be justified or warranted on the basis of sensory
or perceptual experience -- where it is internalist justification,
roughly having a reason to think that the belief in question is true,
that is mainly in question (see the entry justification, epistemic:
internalist vs. externalist conceptions of). This issue, commonly
referred to as "the problem of the external world," divides into two
closely related sub-issues, which correspond to the first two main
sections below. The first of these issues has to do with the nature of
sensory experience and its relation to the physical world; it is
typically (though as we shall see not altogether perspicuously)
formulated as the question of what are the immediate objects of
awareness in sensory experience or, in a variant but essentially
equivalent terminology, of what is given in such experience. Perhaps
the most historically standard, though not currently the most popular
answer to this question has been that it is sense-data (private, non-
physical entities actually having the experienced sensory qualities)
that are the immediate objects of awareness or that are given. The
second issue has to do with the way in which beliefs about the
physical world are justified on the basis of such sensory experience.
If it is concluded that physical objects are not themselves given, the
two main answers to this question are representationalism (the view
that the immediate objects of experience represent or depict physical
objects in a way that allows one to infer justifiably from such
experience to the existence of the corresponding "external" objects)
and phenomenalism (the view that physical objects are reducible to or
definable in terms of the occurrence and obtainability of such
experience). A third alternative view that has received attention in
recent discussion is direct realism: the view that physical objects
are after all directly or immediately perceived in a way that
allegedly avoids the need for any sort of justificatory inference from
sensory experience to physical reality...
....
The Argument from Illusion
(Or, perhaps better, the argument from illusion/perceptual relativity/
hallucination.) This very widely advocated argument (first offered
explicitly in Berkeley [1713]) appeals to the immense variety of cases
in which: (i) what is immediately perceived or given has different
qualities from different perspectives or under different perceptual
conditions, even though the relevant physical object does not change
(perceptual relativity); or (ii) in which qualities are immediately
experienced that the relevant object clearly does not possess
(illusion); or (iii) in which qualities are experienced in a situation
in which there is no physical object of the relevant sort present at
all (hallucination). Some fairly standard examples: viewing a circular
coin from different angles, resulting (allegedly) in the experience of
a variety of elliptical shapes; viewing a white or colored object
under different kinds of lighting; feeling the temperature of a luke-
warm bucket of water with a hand that has previously become inured to
water of substantially higher or lower temperatures; viewing a
straight stick that is immersed in water and so looks bent;
hallucinating a non-existent object such as pink rat or a dagger.
The basic claim is that in cases of illusion or hallucination, the
object that is immediately experienced or given has qualities that no
public physical object in that situation has and so must be distinct
from any such object. And in cases of perceptual relativity, since
objects with different qualities are experienced from each of the
different perspectives or under each of the relevant conditions, at
most one of these various immediately experienced or given objects
could be the physical object itself; it is then further argued that
since there is no apparent experiential basis for regarding one out of
any such set of related perceptual experiences as the one in which the
relevant physical object is immediately experienced, the most
reasonable conclusion is that the immediately experienced or given
object is always distinct from the physical object (or, significantly
more weakly, that there is no way to identify which, if any, of the
immediately experienced objects is the physical object itself, so that
the evidential force of the experience is in this respect the same in
all cases, and it is epistemologically as though physical objects were
never given, whether or not that is in fact the case).
---- end of quote ----
So when I say 'illusion' I mean it in the sense that colour is an
illusion. It is a perceptual phenomenon that leads us to believe that
objects possess colour when in fact they don't. There are frequencies
of light but this light has no colour. Only when a very narrow range
of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum stimulate our senses
and are interpreted by consciousness does colour arise. So one could
say that colour exists only in 'the space of the moving image' but it
is more accurate to say that it is an illusion. It is a phenomenon
that arises in consciousness but which has no exact correlate in
objective reality. In this same way the experience of objects in space
and time that arises in a virtual reality is an illusion because there
are no objects that ontologically exist and ontologically possess the
perceived attributes - they only arise when perceived from a
particular perspective (within the simulation). In this respect they
are illusion, but they are not meaningless fantasy, they are very
loosely based on some aspect of reality so I call them virtual.
Thank you so much for this feedback. I think many people would
encounter these problems when reading the discussion for the first
time. I hope I have help clarify things for you. If you are up to it I
would recommend keeping these issues in mind and re-reading things,
you may see it in a different light... If you persevere and read further
you will see that things are re-defined and investigated and that very
compelling and startling realisations come out of this re-imagining of
the holistic context. The world is not what it seems and neither are
we.
Best wishes :)
John
Immortalist
Fair enough, peace brau.
Healthy Bodies, Healthy Souls
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/f517b0043bf2c3fe
JAM
Hi Zerkon
I'm replying to you because of a special interest in your,
" process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a
point of arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is
more exiting".
Karl Frederick Gauss, one of the greatest philosopher/mathematics of
all time observed that the mathematical fundamental, "The Enigma of
Asymptotical Infinity" applies to universal existence.
The awesome "word salad" of the site is overwhelming to say the least!
My interest in the substance tempts me to try to absorb more of it but
the time magnitude is breathtakingly impossible to contemplate.
I can't conceive of the possibility that anyone could spend the time
to read more but Gauss' observation reinforces the whole rant:
See - http://jamdialogues.blogspot.com/
JAM
Hi Zerkon
I'm replying to you because of a special interest in your,
" process of finding out. Sounds good to me. Why be content with a
point of arrival when you can live in perpetual potential. Sure is
ZerkonX
> My interest in the substance tempts me to try to absorb more of it but
> the time magnitude is breathtakingly impossible to contemplate.
Somewhere along the line, years ago, a group was talking about
photography. The question was, 'How much does subject matter determine a
good picture?' After much discussion we agreed that a good photographer
can get a good picture out of anything. If a good picture is the goal, a
good photographer could take one with any subject at any time. Or, it's
not what you are thinking about it's how you are thinking.
Anandavala
First let me say that you have shown enormous perseverance and this is
an extremely positive sign. You probably won't like what I have to say
here but if you don't take it personally and you don't get too
frustrated because it doesn't conform to your expectations then there
is much that you might learn from this. Thank you for your comments,
you have helped me understand how these ideas seem to people on their
first approach. From the incredible depth of the misunderstanding
between us I realise that a glossary might help reduce this confusion
a little so I have made a small glossary of the less-controversial
terms that might be useful at the begining. Thank you for showing me
this. Its a wonderful idea!
You can see it at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#glossary
Let me know if there are other terms you'd like clarified and I'll see
what I can do...
On Apr 22, 7:40 pm, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think want you are wanting is neat pre-definitions but such a thing
> > is impossible in this context because it is a paradigm shift and not a
> > simple extension of the old-paradigm. Any pre-definitions would have
> > to be in terms of the old-paradigm but the old-paradigm is not
> > meaningful in this context. The whole discussion is the gradual
> > creation of a context of understanding in which things are redefined.
> > Only then can neat definitions be given in terms of the new-paradigm.
>
> Yes I want neat definitions. Yes I want you to provide those
> definitions even if it means that you 'redefine' words, objects or
> ideas. What I don't want is you to tell me to 'beware' of the paradigm
> shift. It is not impossible for you to do this. Pre-definitions are
> whatever you predefine them. Then it is possible for philosophers to
> take you seriously if they decided to hermeneutically analyse what you
> present.
Consider the case where I only spoke Chinese and you only spoke
English - how do we begin to develop understanding. You don't seem to
understand that we are speaking different conceptual languages and you
keep insisting that I simply say it in your conceptual language but
quite frankly I have no idea how to say what I am trying to say in
that conceptual language. It isn't even possible! Yes I do speak the
common conceptual language but it can only comprehend a very limited
range of things - beyond that the language is impotent. If I just
blurt things out in my language right now you won't understand the
meanings and their subtle relations, you will just experience the
words based on your own associations which are TOTALLY different to
mine and the message will not be conveyed. Even worse, you will
probably think that some message has been conveyed but all that passes
is just nonsense. Don't you understand this? It is simple information
theory - we need an encoding/decoding protocol that does not introduce
too much noise and distortion - otherwise the signal is not conveyed.
> You kind of do that at the start successfully with cynic,
> skeptic etc.
Cynic and skeptic retain much the same meanings in either paradigm
that is why it is trivial to define them.
> But what you also do is assume the reader is a moron and
> not ready for your amazing paradigm shift. Clearly, what you do is
> make an enemy of the reader right from the beginning. I hope you can
> see that.
>
Its amazing how different things can seem in different people's minds.
You take offense to the warning sign because you totally misunderstand
the territory that you are wandering into, you assume that it is
trivial so any warning is an insult to your intelligence. But it is
interesting to note that you have stumbled on nearly every obstacle
that I warned you to take care with. THIS CONCEPTUAL TERRAIN IS NOT
TRIVIAL!!!! You ignored the warnings and got confused exactly because
you ignored the warnings. If you treat this as trivial you will
constantly be tripping over. If these ideas where trivial then how
could they be the Red Pill? If they were just a minor extension of the
old-paradigm how could they break you out of the matrix? To break out
of a lifetime of illusion and billions of years of biological
programming is NOT a trivial matter. I give an extended metaphor at
the end of this post that explains how I see the situation of you
charging in and stumbling - you either begin to take this seriously or
you should leave it alone for your own sake.
Check the glossary for 'confusion' because some people might take
offence to that word:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gConfusion
> > One has to approach this much like mathematics, which many people have
> > trouble with. When they encounter the variable 'x' in an equation they
> > want a neat pre-definition of what 'x' actually means. But in most
> > mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
> > but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
> > in the holistic context. In this way if you read the discussion and
> > discern the meanings of things from how they relate within the
> > discussion you will come to understand the subtle meanings.
>
> (x) is always considered a variable as well as the object being
> sought. A pre-definition of x might be yes, the force of something, or
> some other value.
Yes it is easy to find very particular examples where variables have
easy pre-definitions but that doesn't change the fact that "in MOST
mathematical cases the meaning of a variable has no simple definition
but rather it arises as a function of how that variable participates
in the holistic context". Besides - the mention of mathematics is just
an explicit idea within a metaphor:
See 'metaphor' in the glossary:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gMetaphor
By focusing on the explicit ideas and not discerning the underlying
pattern and not applying that pattern within the implicit context -
what you are doing is looking at the finger when the finger is
actually pointing at the moon. Even if the explicit ideas are
incorrect or fantastical mythic nonsense it doesn't matter - the
explicit ideas themselves are totally irrelevant so long as you are
able to use them to discern the underlying pattern. This is why so
many ancient legends and myths are so fantastical - they are
metaphors! But in this example the explicit ideas ARE correct - but
whether they are or not is irrelevant.
> >However if
> > you apply pre-conceived ideas you will become very confused. It would
> > be like trying to understand y=x^2 when you think that 'x' means "x
> > marks the spot" or "generation x" - such interpretations would lead to
> > endless confusion.
>
> Not if the variable "Y" was also defined in that it was the rate of
> population change of (generation x). Do you understand ? You are
> conveniently missing out crucial aspects of the communication process
> in order to manipulate. This is wrong, and serious philosophers wont
> recognise you. Bertram Russel says the skill in being a philosopher is
> keeping things simple, and I agree.
You seem to totally underestimate the difficulty of this subject
matter and you do not understand the subtleties of communication
across a vast paradigm gulf. It is often the case that it takes
generations for revolutionary ideas to be recognised. At first people
are so caught up in their current paradigm and they don't understand
how different other paradigms can be. They assume that their current
paradigm is the only sane paradigm and they naively interpret things
from their current paradigm and get confused then they assume that the
new idea is nonsense.
See 'naive' because some people take offence to this word too:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gNaive
But gradually people's paradigms shift and in a few generations people
suddenly see that those nonsense ideas where actually clear and simple
statements that make obvious sense. Quantum physics is a very relevant
contemporary example - only now after nearly a century are people
begining to understand it. It has been by far the most accurate
calculational tool ever developed but because it challenges core
beliefs people have been unable and unwilling to think about it
clearly and to take it seriously. Physicists have taken the approach
that we should stick to our empiricist materialist understanding and
just use the mathematics to do calculations but to never think about
what the science actually means. But recently quantum physicists are
starting to understand what it means, and they are starting to drop
their naive realism, empiricism and instrumentalism, and to move more
towards scientific realism and rationalism.
See these if you want to know more:
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics (PDF)
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf
Physicists bid farewell to reality? Quantum mechanics just got even
stranger.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html
As for keeping things simple - they should be as simple as they can be
and no simpler otherwise one starts crippling the ideas.
>
> > So regarding "further investigation" I think you will find that if you
> > are careful about pre-conceived ideas and you read the discussion
> > carefully you will see that there is exhaustive investigation and re-
> > definition of things.
>
> I don't want to be careful. I want you to be clear.
If you are unwilling to apply your own judgment, present moment
awareness and intelligence then there is nothing that anyone can do to
help you. We are not birds and I'm not going to pre-digest all your
food and vomit it down your throat. Even if I did it would not lead to
any depth of understanding unless you actually assimilate the ideas.
If you wish to eat and draw nourishment then you must put in a little
effort yourself.
> > > I don't think you need to add more, I think rather that
> > > you need to cut more out and be more delicate with your wording.
>
> > Streamlining the presentation is very important - I'm a thinker not a
> > writer so any help or advice is much appreciated. So please give me as
> > much advice as you have time for...
>
> Well that is very difficult. First like I have said, define ideas
> properly at the beginning. For instance you use the word 'virtual'
> often. What is virtual ?
Have a look at the term virtual:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gVirtual
In my understanding this term should be quite clear but I see from
your responses that it isn't clear to many people.
> You can also cut out allot of stuff that is
> simply not factual. For instance. Electrons, are measurable. Just
> because we do not see something with the naked eye doesn't mean that
> the information of this thing cant be made available to our 'bare'
> senses. By virtue of electrons being measured makes them observable.
> The same way that it is observable that light has momentum.
I assume you are commenting on the quote that I took from:
A Critique of the Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~gholling/home/quantumMechanics.pdf
[Empirical science claims] "that a good theory need only provide an
empirically adequate description of observable phenomena. Any
unobservables, such as electrons and quarks, are simply empirical
tools for describing the observable world... [hence] our epistemic
knowledge is limited to the observables."
This position is not important to my argument it merely explains the
position that empirical scientists have held throughout most of the
history of empirical science - so if you think it is non-factual you
should take that up with the empirical scientists. I personally say
that the unobservables are more real than the observables. By the very
fact that we observe them and they manifest in the mind, this means
that the observed 'object' is an object of perception and a
modification of the mind. It is just a reflection of reality and it
has no ontological reality of its own. Behind these appearances in the
mind there is a reality of some kind but that reality does not
directly manifest within the mind, it only creates reflections in the
mind and the form of these refelctions depends on the form of the
mind. The true objective reality is that which underlies all existence
and underlies the process of perception and experience. It is the
'process' of perception and not merely the 'content' of perception.
Anything that can be observed and experienced is a construct of the
mind, and behind those constructs there is something but it is not
what we naively believe it to be.
However I disagree that the postion of empirical science is non-
factual. It is quite true that electrons are unobservable. And
although we can 'measure' them this is not a trivial process. The very
process of measurement involves an enormous amount of theory that
involves concepts and phenomena of a similarly unobservable nature.
The measurement merely detects some variation in the condition of the
measuring equipment and from that we use our theories to infer what
that variation means. It is true that there is something there but
when a theory say that it IS an electron all it is saying is the the
conceptual model that we call an 'electron' can be made to fit the
experimental data within certain limits so it is therefore a plausible
working hypothesis that these mythical things called electrons can be
said to exist. But the latest theories claim that electrons-as-
particles do not exist and neither do electrons-as-waves, instead it
is the wavefunction that is the deeper reality and it is pure
probability or potential existence that is non-local in both space and
time. So our measurements are only as good as our theories and our
theories rely upon the measurements. This is a common problem in
experimental science and quantum physicists are especially careful
about it because they have been forced to overcome the illusion of
being separate objective observers.
Within commonly accepted science there are many mythical entities that
exist and function within our theories. The degree to which they
correspond to reality is not a matter of simple measurement but rather
a matter of deep philosophical analysis of the process of perception,
how the objects of perception relate to reality and how our knowledge
of these objects relates to our perception of things.
So if you understand the complexity of the process of 'measurement'
and the mythical nature of all theoretical entities then what that
quote says is entirely factual, electrons are unobservable just as
quarks are unobservable. But here it is not that important what
empirical scientists think, they are just expressing the old-paradigm
whilst I am trying to express the new-paradigm.
> > But what many people call delicacy is simply avoiding certain issues -
> > and any attempt to confront those issues will be perceived as in-
> > delicate. This cannot be helped if those issues need to be confronted.
> > Most people will not accept or like what is said, but some will gain
> > something from it. Furthermore I am not delicate when dealing with
> > people who have very overdeveloped egos, simply because they are not
> > ready for this discussion and it is safest for them if they are turned
> > away early before they encounter ideas that they are unable to
> > comprehend and would only confuse and agitate them.
>
> > As for cutting things out - I would love to simplify this - I could
> > express it all in a single sentence IF there was a common
> > understanding. But given that people are coming from the old-paradigm,
> > then everything needs to be clarified and re-contextualised within the
> > new-paradigm. So it is a complicated process whilst the underlying
> > idea is very simple. Overtime as people show understanding I could
> > present simplified versions but only when there is some degree of
> > common understanding.
>
> Ok, theres a start. Write that sentance, and then provide a list of
> all the words in that sentance and give definitions to that list in
> the fascicular sense like a dictionary.
I have done that countless times within the discussion but you have
not recognised it because there is no common understanding!
I strongly suspect that you have no idea what a paradigm or a paradigm
shift is. Or perhaps you only think of very tiny and mild paradigm
shifts - but I am talking about the most radical and world changing
paradigm shift that is possible. Otherwise I would not say that "this
is the red pill". These ideas can take you out of the illusion and
break you out of the matrix - they are profound ideas that are NON-
TRIVIAL and very alien to the every day world of the matrix.
Have a look at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gParadigm
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gParadigmShift
>
> > > There
> > > is too much reliance on 'subjective, and objective' thought and this
> > > weakens the ideas.
>
> > Please explain how this weakens things? One of the main confusions
> > that this discussion seeks to clarify is the relationship between
> > subjective and objective - there are fundamental low-level confusions
> > regarding these that most people simply accept as reality - this
> > creates a false foundation upon which all of their later knowledge
> > rests. Most people assume that we have direct sensory access to
> > objective reality but this is TOTALLY FALSE. Even people who
> > intellectually state that they know we don't, still much of their
> > thinking is based on ideas and language usages that enshrine the
> > assumption that we do. All the talk of "the physical universe" as if
> > it is a commonly known and commonly experienced objective reality is
> > totally false. (There's a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
> > Philosophy later that also addresses this issue)
>
> I don't believe that it is false.
So you believe that you have direct sensory access to reality and that
ontological physical objects just appear to your mind as they actually
are in reality? That kind of implies an inert physical universe and
disembodied minds that have magical access to the physical universe.
I'm not asking anyone to believe anything - I am urging people to
think about things and to overcome their beliefs.
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gBelief
If one confuses the objects of perception with the idea of physical
objects then the idea of the physical universe arises and it seems
that we have perfect access to the physical universe because that so
called physical universe is actually an idea that is composed of the
objects of consciousness. We make it with our minds and then confuse
it with reality and then think that our minds have perfect access to
reality - it is a doubly compounded illusion (re-read that sentence
and think about it). But if one doesn't make that VAST leap of faith
and one remains skeptical and rational then one must look into the
nature of perception and cognition and one sees that we only ever
experience cognitive representations of sensory signals. How those
representations are constructed depends on the structure and the
contents of the mind. Therefore what we experience is the contents of
the mind being stirred into motion by something, but we have no idea
what that something is. We can assume that there is some reasonable
correspondence between the objects of perception and that 'something'
by the fact that we continue to survive. But all that means is that
the idea of 'objects' is adequate for basic animal existence but if
one seeks deep and reliable knowledge it is not adequate to rely on
the in-built animalistic beliefs and assumptions about objects in
spacetime, we need to go deeper and question those beliefs. Indeed the
fact that our survival is increasingly being threatened implies that
somehow our world view is seriously out of alignment with reality
somewhere and I clearly show that it is our belief in empiricism and
materialism.
>How can you say what someone
> believes or even creates is false ? You mean the universe is not
> physical ?
I mean that the idea 'physical' is not what most people think it is...
it is a compelling perceptual illusion that arises from fundamental
principles of information, communication, information spaces and
information systems.
Have a look in the glossary at the terms:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gPhysical
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gUniverse
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gPhysicalUniverse
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformation
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformationSpace
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gInformationSystem
> You would greatly benefit from use of the word
> 'representation'. Are you familiar with Lefebvre ? Then you will come
> to better understand the difference between man made objects, nature
> made objects and the natural physical substrate that they all belong
> to.
I already well understand these differences. I suspect that through
your confusion my words appear to you as very confused. I can only
imagine how they appear in other people's minds - it totally depends
on the particulars of their current paradigm and how that paradigm
connects or clashes with my own paradigm. But I will look up Lefebvre.
> As you see, in my last sentence I presented an entire philosophy and
> it is easy to read.
You presented a simple statement within the context of the old
paradigm using language that already implies that paradigm so of
course it is easy. You have CLEARLY spent too much time within just
one paradigm and have no idea how different a different paradigm can
be and how much our everyday language is steeped in a particular
empiricist materialist paradigm, making it almost impossible to say
anything directly that doesn't rest upon those same empiricist and
materialist beliefs! To give you a glimpse of the manner in which the
words in that sentence are steeped in profoundly arbitrary beliefs
that propagate whenever the words are used, consider the word 'you',
it normally implies an isolated egoic entity in a material world that
has desires, aversions and agendas, that is born, that lives and that
will die.
See 'ego':
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gEgo
The ontology and metaphysics that are implicit within the word 'you'
is entirely a construct based upon certain systemic illusions and
deeply seated biological and historical assumptions. However the
language takes these 'I', 'you', 'it' and so on as real ontological
entities. It constantly reinforces the illusion of separate egoic
existence. This is a valid perspective but it is only one amongst
countless billions of valid perspectives - another valid perspective
is to say that the whole of existence is concentrated in a single
point of pure awareness that is timeless without begining or end and
other than this there is NOTHING else. That perspective is getting
closer to the actual reality and it seems incomprehensible because it
is a long way from our mind made illusory world constructed from our
beliefs, and the language of that mind made world cannot comprehend
the deeper truths.
If one spends one's entire time within an empiricist and materialist
belief system then the language will seem to be universally expressive
because it can express any idea that comes to your mind, but your mind
is limited by the empiricist materialist beliefs. If you step out of
that belief system then you will see how difficult it is to express
anything in that language that isn't empiricist and materialist.
> > All we have are subjective experiences and these experiences generate
> > ideas based upon our pre-conceived ideas and we communicate our
> > subjective experiences and come to believe in the idea of an objective
> > reality that is essentially the same as our subjective experience.
> > People do not enquire into the nature of subjective experience. If
> > they did they would realise that shared subjective experience differs
> > both subtly and radically from the actual objective reality, which we
> > cannot ever 'see' directly but only perceive its effects in the world
> > - such as consciousness, present moment existence, coherence on both
> > micro and cosmic scales, causality, intuition, psy-phenomena, quantum
> > entanglement, quantum non-locality, the quantisation of all aspects of
> > reality, relativistic constraints and so on.
>
> hmmm, depends what you are talking about. I think that most of what we
> experience is objective. What is an object ? What is a subject ?
> Personally I do enquire into the nature of subjective experience,
> however I tend to think that it is comprised of objects :) So when you
> speak to me in future, you'll know where I'm coming from.
I see we have different associations with the word objective as well.
Because according to my associations, if you accept that your
experiences are private subjective cognitive phenomena that are only
stimulated by some external source then it is a contradiction to say
that "most of what we experience is objective". It is as if the
contents of our minds gets swept up by the winds of sense perception
and all we actually experience is the contents of our minds being
blown about. The wind stirs each of our minds into motion but what we
actually experience depends on the contents of our minds. We
experience private subjective impressions and these arise from an
objective context that exists "as it is" regardless of how we think
about it, but all we actually experience are subjective impressions
that are constructs of the mind, that are based upon our beliefs, pre-
conceptions, assumptions, agendas, hopes and fears. Not to mention the
biological constraints and the inherent systemic illusions.
When you say: "Personally I do enquire into the nature of subjective
experience, however I tend to think that it is comprised of objects :)
" do you think of those objects as objects of perception or do you
think of them as being objectively real. The latter case is a common
naive realist confusion. Of course there is something real there but
do you think of that something as 'objects' or do you think of it as
"something that you cannot see directly but which produces the
experience of objects when it resonates with the contents of your
mind". To make the assumption that they actually are ontological
objects is a HUGE LEAP OF FAITH in the abilities of the human mind and
senses to comprehend the ontological nature of reality. This leap of
faith is biologically programmed into us so its natural to take it but
it is entirely irrational. It is this irrationality that underlies
empiricism, materialism and naive realism. They are very superstitious
belief systems really - believing that we have a God's eye view on
reality and believing that the human perspective is some kind of
perfect or ultimate perspective on reality. Furthermore they believe
that these are not beliefs but simply the-way-things-are.
> > > The text is semi observational and the observations
> > > used are also nonfactual and incomplete, or at least it comes across
> > > that way in your 'word salad'.
>
> > I accept that is how it seems to you (it is after all a paradigm
> > shift) but please explain or give some examples from the discussion -
> > otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.
>
> For example you compare a Virtual Reality system to the universe. It
> sounds very Baudrillard inspried to whom I am vehemently opposed. To
> Baudrillard VR is like another dimension far from the reference of
> physical reality. To me this is wrong, because when I put the glasses
> on, my physical mind is a point of reference between the physical
> reality where I stand, and the perceived reality of the VR. I will
> also add that VR is not just a perceived reality, it is also part of
> physical reality. Is VR not made by material ? To think that it is not
> is absurd. However, YES, in VR there are clearly two kinds of material
> being presented. We don't need VR to make this comparison, a simple
> photograph can suffice. In a photograph you have the photo of material
> as well as the material of the photo.
I'm very surprised that you persevered through 75% of the discussion
whilst carrying such a huge misunderstanding, you have enormous
perseverance! - it's my fault for not clearing up certain terms to
begin with but I honestly thought those terms where clear. But in this
context I come from a background of theoretical computer science and
theoretical physics and not from general cultural influences and
consumer products. It never occurred to me that people might assume
that VR goggles and physical human beings are intrinsic to the concept
of 'virtual', thank you for bringing this to light. In my use of
virtual there is no physical computer and no physical humans - all
observers of the VR exist within the VR just as we exist within the
universe and all concepts of 'physical' arise only in the minds of the
observers due to certain systemic illusions and deep seated beliefs.
Physicality only exists as an idea in the minds of the observers -
beyond this there is nothing that is physical. If you interpret my
words with the understanding of 'virtual' that you have just expressed
- I can't imagine what it is that you think I am saying - it must seem
like utter nonsense - which it is if it is interpreted from an
empiricist materialist perspective. I am surprised you have had the
patience to speak with me when it must seem to you that I am talking
absolute nonsense. Most people just ignore me or they throw a few
derisive insults and then ignore me. I don't take any of it
personally, its just a necessary part of working with revolutionary
ideas - these people are simply not ready. It may well be a few
generations before anyone really understands me...
> Sorry. No we are not. I was using metaphysics in a different paradigm.
> My apology. However I will say that modern metaphysics has come to
> denote spiritual dialectic. But your right. . .
Great, that's one misunderstanding out of the way :)
>
> However. Your argument is MORE phenomenological than it is
> ontological.
If you understood what I was saying you wouldn't say that. I say that
the whole of empiricist knowledge is not objective but only
phenomenological because of its reliance on concepts that are based
upon sense perception and the appearances of things in the human mind.
I describe how to go beyond the phenomena of the mind and to
comprehend the reality that exists prior to perception, which is not
composed of the objects of perception and which implements the very
process of perception. Most of what I talk about takes place in a
context prior to the operation of any observers, because the
transcendent objective context is not a perceptual construct. But the
worlds that we each experience through the senses and mind is a
perceptual construct.
Maybe also check out 'world':
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gWorld
The role of observers is intrinsic to the unfolding of the virtual
systems within systems that make up the virtual universe so there is
no neat separation of objective and subjective. There is no inert
objective world with subjects that observe it. All systems are
observers and the very process of virtual existence is fundamentally
driven by perceptual processes. The artificial separation of objective
and subjective exists only in our ideas - in reality they are
intimately entwined within the virtual universe. Even in the
transcendent computational context, it also relies on representation
and discernment so even here they cannot be neatly separated, they are
like yin and yang in this sense, each arises out of the other, each
folds into the other and they are inseparable parts of a whole.
> Ok, please give me two sentences. What is the old paradigm ? What is
> the new paradigm.
The old paradigm is the set of empiricist and materialist beliefs that
are unquestioningly built upon many systemic, biological and
historical illusions that can clearly be shown to be illusions, and
the old-paradigm confuses the objects of perception with the idea of
physical objects and then tries to build on ontology out of those
objects, people hold these beliefs for no rational reason but simply
because of the voracity of sensory experience. The new paradigm
comprehends the holistic context and not just the contents of sensory
experience. Beyond that I cannot say much more because there is so
little common understanding between us that even simple statements
seem to create problems. But if you have read 75% of the discussion
then you would have passed by many statements that neatly sum it up -
but if you don't understand the paradigm you wouldn't have recognised
them - they would either seem to be vague and confused or to be
meaningless truisms.
If you are still reading this I will describe to you how this
situation seems to me, using a metaphor. BTW you should also check the
glossary for metaphor:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gMetaphor
Imagine that I have lived in wild ancient forests for many years,
places where most people don't even know about, let alone go there.
There are some people out there but they usually keep to themselves
and most people dwell in the towns and cities. Whilst out there I have
found some interesting things. For some reason I wish that others
could know about these things. I have told people, but they either
believe that it doesn't exist or they believe that it is unreachable -
and they don't question these beliefs. In this metaphor the people are
too used to their towns and cities and the idea of walking far out
into the jungle is unthinkable. Even the idea that there might be
something interesting out there is unthinkable. To them the "cutting-
edge" is just working on the edges of suburbia and gradually pushing
the boundaries of civilisation, gradually claiming more and more of
the jungle.
So to make it easier for people to know these "interesting things" I
have cut a track that people can follow but I have had to work alone
over vast and difficult terrain so its not a neatly graded path like a
city sidewalk; it is a very rough bush track through very difficult
terrain but I hope it will be clear and safe for cautious and
experienced trekkers (experienced, open-minded, flexible, agile,
eclectic, skeptical seekers of truth who are used to doing independent
real-world research and not simply operating on well digested ideas
that are neatly dished up in some educational context), for any casual
city dweller who thinks it is just like a walk in the park I can only
say "Do Not Enter" because it will only lead to confusion. I
personally walk freely through the jungle without any paths and I
swing from the trees across the ravines, but I have tried to imagine
what kind of a track others might require. It has taken great effort
to cut this track through dense jungle and around huge ravines but
finally it connects up with some civilised areas (system theory,
computational science, quantum physics, subjective/objective and the
nature of perception, scientific realism as opposed to naive realism,
rationalism as opposed to empiricism, etc). But I don't live in a
world of artificially neat lines and mazes of city streets, all of
that is foreign to me but I have tried to construct a path that is
hopefully passable for city folk. Given more help, time and resources
it could be made into a clear and easy path but so far there has only
be me to build it. For people who are used to driving from place to
place or walking on neat flat sidewalks it will take a great deal of
readjustment - they will need to learn some bushcraft and also learn
how to tune into the spirit of the landscape.
To clarify this metaphor further I will draw out the parallels. The
forest is the vastness of that which is unknown to or misunderstood by
modern intellectuals. The civilised towns and cities are the
contemporary intellectual domains such as science, philosophy and also
technology, ideologies, common sense and so on. The main "interesting
thing" is a paradigm that connects with all modern and ancient
paradigms at a very low-level and helps one see them all as different
expressions arising from a common source. It is like a view from a
mountain top that brings things into perspective within a single view.
The track is the discussion and the website, whilst progress along the
track is deepening understanding that brings you closer to the view
from the mountain. Its a difficult track but once you get to the top
of the mountain you can effortlessly take in the view and then it all
becomes clear. The obstacles are points where confusion may easily
arise due to the inherent difficulty of undergoing a paradigm shift.
The difficulty of the terrain is because people have so many
unquestioned assumptions and beliefs that need to be challenged and
overcome before understanding can arise. The ravines are places where
people could become entangled in confusions within confusions and they
will become agitated and irrational to the point that any attempt to
clarify those confusions will only lead to deeper confusion, at which
point they give up and become negative towards things. The roughness
of the track is because I have had to work alone and I personally
never use such tracks - it is just for others who are used to
following tracks and not just using their instinct and atunement to
the land.
Most people are used to driving from place to place or walking in
towns, cities and neat parkland, whilst the track is only safe for
experienced adventurers. Because of this I have erected a warning sign
at the start of the track, to warn people that it isn't just another
sidewalk and to inform them of the types of dangers that lie ahead and
to advise them on how to proceed. They should understand what a
paradigm shift is and know how to effectively navigate one otherwise
they are fundamentally unprepared for this trek.
Now, please don't take offense at this, I am only being honest about
how this situation seems to me, I am not making any accusatory
statements about you. It seems to me that you have come upon this
track but you don't seem to believe in the existence of bushtracks
that can take you way out into the jungle, or if you do accept the
possibility of their existence you seem to assume that they are just
like a walk in the park. You don't seem to understand how different a
different paradigm can be, or how they seem from within and without,
or how MASSIVE a transformation it can be to cross between them. It is
more like putting on a new head than like putting on a new pair of
glasses. Because of this lack of understanding you expect neat
definitions and clear cut arguments. You want it to be just like all
the cityscapes that you are so used to. You assume the track is just
like a typical city sidewalk and you think I am confused, deceitful or
offensive in my warning messages. Because you don't believe that it is
a rough track through difficult terrain you merely take offense at the
warning sign, thinking that it is treating you like an idiot because
in your mind the track is just another walk in the park. You also seem
to carry a sensitive and offended ego into territory that is
INHERENTLY inhospitable to egos:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gEgo
In this way you blithely ignore all warnings, you underestimate the
dangers and the ease with which you could stumble (get confused) and
you charge in as if it is just another walk in the park. So obviously
you stumble right at the very start, before developing any
understanding or insight. You have stumbled on nearly every single
obstacle that I tried to warn you about and others besides (thanks for
bringing those to light). You assumed that the warnings were nonsense
and you walked in blinded by your expectations of it being just
another walk in the park so you failed to see the obstacles and you
stumbled on them. Now you seem to be quite bruised (confused and
agitated) by the adventure. I feel a bit responsible but really, I
tried to warn you! And still you seem to be in denial about the fact
that it is a rough and difficult bushwalk rather than a walk in the
park. You are now demanding that it SHOULD BE a nice neat pathway. I
agree!!! It should be, and if people join in and help we can make it
so but right now I can't magically transform things to meet your
unreasonable expectations. All I can do is keep working at it on my
own for now and to give people a little warning - I cannot just snap
my fingers and make it a six lane highway. Only when others make it
through and see the view will people then overcome their unquestioned
belief that it doesn't exist and then maybe people will join in and we
can make a better track. But until that happens all I can do is
reiterate some warnings from the preface:
"it is not accessible or meaningful to many people, but to others it
can potentially be of profound and far-reaching benefit"
"beware of interpreting particular words or phrases using old-paradigm
associations, which would create many pre-conceived ideas, and stir up
irrational aversions and cause your mind to simply 'slip off' into
habitual responses. This discussion describes a 'paradigm shift'; a
change in the way we interpret things and thereby derive their meaning
and significance."
"This discussion is written for skeptical, rational, open-minded
people who are willing to employ intelligent, imaginative effort to
follow the development of ideas and who are therefore capable of
making a paradigm shift."
"if you approach this discussion skeptically there is a great deal
that can be learnt. It contains some mind-blowing ideas (literally)."
"Read this only if you are willing to question fundamental beliefs and
assumptions, and you seek a deep rational knowledge of your self, of
the world, of the nature of the phenomena and events in the world and
how to holistically, harmonious and effectively participate in
reality."
"If we truely desire to understand the world, then we are forced to
fight constantly for clear vision. We must fight constantly against
our expectation bias, against our human tendency to see only what we
want to see. Researchers who assume it's easy to avoid self-delusions
and wishful thinking... are probably the victims of self-delusions and
wishful thinking. It takes quite a bit of effort to avoid these
pitfalls. The effort starts with a painfully honest self-examination,
wherein we discover just how large our personal capacity for self-
delusion can be." (http://amasci.com/weird/wskept.html) [ref]
"This discussion touches upon extremely controversial and off limits
subjects - subjects about which there is extreme misrepresentation and
misunderstanding, subjects about which most people have hard and fast
beliefs and prejudices and they never dare look into and question
them, people's minds just slide off the subject and they don't seem to
ever contemplate it directly. They show neither understanding nor any
argument against it. Peer review is a vital aspect of any scientific
enquiry but people mainly form opinions of 'interesting' or 'rubbish'
but go no further. There seems to be a fundamental clash of paradigms;
these ideas challenge certain core beliefs that most people have not
seriously questioned so they are unable to defend them by rational
means so their instinct is to employ denial."
"What I describe is extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims
but one must clear away many illusions and comprehend things from a
clearer perspective to be able to see the truth of it then it is clear
and testable."
"if you read through the discussion you will be able to identify the
assumptions, overcome the pre-conceived ideas and be able to
contemplate the topic from a new perspective that will make it much
clearer."
"due to the very nature of paradigm shifts, for many people the sudden
exposure to some of the words and phrases will generate old-paradigm
associations that will give them a false impression thus making it
extremely difficult for them to understand the ideas that are actually
implied by those words and phrases. It is necessary to clarify many
things before certain ideas can be introduced. But even then many will
have great difficulty because old cognitive habits can be difficult to
even recognise let alone overcome."
And so on... I don't know how much clearer I can be and if people
blithely ignore me then they enter at their own risk. So if you insist
on treating it like a walk in the park then I can only warn you "Do
Not Enter". Please don't take offence but you don't seem to understand
the nature of the terrain and you seem unwilling to learn it, you just
assume that it is like a neat city sidewalk so you stand there bruised
and demanding that the jungle track becomes a neat city sidewalk. If
you feel strongly that it should be then maybe you should help build
it; but you have helped already by showing up some of the pitfalls,
unfortunately by falling into them; I'm sorry that it happened that
way.
Another thing you have made clear to me is the need to clear up some
of the initial terms, the simple less-controversial ones. I thought
they were quite clear but I now realise that people can have very
different associations to these words. I hadn't thought of creating a
glossary before so thanks for the idea, it is a brilliant idea!
I hope these comments have helped clarify some things and not created
too many extra misunderstandings - we are really speaking very
different conceptual languages but you seem to underestimate how
different they are. Please let me know if there are other terms that
you think need clarification.
Best wishes and good luck :)
John
http://www.anandavala.info
Temporal
Isn't a 'picture' indeed just an incomplete and particular POV on things...
If so, then what does it take for one and another to agree it is Good or not ?
Suppose I take a snapshot of dead flies over a rotting blue human cadaver;
Should it be a close shot, or one taken the furthest away to reveal more of
'the rest' ? Or can one learn about beauty in all Uglyness ?
I think it's more likely that two persons can agree a good photographer can
take a Good picture out of anything; But in fact I doubt these two can always
agree about what makes a picture good. Then looking at a controversial
picture, they are likely to disagree.
Then the original conclusion taken by the two photo-philosophers seems
flawed. A Good photographer is always just as good as the picture he 'makes'.
One right, one left; Both needed for better understanding (forward understanding).
Close and far, Both required for better perspective.
So the question was "How much does subject matter determine a good picture?"
The discussion should turn around the purpose of such activity, or else agree it's
about being pleasant, and revise the pleasantry almanach; Then why not joke
about it all and just laugh about pictures, photographers and matters for what
really makes anything 'Good' is already there within thyself.
Paradoxically it relates the same conclusion, as it's not what you are thinking
about but how you are thinking that determines 'Goodness'.
So, the next time a laughing child takes a blurry picture of a dead fly and your
friend honestly think it's great..... Don't even look at the picture itself, but
reach out for that friend for Goodness is surely within him;
So even crippled people can see goodness, even though the body, thoughts or
constructs are like incomplete POV on everything.
In darkness, no pictures can be taken. Seek the one light of the world.
"And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying,
We have seen strange things to day." -KJV Luke 5:26
Indeed the question is always about the purpose of such activities.
Opportunities to seek Goodness where there is none.
Opportunities to shed the light where is darkness.
Methaphysical wake-up call... In the allegory of a 'pill' taken, and that REVEALS,
what lies within can change everything.
"Be the ball." CADDYSHACK, Orion movie, 1980 (reused in Ants spoken by Woody Allen);
That also served to inspire Tiger Wood.
..... Means, 'Practice, practice practice..... Faith, Faith, Faith.'
Remember 'Zen'..... Also a wake-up call to the always incomplete POV that is
our own photographic eye..
"So many books have been written about the meditation side of Zen and the everyday,
chop wood/carry water side of Zen. ....
he brings the heart of Zen to perfect clarity--intuition, imitation, practice, practice, practice,
then, boom, wondrous spontaneity fusing self and art, mind, body, and spirit. "
-(about Zen in the Art of Archery)
“All we are is the result of what we have thought.”
~ Buddah
“You are the creator of your own universe as you go along.”
~ Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Weather you think you can or think you cant either way, you are right.”
~ Henry Ford (1863-1947)
“Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase. Just take the first step.”
~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
“I’ll never attend an anti-war rally. If you have a peace rally, invite me.”
~ Mother Teresa
Anandavala
> Fair enough, peace brau.
Hey Immortalist,
I think I was too hasty in excluding "who said what" and I didn't know
"examined life" was such a catch phrase amongst philosophers, thanks
for bringing this to my attention; I should attribute it properly. And
Socrates was a classic skeptic!
I might have been a bit terse too, I'm more used to private emails
than public news groups where we don't know each other. Its safer to
be a bit more polite... :)
Cheers,
John
Anandavala
> I can't conceive of the possibility that anyone could spend the time
> to read more but Gauss' observation reinforces the whole rant:
> See -http://jamdialogues.blogspot.com/
Quoted from http://jamdialogues.blogspot.com/
Enigmanity's principal goal is based upon the hope that a logical
scripture can be devised by humanity to translate well known
scientific fundamentals into a scripture analogous to the Abrahamic
holy books but without the massive reliance upon the "faith" mythology
of Creation. These holy books being the specifications developed over
the eons by humans so far.
--- end quote ---
Wonderful goal and very achievable!!!!! If people could understand the
metaphors in the old scriptures there would be no need for a new one
but it is better to create metaphors that are suitable to these times.
Only the implicit message of the metaphors is timeless and its outer
cultural form should be constantly evolving to keep pace with the
times.
But a scripture is the written part of a living cultural movement
(such as a holistic science) and that is the outer perceptual
appearance of a cultural meme complex, which is a dymanic flow of
ideas and a resonance between minds based around a common paradigm.
That is why I work on shifting my own paradigm and helping others
shift theirs if they want any help. Once you shift you realise there
is a whole other side to life, you see the ancient scriptures light up
with deep meaning and you clearly see the simple confusions at work
leading people into lifetimes of suffering.
> I can't conceive of the possibility that anyone could spend the time
> to read more but Gauss' observation reinforces the whole rant:
You're right, if you're in a hurry then its pretty much impossible.
But generations of people have spent their lives searching for some of
these ideas so somebody might take the time.
It is a word salad because I need to do conceptual gymnastics because
the common conceptual language can only express ideas that are based
upon empiricist beliefs and what I am talking about is entirely non-
empiricist. And whenever someone speaks a foreign language (in this
case a conceptual language) it sounds complicated and jumbled at
first. If people can overcome their parochialism they can extract some
meaning from the metaphors. Mystics have faced these challenges
throughout history - that is why empiricists don't understand them.
But I am trying to use scientific and philosophical conceptual
languages to express certain things, which can be easily said in
mystic languages but empiricists don't understand these languages. But
the scientific languages have evolved to the point where some mystic
truths are expressible in them so it is natural that people will try
and use these languages.
Regarding the format of the "Red Pill" essay, reading it is just one
option. I personally would hate it :)
I originally used short interlinked essays to map out the conceptual
landscape and give people easy access to the ideas. I assumed people
were much like me and wanted maximum information right up front so
they could intelligently explore the space of ideas and come to
understand it.
If you want the conceptual landscape laid out in front of you go to:
http://www.anandavala.info
But be warned - so far there is only me to build these things and my
specialty is deep contemplation and not writing and presenting ideas
to the public - I have very little contact with mundane society and I
am not good at connecting with it. I do not think in a limited maze of
words so it is difficult to translate subtle states of consciousness
into the narrow constraint of words. It is also impossible to describe
what food is to people who have never tasted it, all I can do is try
and convince them that 'food' does exist and that its not some
superstitious otherworldly nonsense, then they might try it for
themselves. So it is all rather crudely presented - but the ideas
shine brightly if you can understand them. But some ideas have only
come out in the latest essay (e.g. the systems analysis of the
perceptual / experiential process) but I'll extract them from the
essay and put them on the website soon.
The website is just an opening comment and a context for further
discussion in which things could be made MUCH clearer. I have great
difficulty writing monologues but intelligent dialogue is easy. But
the site has been online for two years and the only real feedback I
got was that it was just a jumble of stuff that people found too
incomprehensible to piece together and that people only saw it as a
rant. So no coherent discussions through it so far. To me it is almost
like I am saying: "1+1 = 2" but many people just boggle at it. I need
to say it in many ways for many different types of people and to patch
up many confusions that people carry but the message itself is pure
simplicity. My writings are complex because of the complex tangle of
confusions that people need to overcome before they can comprehend the
simple message. I can only surmise that people boggle beause of a
clash of paradigms, many people's minds (meme complexes) are not able
to entertain many of these ideas. There is subconscious memetic
rejection and what gets through to the conscious mind is very
distorted. Also I'm not a very good writer - my mind just doesn't work
that way - words are such pale distorted shadows of deeper states of
mind.
Here in India I have countless personal conversations and in half an
hour people totally understand what I'm saying - because they already
know it - the essence of what I am saying is the same as Vedanta, Tao,
Kabbalah and all mystic wisdom. Most Indians have a very traditional
understanding of Vedanta and they say that the new perspective opens
their mind to the deeper universal meanings. Often Indians boggle at
the idea that people don't understand me, they say "but its logical!"
and I say "yes but their minds just won't entertain the logic - there
is too much egoic resistance".
When these ideas are put in writing on the internet amidst all the
trash and ranting, where people with modern empiricist paradigms read
it assuming it is just some crazy rant, then that is all they get from
it. They are looking through a cynical lens and not budging from their
current paradigm. They mainly only look at my metaphorical finger and
struggle to find things to object to. That is what is consuming most
of their awareness and they don't seem see where the metaphorical
finger is pointing. Personally I don't care if the finger has a
metaphorical mole on it or if it is wrinkly - and if people looked
were the finger was pointing they wouldn't care either, they would
stare in awe at a cosmic vision of splendour rather than defensively
argue about irrelevant details.
I suspect many people are subconsciously trying not to see, because
the ego knows that if they look it might lose some its power over
them. So the ego drives people to fixate on the irrelevant details and
to take offense at the format and so on. The ego is an illusion that
weaves illusions that fill the mind and condition you so that the ego
can use you to pursue its agendas. Just like a government that starts
to believe that it is the nation and that the society is its body,
then it fills the society full of propaganda and advertising and
manipulates the nation to pursue its agendas. Governments are the egos
of nations. But the ego is just a thought complex and not the real
person or real nation. Humans and nations lose themselves to the ego
and lose awareness, dwelling only in the stream of ideas, desires and
fears and very rarely being AWARE. When you are aware you are in
control but when you are on auto-pilot acting out your egoic story
your are being controlled by the ego. If people doubt this - just try
and remain aware for one minute and if you are not caught up in self-
deception you will see how difficult it really is - thoughts always
come along to carry you away with them. Many people believe that they
ARE the ego, they have never known themselves. There are many ideas
that can threaten the web of illusion through which the ego exerts its
power (subversive ideas that counter the mainstream propaganda). It's
web of delusion is really very fragile so the ego is often ruthless or
ingenious in suppressing and neutralising threatening ideas so that
the conscious mind (mainstream society) remains totally unaware of
them. Authorities whether political or religious have routinely
suppressed mysticism throughout history because it destroys illusion!
If you want a good analysis of the manipulative strategies used by the
ego you should read "A New Earth", by Eckhart Tolle. They are
ingeneous and ruthless dictators.
In an attempt to make things easier for people I have tried to present
things differently from my website. I came to realise that people like
things to be neatly packaged and presented, they like to be spoon fed,
just read a popular science book, it is often 95% ego stroking and 5%
substance all aranged into an artificially neat progression of ideas.
So over time the back of my mind has been piecing it all together into
a story, a sort of track through the conceptual landscape. But the
problem is that I'm NOT a story teller (stories are the domain of the
ego) and I'm NOT a good tour guide. I personally have little patience
with egos that wallow in illusion, especially when it is myself who is
doing it, but I have great love for the universal life force that is
the innermost Self of all things and great compassion for beings who
suffer the tyrrany of egos. So I'm not gentle on egos but I sacrifice
everything and labour tirelessly to clarify myself and to shed light
on things and to help people overcome their illusions and their
enslavement to the ego. If people can overcome their egoic distaste of
the format they can get a lot out of this, but the format is the least
of their ego's problems, the actual ideas themselves are HORRIFIC to
the ego - but if egos balk at the format then the people will just
have to wait until someone else expresses it in a way that is more to
their ego's taste. Or if someone offers to help soften this discussion
for sensitive egos we can make a softer version. But the ego will
always find some excuse for people to turn away from their freedom.
The ideas themselves are the MOST threatening thing to the ego - there
is nothing that the ego fears more than truth.
You can take my words as a rant if you like, I know it is not to
contemporary tastes, most of my literary experience is from writings
many centuries and thousands of years old, but if you can decipher the
word salad there are ideas here that are priceless... it is a
nutritious word salad rather than empty glitz :)
Best wishes :)
John
http://www.anandavala.info
ZerkonX
> If so, then what does it take for one and another to agree it is Good or not?
Well, inside that discussion we were all professional photographers so
there were certain recognized standards for 'good' but to illustrate the
point here, via metaphor I guess, the issue isn't the 'goodness' it was
that a conclusion or point of arrival can be reached without going too
far to do it.
Temporal
fully followed your thought. Maybe since I just picked-up from here.
Not only well did you resume, but you practiced just what you said;
Not going too far into it.
But since I beg to differ about how far is enough or how 'Good' it is,
I'd add some thoughts.
It seems the original subject mentions that the famous 'Red pill' from the
movie Matrix, could be interpreted philosophically as a metaphysic
wake-up call.
I followed your point about the photographer's discussion right up to
when you wrote; What's important is How you think rather than about
what you are thinking.
There I saw the answer as to seek what is Good.
To come back to 'How' that Good photographer simply makes 'Good'
pictures; It's that 'perception'/'POV' he selects on things.
To reconciliate our views right here; I confirm we both understand it's
not about determining what is Goodness, but just experiencing what
we CAN BE. As in 'carpe diem' in the more evolved sence of what is
higher consciousness.
As Krishnamurti ( http://www.kfa.org/biography.php )
would probably have agreed to say is that this is
what we have to experience for ourselves;
As in:
"What is important is to understand sorrow for yourself, and thereby to
end sorrow. " -Krishnamurti
Am I going to far into explaining the ideas here ? . I think it's as deep
as the rabbit hole goes, to take back from that MATRIX movie and link
back to the original preoccupation of JAM (poster before).
Without goint too far you could even have anwered just : Yes JAM.
But you chose to talk about your own experience and share the picture.
I reiterate my view on the allegory of the red pill that if in the movie
it served to reveal the 'Truth' by swallowing it. The 'Understanding' of
what makes a photographer 'Good' as you just explained lies in
How one thinks rather than 'what'... Therefore just thinking about 'Self',
meaning here the most ancient philosopher's question:
"Who am I ?".. Is sufficient.
And I pretend that this serves as the Red Pill, once the higher consciousness
is manifesting in this 'non-rational' manner.. Intuition, Inspiration ...
But mostly like you said, and since I claim it's not a concept that reason can
fragment and analyse; It then becomes imperative to 'Reach' before we
get too fat into it.
Yet... In the same manner a Buddhist meditates by repeating "chop wood/carry water ";
One can use the numerous POVs on the given question...
Q:
"What is leading to a Metaphysical wake up call ?"
A:
"The Red pill allegory relates in Truth to knowing thyself. The depth of the Rabbit hole
represents its quest, and the outcome is after happyness itself, and beyond any
'standards', Your Awakening."
Still agrees with the initial quotes I brought.
“All we are is the result of what we have thought.”
~ Buddah
“You are the creator of your own universe as you go along.”
~ Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Weather you think you can or think you cant either way, you are right.”
~ Henry Ford (1863-1947)
“Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase. Just take the first step.”
~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
The more the better..... I don't think God was 'cheap' making this Universe of ours. ;)
Temporal
I felt like mentionning separately the only quote I omitted on purpose.
So you previously stated:
"It's not what you are thinking about it's how you are thinking."
And because it serves to summarize the entire concept related to
goodness within; as to HOW to select the POV on reality in
order to make it a better reality. Listen to her wake-up call again.
Anandavala
> Anandavala wrote:
> > Dear Y,
>
> > First let me say that you have shown enormous perseverance and this is
> > an extremely positive sign. You probably won't like what I have to say
> > here but if you don't take it personally and you don't get too
> > frustrated because it doesn't conform to your expectations then there
> > is much that you might learn from this. Thank you for your comments,
> > you have helped me understand how these ideas seem to people on their
> > first approach. From the incredible depth of the misunderstanding
> > between us I realise that a glossary might help reduce this confusion
> > a little so I have made a small glossary of the less-controversial
> > this. Its a wonderful idea!
>
> > You can see it at:
>
> I have seen and read everything now. Your not describing a new
> paradigm, your describing allot of things at once, but generally the
> idea you are coming to is phenomenological. This is not a new
> paradigm. The reason it is this way is because of your view to do with
> the 'object'. An object of perception / rather than an object of
> physical existence. You could have written this as a sentence...
>
> Here is the new paradigm shift: Phenomenology.
>
> > Let me know if there are other terms you'd like clarified and I'll see
> > what I can do...
>
> essential step to understand your ideas. I'm glad it was useful to
> you. From my experience, it is better to develop such frameworks
> before writing. [keep scrolling down].
>
> > Consider the case where I only spoke Chinese and you only spoke
> > English - how do we begin to develop understanding. You don't seem to
> > understand that we are speaking different conceptual languages and you
> > keep insisting that I simply say it in your conceptual language but
> > quite frankly I have no idea how to say what I am trying to say in
> > that conceptual language. It isn't even possible! Yes I do speak the
> > common conceptual language but it can only comprehend a very limited
> > range of things - beyond that the language is impotent. If I just
>
> 95%. So, because I agree to this I agree that we are speaking the same
> conceptual language since we are both writing in English. If you feel
> misunderstood, refine your approach.
>
> > blurt things out in my language right now you won't understand the
> > meanings and their subtle relations, you will just experience the
> > words based on your own associations which are TOTALLY different to
> > mine and the message will not be conveyed. Even worse, you will
> > probably think that some message has been conveyed but all that passes
> > is just nonsense. Don't you understand this? It is simple information
> > theory - we need an encoding/decoding protocol that does not introduce
> > too much noise and distortion - otherwise the signal is not conveyed.
>
> mind that holds them. That is unavoidable, and the reason that 95% of
> what we speak is metaphor. These only differ slightly and there is
> also a general grasping of idea's which is central and the PURPOSE, of
> language. So, on one hand it doesn't excuse poor expression of ideas.
> On the other hand it doesn't excuse poor ideas that are expressed
> well. The fact that you know exactly what I am talking about right now
> is that we are both communicating ideas quite effectively at this
> time.
>
> > Cynic and skeptic retain much the same meanings in either paradigm
> > that is why it is trivial to define them.
>
> from a cynic. Where the skeptic keeps open mind, the cynic does not. I
> liked the difference being pointed out. It is probably also
> established in the dictionary.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Its amazing how different things can seem in different people's minds.
> > You take offense to the warning sign because you totally misunderstand
> > the territory that you are wandering into, you assume that it is
> > trivial so any warning is an insult to your intelligence. But it is
> > interesting to note that you have stumbled on nearly every obstacle
> > that I warned you to take care with. THIS CONCEPTUAL TERRAIN IS NOT
> > TRIVIAL!!!! You ignored the warnings and got confused exactly because
> > you ignored the warnings. If you treat this as trivial you will
> > constantly be tripping over. If these ideas where trivial then how
> > could they be the Red Pill? If they were just a minor extension of the
> > old-paradigm how could they break you out of the matrix? To break out
> > of a lifetime of illusion and billions of years of biological
> > programming is NOT a trivial matter. I give an extended metaphor at
> > the end of this post that explains how I see the situation of you
> > charging in and stumbling - you either begin to take this seriously or
> > you should leave it alone for your own sake.
>
> Your saying all these things in frustration rather than giving
> consideration to the fact that you assume the reader is a moron from
> the beginning. You are an ignorant. Do you really think an LSD
> 'expanded' mind is superior to others ? It isn't. Nothing you wrote
> confused me. Not even the convoluted paths your words took as they
> changed and were re-appropriated by context throughout the writing. I
> am not saying phenomenologists all take drugs, but you have to wonder
> when certain of those think that ALL objects of the universe are
> contained solely within the mind. Your idea's are no different to
> theirs. AND !! I might add, , ,
>
> ITS NO WONDER YOUR METAPHYSICAL OFFERINGS COME IN THE FORM OF LITTLE
> RED PILLS ....your a phenomenologist, and you probably take drugs too.
> Ponty etc. Go and read, and stop trying to write what from what you
> have observed in 'The Matrix'. Or, maybe go and chew a tree. While you
> are chewing the tree, try to think about all the 'objects' required
> for you to have that experience. Better yet, choose two trees assign
> the left and right of those tree's to the heads and tails of the coin.
> Flip the coin. Decide whether or not your mind decided the outcome of
> that flip. THEN chew the tree.
>
> You really don't need a red pill to bust out of the Matrix, just chew
> the tree. Oh wait I forgot the tree was programmed to taste like
> chicken. . .
>
> sorry man, you were asking for it.
>
> HAHAHAHHAA ! ! !
>
> [SNIP]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
***** Can we both put our egos aside and stop the bickering for just
this bit so we can talk some philosophy? :) *****
"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as
experienced from the first-person point of view." (http://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/)
And "Ontology can be said to study conceptions of reality." (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)
< but generally the
< idea you are coming to is phenomenological.
If you mean the study of the structure of Universal Consciousness
where the first person is the Supreme Self then I agree with you, it
is phenomenological. BUT the universal consciousness is also the
ontological reality and the universe is a phenomenon within universal
consciousness. So what I am talking about is both phenomenology and
ontology at once.
The perceived dualism between ontology and phenomenology is related to
Cartesian dualism. If we existed in an inert physical universe that
produces consciousness via brains then ontology and phenomenology are
totally separate; with a materialist ontology and a phenomenology
based on our experience of allegedly brain-created consciousness
within a physical universe.
But if consciousness is the ontological reality then the situation is
much different.
Put very simplistically, the paradigm proposes that there is a
universal ontologically real 'consciousness' within which phenomena
arise. These phenomena are what we call the universe, which is all the
observable forms as well as all the observers, like a dream or a
virtual reality. When parts of the universe such as humans experience
the universe most of them conceive of it as a physical universe and
they develop their ontology based on this. And they are 'conscious' of
the universe so they also develop a phenomenology that they associate
with their alleged brain-created consciousness.
So in the 'new' paradigm the ontology and phenomenology that people
traditionally talk about is actually virtual ontology and
phenomenology and what I and mystic wisdom talk about is universal
ontology-phenomenology. The virtual ontology and phenomenology are
dualistic (matter/mind) but the universal ontology-phenomenology is
unified because the ontological reality is consciousness.
In the dualistic context there is:
# the paradox of how consciousness arises from inert matter,
# the paradox of present moment existence,
# the paradox of the arrow of time,
# the paradox of the beginning and end of time,
# the paradox of the 'coherence' found on all levels (http://
www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html),
# the paradox of psychic phenomena which are scientifically proven to
exist beyond any doubt (e.g. http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm),
# the paradox of spirituality and mysticism being so inherent to human
nature and ubiquitous throughout human civilisation (which could only
be delusional in a materialist universe, but why do we all fall for
the same delusion and why does it crop up in every civilisation
throughout history?)
# and many other fundamental aspects of existence that are simply
incomprehensible.
These are intractable paradoxes but if one shifts to the idea that
some kind of information process or universal consciousness is the
ontological reality then all these paradoxes completely dissolve and
no new paradoxes are created, and a holistic perspective arises that
unifies all the fragmented empirical sciences with each other and
unifies all scientific, religious and mystic paradigms.
There is still the question of how a consciousness can arise without a
physical support but that question is based on assumptions arising
from our experiences within the universe and we would experience the
same things and make the same assumptions whether the universe was
physical or cognitive. Neither is more obvious than the other it's
just that we have an experiential bias towards physical concepts.
If considered skeptically there is no reason whatsoever to reject one
or the other off hand. And on analysis the load of inexplicable
paradoxes in the materialist approach hampers it whilst the unifying
and clarifying effect of the cognitive approach advances it. The real
test is direct experience and mystics throughout history have
experienced the universal consciousness and there are clear and mature
methods for attaining this experience. It only requires self-honesty,
self-enquiry and self-development. A confused and agitated mind cannot
approach such an experience no matter how much it fills itself with
intellectual knowledge. An educated mind is irrelevant in attaining
direct experience; one needs a still, clear and subtle awareness.
"The ego and vanity in man often stand in the way of his acceptance of
the position that super-ordinary consciousness, to which he is a total
stranger, can be possible for some members of the species to which he
belongs. This frame of mind is often pronounced in scholars who fondly
believe that more and more extensive knowledge of the world and its
infinitely varied phenomena provided by poring over vast libraries of
books, is the only expansion and advancement possible to the human
mind. It cannot but be repugnant to a polymath to be told that there
is a learning beyond his grasp, that the very nature of the mind can
change and can soar to normally super-sensible planes of being, which
are inaccessible to the keenest intellect, however well informed and
penetrating it might be." (Gopi Krishna from 'The Wonder Of The
Brain')
So in brief the personal experience of the paradigm shift is that you
are not an isolated physical being in a physical world, operating
solely by mechanistic means, who is born, lives and dies. Instead you
are the universal consciousness experiencing through a virtual
perspective. Once you fully overcome the illusion that you are a
physical being bound by mechanistic constraints you realise that you
are everything and there is nothing that is not you. That is a very
BIG paradigm shift! It is the ego that keeps us trapped and limited
within the little self (jiva), whilst the actual reality is egoless
and universal (you are Atman and Atman is Brahman).
"That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like
the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within
and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman - that thou
art." (Sankaracharya)
"That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is
the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the
limitless being - I am That." (Amritbindu Upanishad)
When Christ was asked by Pontius Pilot, "What is Truth?" he answered
"I am the Truth."
This paradigm is what all the mystics and the scriptures point to with
their metaphors and it is what I point at with my metaphors. I just
use mainly mathematics, system theory and software to point, these are
just modern metaphors - and the discussion is just a description for
those who don't understand mystic metaphors or mathematics or system
theory or software. I state clearly that the actual ideas are defined
in the mathematics and the discussion is just a general description to
give people an idea of things.
But if you just hold these ideas in your mind that is only the
beginning. It is just an ephemeral intellectual idea within a mind
that is still totally structured around empiricist beliefs. The shift
actually occurs as your mind restructures and you come to experience
and understand reality in a totally different way. The universe is no
longer experienced as being random and mechanistic but instead it is
intelligent and responsive, and we participate in it via both
mechanistic means and via focused awareness. That is my personal
experience and understanding of reality. Psychic participation is just
acting in the context of the universal consciousness or the
transcendent computational space whilst mechanistic participation is
just acting in the context of the virtual reality and operating within
the constraints of that virtual reality. After a period of gradual but
radical transformation, as the last vestiges of delusion fall away,
when the ego eventually dissolves you realise your true identity as
the Supreme Self that is timeless and all pervading.
"The real does not die, the unreal never lived. Once you know that
death happens to the body and not to you, you just watch your body
falling off like a discarded garment. The real you is timeless and
beyond birth and death. The body will survive as long as it is needed.
It is not important that it should live long." (Sri Nisargadatta
Maharaj)
I am curious to know what you think of the many quotes I give from Sri
Nisargadatta Maharaj - did he make any sense to you? You say you want
it put 'plainly'. Although such a thing is impossible he is
experienced at talking to people with that same expectation.
"What is it that had birth? Whom do you call a human being? If,
instead of seeking explanations for birth, death and after-death, the
question is raised as to who and how you are now, these questions will
not arise...
The body is born again and again. We wrongly identify ourselves with
the body, and hence imagine we are reincarnated constantly. No. We
must identify ourselves with the true Self. The realised one enjoys
unbroken consciousness, never broken by birth or death - how can he
die? Only those who think 'I am the body' talk of reincarnation. To
those who know 'I am the Self' there is no rebirth.
Reincarnations only exist so long as there is ignorance. There is no
incarnation, either now, before or hereafter. This is the truth." (Sri
Ramana Maharshi)
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment?" (Bible, Mat:6:25)
I.e. don't operate through the mechanistic channels, use the mystic
channels and everything flows perfectly.
"the sage keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action [flows
freely with the Way] and practices the teaching that uses no words
[rather than just operate in the cultural domain they connect with
reality]." (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching [ref])
**** Back into the ego again and all the trivial bickering... :( ****
< Your not describing a new paradigm
< , your describing allot of things at once,
Why must we so often argue about trivialities? I get the feeling that
you are devoting all of your awareness to finding things to object to
and none of your awareness to actually understanding anything! You
cannot coherently object unless you understand what it is you are
objecting to... This kind of cynicism and confusion has been a
constant phenomenon throughout human history so don't think that I am
singling you out.
Yes. It is an ancient (timeless) paradigm that has been largely
forgotten by most people. And I call it the new paradigm in places
when I am talking in the context of a paradigm shift from an old
paradigm to a new paradigm.
And yes, I describe a lot of things because it is so low-level that it
impacts upon everything and because common language cannot talk about
it directly so I give many different perspectives on its reflections
in the world and explore its many ramifications.
With people conversant in mystic metaphors I can speak very clearly
and if people knew the mathematics and went into the systems theory we
could talk about it in detail but in a common language that is
entirely steeped in naive empiricist beliefs there are extreme
constraints on what can be said. I state clearly that the essay is
meant to be a general non-technical discussion of things. It only
seeks to clear up the obvious confusions to create a context of common
understanding in which things can be intelligently explored.
I hope you didn't think that the document itself is the red pill?
Could any essay do that? I hope you realised that the paradigm shift
is the red pill and the essay is a general high-level description of
the new paradigm to give people some idea of it. BTW the "red pill" is
just an explicit idea in a metaphor for awakening from illusion, if
you fixate on the explicit idea you are only staring at the finger
when the finger is pointing at the moon.
For some people the ideas will hopefully help clear away some obvious
confusions and open the way for further growth in awareness. But for
yourself I see it has mainly created more confusion and agitation, I
am sorry, there are still many 'bugs' to fix and everyone is
different. A paradigm shift is a complex and personal process, in the
end its up to you to want to shift and to actually make the shift. If
the ego struggles and resists it will always find something to object
to in order to turn the person away from the ideas that are
threatening to the ego. These ideas ultimately show that the ego is an
illusion that weaves illusions and enslaves us in delusion.
< The reason it is this way is because of your view to do with
< the 'object'. An object of perception / rather than an object of
< physical existence. You could have written this as a sentence...
There is a LOT more to it than that but that is the first confusion
(naive realism) that needs to be cleared up before people can think
about things without being constantly drawn back into the habitual
empiricist belief system. If you are still enthralled by that belief
system you quite likely cannot comprehend all the other stuff I talk
about.
"If we truly desire to understand the world, then we are forced to
fight constantly for clear vision. We must fight constantly against
our expectation bias, against our human tendency to see only what we
want to see. Researchers who assume it's easy to avoid self-delusions
and wishful thinking... are probably the victims of self-delusions and
wishful thinking. It takes quite a bit of effort to avoid these
pitfalls. The effort starts with a painfully honest self-examination,
wherein we discover just how large our personal capacity for self-
delusion can be." (http://amasci.com/weird/wskept.html)
Overcoming naive realism is only the first step but lifelong habits
can be very difficult to overcome.
"Karl Popper [ref] pointed out that although Hume's idealism appeared
to him to be a strict refutation of commonsense (naive) realism [ref],
and although he felt rationally obliged to regard commonsense realism
as a mistake, he admitted that he was, in practice, quite unable to
disbelieve in it for more than an hour: that, at heart, Hume was a
commonsense realist."
(quoted from David Hume on Wikipedia [ref])
< ITS NO WONDER YOUR METAPHYSICAL OFFERINGS COME IN THE FORM OF LITTLE
< RED PILLS ....your a phenomenologist, and you probably take drugs
too.
< Ponty etc. Go and read, and stop trying to write what from what you
< have observed in 'The Matrix'. Or, maybe go and chew a tree. While
you
< are chewing the tree, try to think about all the 'objects' required
< for you to have that experience. Better yet, choose two trees assign
< the left and right of those tree's to the heads and tails of the
coin.
< Flip the coin. Decide whether or not your mind decided the outcome
of
< that flip. THEN chew the tree.
< You really don't need a red pill to bust out of the Matrix, just
chew
< the tree. Oh wait I forgot the tree was programmed to taste like
< chicken. . .
What is this bullshit? You can't expect to understand anything when
your mind is so agitated. I've noticed that this kind of agitation
permeates the whole civilisation but it is especially strong on
usenet, and it is contagious! I've had enough of it. Its making me act
like an idiot too! Don't you see the foolishness on both sides? With
you desperately grasping for things to object to without even
understanding what it is you are trying to object to (classic
cynicism) and me getting frustrated because you only seem to be
looking at the metaphorical finger and futilely trying to object to it
whilst the finger is pointing at something much deeper. I suspect your
fixation on the finger is why you got so little from reading the
discussion.
< I have seen and read everything now.
There is a big difference between letting words run through your eyes
and mind, and actually reading and understanding.
>From the extreme limitations of your comments I don't know how to
believe that you've read it. I'm not saying you are lying, I am just
puzzled. You only raise the issues that we have raised in these
newsgroup discussions, which barely scratch the surface. Within the
actual discussion there are countless FAR more profound ideas and some
deeply shocking ideas to which you show no reaction at all. You don't
seem to have picked up on much at all but you claim to know what the
discussion is about. But I don't know how someone could read the
discussion and not pick up on the ideas.
It could be because you still cling to the assumption that we are
talking the same conceptual language:
< we are speaking the same
< conceptual language since we are both writing in English
Don't you realise that makes no sense at all? We can speak the same
conceptual language whilst speaking different human languages and we
can speak different conceptual languages whilst speaking the same
human language. Mystics speak their metaphors in countless human
languages and so do scientists but traditional science and mysticism
are different conceptual languages with different ontologies and
different phenomenologies. Unless you overcome this confusion you will
continue to interpret things through the wrong conceptual language and
all you will experience is gibberish. You need to do some deep
contemplation on what a paradigm is!
I also suspect that you went through the whole thing without knowing
how to use metaphor properly - in that case you would just see a bunch
of metaphorical fingers. But if you don't look where all the fingers
are pointing you will totally miss the point.
Or maybe there is just too much egoic resistance for your mind to be
able to entertain the simple logic and the subtle metaphors. I don't
know, but it is a fascinating case study in the nature of perception,
experience and knowledge. You did read and understand the systems
analysis of that process didn't you? Do you see how it applies to this
exchange between us?
Until one overcomes the subconscious egoic denial and resistance the
simple logic can never penetrate to one's conscious mind. To those who
are ready the light of wisdom is obvious, to those who are not ready
it is incomprehensible and to those in between it is the greatest
challenge and the greatest opportunity of their lives.
If your concept of normality is based on a lifetime of illusion then
reality will seem very strange indeed. If you are attached to that
idea of normality then there is nothing that can lift you out of your
delusion. You must be aching and striving and hungering for liberation
otherwise the motivation is not there, the focus is not there and your
attachments and confusions keep you wandering along the same old paths
in your mind that lead nowhere but around and around in the matrix.
What did you think about the discussion on conditioning? Did you read
and understand that?
And what about the global meta-system transition? Do you understand
that?
But all we seem to do is you raising irrelevant objections and making
cynical judgments whilst I keep clarifying the trivialities and
questioning your judgments. You should know that you are just the
latest in a long stream of people who have acted exactly like this and
some of them were leading philosophers and scientists. They all become
irrational right from the start - they go on a self-righteous campaign
to put me in my place - they grope around in the dark clutching for
things to object to in order to maintain their self-deception that
they are being rational - and they totally fail to find ANY fault
whatsoever - at which point they throw a tantrum and retreat into
denial. I just try and tolerate the egoic bullshit, I keep clarifying
the trivial details so that they don't get caught on them and I
deconstruct their illusions to show exactly where their confusions
lie. But they keep on grasping for something to object to and I keep
clarifying. That is why my discussions are so complex - because
virtually every triviality is made explicit so I don't have to keep
rescuing people when the get stuck on them. If people could only try
and understand rather than try and object, they wouldn't constantly
get caught on the trivialities and they might see where all the
fingers are pointing. If that were the case only a single simple
finger would be enough to point people in the right direction.
When speaking face to face with people here in India the conversations
are easy, intelligent and penetrating. They already know the mystic
perspective through Vedanta so they immediately recognise the
metaphors and they often say that they only knew things in a very
traditional cultural way but the new metaphors opens their mind to the
deeper universal meanings. Sometimes they are shocked that people
can't understand me, they say "but it is logical!!!" and I say "yes
but there is too much confusion, attachment to unquestioned beliefs
and egoic denial for them to be able to entertain the logic." On the
internet all I have encountered for two years is a constant stream of
people struggling to neutralise the idea without actually thinking
about it.
It seems to me to be a classic case of egoic denial, where the ego
knows these ideas are threatening to it. So the ego fills the mind
with cynicism and agitation and the person really thinks they are
rationally and skeptically approaching the ideas but all they are
doing is desperately trying to find fault with it or to neutralise the
idea somehow if they can't find any faults. It is simply an attempt by
the ego to diffuse a situation that threatens to weaken the web of
egoic delusion, but the ego must also cover-up the manipulation too.
The ego rejects the idea but the person must still think that they are
in control and being rational. So the ego tries to find some
rationalisation for the irrational rejection. I see people desperately
clutching for something to object to so that they can hide the fact
from themselves that they are being totally irrational. It is quite
tragic but very informative about the manipulative strategies of the
ego.
I really recommend reading "A New Earth", by Eckhart Tolle to learn
more about the ego and its manipulative methods. It is an ingenious
and ruthless dictator.
If people are enslaved by the ego they are too entangled in illusion
to be able to look at something that shatters their precious dreams.
If they don't want to wake up they don't need to read what I say -
they can just ignore it! But if they are going to try and counter the
ideas they should at least be coherent otherwise I find it extremely
frustrating trying to converse with people who seem to be only
struggling to misunderstand in order to neutralise the idea in their
own mind. Just ignore it if you don't like it and find some other way
to rationalise the rejection to yourself, it doesn't have to be true,
you only have to believe in it. But if you are going to counter the
ideas, first be prepared to think about them.
But if we can't talk sensibly then we should at least have the sense
to stop talking.
I'm willing to be sensible, are you?
Do you wish to talk sensibly or to just take the blue pill and believe
whatever you want to believe?
John
Anandavala
from the newsgroup list when they respond to postings that include
that cross posting.
Including that group was a mistake due to my ignorance of the modern
usage of the word metaphysics. They don't appreciate these posts so
please don't cross post to them.
Thanks :)
John
Anandavala
> Yes, well if you are talking about phenomenology and ontology at once,
> (which I didn't read from you at all). Then you are bordering on what
> I am working on.
Great. I see from your comments below you have insight into the
patterns of connectedness between things and how that influences
things. The observations you express describe phenomena that are also
studied in system theory and other domains. By observing the systems
around us we can learn a great deal about the systemic nature of
things without ever studying systems theory directly. That is how I
learnt about it and only later connected it up with the language of
systems theory (which I am still doing). A good systemic understanding
of things is implicit in all accurate domains of knowledge.
These comments have resonated in my mind for a couple of days and I'll
share some of the results with you, in case any of them are of
interest to you or someone else...
> What is interesting about this of course is that it
> is possible to reach a TOE in words.
Yes but not using the currently dominant conceptual language, it
relies on too many arbitrary beliefs (such as objects in space and
time) that do not correspond with the deeper reality. Quantum physics
is opening up new conceptual terrain in this respect. But using
Sanskrit as a language and Vedanta as a conceptual language there is
already a full Theory of Everything (TOE) in words. But it was
developed for a different age and we need a TOE that is more suited to
our needs.
Any theory is just a collective cognitive reflection of reality and a
TOE is one that is comprehensive enough and holistic enough to
comprehend all relevant aspects of reality in a manner that is
meaningful for those using the TOE. Thus many different TOE's are
possible, each just being a reflection of reality within a particular
cultural context. Each of the mystic traditions has at its core a TOE
that is adequate for it purposes. Mystics are not interested in
technologies and detailed intellectual knowledge and so on, they seek
direct personal contact with reality and everything else arises from
that contact. That is the easiest way but to most modern minds these
TOE's are incomprehensible and impractical so it would be good to take
the best of modern wisdom and the best of ancient wisdom and refashion
a TOE for these times. In fact I think such a TOE is essential if we
are to avert certain crises that threaten our survival.
But the language that the TOE is expressed in, whether words,
mathematics, practices, images or whatever, needs to have a conceptual
structure that is capable of representing the holistic understanding
without distorting it or corrupting it with implicit false beliefs.
This is related to what some call idiomatic sufficiency and requisite
variety. The symbolic system used to represent the TOE must be
sufficiently complex and expressive to be able to represent the TOE
and it must also be complete and comprehensive enough to actually
represent all relevant aspects of the TOE.
An example of idiomatic sufficiency and requisite variety is if you
have a physical photograph and you want to represent it in a diskette
you cannot do this directly because the symbolic structure of the
information space within the diskette can only represent binary data
and not physical matter. The diskette lacks idiomatic sufficiency. So
you scan the photograph to translate it into a suitable format. But
then you find that the high resolution bitmap is too large for the
diskette, which lacks requisite variety. So you convert the bitmap
into a jpeg and then you can represent it within the diskette. It is
not the 'real' photograph but it is close enough to be useful for most
intents and purposes.
Some more thoughts about theories in general... A theory is a
conceptual model, but there are two basic types of model. The
empiricist 'descriptive' approach is to model the experiential
appearance of things whilst the deeper 'constructive' approach is to
attempt to model the underlying causal processes that create those
experiences. Any equation or theory that explicitly relies on the
concepts of space, time, observable attributes and so on is just a
description of appearances, whilst in my own work and many other
approaches (scientifically realist quantum physics, computational
metaphysics, etc) we attempt to comprehend the underlying dynamics.
Quantum physics is constructive when the wavefunctions are considered
to be primary and these only give rise to observable phenomena through
certain interactions, where the type of interaction determines the
type of observable attribute that is experienced.
An example of the difference between descriptive and constructive
approaches is if you encounter some computer program - but you don't
know what a computer or a computer program is. You sit down and
interact with its interface and try and understand it. The descriptive
approach would take the buttons and dialog boxes and so on as
ontological entities and you would develop theories about the
perceived causal relations between these entities. When this button is
pushed that dialog box appears, and so on. But the constructive
approach is to hypothesise that the appearances are just appearances
and beneath these there is a deeper causal domain in which there are
no ontological 'buttons' and so on. One could use the metaphors of
systems and information to approach this in a general way without
making ontological assumptions. Then one could contemplate the
information flows that occur behind the scenes and develop models that
recreate the appearances and the observed behaviour.
The descriptive approach could ultimately lead to a good guide to
using the software but it could not result in any truly deep
understanding. Whilst the constructive approach could ultimately lead
to creating a program that is different in its details (maybe written
in a different language) but which is algorithmically equivalent and
can even be used in place of the original program. This could lead to
complete understanding of the situation.
It is in this sense that my mathematical models are constructive. As
proof of this they give rise to a new VR technology where we can use
the mathematics of SMN to implement the 'unseen' information dynamics
that underlies the 'seen' virtual universe. The software creates
virtual universes within which virtual systems can exist and interact.
These systems have subjective experiences of their world that are
essentially the same as ourselves; they experience themselves as
objects in space and time that interact with other objects. I have
made some simple proto-types that just show that the concept works and
it is efficient enough to create real software and VR simulations and
so on. These can be downloaded from my website.
When you mentioned the idea of a TOE in words, did you mean a
descriptive TOE that uses words to describe things? Because another
interpretation of this could be a constructive TOE where words are the
ontological entities. The idea of a 'word' is often used as a metaphor
for abstract symbol systems. This metaphor has been used since ancient
times, and it connects up with modern metaphors too. There is a guy
(Christopher Langan) who proposes the idea that the ontological
reality generative process that creates this experiential reality can
be thought of as a self-configuring self-processing language SCSPL.
This is related to the self-excited circuit proposed by the physicist
Wheeler. Within this abstract symbol system forms arise and take on
semantic meanings based only on their relations with other forms. In
this way the forms have no intrinsic meaning but when they interact
they have different roles within the overall situation, like in the
"game of life". E.g. a form may be "that thing that passes between
those things" and so in our context we call it a messenger boson in
particle physics...
This idea of a reality generative language is equivalent to the
metaphor of the "word of God".
"In the beginning was the Word:
the Word was with God
and the Word was God.
This Word was with God in the beginning.
Through it all things came to be,
not one thing had its being but through it.
All that came to be had life in it
and that life was the light of the people,
a light that shines in the dark
a light that darkness could not overpower.
..................
But to all who did accept this Word
it gave the power to become children of God" (Bible, John. 1:1-5,12)
"Without the Word of God no creature has meaning.
God's Word is in all creation, visible and invisible.
The Word is living, being, spirit, all verdant greening, all
creativity.
This Word manifests in every creature.
Now this is how the spirit is in the flesh - the Word is indivisible
from God." (Hildegard of Bingen)
"God is constantly speaking only one thing. God's speaking is one
thing. In this one utterance God speaks the Son and at the same time
the Holy Spirit and all creatures." (Meister Eckhart)
"Creatures can be called God's Words... [they] manifest God's mind
just like effects manifest their causes." (Thomas Aquinas)
"In this Word the Creator speaks my spirit, your spirit, and the
spirit of every person who resembles the Word. And in this utterance
you and I are true sons and daughters of God, as the Word itself is
child of the Creator." (Meister Eckhart)
"Your human nature and that of the divine Word are no
different." (Meister Eckhart)
> In other words the range of what
> we observe is also everything we know. This of course expands with
> observation and as the range comes to include more points of
> reference.
>
> Infact, I even have a model for it. Its called a 'range of
> realisation' or 'range of realization'. The reason you can't call
> this range of phenomena 'The Universe', is because not all of the
> universe is observed. Furthermore there are also different ranges of
> realization for different people.
Very true :)
To many people this is what they call a 'world'. Many people these
days think of 'world' as something objective but to many it is
something subjective. E.g. we each dwell within a world of our own
making. Hippies and politicians dwell in different worlds. Meeting
someone can be a clash of worlds or a merging of worlds. Falling in
love can be a world changing experience. "With our thoughts we make
the world" (Buddha). And so on.
A world is a personal subjective experiential context that is partly
determined by the range of interactions (the pattern of connectivity
that the system has with surrounding systems) and also with the
internal processing of the input signals leading to experiences and
ideas. E.g. someone may have access to a bookshop with many scientific
books (range of interactions) but if they have no scientific education
or interest then these books will not register as meaningful to them
and will only vaguely impinge on the person's awareness. That which
they are aware of is a part of their world and that which they are
unaware of is not a part of their world.
Krishnamurti described this using the metaphor of a circle with a
center and a circumference. In his thinking, like all mystics, the
ontological reality is a unified field of awareness. But when the I-
thought arises in the mind it re-structures awareness to believe that
it is located in a single point, the center of the circle. When
awareness comprehends things from this point it has only a limited
range, which creates the circumference.
So we experience things from a point-like perspective and we have a
"range of realisation" that expands as awareness expands. Only when
these ranges or circles overlap can communication arise. E.g. we both
need access to the internet to communicate. If your range included the
internet but mine did not then our circles do not overlap and there is
no common bridge for awareness. But right here I am aware of writing
these words and you are aware of reading them so there is an overlap
of fields of awareness so information can flow.
Because of the overlaps and feedback many people come to believe in
the idea of "the world", which is thought to be objective. I call this
the pseudo objective world because people think of it as objective but
it is really just an amalgam of many subjective worlds. There are
fundamental aspects of reality that cannot be comprehended from any
subjective perspective so when we merge our subjective worlds through
communication we form a pseudo objective world that cannot comprehend
the truly objective aspects of reality.
If one keeps expanding one's awareness one's world gets bigger,
deeper, subtler and more holistic. And if one's awareness goes on
expanding and expanding until the circle is so vast that the center
and circumference are not as restrictive, the egoic I-thought and the
limitations of a point like perspective are no longer as apparent.
This is a metaphor for why growing awareness and a growing world
usually weakens the ego. It also explains how overcoming the ego can
liberate one's awareness from the point-like limitations so that it
can expand to fill the entire field of cosmic awareness. But those
caught in very narrow worlds with very little awareness are usually
clinging to the ego. If they cling to the center their awareness
cannot expand very much.
>
> It also accounts for individual or group consciousness. You could for
> instance draw several lines of intersection on a person. Example: A
> high school student. He's been made aware of this and this and this,
> in Physics, Mathematics English etc. He knows these and these and
> these people. He remains in this neighborhood etc. etc.
>
> For a group; lets say you have a particular tribe of amazonian
> Indians. You could draw a circle around their boundaries of place and
> say that all within the circle is one line of intersection. i.e all
> trees organic, flora, fauna, hills landscape. Then you could draw
> another line of intersection which is their language. . .
>
> And, of course for all of these things you will always arrive at a
> finite set of objects. It might take a long time to document though.
>
> -y
What you describe here reminds me of the dynamics of a meta-system
transition or the resolution of system boundaries. In a simplistic
analysis one might say that systems are made of sub-systems so system
A is a sub-system of system B. But this implies exclusive nesting
where system A is definitely a sub-system of system B and not of any
other system. Engineered systems often try and create this kind of
explicit nesting, e.g. where the cpu is nested within the computer and
the user only interacts with it via software interfaces. But this
explicit nesting is an illusion from many perspectives. When a cosmic
ray passes through the earth and interacts with the cpu it doesn't do
so via the software interface. It might instead interact directly with
an atom within the cpu.
In this sense there is no ontological system hierarchy and all
structures of systems within systems are formed out of patterns of
interactions. Systems interact with other systems and these
interaction channels connect systems. When a system interacts with
another system it is in some way participating in a larger context. If
a system primarily interacts within a particular context it seems that
it is a sub-system within that context (e.g. a member of a group). But
systems can have many different interactions within different contexts
(they can be members of many groups). I am an Australian to the degree
that I believe in the concept "Australia" and I participate within
that context. But I am also a sub-system of the global economic system
depending on what products and services I consume. And I am also a sub-
system of India because I am interacting and participating within that
context right now. And I am a sub-system within many different super-
systems such as usenet, metaphysical discourses, family and so on.
When a system such as ourselves perceives another system we use a very
entropic perceptual process (that loses most of the information and
heavily interprets the remaining information). Once all the details
are lost we see clumps of systems that behave as if they are all just
one system. E.g. atoms interacting to form a rock. Then we interpret
this perceived system as a single whole system. This is the essence of
a meta-system transition, which describes how systems integrate and
disintegrate. The pattern of interactions between systems creates
dynamic structures, which evolve into groups, organisations, objects
and in general into super-systems but there is no simple system
hierarchy because systems can participate in many super-systems. This
means that any high level system is not an entity in any ontological
sense, it only seems to be. It is really a high level perceptual
phenomenon and the ontological reality is a vast and complex network
of systems interacting, participating and forming regions of high
connectivity and regions of low connectivity. These underlie all our
experiences of objects and the space between objects.
The mathematics of SMN captures all of these subtleties and in this
way it can model general systems, not just explicitly nested
engineered systems.
On Apr 30, 11:12 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is more that Cartesian dualism. I think they require each
> other to make valid points and visa versa.
I agree, the dualism goes very deep. It arises from naive realism
which goes very deep. The moment you attribute ontological existence
to the objects of perception you create a dualism where there are
ontologically real objects and a phenomenological process of
perception. Without this assumption there is only consciousness and
the objects of consciousness so it is all phenomenology. But if
consciousness is the ontological reality then it is also ontology at
the same time.
Our naive realist tendency to attribute ontological reality to the
objects of perception goes very very deep. First of all it relates to
the intrinsic nature of systems. All systems are only aware of the
signals that enter their inputs and they treat these as if they are
real. For example, when a control system program operates in a
computer (e.g. the autopilot system on an airplane) it has no
awareness that it is a program running on a computer, it has no
awareness that the computer is onboard a plane, and so on. But it is
aware of the input signals flowing into its interfaces and these
signals have their own meaning within the internal logic of the
program. This is all that the control system is aware of; this is its
entire world. So when it receives these signals it simply operates on
them as if they are real. When a signal arrives saying that the wind
has changed the control system does know enough to query this - it
doesn't even know what wind is. All it knows is that the signal has
been received. The signal is trusted and assimilated into the control
model thus leading to output signals based upon the experience that
the wind has changed. This is an aspect of ALL systems; they are only
aware of the input signals and they treat these as if they are real.
Secondly it relates to our biological/evolutionary origins. Cells
originally formed, which are systems and that function in the context
of being objects. They are localised in space and time and they
interact with other similarly localised systems. In this context many
billions of years of evolution have selected those that best adapted
to being objects within a world of objects. Then multicellular beings
formed through a phase of meta-system transitions called the Cambrian
Explosion that occurred about 550 million years ago. Each organism is
a civilisation of trillions of individual cells, where each cell is a
whole living being that experiences its world from its own
perspective. But these organisms came to experience themselves as
single whole organisms (objects) within a more complex environment
composed of other organisms. The ongoing evolution further selected
those that best adapted to the context of being an object amongst
objects.
Then very recently human civilisation arose and collective knowledge
arose and within that context we have recently recognised some of
these phenomena and attached labels to them, such as matter, mind,
Cartesian dualism, ontology/phenomenology and so on. So within the
context of the human cultural discourse these concepts can make valid
points but in reality they are built upon a foundation of systemic,
biological and cultural illusions. Once one conceptually steps out of
the virtual context of subjective experiences and cultural discourses
one sees that in the deeper reality there are no objects, there is no
dualism, and ontology and phenomenology are actually the same thing.
Only within the virtual subjective context do beings conceive of an
ontological reality (physical universe) within which cognitive
phenomena arise (human minds). The deeper reality can best be thought
of as an ontologically real consciousness and that which people think
of as ontological objects are actually cognitive phenomena within the
cosmic consciousness. Then when these objects of perception are
experienced we think that the experience is only phenomenological and
that the objects are ontological - but that is only how it seems from
a subjective perspective that is embedded in the universe.
So an ontologically real consciousness exists. It is a consciousness
so phenomenological processes exist. Then from a perspective embedded
within those processes there seems to be ontologically real objects
and these objects seem to manifest phenomenological processes within
our personal consciousness. In this way the universal ontology/
phenomenology produces the virtual ontology and phenomenology. It is
in this sense that I say that all traditional discourses on ontology
and phenomenology are actually discussing virtual ontology and
phenomenology. Hence these discourses are only valid within the
virtual context.
>
> here I will copy a footnote in my thesis for you . . . .
>
> Taken from - Interface: Reading, Reference and Architecture
>
> '
> For instance; phenomenological theory is used in the fine arts to
> reveal ideas about an artist's intentions for the viewer of art. The
> spatial quality depicted within the painting is assumed therefore to
> be in some agreement with the space outside the painting through the
> painting itself that contains single or multiple references ( in
> points of relatively hidden or revealing points of composition), for
> visual 'virtual' anchorage. The first ontological assumption in the
> phenomenological reasoning process is the painting is a physical
> object. The second is that it contains physical references to the
> space outside it. The third is that several physical people at several
> different physical locations within a physical room realign their
> physical eyes into those points of physical reference. '
>
> -y
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
< The first ontological assumption in the
< phenomenological reasoning process is the painting is a physical
< object.
If you consider my re-definition of 'physical':
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#gPhysical
you can see why I describe this ontology as 'virtual' ontology. It
only describes our assumptions about the objects of perception, which
we think of as "physical objects". The actual ontology is much
different.
These ideas have stirred up some interesting thoughts in my mind -
thanks :)
I hope these musings are of some use to you or to someone.
Please let me know about any ideas that get stirred up for you.
Regards,
John
http://www.anandavala.info
Anandavala
you don't think I'm ranting, it could easily seem that way, but when
the thoughts flow they come out of nowhere and sometimes I capture
them in ideas, words, mathematics and so on, so the writing can often
be in the form of a stream of consciousness.
These ideas follow on from two main issues raised in the last post:
(1) the fact that systems are only aware of the flow through their
inputs and
(2) egoic identification with a system thus creating a circle with a
center and a circumference.
There are several aspects to this idea so I can't dive straight into
it, so first I'll clarify some things.
Through the senses we perceive a certain view which is only one of
zillions of possible views. For example, the human eye only picks up a
very narrow range of the EM spectrum. If you could perceive everything
you would know that in the time it takes to read this sentence over
10^20 neutrinos pass through the full stop at the end. These are
streaming from the sun and they can pass through about 8 light years
of solid lead before they interact with something and become
perceptible. We also see things on a certain macroscopic scale, losing
all the details of the atomic, molecular, cellular, planetary,
galactic and universal dynamics.
The process of meta-system transition has a perceptual nature where
regions of high integration are seen as objects and regions of low
integration are seen as the space between objects. In this way system
boundaries are resolved, which determine the objects of perception
that are experienced. By using different perceptual apparatus we can
perceive different system boundaries, for example, if we perceived in
the gamma ray spectrum we would not be aware of tightly defined solid
objects such as rocks and trees and everything would be translucent.
So due to our particular perceptual apparatus we resolve and
experience a particular perceptual 'slice' through the system
hierarchy. The slice captures all the systems at our scale of
existence (such as people, places and everyday things, but not atoms
or galaxies). Actually, the entire system hierarchy is also a
perceptual construct where each 'system' at each level arises through
a perceptual MST process. Underlying this perceived hierarchy there is
just a vast profusion of interactions and micro-flows of information /
proto-awareness. This is the underlying substance of the universe, it
is the 'something' that is the reality underlying our experiential
impressions of things; this is what I usually refer to as the
universe. Within the vast profusion of interactions there arises
structured relations or patterns within the flow, which can be
perceptually resolved and experienced as 'systems'. The vast profusion
of interactions represents a deeper reality than any particular
perceptual slice through it.
Picture a system hierarchy,
/\ - physical universe
/ \
/ \
/ \
/\ /\ - I and world <---- experiential slice
/ \ / \
/\ /\ /\ /\ - matter
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ - quantum field
---------------- - ground of being
These labels represent the outer forms of systems just to indicate the
general structure of the hierarchy, but all systems have an inner
aspect too. Just as I have consciousness so too are all systems aware
in their particular way. Just as outer forms vary greatly so too do
inner forms. The inner form of the quantum field is the universal
consciousness or the transcendent reality generative process.
The awareness that I experience is just one inner form within the vast
system that we think of as the physical universe. Just as our senses
arbitrarily take a slice through the outer forms of the universe so
too does the particular nature of my organic human mind take a slice
through the inner forms; through the space of awareness. That which I
experience as my awareness is something that flows through all things
but I experience it only when it flows through me.
This 'I' or 'me' is a particular system that experiences itself as
having well defined outer boundaries (determined by a particular
sensory slice through the outer forms) and well defined inner
boundaries, i.e. well defined personality (determined by a particular
cognitive slice through the inner forms). All these inner and outer
forms are just experiential constructs that are resolved out of the
underlying profusion of proto-awareness.
I experience only the flow through my inputs. The localisation of
these inputs in space and time make them like a point-like perspective
in the universe. In this way there arises a 'center' around which
awareness spreads but only subjectively (via the channels that pass
through that point of awareness). This subjective limitation is the
constraint that creates the circumference and the depth of penetration
or insight via this subjective perspective determines the radius of
the circle.
Without this subjective constraint the awareness is not tied to a
particular perspective, instead it flows through and permeates all
systems. It is metaphorically like the stream of computation that
flows through and permeates a VR universe where AI beings experience a
world. The flow of computation (proto-awareness) animates all things,
it is all that is seen and all seeing.
The cosmic awareness is One and Whole but it flows in intricate ways.
Within this flow or through this flow there arise countless multitudes
of systems, all interacting where the interactions and the flow are
the same thing.
Through the particularities of my inner form I experience a personal
subjective world in which I perceive my own outer form through my
particular sensory apparatus. From this I develop the idea of 'I' and
I identify with that idea.
The ideas of 'I' and 'world' are informed by sensory and cognitive
experiences of a narrow slice through the flow of awareness, thus
creating objects of awareness. Then naive realist confusion of these
objects with the idea of ontologically real objects leads to the
experience of being an object in a world of objects. The underlying
flow of awareness is vast and intricate and when it is resolved into
systems the system hierarchy is vast and intricate, but underlying all
this awareness is One.
Any particular form, whether inner or outer is an experiential
construct. All forms are ephemeral patterns within the flow that
resolve only in the "eye of the beholder" into objects of perception.
In reality there is just a vast streaming of awareness and when "in
the stream" and flowing through the universe the awareness experiences
a world. When it streams through me I experience being me.
But the idea of 'I' and 'me' creates identification with a particular
system that is a particular perceptual / cognitive construct. This
forms a core belief around which many other beliefs and ideas form.
This 'I-thought' grows like a seed into the mind. The whole mind
arises from and is structured around the I-thought, which is also the
center of the circle of awareness. In this way the mind experiences
being me. From this "experience of being" arises the ego. It is a
thought form that naively takes the experiential construct (jiva,
personal self) to be real and identifies with it. In this way the I-
thought believes itself to 'be' that construct.
This growth of the mind and ego were encouraged by evolution so that
'I' could take charge of the body and integrate all the various parts
into a single 'self'. This includes possessions and close relations as
well. The deep identification with a particular system (perceptual /
cognitive construct) means that when awareness flows through that
system it experiences being itself in a world, both of which are
perceptual / cognitive constructs. This is the biologically evolved
state of an animal, to which we have added the higher-level
perspective of intellect and reason.
The alternative is to identify with awareness. If I do that I flow
through all things and I am One. The system is just a perceptual /
cognitive construct, it is a form that integrates and disintegrates,
it is an ephemeral pattern in the flow. The flow itself is the
timeless reality.
Just as people insist that a computer is 'real' but a character in a
computer game is 'virtual', in fact the flow of proto-awareness is
real and we are virtual beings inside a virtual universe.
"The real does not die, the unreal never lived. Once you know that
death happens to the body and not to you, you just watch your body
falling off like a discarded garment. The real you is timeless and
beyond birth and death." (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, I am That)
"What is it that had birth? Whom do you call a human being? If,
instead of seeking explanations for birth, death and after-death, the
question is raised as to who and how you are now, these questions will
not arise...
The body is born again and again. We wrongly identify ourselves with
the body, and hence imagine we are reincarnated constantly. No. We
must identify ourselves with the true Self. The realised one enjoys
unbroken consciousness, never broken by birth or death - how can he
die? Only those who think 'I am the body' talk of reincarnation. To
those who know 'I am the Self' there is no rebirth.
Reincarnations only exist so long as there is ignorance. There is no
incarnation, either now, before or hereafter. This is the truth." (Sri
Ramana Maharshi [ref], re: Rebirth and After-Death)
If you wish to "be real" then awareness is the way to go. It is the
pure still substrate of consciousness, which is the substance of the
mind. This is all that is real. This is the Supreme Self or the
Universal Consciousness. All else are objects of awareness that are
just phenomena within the mind.
You can either succumb to naive realism and identify with the content
of the mind (the perceptual / cognitive constructs) or you can
identify with awareness, which is the real substance of the mind.
By identifying with the contents of the mind we become beings in a
world and by identifying with awareness we become the Supreme Self.
This is the reason why many people meditate and do countless other
things to identify with awareness rather than the contents of the
mind.
It is also why 'scholars' who are deeply involved in a world of ideas
and who grow a vast mind that is firmly anchored to strong egoic
roots, they find it hardest of all to comprehend these things and to
re-identify with reality. They are very attached to their ideas and
are reluctant to let go. This has been my experience.
But if the mind can be clarified and freed from its false beliefs it
can be a very powerful tool that can cut through illusions and break
the false identifications. This has also been my experience. I was a
scholar who became a mystic and I work to build a bridge so that other
scholars can do the same if they wish.
But it all depends on what are your deepest beliefs that structure the
'I' and 'world' that you experience? What is your role and agenda
within that world that structures the life story that you experience?
Where and how is your awareness focused? But most importantly, with
what do you identify?
Hence a jnana yogi constantly enquires with their whole being "who am
I?" and they constantly discern and reject all that is "not I". All
these "not I's" are the contents of the mind, anything that can be
perceived is just the contents of the mind, only that which is beyond
all perception, the process of perception itself is real. After
stripping away the false identifications (with body, mind, role,
family, past trauma, nation, etc) what is left is the substance of
consciousness itself; pure awareness.
"The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all questions
except one: "Who am I?" After all, the only fact that you are sure of
is that you are. The "I am" is certain. The "I am this" is not.
Struggle to find out what you are in reality. To know what you are,
you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all
that you are not; body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that;
nothing concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very
act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The
clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described
in negative terms only [not this, not that], the quicker you will come
to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless
being." (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, I am That)
The substrate of consciousness, pure awareness is the timeless and all
pervading Universal Consciousness, the only true reality. All forms
are ephemeral, they are phenomena that arise in Universal
Consciousness. Only that which is timeless is truly real. To totally
identify with pure awareness is to become Universal Consciousness -
omniscient, omnipotent, immortal and impersonal.
"Q: How long will it take me to get free of the mind?
M: It may take a thousand years, but really no time is required. All
you need is to be in dead earnest. Here the will is the deed. If you
are sincere, you have it. After all, it is a matter of attitude.
Nothing stops you from being a gnani [knower of the Highest Knowledge]
here and now, except fear. You are afraid of being impersonal, of
impersonal being. It is all quite simple. Turn away from your desires
and fears and from the thoughts they create and you are at once in
your natural state."
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, "I am That", p333 [ref])
"The Valley Spirit [flow] never dies. It is named Dark Animal Goddess
[the primal existential potential that nourishes all things]. The door
of the Dark Animal Goddess is called the root of heaven and earth
[primordial pure awareness, analogous to the role of CPU in a VR].
Like an endless thread she endures [like the SMN thread weaving
through all things and ceaselessly animating the simulated world]. You
can call upon her easily [it is our inner most essence, the substrate
of pure awareness]. He who has found this mother understands he is a
child [the egoic isolated illusion disappears and we see that we are
totally dependent on 'her']. When he understands he is her child and
clings to her [drops the false identification with the body and re-
identifies with pure awareness] he will be without danger when the
body dies [the body is a transitory pattern of light but awareness IS
the light].
(I Ching, Total I Ching: Myths for Change, trans Stephen Karcher,
pg87)
Well that's all for now....
Enjoy :)
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>I had some more thoughts that follow on from the last posting. I hope
>you don't think I'm ranting, it could easily seem that way, but when
>the thoughts flow they come out of nowhere and sometimes I capture
>them in ideas, words, mathematics and so on, so the writing can often
>be in the form of a stream of consciousness.
<snip>
John, I thought this latest stream of thought from you is quite good
and expressive. It parallels my own philosophical views, so naturally
I would consider it good :)
Art
Anandavala
> John, I thought this latest stream of thought from you is quite good
> and expressive. It parallels my own philosophical views, so naturally
> I would consider it good :)
>
> Art
>
> Yep, I like it, ,
>
> I'm also pretty sure that a passage for 'time' does not exist. Clocks
> are inertia meters.
>
> -y - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cheers guys :)
It's good to know we have some understanding!
Hey Art, I had a peek at your profile and saw you have a lot to do
with computers. Have you given much thought to the idea that the
universe is virtual?
It is an incredible metaphor to contemplate! And it's an easy way to
approach many very subtle metaphysical ideas.
Rather than get caught up in cultural word games (like those
surrounding 'God') people can discuss things in intricate detail like
system engineers. It gives a detailed metaphorical conceptual language
that has deep parallels with the nature of reality.
Here's a list of links regarding this if you're interested:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#VRMetaphys
A question for Y; what do you mean when you say "that a passage for
'time' does not exist"?
Do you mean that time is not ontologically real? That would agree with
the paradigm that I discuss, which proposes that all that is 'real'
exists in the eternal Now. It does not flow through 'time', hence
there is no beginning or end; the metaphorical simulator just Is. It
is an automata and the universe arises within its internal state; as
the state changes time arises. Any concept of past or future is not
ontologically real; they arise from experiences of the life story of a
virtual system within its own subjective world.
Within the eternal Now there is change and when this is reflected in
awareness the experience of time arises. Time is a perceptual
phenomenon so time and the perceiver arise together. So too with
space, objects and so on. These are all phenomena within the mind. So
time, space, objects and events are all phenomenological concepts.
The ego is also a phenomenon within the mind that provides a single
experiential focus through which the mind acts as the perceiver. The
ego is the 'knower' of all experiences, feelings, ideas, words and
theories. So the perceiver and the perceived arise together out of
pure awareness and thus the world arises with the mind.
Aside from the mind created world (maya) and the mind created ego or
personal self (jiva) at the center of that world, aside from these
there is reality (Brahman), which is the 'something' that is real
(Atman) in all that exists.
This something is the pure awareness out of which the mind arises and
it is also that which animates all the phenomena of the universe that
are experientially reflected in the mind.
The 'something' cannot be defined by its attributes because attributes
are just the perceptual building blocks from which our perceptual
worlds are constructed. Attributes only exist within the mind made
world. In the ontological reality there is no perceiver so no
attributes.
"before there was equilibrium, countenance beheld not
countenance." ("The Book of Concealed Mystery", "Kabbalah Unveiled",
trans S.L. MacGreggor Mathers).
Reality is "beyond all the elements, and all the letters. There is no
commerce with It. It brings all distinctions and developments to end;
as such it is utterly unavailing. It is only peace, repose and
oneness." (Mandukya Upanishad 12)
Although the 'something' is what is real beneath all the reflections
in the mind, It itself is beyond all its reflections.
Some words from Tilopa:
"Though words are spoken to explain the void, the void as such can
never be expressed. Though we say "the mind is bright as light", it is
beyond all words and symbols. Although the mind is void in essence,
all things it embraces and contains." (Tilopa's Song of Mahamudra
[ref])
Some comments from the Tao te Ching:
"There is a thing confusedly formed, born before heaven and earth.
Silent and void It stands alone and does not change, Goes round and
does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the world. I know
not its name So I style It 'the Way'.
Darkly visible, It only seems as if it were there. I know not who's
son It is. It images the forefather of God.
Dimly visible, It cannot be named and returns to that which is without
substance. This is called the shape that has no shape, the image that
is without substance. This is called indistinct and shadowy.
The Way in its passage through the mouth is without flavour. It cannot
be seen, It cannot be heard, Yet It cannot be exhausted by use.
The way is for ever nameless. Though the uncarved block is small no
one in the world dare claim its allegiance. Should lords and princes
be able to hold fast to it the myriad creatures will submit of their
own accord, Heaven and earth will unite and sweet dew will fall, and
the people will be equitable, though no one so decrees. Only when It
is cut are there names. As soon as there are names one ought to know
that it is time to stop. Knowing when to stop one can be free from
danger." (Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu [ref])
Also see this collection of quotes if you are interested:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/Correspondences.html
Best Wishes :)
John
http://www.anandavala.info
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>> On May 4, 3:50 pm, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
>> John, I thought this latest stream of thought from you is quite good
>> and expressive. It parallels my own philosophical views, so naturally
>> I would consider it good :)
>>
>> Art
>Cheers guys :)
>It's good to know we have some understanding!
>
>Hey Art, I had a peek at your profile and saw you have a lot to do
>with computers. Have you given much thought to the idea that the
>universe is virtual?
>
>It is an incredible metaphor to contemplate! And it's an easy way to
>approach many very subtle metaphysical ideas.
>
>Rather than get caught up in cultural word games (like those
>surrounding 'God') people can discuss things in intricate detail like
>system engineers. It gives a detailed metaphorical conceptual language
>that has deep parallels with the nature of reality.
>
>Here's a list of links regarding this if you're interested:
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#VRMetaphys
That sort of metaphor might have intellectual appeal to some folks,
but I think it unnecessarily confuses matters for most. As I suppose
you've noticed since you apparently have read some of my posts here,
my thrust is psyche-ological in nature. I also prefer to use plain
language and define my terms as best I can as I go. Many years
ago, I had a idea which is similar in spirit to what you're trying to
do. I joked with my wfe and kids that I was planning to write a
book named "Metaphysics for Hardheads" :) The idea was to
gradually work on breaking down certain beliefs about the
nature of reality which so predominate Western culture. My
intended audience would be large, and I'd avoid terms such
as "ontological" and "phenomenolgical" since such terms seem to
be understood only by those formally schooled in philosophy.
In the spirit of what I hope is constructive criticism, I think you
go too far when you express the opinion of some Eastern guru
concerning reincarnation. You must know there are many different
(mystical and occult and religious) views on this subject. Personally,
I've found sufficient evidence suggestive of reincarnation that
I do think it exists (and other explanations of the data are far
less likely). But so far as I can tell, the actual nature of the
reincarnational system is probably beyond our grasp. Perhaps
your guru is mistaking a experience of "union with God" with
breaking out of the reincarnational system. I'm concerned
with the issue of not creating any dogmas or religions. That
sort of thing repulses me. I prefer to stick with a TOE that
doesn't go too far in trying to delve into the true nature of
the underlying reaities. I think there will always be mysteries.
I prefer to study and refer to good quality paranormal research,
and the conclusions of highly educated and trained
psychoanalysts. That's the sort of thing (plus the bizarre
findings of quantum physicists) that led me to accept certain
basic ideas.
Different strokes for different folks, but I think, based on
what you've posted, that we have come to very similar
conclusions and ideas.
Art
Azure
Sort of what I try to tell people, but no one wants to listen.
Such is the concept of the LAKE.
The force, energy which flows between every "Living Thing".
Azure
Y wrote:
>
> Yep, I like it, ,
>
> I'm also pretty sure that a passage for 'time' does not exist. Clocks
> are inertia meters.
>
> -y
Legends claim you are wrong.
Dr. Who, is based on "Legend", not Myth.
Anandavala
> On 4 May 2007 23:42:45 -0700, Anandavala
>
>
>
>
>
> <john.ringl...@anandavala.info> wrote:
> >> On May 4, 3:50 pm, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> >> John, I thought this latest stream of thought from you is quite good
> >> and expressive. It parallels my own philosophical views, so naturally
> >> I would consider it good :)
>
> >> Art
> >Cheers guys :)
> >It's good to know we have some understanding!
>
> >Hey Art, I had a peek at your profile and saw you have a lot to do
> >with computers. Have you given much thought to the idea that the
> >universe is virtual?
>
> >It is an incredible metaphor to contemplate! And it's an easy way to
> >approach many very subtle metaphysical ideas.
>
> >Rather than get caught up in cultural word games (like those
> >surrounding 'God') people can discuss things in intricate detail like
> >system engineers. It gives a detailed metaphorical conceptual language
> >that has deep parallels with the nature of reality.
>
> >Here's a list of links regarding this if you're interested:
>
> That sort of metaphor might have intellectual appeal to some folks,
> but I think it unnecessarily confuses matters for most.
Yeah, there is no metaphor that works for everyone but some metaphors
work better for some people than for others - they are all just
metaphors - just fingers pointing at something. Other similar
metaphors are dreams, movies, books, halucination and so on. It's all
just metaphors for the way that things can seem so real whilst not
acutally being ontologically real. In a movie you might be worried for
what will happen to a character, but really you are sitting in a dark
room with a flickering light 25 times a second. By identifying with
the contents of the movie screen we participate in a virtual world.
This understanding is central to all holistic paradigms. Just as a
story world cannot exist without a story teller, there is a
transcendent level and an empirical level, absolute reality and
relative reality. The world of change always arises from a changeless
substrate. For example, to use the metaphor of television, the places,
people and events in a TV sitcom are relatively real and the
television itself is the absolute reality. One can watch the changing
patterns on the screen and participate is the story world but once the
power is cut that entire virtual world ceases to exist and only the
television itself remains. In some traditions the transcendent/
empirical distinction is comprehended using concepts such as Brahman
and maya (Vedanta), the uncarved block and the ten thousand things
(Daoism), Heaven and Earth (Kabbalah, Daoism, Vedanta), land of Edom
and land of Israel (Kabbalah).
Note that Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and so on have Vedanta
as their mystic core. And Judaism, Christianity, Islam and so on all
have Kabbalah as their mystic core.
> As I suppose
> you've noticed since you apparently have read some of my posts here,
> my thrust is psyche-ological in nature.
Great! Psychology is the at the heart of it all. It's all a matter of
mind and consciousness. When we think about ontologically real objects
that are separate from the mind we are operating in a context built
upon beliefs. All we really know is that we exist and we experience
something. That is the best place to begin.
> I also prefer to use plain
> language and define my terms as best I can as I go. Many years
> ago, I had a idea which is similar in spirit to what you're trying to
> do. I joked with my wfe and kids that I was planning to write a
> book named "Metaphysics for Hardheads" :) The idea was to
> gradually work on breaking down certain beliefs about the
> nature of reality which so predominate Western culture. My
> intended audience would be large, and I'd avoid terms such
> as "ontological" and "phenomenolgical" since such terms seem to
> be understood only by those formally schooled in philosophy.
Wonderful idea!!! "Metaphysics for Hardheads" :)
That's kind of what I'm doing too - I'm a bit of a hardhead myself.
But I'm just expressing myself in whatever metaphors come my way. For
instance, I had never used the concepts 'ontological' or
'phenomenological' until a week ago when they came up in conversation
with Y. I just take whatever comes along and I look at it in my own
way and expresse it using whatever way presents itself at the time.
In that respect, if anyone has any other concepts that they think
might be relevant then toss them my way and I'll see what I can make
of them. By assimilating concepts from other domains into this
paradigm I build bridges of understanding. Hopefully the analysis of
ontology and phenomenology will help some philosophers approach these
ideas. If someone knows about issues in consciousness studies,
physics, politics or WHATEVER then let me know and I might be able to
build a little bridge over to those domains too.
Good luck in using "plain language"! That is the hardest approach
because plain language is the most ladden with subtle confusions and
many people who use plain language are not aware that they are
operating within a very elaborate and structured belief system, they
just think they are using a pure, transparent language to discuss
obvious 'facts'. In my experience this usually leads to an endless
tangle of confusions, but some people have better success at it than
others. Good luck - it is an important angle that needs to be covered
but I don't envy you.
>
> In the spirit of what I hope is constructive criticism, I think you
> go too far when you express the opinion of some Eastern guru
> concerning reincarnation. You must know there are many different
> (mystical and occult and religious) views on this subject.
If you interpret it simply as "the opinion of some Eastern guru" then
it would seem rather arbitary but that is NOT how I present those
views. All those who have delved deep enough to make contact with the
deepest levels of reality say essentially the same thing. And who says
it or what culture they come from is totally irrelevant because they
are not just beliefs and opinions, they are sincere expressions of
what the person knows from their own experience and their own
inspiration as the spirit flows through them. But there are many
levels of truth and Ramana Maharshi is speaking on a very deep level.
On other levels other things can be said and people use different
approaches to describe what they know but underlying this, what they
actually say is essentially the same thing.
> Personally,
> I've found sufficient evidence suggestive of reincarnation that
> I do think it exists (and other explanations of the data are far
> less likely). But so far as I can tell, the actual nature of the
> reincarnational system is probably beyond our grasp.
What Ramana Maharshi says in that quote is essentially that all
concepts of manifest existence arise in our minds due to the structure
of our deepest beliefs. In the absolute reality there is no perceiver
so no perceived, so no individual self and no world, all these things
arise with the virtual reality, so all birth and death are a part of
the virtual reality. If you are identified within that virtual reality
then you experience being born, living and dying. But in the absolute
sense of that which is 'real' none of this actually happens - it only
seems to happen. When you are identified with the deepest levels of
reality everything is One and timeless. Many forms come and go on the
screen of consciousness but the substrate of consciousness, the Self,
neither comes nor goes, neither sleeps nor wakes - this is the meaning
of 'immortal'. But if you are identified with the contents of the mind
then as the images come and go you feel that you come and go, which is
the meaning of 'mortal'.
So what one says about reincarnation depends on what level of truth
one is speaking on. Within the relative reality there is definately
incarnation and also reincarnation, just as within the context of
Middle Earth (the land in "Lord of the Rings") the One Ring of Power
is definately real. When in a story world the objects, places, people
and events are all seemingly real. But they are only as real as the
story world itself.
> Perhaps
> your guru is mistaking a experience of "union with God" with
> breaking out of the reincarnational system.
Ramana Maharshi is not "my guru" - I have no guru but the "Sat Guru",
call it God or inner most Self or whatever you like, it is the life
force of the cosmos.
There is no difference between "union with God" and "breaking out of
the reincarnational system". They are just two different metaphors
that describe the overcoming of illusion. Union with God is simply
overcoming one's illusions and being One with reality rather than lost
in illusion and thinking of yourself as an isolated physical being. We
are always in union with God but in our illusions we think we are
isolated physical beings in a world. Whilst we are lost in illusion we
think we are the body so as the body comes and goes we think that we
come and go.
Once we overcome the illusions we are in our natural state, which is
union with God and a timeless state of being that is beyond all birth
and death. Ramana doesn't express a personal opinion but rather a
simple statement of clear fact within the mystic paradigm. On the
deepest levels of truth all mystics say the same thing, however on
simpler levels of truth many different descriptions are given
according to the capacities of the listener. The simpler truths are
not actually true, they are only relatively true or virtually true.
They are just ideas to satisfy the listener given their limited
comprehension, which may eventually lead the listener towards the
deeper truths.
To use the VR metaphor to describe the situation with reincarnation,
picture a VR universe with AI beings in it, all happening within a
computational space. The AI being can identify with its perceptions
and its perceived self in the world in which case it experiences birth
and death. Or it can identify with the computational space, in which
case its body, mind and world are just appearances that come and go.
If the 'I' refers to the body then "I am born and I die" but if the
'I' refers to the computational space then universes may come and go
but "I remain, timeless and unchanging". It's all a matter of
identification and the illusions that arise from it.
> I'm concerned
> with the issue of not creating any dogmas or religions. That
> sort of thing repulses me.
I whole heartedly agree with this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dogmas are a sickness of the mind! It is apathy and cynicism, often
concealing hidden agendas. I state very clearly that all ideas, words,
theories and truths are ultimately illusion and reality can only be
known by direct contact via pure awareness because in truth we are
reality and anything we experience, think or say is just a reflection
of reality.
I say that any metaphor will do to point people in the direction of
direct contact so long as people don't fixate on the finger when the
finger is actually pointing at the moon. Any finger will do; in fact
many fingers is best so long as people know that they are only fingers
(metaphors). Any system that says that its finger is not a finger but
rather the Truth is obviously lost in delusion and should not be
trusted. This goes for fanatics of all kinds whether Christian,
Muslim, Scientism and so on.
As for 'religion', that word has become horribly confused in Western
cultures due to the long term corruption of religion and its abuse as
a political tool. Modern Western culture has never really known what
un-corrupted religion is like. So when talking to westerners I steer
clear of the word 'religion' and when I must refer to it I refer to
political/religious institutions as distinct from religion.
In general I think that no religion is best. A religion is just a
cultural skin with layers of increasing illusion surrounding a core of
mystic truths. The highest truths are incomprehensible to most people
so they are watered down using worldly metaphors until at the crudest
level, when speaking to people who know almost nothing, one is forced
to speak of a Lord in Heaven, with rules and punishments. But that is
the most corrupted form of the truths. It is this corrupt outer skin
that was taken up by political agendas and used as a tool for social
manipulation. But true religion is about reaching out to non-mystics;
ordinary people lost in illusion and providing them with a path that
can lead them, by gentle stages toward deeper truths and a deeper
connection with reality.
If people could connect directly with reality then we'd all be mystics
- there would be no religion. When people are connected to reality
then there is no need to weave a web of illusion. But if people wish
to dwell in illusion then some web needs to be in place to prevent
them from straying too far into illusion and becoming totally lost in
mutual suffering and destruction. Religion is only necessary so long
as people continue to dwell in illusion. But corrupt political/
religious institutions serve no spiritual purpose, they only abuse the
spiritual urge within us all to manipulate us within a political
agenda.
> I prefer to stick with a TOE that
> doesn't go too far in trying to delve into the true nature of
> the underlying reaities. I think there will always be mysteries.
If that is the case there are a plethora of TOE's that could satisfy
you if you took the time to understand the metaphorical languages that
they use. All the mystic traditions are TOE's designed to put you in
direct contact with reality. They don't need to go very deep to do
that. But for many modern minds that are lost in intricate
intellectualising and have vast belief systems built upon false ideas,
such people need to go fairly deep to understand. They can't take
anything on faith so the onus is on them to 'understand' and for that
one must go very deep.
And for me the process of realisation involves going right to the
bottom. We each have our own paths to tread.
>
> I prefer to study and refer to good quality paranormal research,
> and the conclusions of highly educated and trained
> psychoanalysts. That's the sort of thing (plus the bizarre
> findings of quantum physicists) that led me to accept certain
> basic ideas.
Do you have any links or refferences or essays you could direct me to
in this regard? I'd love to know more about this side of things. I am
familiar with quantum physics but I know very little about the cutting
edge research going on in paranormal research and psychoanalysis. It
is not directly relevant to my own research but it is essential
knowledge if I wish to communicate with people. These issues are
probably the main entry point for many people, they are observable
phenomena that can only be understood via the holistic paradigm so it
is an angle via which they could approach the deeper truths.
>
> Different strokes for different folks, but I think, based on
> what you've posted, that we have come to very similar
> conclusions and ideas.
Yeah, there's many ways to climb a mountain and when that mountain is
'reality' then we are all climbing the same mountain each in our own
ways. So long as we don't naively think that our own path is the 'only
path' then we can all learn a great deal from each other.
>
> Art- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Best Wishes :)
John
http://www.anandavala.info
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
John, please excuse the snippage of things on which we are in close
agreement.
>> In the spirit of what I hope is constructive criticism, I think you
>> go too far when you express the opinion of some Eastern guru
>> concerning reincarnation. You must know there are many different
>> (mystical and occult and religious) views on this subject.
>
>If you interpret it simply as "the opinion of some Eastern guru" then
>it would seem rather arbitary but that is NOT how I present those
>views. All those who have delved deep enough to make contact with the
>deepest levels of reality say essentially the same thing. And who says
>it or what culture they come from is totally irrelevant because they
>are not just beliefs and opinions, they are sincere expressions of
>what the person knows from their own experience and their own
>inspiration as the spirit flows through them. But there are many
>levels of truth and Ramana Maharshi is speaking on a very deep level.
>On other levels other things can be said and people use different
>approaches to describe what they know but underlying this, what they
>actually say is essentially the same thing.
It certainly would be great if one could determine a absolute truth on
this aspect. However, I've found varying "takes" on it from different
sources. For one thing, there's the idea that once our type of
(physical reality) system is chosen by a soul (call it earth school,
for example) there then is a minimum requirement of two incarnations
.... one as a male and the other as female. Both motherhood and
fatherhood must be experienced. But generally, earth school becomes a
sort of addiction, as it were ... there are all kinds of snares and
entrapments. Progessing spiritually then becomes increasingly
difficult. The illusion becomes the reality.
For another thing, I've heard of many gestalts ... higher and higher
levels of spiritual evolution far beyond the level of the human
soul and it's mere "graduation from earh school". So that's why I'm
very dubious of your take on the subject. In fact, there's the idea
that our particular universe isn't a creation of the Source of Being
itself but by some spiritually advanced energy gestalt. So that
implies the notion of "many gods" from our perspective.
You see, the signal to noise ratio (to use a engineering metaphor) in
this arena strikes me as very low. One can't separate the signal from
the noise. That's why I choose to abandon it entirely.
Besides, who cares? What difference does it make? What's important
is to come to the understanding of what we are, and what underlies
the physical reality illusion. What's also important is personal
development along spiritual lines.
>> Perhaps
>> your guru is mistaking a experience of "union with God" with
>> breaking out of the reincarnational system.
>
>Ramana Maharshi is not "my guru" - I have no guru but the "Sat Guru",
>call it God or inner most Self or whatever you like, it is the life
>force of the cosmos.
Sorry, but my critique was aimed at the impression you give. Perhaps
you should state that you are speaking your own truths rather than
those of others. Or rather, state from whom you got your basic ideas
in order to credit them, and then say those received ideas struck the
core of your being. That's what happened to me, and I always give
credit to my sources. Of course, when it come to this sort of thing,
it's almost as if it doesn't matter since we all have the truths
within us in the first place :) It's something like what Will Durant
said of genius .... that genius utters what we know to be true
but are too dull to express (or something like that :))
>> I prefer to study and refer to good quality paranormal research,
>> and the conclusions of highly educated and trained
>> psychoanalysts. That's the sort of thing (plus the bizarre
>> findings of quantum physicists) that led me to accept certain
>> basic ideas.
>
>Do you have any links or refferences or essays you could direct me to
>in this regard? I'd love to know more about this side of things. I am
>familiar with quantum physics but I know very little about the cutting
>edge research going on in paranormal research and psychoanalysis. It
>is not directly relevant to my own research but it is essential
>knowledge if I wish to communicate with people. These issues are
>probably the main entry point for many people, they are observable
>phenomena that can only be understood via the holistic paradigm so it
>is an angle via which they could approach the deeper truths.
John, literally all of my old research was done in libraries, and what
books I purchased are long gone now after a couple of moves. Actually,
I abandoned the whole subject at one point and simply enjoyed life :)
It so happened that I popped into alt.philosophy about a month or
two back (time flies now that I'm 70 and I can't keep track). Whether
or not I continue much longer to haunt this ng remains to be seen.
It has been rather fun and a interesting diversion from my computer
hobby. It all helps to keep the old brain working.
The best I can do is the obvious. Google. It's amazing now what can
be found on the internet. Links to texts and research papers abound.
>Yeah, there's many ways to climb a mountain and when that mountain is
>'reality' then we are all climbing the same mountain each in our own
>ways. So long as we don't naively think that our own path is the 'only
>path' then we can all learn a great deal from each other.
I'll drink to that!
>Best Wishes :)
>John
Best wishes to you, John.
Art
Anandavala
I've been traveling for a few days so I have only just got a chance to
respond to you.
On May 7, 6:27 am, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
> On 6 May 2007 07:09:03 -0700, Anandavala
>
I see that we are talking on subtly different levels. On the level on
which you are speaking I agree with you, there are many different
opinions and there is NO absolute truth. I can even explain why there
is no absolute truth on this level. But I have not made any comment on
this level at all, and on the level on which I am speaking there is
universal agreement amongst mystics of all cultures and times and
there is definitely absolute truth. I'll very briefly explain using
the VR metaphor.
Essentially what I am saying is that the universe that we experience
is metaphorically like a virtual reality where the underlying reality
can be described as a profusion of interactions. In this profusion
there are no manifest forms, no objects, no places, no events, no
people, no observers, no objects of perception and so on. This
profusion is the transcendent substrate out of which the virtual
reality arises. It arises much like how a story world arises from a
story teller. In this transcendent context there is no incarnation or
re-incarnation, all such concepts simply don't exist. Just as on the
level of a story teller all the characters, places and events in the
story don't actually exist. I think we can all accept that Hobbits
from the "Lord of the Rings" don't actually exist and are not actually
alive even though within the story they experience themselves as being
born, living and dying.
But once one steps into the story world or the virtual reality then
all kinds of phenomena arise and the virtual beings experience
themselves within a world of manifest forms, objects, places, events,
people, observers, objects of perception and so on. Within the story
"Lord of the Rings" there most definitely are Hobbits. These manifest
forms appear to arise and disintegrate, they seem to have life. Within
this virtual context there is definitely incarnation and re-
incarnation but only on this level.
Regarding why there is no absolute knowledge within the virtual
reality...
The underlying reality is the profusion of interactions and when this
profusion is observed from within the virtual reality, in a manner
that loses nearly all of the information and heavily interprets the
remaining information then objects of perception arise in the mind and
the virtual beings form ideas and theories about these objects, which
they assume to be ontologically real. But the type of objects
perceived and the relations between them depends on the process of
perception, on the perspective and on the interpretations.
So all virtual objects, relations and theories are 'relative' because
they only arise under certain conditions and observers under different
conditions will perceive, experience and comprehend them differently.
Hence there can be no absolute truth within the virtual reality! This
is related to the fact that any system hierarchy is a perceptual
construct and all systems are perceptual constructs and the systems we
perceive depend on the nature of our perception.
Whilst all the mystic traditions differ in their descriptions of the
actual entities, relations and the details of the actual process of re-
incarnation, the underlying story they tell is essentially the same
although the details differ. Furthermore, they are all in agreement
that the world we experience is virtual and that the reality is
actually transcendent and beyond all virtual concepts. This is seen in
the universal acceptance of the existence of Heaven, Brahman, Hundun,
Land of Edom, Spirit Realm and so on - these are all just metaphors
for the transcendent reality generative process. So the existence of
Heaven is unanimously accepted by mystics of all cultures and times
and it can be directly experienced and non-conceptually known as an
absolute truth. However the exact details of the virtual / earthly
realm are only descriptions of relative truths.
"The Way that can be spoken is not the eternal Way." (Tao te Ching)
> For another thing, I've heard of many gestalts ... higher and higher
> levels of spiritual evolution far beyond the level of the human
> soul and it's mere "graduation from earh school". So that's why I'm
> very dubious of your take on the subject. In fact, there's the idea
> that our particular universe isn't a creation of the Source of Being
> itself but by some spiritually advanced energy gestalt. So that
> implies the notion of "many gods" from our perspective.
These are all just descriptions of the details of the virtual reality,
which can only be relative knowledge. For example, the descriptions
that refer to "many gods" are just using different metaphors. In the
case of many gods, within what existential space do they exist? In
order to interact they must all occupy the same existential space
otherwise they could not communicate and interact. It is this common
existential space that is the actual God. God is not a being in a
world because where does that world come from? God is a metaphor for
the ultimate ground of being, the foundation of all existence. Hence,
whilst Hindu's have thousands of gods, there is ultimately only
Brahman that is without form, without attributes, without any virtual
properties at all. It is not a being in a world but is rather the
abstract ground of being that underlies all worlds.
Brahman is "beyond all the elements, and all the letters. There is no
commerce with It. It brings all distinctions and developments to end;
as such it is utterly unavailing. It is only peace, repose and
oneness." (Mandukya Upanishad 12)
So the absolute knowledge is that Heaven exists and that earth is a
phenomenon within Heaven - or in other words a cosmic simulator exists
and the physical universe is a virtual reality that is simulated by
the simulator. There is much more that can be known absolutely but
this is a non-conceptual knowing that becomes only relative knowledge
as soon as it is translated into concepts with words and theories.
All the relative knowledge is metaphors that attempt to express that
which is beyond all worldly expression. Just as a character in a
virtual reality may know that it is a character within a virtual
reality (if they experience it directly then it is absolute non-
conceptual knowledge) and they may create all kinds of theories in an
attempt to represent and communicate exactly how the simulation is
constructed and computed, but all of this is relative knowledge.
> You see, the signal to noise ratio (to use a engineering metaphor) in
> this arena strikes me as very low. One can't separate the signal from
> the noise. That's why I choose to abandon it entirely.
Within general society - especially western societies there is such
vast and entrenched confusion that there is virtually all noise and no
signal in regards to metaphysical subjects. But within other cultures
and especially between people within the same mystic traditions there
is very little noise and very clear communication. If people in modern
western societies simply abandon the entire subject of mysticism they
remain trapped by their confusion. The best approach for such people
is to avoid all the metaphysics and the various ideas and to focus
only on techniques for gaining direct experience and non-conceptual
knowledge.
> Besides, who cares? What difference does it make? What's important
> is to come to the understanding of what we are, and what underlies
> the physical reality illusion. What's also important is personal
> development along spiritual lines.
Very true!!!!!!!!!
That's why in all the eastern traditions, where there has not been any
deliberate attempt to misrepresent and demonise mysticism, where the
religions have retained their mystic roots and have not been totally
subverted and turned into political regimes. In these situations there
is very little focus on the metaphysics and the detailed analysis of
what happens. Yes there is a detailed metaphysics (especially in
Vedanta) but this is secondary. The primary emphasis is on ways of
gaining direct personal experience and direct non-conceptual
knowledge.
Only then can all the conceptual knowledge and the detailed
metaphysics be comprehended. Only when you have tasted food can you
understand books about food. But in the west where most people have
not tasted food for centuries, they rely solely on books about food
and they try and imagine that which is unimaginable. This leads to all
kinds of confusion. Leading to fanaticism for some and turning others
away from the food that would nourish them!
> >> Perhaps
> >> your guru is mistaking a experience of "union with God" with
> >> breaking out of the reincarnational system.
>
> >Ramana Maharshi is not "my guru" - I have no guru but the "Sat Guru",
> >call it God or inner most Self or whatever you like, it is the life
> >force of the cosmos.
>
> Sorry, but my critique was aimed at the impression you give. Perhaps
> you should state that you are speaking your own truths rather than
> those of others. Or rather, state from whom you got your basic ideas
> in order to credit them, and then say those received ideas struck the
> core of your being. That's what happened to me, and I always give
> credit to my sources. Of course, when it come to this sort of thing,
> it's almost as if it doesn't matter since we all have the truths
> within us in the first place :) It's something like what Will Durant
> said of genius .... that genius utters what we know to be true
> but are too dull to express (or something like that :))
The impression that arises in a readers mind depends primarily on the
contents of their mind and I do not write to a particular audience.
Some people have deep and intimate knowledge of what I speak about and
others have mainly confusions and misunderstandings. I cannot cater to
every taste. No matter what I say on this subject or how I say it many
people will not understand me.
As for crediting where the ideas come from...
The very idea of someone owning or inventing an idea only exists
within certain metaphysical belief systems. The mystic wisdom is that
ideas are not our own, the mind is just a construct of ideas and ideas
flow through the culture and construct our minds. In reality there is
no I, no you, no ownership, no personal invention, no localised causes
and so on. Every cause is universal and every event is a movement of
the entire cosmos. This is not just a mystical concept - quantum
physics agrees; Feynman paths are a clear example of this.
But to say something about where these ideas come from, I can only say
that the ideas that I express arise in the stillness of pure awareness
and evolve in the "back of mind"; the subconscious of which I
consciously know nothing. Then when required or when they are ripe
they appear to my conscious mind fully formed as abstract states of
non-conceptual 'knowing'. I speak with certainty only because the
ideas arise in consciousness with a clarity and cetainty that is
compelling. Only later have I verified the ideas for self-consistency.
The mathematics is the ultimate verification upon which the entire
work stands.
But when I come to communicate the non-conceptual ideas I use cultural
conceptual languages where certain words, ideas and phrases are
attributed to others, but exactly how I learnt those words, ideas and
phrases I do not know. Can you remember exactly when and from whom you
learnt the concept of 'intellectual property' or the concept of
'money' or any other concept? We just subconsciously absorb these
things from the ambient culture. It is only a few obvious concepts
that we can attribute to others and in those cases I try to attribute
them. But ultimately the whole game of attributions is a game of egoic
ownership. I neither claim ownership of "my ideas" nor do I respect
other people's illusions about "their ideas". 'Put simply, in my case
ideas arise and are expressed because that is how the flow of the
cosmos manifests through the form that people call 'John'.
> >> I prefer to study and refer to good quality paranormal research,
> >> and the conclusions of highly educated and trained
> >> psychoanalysts. That's the sort of thing (plus the bizarre
> >> findings of quantum physicists) that led me to accept certain
> >> basic ideas.
>
> >Do you have any links or refferences or essays you could direct me to
> >in this regard? I'd love to know more about this side of things. I am
> >familiar with quantum physics but I know very little about the cutting
> >edge research going on in paranormal research and psychoanalysis. It
> >is not directly relevant to my own research but it is essential
> >knowledge if I wish to communicate with people. These issues are
> >probably the main entry point for many people, they are observable
> >phenomena that can only be understood via the holistic paradigm so it
> >is an angle via which they could approach the deeper truths.
>
> John, literally all of my old research was done in libraries, and what
> books I purchased are long gone now after a couple of moves. Actually,
> I abandoned the whole subject at one point and simply enjoyed life :)
> It so happened that I popped into alt.philosophy about a month or
> two back (time flies now that I'm 70 and I can't keep track). Whether
> or not I continue much longer to haunt this ng remains to be seen.
> It has been rather fun and a interesting diversion from my computer
> hobby. It all helps to keep the old brain working.
Don't give up philosophy!!!! It will keep you agile of mind and young
at heart! :)
And you also have quite a natural talent too! From this discussion I
can clearly see that...
> The best I can do is the obvious. Google. It's amazing now what can
> be found on the internet. Links to texts and research papers abound.
I've tried that but because of the wide usage of many of the key words
all I get is a vast profusion of unrelated sites. It's hard to home-in
on the relevant ones, but I'll keep looking. What I'd like to find is
some repositories of psychic/paranormal research. In mainstream
science there are many repositories but because paranormal research
has been so harassed and suppressed over the years there are no
organised networks that I know of.
> >Yeah, there's many ways to climb a mountain and when that mountain is
> >'reality' then we are all climbing the same mountain each in our own
> >ways. So long as we don't naively think that our own path is the 'only
> >path' then we can all learn a great deal from each other.
>
> I'll drink to that!
>
> >Best Wishes :)
> >John
>
> Best wishes to you, John.
>
> Art- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for raising these issues! I hope I have clarified my position
in regards to them. There are so many subtleties that I cannot
possibly anticipate them all, so thanks for raising these things so
that I can clarify them.
If you have any others then fire away :)
Best Wishes :)
John
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
<snip>
>Thanks for raising these issues! I hope I have clarified my position
>in regards to them. There are so many subtleties that I cannot
>possibly anticipate them all, so thanks for raising these things so
>that I can clarify them.
>
>If you have any others then fire away :)
Ok, thanks. I just put up a very short outline suggestive of the
approach I'd take if I were to write my "Metaphysics for Hardheads"
book :)
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
As you can see, I'd draw on the work of regression psychoanalysts
such as Graham Farrant, Roger Woolger and many others ....
plus scientific research into reincarnation such as that of Ian
Ian Stevenson and others ... to begin making the case that
conscious energy (as I gradually describe it) is fundamental
and the basis of everything. I thnk it's importat too to point
out and stress that some "virtually brainless" hydranencephalics
have normal and even high IQs. Here's a link to that item:
http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/ch14p10.htm
I'd begin thusly to challenge widely held beliefs in mainstream
science and encourage the reader to examine his own
beliefs and assumptions ... while building up the case for
my premise that there is nothing that is not a form of
conscious energy of its own kind ... and that physical
reality is essentially a illusion ... while a beautiful,
delightful, purposeful and meaningful illusion once
one understands that it is a illusion.
Art
Anandavala
>
> <snip>
>
> >Thanks for raising these issues! I hope I have clarified my position
> >in regards to them. There are so many subtleties that I cannot
> >possibly anticipate them all, so thanks for raising these things so
> >that I can clarify them.
>
> >If you have any others then fire away :)
>
> Ok, thanks. I just put up a very short outline suggestive of the
> approach I'd take if I were to write my "Metaphysics for Hardheads"
>
> As you can see, I'd draw on the work of regression psychoanalysts
> such as Graham Farrant, Roger Woolger and many others ....
> plus scientific research into reincarnation such as that of Ian
> Ian Stevenson and others ... to begin making the case that
> conscious energy (as I gradually describe it) is fundamental
> and the basis of everything. I thnk it's importat too to point
> out and stress that some "virtually brainless" hydranencephalics
> have normal and even high IQs. Here's a link to that > item:http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/ch14p10.htm
>
> I'd begin thusly to challenge widely held beliefs in mainstream
> science and encourage the reader to examine his own
> beliefs and assumptions ... while building up the case for
> my premise that there is nothing that is not a form of
> conscious energy of its own kind ... and that physical
> reality is essentially a illusion ... while a beautiful,
> delightful, purposeful and meaningful illusion once
> one understands that it is a illusion.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wonderful stuff Art - "Everything is a form of Conscious Energy"!!!!
Mystics have been talking about this throughout all cultures for
thousands of years. It is very promising that people like you and I
and others (even some mainstream scientists) are starting to come to
this understanding - it shows that the naive realist beliefs are
starting to finally be recognised as beliefs rather than just obvious
facts about the way things are. That is the only way to overcome naive
realism.
It is the nature of naive realism that naive realists don't recognise
their beliefs as being beliefs - they think they are just obvious
facts about the way things are. As soon as they become aware that they
are beliefs and start to question them it ceases to be 'naive'
realism.
It is naive belief that keeps us from understanding reality - and
despite what many people think mysticism is a path of deep skepticism
and rational enquiry. These subjects are most definitely amenable to
rational discussion and exploration and the modern world really needs
to get skeptical and rational!
Just one detail that might be worth considering - I'm sure you already
know this but I'll just clarify it. Consciousness and intelligence are
quite different but related things. The case of the hydranencephalics
shows that consciousness is not solely located in the brain but is
instead a function of the whole organism - this understanding is
represented in Vedanta and Yoga by the concept of nadis (lowest level
channels of consciousness) and chakras (nexus points of the nadis
where levels of higher level consciousness arise).
But aside from this, consciousness (in the sense that it is universal)
is a very low-level phenomenon that underlies intelligence but
intelligence is a very high level phenomenon that arises when the low-
level consciousness is woven into vastly complex structures such as a
human being. Hence I refer to the universal consciousness as proto-
awareness just to make this point clear. This leads to what some call
protpanexperientialism.
Just as simple forms interact to create complex forms (this is the
outer aspect of systems) - so too the inner aspects interact to create
more complex inner aspects. So particles create bodies and proto-
awareness creates intelligence.
Whilst proto-awareness definitely underlies intelligence and all our
high-level conscious phenomena, in the universal case even a single
particle has proto-awareness otherwise it could not be aware of other
particles and interact with them - but a particle has no intelligence
nor self awareness. It is aware of the virtual particle interactions
by which it participates with other particles but it is not aware of
its awareness, nor is it aware that it is aware that it is aware.
Neither can it think about its awareness or about the phenomena of
which it is aware. It only has what I call "direct awareness" because
it lacks the internal feedback loops to be able to be aware of
anything else. An example of this is a video camera that is aware of
the flow of light-signals into its circuitry (otherwise it couldn't
process the incoming signals) but it has no means of being aware that
it is aware nor can it think about what it is aware of. It is only
directly aware. Only beings with complex internal feedback loops have
both direct awareness and high level awareness.
So in my opinion the case of the hydranencephalics has profound
implications on the nature of high level consciousness but it doesn't
directly impact on the subject of universal consciousness.
In my mind a good way to overcome our unquestioned beliefs and realise
the universality of consciousness or proto-awareness is to challenge
naive realism. I.e. that slip of the mind that happens when we confuse
the objects of consciousness with external objects. It is like the
case of a VR simulation where there are no ontological objects but
just a complex dance of computation, so too in our reality there are
no ontological objects but only a complex dance of proto-awareness.
What quantum physicists are discovering with "wavefunctions" is
essentially the dance of cosmic consciousness. When physicists stop
being instrumentalist and start taking quantum physics seriously this
could lead us directly to an intellectual understanding of universal
consciousness. But the real understanding arises when we each go
'within' and realise that our own consciousness (at its lowest levels)
is in fact the universal consciousness and this consciousness animates
ALL things.
I'm very interested to see what else you have to say on this subject -
you have some very promising leads. For example, on the real meaning
of the word 'psychic', i.e. you say "cellular consciousness is
'psychic'". At the lowest level consciousness is a single unified
'dance' that permeates and binds all 'things'. It is only at the level
of high level intelligence that consciousness is separate and
individual. When we get to know our deepest levels of consciousness we
tap into the 'psychic' oneness where there is no separation and no
distance between things. On that level we are all One. That
realisation alone has the power to totally change this world for the
better.
Best Wishes :)
John
P.S. I've read the links you gave and included them and your essay in
the list of furter reading in my own essay. See:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#Consciousness
for a few other related links.
There's also these links on new scientific realisations:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#newScience
If you know of any others I'd love to know about them...
You might also be interested in the books:
Science and the Akashic Field
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html
The Field
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/LMcTaggart.html
Piercing Time and Space
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/TLSlatton.html
I found them fascinating and very relevant to the subject of universal
consciousness. If you know of others please let me know...
Cheers :)
Anandavala
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >Thanks for raising these issues! I hope I have clarified my position
> >in regards to them. There are so many subtleties that I cannot
> >possibly anticipate them all, so thanks for raising these things so
> >that I can clarify them.
>
> >If you have any others then fire away :)
>
> Ok, thanks. I just put up a very short outline suggestive of the
> approach I'd take if I were to write my "Metaphysics for Hardheads"
>
> As you can see, I'd draw on the work of regression psychoanalysts
> such as Graham Farrant, Roger Woolger and many others ....
> plus scientific research into reincarnation such as that of Ian
> Ian Stevenson and others ... to begin making the case that
> conscious energy (as I gradually describe it) is fundamental
> and the basis of everything. I thnk it's importat too to point
> out and stress that some "virtually brainless" hydranencephalics
> have normal and even high IQs. Here's a link to that > item:http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/ch14p10.htm
>
> I'd begin thusly to challenge widely held beliefs in mainstream
> science and encourage the reader to examine his own
> beliefs and assumptions ... while building up the case for
> my premise that there is nothing that is not a form of
> conscious energy of its own kind ... and that physical
> reality is essentially a illusion ... while a beautiful,
> delightful, purposeful and meaningful illusion once
> one understands that it is a illusion.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wonderful stuff Art - "Everything is a form of Conscious Energy"!!!!
Art
On 17 May 2007 02:50:04 -0700, Anandavala
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>> Ok, thanks. I just put up a very short outline suggestive of the
>> approach I'd take if I were to write my "Metaphysics for Hardheads"
>> book :)http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
>>
>> As you can see, I'd draw on the work of regression psychoanalysts
>> such as Graham Farrant, Roger Woolger and many others ....
>> plus scientific research into reincarnation such as that of Ian
>> Ian Stevenson and others ... to begin making the case that
>> conscious energy (as I gradually describe it) is fundamental
>> and the basis of everything. I thnk it's importat too to point
>> out and stress that some "virtually brainless" hydranencephalics
>> have normal and even high IQs. Here's a link to that > item:http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/ch14p10.htm
>>
>> I'd begin thusly to challenge widely held beliefs in mainstream
>> science and encourage the reader to examine his own
>> beliefs and assumptions ... while building up the case for
>> my premise that there is nothing that is not a form of
>> conscious energy of its own kind ... and that physical
>> reality is essentially a illusion ... while a beautiful,
>> delightful, purposeful and meaningful illusion once
>> one understands that it is a illusion.
>Wonderful stuff Art - "Everything is a form of Conscious Energy"!!!!
Hey, Im really glad you think so!
>Mystics have been talking about this throughout all cultures for
>thousands of years. It is very promising that people like you and I
>and others (even some mainstream scientists) are starting to come to
>this understanding - it shows that the naive realist beliefs are
>starting to finally be recognised as beliefs rather than just obvious
>facts about the way things are. That is the only way to overcome naive
>realism.
Yes, it is a matter of belief alteration.
>It is the nature of naive realism that naive realists don't recognise
>their beliefs as being beliefs - they think they are just obvious
>facts about the way things are. As soon as they become aware that they
>are beliefs and start to question them it ceases to be 'naive'
>realism.
>
>It is naive belief that keeps us from understanding reality - and
>despite what many people think mysticism is a path of deep skepticism
>and rational enquiry. These subjects are most definitely amenable to
>rational discussion and exploration and the modern world really needs
>to get skeptical and rational!
Exactly. There's something we engineers do that we call "what ifs",
which are a part of worst case analysis of our designs. We go through
a process of "what if this" and "what if that" in order to harden our
designs and make them more reliable and/or safer to use.
Well, there's another kind of "what if" process that's very important
I think. What if my belief in such and such is wrong and something
else is actually right? This requires considerable open mindedness,
humility and true skepticism ... qualities that are rare in most human
beings, I'm afraid. To use my own phrasing of something you try
to convey, I think, I'd say that the kind of open mindedness required
is at the opposite end of the spectrum of gullibility. Open minded
skepticism begins with doubt of your current beliefs and a willingness
to be open to a "eureka".
>Just one detail that might be worth considering - I'm sure you already
>know this but I'll just clarify it. Consciousness and intelligence are
>quite different but related things. The case of the hydranencephalics
>shows that consciousness is not solely located in the brain but is
>instead a function of the whole organism - this understanding is
>represented in Vedanta and Yoga by the concept of nadis (lowest level
>channels of consciousness) and chakras (nexus points of the nadis
>where levels of higher level consciousness arise).
Yes, I'm familiar with this subject of the chakras but I didn't want
to get into that arena in my short synopsis.
Now that you bring up this issue, I think my synopsis would be
improved if I expanded on what I mean by kinds or types of
(gestalt) consciousness.
I disagree with you concerning the notion of self awareness.
If Roger Woolger is to be believed, the fetal infant considers itself
to be a part of the mother even at the time of conception. This
"considering itself to be something or other" is what I would call
self awareness. In psychoanalytic terms, it lacks what's called
an ego, or sense of being a separate or independent self.
This ego or outer ego, BTW, has been allowed to become a
tyrant in humans and a prime stumbling block to our inner
core of spiritual awareness. Both our Western religions and our
science worship now result in major blockages to our spiritual core.
So do our academic communities. Simpler forms of life and inanimate
matter are (presumably) free of such blockages.
I imagine a cell in a tree having a similar point of view as the
fetal infant. It considers itelf to be a part of the tree. The overall
tree gestalt consciouness considers itself to be a tree (in a
obviously non verbal way).
I imagine a subatomic particle considering itself to be a part
of the universe, but it also knows what it is in its own way.
At the macroscopic level of all the molecules of a rock, there
is rock gestalt consiousness.
You see, since consciousness is God-stuff I'm not inclined to
sell it short, so to speak. A subatomic particle is likely to be
far more brilliantly aware of what it is than most humans are.
I don't consider humans to be partiularly intelligent. I don't know if
I had my article about zombies up when you checked out my web site,
but it's the second article here:
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg/time.html
AI already is far more intelligent in certain respects
(logical/mathematical reasoning and creativity primarily) than humans.
Human intelligence will soon seem insignificant compared to machine
intelligence.
>Best Wishes :)
>John
Same to you, John.
>P.S. I've read the links you gave and included them and your essay in
>the list of furter reading in my own essay. See:
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#Consciousness
>for a few other related links.
I'm honored :)
>There's also these links on new scientific realisations:
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#newScience
>If you know of any others I'd love to know about them...
>
>You might also be interested in the books:
>Science and the Akashic Field
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html
>The Field
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/LMcTaggart.html
>Piercing Time and Space
>http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/TLSlatton.html
>
>I found them fascinating and very relevant to the subject of universal
>consciousness. If you know of others please let me know...
I've been accumulating some links lately, and I do plan to expand my
web pages as ideas for articles arise in my mind. Concerning
scientific testing of so-called paranormal phenomena, I've long
been impressed with the work of Helmut Schmidt:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/retro.html
In a different vein, my page now contains a link to a current
Canadian philosopher, William Steager, for those interested
in a "heavier" or more formal analysis of panpsychism:
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/
Here's something lighter that I enjoyed concerning the
parallels between Einstein and Budda :)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
I particularly like the last Budda quote where he likens
all the noise (I'll call it) to a raft crossing a river. Once
you're enlightened (get to the other side of the river)
you no longer have any use for the raft (all the noise).
I'll drink to that :)
Art
John Ringland
I think there are some interesting differences between us. I've been
inspired to explore them in some detail. I find these kinds of differences
very fertile in that they stir up many thoughts. Sorry for all the words (it's
about 5000 words!!) - I find it hard to say these things in a few words. If
you choose to wade into it just take your time with it... But maybe you
might find these differences fertile too, so long as it doesn't just devolve
into a clash of beliefs.
I think we should both consider:
> What if my belief in such and such is
> wrong and something else is actually
> right?
If you disagree I'd like to hear your arguments.
Before I get into the discussion I'll just clarify that due to the
limitations of empiricist language I will refer to many different objects
such as particles and people and so on but I in no way attribute these with
ontological reality - they are just objects of perception that people have
assumed to be ontological external objects. But underlying these 'objects'
there is the actual reality, which is more like a complex 'dance' of cosmic
awareness (related to quantum wavefunctions). The objects have no separate
existence but are rather just perceptual forms that we experience due to our
particular perceptual and cognitive apparatus. When awareness flows into
awareness it gives rise to objects of awareness. The awareness itself is the
inner aspect and the objects of awareness or observable forms are the outer
aspect. I just use words such as 'particles' and 'people' and so on as
labels to refer to the outer forms underlying which there is the inner
aspect; awareness, which is the actual reality that I am referring to, so
the objects and associated words are just figures of speech.
First I'll address these comments:
> I disagree with you concerning the notion
> of self awareness. If Roger Woolger is to
> be believed, the fetal infant considers
> itself to be a part of the mother even at
> the time of conception. This "considering
> itself to be something or other" is what I
> would call self awareness. In
> psychoanalytic terms, it lacks what's
> called an ego, or sense of being a
> separate or independent self.
>
> I imagine a cell in a tree having a
> similar point of view as the fetal infant.
> It considers itelf to be a part of the
> tree. The overall tree gestalt
> consciouness considers itself to
> be a tree (in a obviously non verbal way).
>
> I imagine a subatomic particle considering
> itself to be a part of the universe, but
> it also knows what it is in its own way.
> At the macroscopic level of all the
> molecules of a rock, there is rock gestalt
> consiousness.
>
> You see, since consciousness is God-stuff
> I'm not inclined to sell it short, so to
> speak. A subatomic particle is likely
> to be far more brilliantly aware of what
> it is than most humans are.
I would suggest that in these contexts the word 'consider' could only be
used as a figure of speech and a rather misleading one at that. If one takes
it literally it leads to what I might call high-level panpsychism where one
is suggesting that high-level consciousness (of which everyday human
consciousness is an example, with sense of self, memory, thought, etc) is
the actual nature of the universal consciousness. I disagree with this and I
address this in detail in a moment but first things first.
'Ego' means the 'I-thought' or any mind-based concept of self as opposed to
not-self, so 'self' awareness inherently requires an ego and without an ego
there can be no 'self' awareness. Awareness without ego is "pure awareness".
In these terms a foetal infant would require a well formed mind and a
distinct concept of self as opposed to some 'other' to be able to actually
'consider' its 'self' to be a part of the mother. But it isn't aware of the
mother as a separate "being in a world" and therefore as a separate ego; the
mother is simply its environment and its entire world. The womb is all it
knows on a cognitive mind based level because that is all that it has
experienced on that level.
It could perhaps begin to subconsciously discern its 'self' as distinct from
its environment (womb), but if its experience was that it was "a part of the
mother" (womb environment) then it can't have a concept of its 'self' as
distinct from the womb environment so it couldn't consider its self as a
part of the mother.
At the foetal stage of development it IS a part of the mother and it's quite
likely that the thoughts within the infants mind are extremely unformed and
it has yet to really begin to 'consider' anything in any way that we'd
normally use the word 'consider'. Certainly a particle cannot 'consider'
anything in the normal way we use the word because it has no mind even
though it has its 'share' of universal awareness. Rather than say that a
foetus considers itself as a part of the mother (implying positive
consideration) I would suggest that it is more accurate to say that it has
yet to consider itself as distinct from the mother (implying a lack of
positive consideration) - these are two very different things. They are as
distinct as the difference between "I have saved your life" and "I have not
killed you". Simply by not killing someone doesn't mean that you have saved
their life, otherwise you owe me for saving your life and in some cultures
that means you become my slave ;)
I vaguely recall studying some experiments in developmental cognitive
science that suggest that newborn infants have yet to learn to resolve
objects out of their perceptual field and what they actually experience is
not objects in space but rather a kaleidoscope of sensory impressions - like
a 'fluid' field of colours and sounds which don't related to objects. They
have yet to construct the objects in their mind and to attribute them with
ontological reality - they are not yet naive realists like we are! Certainly
some swirls of colour and sound attract their attention more than others,
particularly those that correspond with their body. In this way they
probably gradually learn to resolve those patterns as objects such as self
and other but only over time. The mind needs to learn these things.
In infants several years old the ego is forming and defining its boundaries
and at certain stages infants seem to consider the parents to be a part of
themselves because they desire something (and cry out) and these external
parts of themselves come and satisfy the needs. Its not that the infant
thinks it is a part of the parents but rather that the parents have yet to
be recognised as being separate egos and the child's ego instinctively tries
to acquire them as part of itself. This leads to various power struggles
because the ego forms along lines of power and control. The ego is a thought
construct and needs to learn the boundaries of the self, but these
boundaries are always changing - like when a person gets power over others
or acquires new possessions their ego expands to acquire and control these
new parts of themselves. The ego is essentially a cognitive control system.
The role of government amidst nations is an EXCELLENT metaphor for egos to
the point that one can say that government IS the ego of a nation. It is
just a cultural construct (analogous to a cognitive construct) that forms
along lines of power and control. When it is highly developed it comes to
think that it IS the nation and it uses the nation to pursue ITS agendas,
just like when human egos think they ARE the body-mind and they use these to
pursue their agendas. It no longer serves only an integrative function but
rather it "gives itself life" and comes to think of itself as a being in a
world. History is full of all kinds of egoic power struggles with various
individual and collective egos trying to acquire and control. Currently the
US ego thinks it can acquire the entire planet by propagating a global
regime thereby giving it "full spectrum dominance". Like all egoic agendas
this is doomed because it is based upon fundamental ignorance and delusion.
But back to the comments you made - ultimately, if the infant lacks any
"sense of being a separate or independent self" then it cannot have self
awareness. So too with the cells, particles and molecules that you
mentioned. I would say that they do NOT consider themselves to be separate
rather than say that they DO consider themselves to be a part of a gestalt.
I would keep to the claim that something as simple as a particle has no
high-level consciousness whereby to be aware of its 'self' or to 'consider'
anything in relation to such concepts. They are simply, purely and directly
aware - without 'thought' or self awareness. However a cell is an individual
living being essentially like ourselves so it does have some basic ego and
self awareness but only a basic one. In my opinion this doesn't sell
anything short and I will explain why shortly. It is a long standing
Christian tendency to attribute "all the best and most high things" to God
but God is EVERYTHING and no-thing in the sense the It is the ground of
being and the existence underlying all things. God certainly doesn't conform
to human aesthetics regarding what is the 'best' and 'most high'.
Something that comes to mind here is an experiment, discussed in one of
those three books I mentioned to you in a recent post. I'll keep this short.
It found that all living beings emit very faint EM radiation and this
fluctuated according to the state of the organism. They found that they
could burn the leaf of a plant and its field would show a pain response. But
they also found that nearby plants showed the same pain response and even
other animals and humans showed the same response. Even when measured miles
aware there was the same response. So what one organism felt, all organisms
felt. There was a constant non-local resonance between all life forms, from
single cells to plants and humans and so on. There is a definite gestalt
here but not on the level of the mind or of 'consideration'. It is much
deeper than that. At a metaphysical, universal level that is pre-mind,
pre-thought and pre-self. It operates at the level at which there are no
selves, no minds and no thoughts. It seems to operate on the level of pure
awareness and universal proto-awareness. It is at this level that
consciousness is universal, not at the high-levels of mind, thought and
self.
So many words ... sorry :)
But the point I was trying to make in the last post was:
>> in my opinion the case of the
>> hydraencephalics has profound
>> implications on the nature of high
>> level consciousness but it doesn't
>> directly impact on the subject of
>> universal consciousness.
There are many ways of working toward universal consciousness but I don't
think hydraencephalics is one of them, because in my understanding universal
consciousness is a low-level phenomenon whereas 'intelligence' is a
high-level phenomenon. What you say above seems to me to suggest that you
are claiming that universal consciousness is a high-level phenomenon where
objects are not just patterns in the dance of 'light' or proto-awareness
(conscious energy) that we resolve due to our perceptual apparatus, but they
are instead actual entities with a distinct sense of self and high-level
cognitive functions such as thought. You seem to say that anything less is
dishonouring God and selling things short. But I say that the lowest levels
of existence are the simplest and that forms arise from simple to complex.
Am I correct in my understanding of what you are saying? If I'm wrong the
rest of this post may be irrelevant to you but I'll write it anyway because
it draws out some interesting points and the ideas just flow so I will
capture them here...
Re: high-level and low-level panpsychism...
It seems that we both subscribe to panpsychism but different kinds.
Protopanpsychism (also called Protopanexperientialism) is the particular
variety that best fits my approach and I don't know of a label that best
fits your approach so I'll call it high-level panpsychism here just to
distinguish it from the proto (low-level) variety.
First I'll discuss outer forms. In my understanding the universe is
structured such that simple things integrate to produce more complex
things - such as particles integrating to give rise to atoms, molecules,
..., people, planets, galaxies, ... etc. This is the essence of all
scientific models and particularly systems theory. An example of this simple
to complex nature is seen in the fact that particles are very simple in many
ways and they lack internal complexity. This can be seen by taking any
electron from any part of the universe and putting it in a particular
context, say an electric field. They all behave EXACTLY the same regardless
of where they are taken from and regardless of their previous history. This
is not the case with different humans placed in identical contexts, who all
behave differently.
Furthermore fundamental particles lack what is called "primitive thisness",
i.e. one can take two particles and arbitrarily label them A and B. Then you
can turn your back whilst someone may or may not swap them but when you turn
around there is no way whatsoever to discern if they have been swapped, they
are TOTALLY identical. This is not the case with macroscopic objects such as
humans. Even the universe can't tell the particles apart. This shows up in
certain subtle experiments - one I remember involves angular momentum where
if they had primitive thisness the momentum would involve a full rotation
like two planets orbiting each other but the actual measurements show only a
partial rotation because due to symmetry and the lack of primitive thisness
even the universe cannot distinguish between symmetric rotational states. My
memory of the exact details is vague but the lack of primitive thisness is
certain - I can look it up if you wish to question it.
Furthermore it is the simple things that are universal and the complex
things are contingent or particular. For example, quarks and leptons are
universal with quarks producing things such as protons and neutrons and the
leptons being things such as electrons. It is relatively accurate to say
that quarks and leptons are universal but in regards to high level complex
phenomena such as myself or the planet earth, these are particular. Whilst
all matter no matter where it is, is composed of quarks and leptons, I and
this planet are located only here and now and are not universal.
Furthermore the whole argument for the origin of the universe is based on it
arising from simple universal things and not from complex particular things.
To say that the universe is "made from" quarks and leptons is more accurate
than saying it is made from me and you and the Earth and mars and the sun
and alpha-centauri and on and on.
Now for the inner aspects of things. Whilst we humans have a very complex
high level awareness, intelligence and self awareness the simple forms have
simpler kinds of awareness, intelligence and self awareness. This is not
selling anything short just as saying that particles are more universal than
the planet Earth is not selling anything short. If we tried to make the
Earth a universal form, that to me is a sign of being overly attached to the
idea of the Earth.
The reason why I think that a cognitive/computational origin is most likely
for reality is because the idea of zillions of particles in space and time
is a very high level and complex thing. Not just all the particles but space
and time too are very high level and complex things. It's all too particular
to just exit 'a priori'. Whereas something like pure awareness / proto
awareness / computation is a very simple thing (the most simple thing,
existing in a single point and a single moment) but it can give rise to a
virtual context in which zillions of particles in space and time can
seemingly exist. Not to mention all the paradoxes that arise from the
materialist approach and which can be circumvented by the
cognitive/computational approach.
Also in all the eastern mystic traditions and most of the western mystic
traditions the universal principle is very simple. In the Christian approach
it is "I am" (just pure existence in unified Oneness) and in the Kabbalah
(the mystic foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the universal
principle is the void, pure un-manifest potential existence referred to by
"ain" (limitless). It is without form, attribute, extension or any
conceivable property at all. So too with the Vedic concept of Brahman.
Furthermore, in the approach of yoga, meditation, mantra, sannyas
(renunciation) and so on one of the main goals or requirements is "chitta
vritti nirodha" (the cessation of the modifications of the thinking
principle or the stilling of high-level consciousness) and only then can the
universal consciousness be known as the deepest substrate of consciousness.
A metaphor is that to see the movie screen we need to stop the movie
otherwise we only focus on the contents of the screen and not the screen
itself. Universal consciousness is not the everyday consciousness that is
referred to by the term "universal consciousness", that is why I and many
others use terms such as awareness, pure awareness or proto awareness to
make this clear. The everyday consciousness is very high level and
particularly human whereas the universal consciousness is the lowest level
substrate of our consciousness. Just as an AI character within a VR universe
may have many thoughts and experiences but the substrate of its mind is the
computational stream itself and that stream is the one essence that animates
all things in the VR universe.
Many western and westernised spiritual seekers that I have known have
confused their familiar consciousness with universal consciousness and
thereby thought that their particular mind and personality is in some way
timeless and universal. But the eastern mystic traditions make it very clear
that this high level consciousness is actually the functioning of the ego,
which is a particular thought construct within the mind. The mind itself is
a thought construct and is very high level and particular.
In Vedanta the mind is considered to be a part of the body - it is a part of
the "vehicle of manifestation" that is acquired on descent in manifestation
and it is totally destroyed upon leaving manifestation. It only leaves
traces called samskaras which are like eddies in the universal
consciousness. These eddies can then stir up turbulence that can then result
in the formation of further vehicles of manifestation. But the only thing
that is timeless is the universal consciousness itself. All else is just
patterns or eddies in the universal consciousness which can come and go. All
that has a beginning has an end and that which is truly real has neither
beginning nor end.
"The unreal never lived and the real never dies." (Nisargadatta Maharaj)
In yogic theory and in my own experience when one goes deep into one's
consciousness all thought stops, all sense of I or other stops. It is a
state of no-mind or sunnyata (voidness) within which no-thing exists at all,
neither self, other, thinker, thought or object of thought, neither does
space or time exist, there is no separation or extension and the pure
awareness operates only in the eternal Now. When expressed in words this all
sounds rather empty but the reason why these words are used is because the
reality cannot be positively referred to using words, which can only refer
to the objects of consciousness. It is really a state of absolute fullness
that can be loosely described as liberation (moksha), bliss (ananda) and
omnipresence but it is referred to as void because it is devoid of all
'things' which words can refer to. The Upanishads refer to it as "neti neti"
(not this, not that).
When meditating and in a state of oneness and voidness one is in tune with
the universal consciousness, one IS the universal consciousness because one
hasn't separated oneself from it by thinking or judging or discriminating.
But the moment one becomes aware of 'I' or 'objects' or 'thoughts' the
oneness is lost and one falls back into one's isolated everyday
consciousness. This is because the mind and the ego have become dominant and
the substrate of consciousness is obscured - just like how a movie screen is
no longer apparent once the movie begins - once the "chitta vritti"
(modifications of the thinking principle) begin the substrate (universal
consciousness) is obscured and we focus on the objects of awareness rather
than on the awareness itself. This is the 'everyday' state of consciousness.
That which people think of as 'I' and 'world' are really just images on the
screen and the real Self is the screen itself. Whilst the images come and go
the screen remains unchanged.
I am not advanced at meditation but countless yogis attest to the fact that
when in samadhi (at one with universal consciousness) there is no-mind,
no-thought, no personality and one is clearly aware of all things in their
innermost essence. One experiences one's own consciousness to be that which
is the essence of all things and that which permeates all things to the
point that there are no longer any things at all and there is only universal
consciousness. It is the common reality underlying all levels of
consciousness and all perceived forms from particles to galaxies.
Indeed, by a process called participative discrimination a yogi can
contemplate the essence of a particle or a galaxy or whatever and be at one
with it. They can BE it and know what it is to be a particle or a galaxy or
another person or whatever. But this only arises by stilling all high level
consciousness and delving down into the lowest levels that are universally
common to all things. But when, for example, being another person they
cannot know the high level consciousness of that person - that is too
particular, complex and arbitrary, but they can know the innermost 'essence'
of that person. But there are other high level 'psychic' means by which to
use high level consciousness to "peer into" another's high level
consciousness but that is something different to participative
discrimination.
So just as all outer forms such as people, planets and galaxies are "made
of" simple particles, so too are all inner forms such as the consciousness
of people, planets and galaxies also "made of" a very simple form of pure
awareness that is not active or discriminative in any sense but is often
referred to as the 'watcher' within all things.
Thus to say that universal consciousness is proto-awareness may seem to
denigrate it if one it attached to the experience of high level
consciousness - but it really could not be otherwise - just as the universe
isn't made of human-like forms, so too universal consciousness isn't made of
human-like consciousness. Because it is universal doesn't mean it has to be
'better' than human consciousness in terms of whatever we define to be
'better' - it is just universal.
There are other concepts mentioned by some Western esoteric traditions (e.g.
discussed by Alice Bailey). The general approach is to delve into the lowest
levels and find universality there but some Western traditions focus more on
the particular forms. They speak of an individual logos, national logos,
racial logos, planetary logos, solar logos, galactic logos and up to a
universal logos. But this latter isn't universal in the same sense as
universal consciousness. Each different logos represents the particular
consciousness of particular forms and the universal logos is the
consciousness of the universe as a whole. It is something that exists only
on the level of the universe as a whole, just as human consciousness exists
only on the level of humans and not on the level of particles.
Whereas universal consciousness is the 'substance' of all things that
permeates all things, the universal logos represents the high-level 'mind'
of the universe when it is considered as a single entity. These traditions
speak of the evolution toward higher-levels of 'mind' whereas the general
approach speaks of overcoming the illusions of mind to discern the universal
'substance' of existence. The particular western traditions that I am
referring to here also subscribe to the general approach but they also
describe phenomena within the virtual reality. This is parallel to the idea
of overcoming the virtual reality to discern the absolute reality.
> I don't consider humans to be partiularly
> intelligent...
> AI already is far more intelligent in
> certain respects (logical/mathematical
> reasoning and creativity primarily)
> than humans. Human intelligence will soon
> seem insignificant
> compared to machine intelligence.
I totally disagree with you about AI creativity being better than human
creativity and as for intelligence in general it really depends on what you
mean by intelligence. Because a pocket calculator can do sums better than a
human, does that make it more intelligent? Is doing sums and other
algorithmic computations a good measure of intelligence?
One of the best and simplest definitions of intelligence that I have heard
is "the ability to break out of loops". If you give a problem to a computer
it has incredible 'direct' computational capabilities (direct awareness) but
no awareness of its awareness, or awareness of its awareness of its
awareness and so on. It has no self awareness so if it gets caught in a loop
it keeps driving further into the loop whereas a human quickly realises they
are in a loop and they then break out of it and find another way to proceed.
Hmmm, but much of modern society is based on trapping people in loops but
that is a complex and tragic subject!
In terms of high level complexity and the depth of the feedback loops,
giving awareness, awareness of awareness, awareness of awareness of
awareness, ego, memory, intellect, conscious/subconscious, imagination,
intuition, complex language, perception of objects in space and time and so
on - we humans have the most high level consciousness and intelligence that
we know of. Many people make little use of their intellectual functions but
even just driving a car and navigating a city requires intelligence greater
than any other known form in the universe. A computer can navigate streets
but what if something out of the ordinary happens? Does the computer know
how to handle it? I know many humans would just seize up too but many would
do something, whether subtle or overt to deal with the situation, but the
computer would be just be totally out of its depth because the context has
become alien and incomprehensible, whereas the human intelligence is able to
adapt.
But the greatest use of human awareness and intelligence is to consciously
and fully connect with reality and become what people call 'enlightened'.
There are cases of dogs and cows and so on that have become enlightened due
to the synchronistic influence of an enlightened sage (i.e. Ramana Maharshi)
but we humans have the greatest chance of doing so. But we also have the
greatest chance of spiralling into delusion due to the complexity of our
minds. In many schools of Buddhism they stress over and over again just how
precious a human birth is and that one should make the most of it because if
one squanders it and "slips downwards", it may take millions of rebirths
until one gets another chance.
I personally don't care much for chances and consequences - I just flow with
the way because worrying only agitates the mind and ruins everything no
matter what it is that is actually real behind all the thoughts that we
think about it. I personally have a similar understanding to Ramana
Maharshi:
"Only those who think 'I am the body' talk of reincarnation. To those who
know 'I am the Self' there is no rebirth. Reincarnations only exist so long
as there is ignorance. There is no incarnation, either now, before or
hereafter. This is the truth."
I just let existence be and everything seems to work out as it must... :)
This is called "wu wei" in Daoism - it means flowing with the Way. In the
words of Tilopa a Buddhist:
"To transcend duality is the kingly view. To conquer distractions is the
royal practice. The path of no-practice is the way of all buddhas. He who
treads that path reaches buddhahood. [Oneness with universal consciousness]
If without effort you remain loosely in the natural state, soon Mahamudra
you will win and attain the nonattainment. [being real and not lost in
illusion]
To know what is beyond both mind and practice one should cut cleanly through
the root of mind [the ego or I-thought] and stare naked. One should thus
break away from all distinctions and remain at ease."
Namaste
John Ringland
http://www.anandavala.info
P.S. 'Namaste' can be roughly translated as God (universal consciousness)
within me recognises God (universal consciousness) within you. It's the
common 'hello' and 'goodbye' in India.
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>Before I get into the discussion I'll just clarify that due to the
>limitations of empiricist language I will refer to many different objects
>such as particles and people and so on but I in no way attribute these with
>ontological reality - they are just objects of perception that people have
>assumed to be ontological external objects. But underlying these 'objects'
>there is the actual reality, which is more like a complex 'dance' of cosmic
>awareness (related to quantum wavefunctions).
Quantum wave functions are a man-made fiction. I say what underlies
"objects" is conscious energy ... God stuff.
Sense of being a separate self is different from sense of self. All
consciousness manifest as an "object" has a "I am I" awareness ...
a sense of uniqueness. It also is capable of memory and thought.
>'Ego' means the 'I-thought' or any mind-based concept of self as opposed to
>not-self, so 'self' awareness inherently requires an ego and without an ego
>there can be no 'self' awareness.
No. See above.
>Awareness without ego is "pure awareness".
Yes.
>At the foetal stage of development it IS a part of the mother and it's quite
>likely that the thoughts within the infants mind are extremely unformed and
>it has yet to really begin to 'consider' anything in any way that we'd
>normally use the word 'consider'.
I disagree. I suspect that pure egoless awareness is quite brilliant
and clear in thought and memory.
>Certainly a particle cannot 'consider'
>anything in the normal way we use the word because it has no mind even
>though it has its 'share' of universal awareness.
It's simply a less complex gestalt of conscious energy but it
basically would have the same brilliant clarity of mind as the fetal
infant. It "considers" all other consciousness when behaving according
to the so-called laws of physics. It can be persuaded, as we see in
both quantum physics and paranormal pk research, to "change its mind"
to some extent.
>Something that comes to mind here is an experiment, discussed in one of
>those three books I mentioned to you in a recent post. I'll keep this short.
>It found that all living beings emit very faint EM radiation and this
>fluctuated according to the state of the organism. They found that they
>could burn the leaf of a plant and its field would show a pain response. But
>they also found that nearby plants showed the same pain response and even
>other animals and humans showed the same response. Even when measured miles
>aware there was the same response. So what one organism felt, all organisms
>felt. There was a constant non-local resonance between all life forms, from
>single cells to plants and humans and so on. There is a definite gestalt
>here but not on the level of the mind or of 'consideration'. It is much
>deeper than that. At a metaphysical, universal level that is pre-mind,
>pre-thought and pre-self. It operates at the level at which there are no
>selves, no minds and no thoughts. It seems to operate on the level of pure
>awareness and universal proto-awareness. It is at this level that
>consciousness is universal, not at the high-levels of mind, thought and
>self.
I hadn't heard of that experiment. I certainly disagree with your
interpretation of the results.
>But the point I was trying to make in the last post was:
>>> in my opinion the case of the
>>> hydraencephalics has profound
>>> implications on the nature of high
>>> level consciousness but it doesn't
>>> directly impact on the subject of
>>> universal consciousness.
>
>There are many ways of working toward universal consciousness but I don't
>think hydraencephalics is one of them,
My mention of hydraencphalics was simply to point out that 95%
of the brain can be missing and in some cases, the persons are
conscious (apparenly :)), have normal and even high IQs, and can
function well.
>It seems that we both subscribe to panpsychism but different kinds.
>Protopanpsychism (also called Protopanexperientialism) is the particular
>variety that best fits my approach and I don't know of a label that best
>fits your approach so I'll call it high-level panpsychism here just to
>distinguish it from the proto (low-level) variety.
>
>First I'll discuss outer forms. In my understanding the universe is
>structured such that simple things integrate to produce more complex
>things - such as particles integrating to give rise to atoms, molecules,
>..., people, planets, galaxies, ... etc. This is the essence of all
>scientific models and particularly systems theory. An example of this simple
>to complex nature is seen in the fact that particles are very simple in many
>ways and they lack internal complexity. This can be seen by taking any
>electron from any part of the universe and putting it in a particular
>context, say an electric field. They all behave EXACTLY the same regardless
>of where they are taken from and regardless of their previous history. This
>is not the case with different humans placed in identical contexts, who all
>behave differently.
More complex natural systems have more degrees of freedom. That
doesn't mean less complex natural systems don't have minds and
clarity of thought.
>> I don't consider humans to be partiularly
>> intelligent...
>> AI already is far more intelligent in
>> certain respects (logical/mathematical
>> reasoning and creativity primarily)
>> than humans. Human intelligence will soon
>> seem insignificant
>> compared to machine intelligence.
>
>I totally disagree with you about AI creativity being better than human
>creativity and as for intelligence in general it really depends on what you
>mean by intelligence. Because a pocket calculator can do sums better than a
>human, does that make it more intelligent? Is doing sums and other
>algorithmic computations a good measure of intelligence?
AI now will beat chess grand masters. AI found errors in Russell and
Whiteheads "Princpia Mathemtica" and creatively found additional
axioms in their set theory they hadn't thought of. For this kind of
logical and mathematical intelligence, AI intelligence will soon make
humans look like complete idiots :)
>Namaste
>John Ringland
>http://www.anandavala.info
Namaste, John. You're enough to tire an old man out with all your
verbiage :)
John Ringland
From your comments I suspect that you are talking about the universal logos
(mentioned in the last post) rather than universal consciousness. These are
different things. The concept of logos is mind oriented and it has memory
and thought but it manifests only in particular forms - e.g. your individual
logos is your everyday consciousness and it has mind, self, memory and
thought. All forms have a 'logos' in the terms in which that word is defined
by the western esoteric traditions that use it, everything from particles to
the whole universe has a logos, but a logos is specific to particular forms
and is not universal.
The universal logos is the "mind of the universe" but it isn't universal in
the sense of universal consciousness. The universal logos is tied to the
concept of the universe as a particular form and it operates only on the
level of the whole cosmos, but the universal consciousness is without form,
it is pre-form, it underlies all existence and happening, it is the
conscious energy that flows and permeates and animates all things. But it
has no mind, no self, no memory and no thought. It is PURE awareness. At the
level of universal consciousness there are no particles, people, places or
things of ANY kind. These words such as particle etc refer to outer forms
but there are no inner forms either such as mind, memory, thought,
intuition, imagination and so on. It underlies ALL these things and gives
rise to all these things but it does not possess any of the these qualities.
Just as it has no particleness it also has no mindness.
The universal consciousness is like a dance of light that is constantly
changing but remains essentially unchanged, whereas the universal logos is
the mind of the universe and it evolves and becomes more aware and sentient
and its sub forms (such as ouselves) become more aware and sentient.
So I suspect that we are talking about different things! But we are using
similar words for them.
Just a couple of points to clear up:
> Quantum wave functions are a man-made fiction.
I agree!
> I say what underlies
> "objects" is conscious energy ... God stuff.
All ideas and words are man-made fiction!!
That was the point I was making in that paragraph.
Energy, consciousness, God - these are all man-made fiction too. The reality
is beyond ideas and words but to discuss it we must use ideas and words to
point beyond the ideas and words. I just wanted to stress that my words were
just pointers.
> Sense of being a separate self is different from sense of self.
In what way? What is 'self' if not something that is discerned as distinct
from 'other'?
If there is no "Sense of being a separate self" then there is only Oneness
in which there is no self. The idea of individual 'self' is the fundamental
duality that gives rise to the whole dualistic realm - but the underlying
reality is non-dual.
There are vast tomes of intricate and subtle exploration of this subject and
accounts of personal experiences over thousands of years by mystics and they
all come to much the same conclusion. That ego creates all concepts of self
and without ego there is no self, there is only the cosmic Oneness, which
they sometimes refer to as the Supreme Self. But in the Supreme Self there
are no individual selves - a person has no self other than the ego.
> All
> consciousness manifest as an "object" has a "I am I" awareness ...
> a sense of uniqueness. It also is capable of memory and thought.
We differ greatly on this. I say that consciousness doesn't manifest as
objects at all !!! It is the mind that manifests objects! "with our thoughts
we make the world" (Buddha) The objects aren't actually there! They only
arise as perceptual illusions in our minds (they are reflections in the
mirror of the mind) and due to naive realism we attribute them with separate
external existence. We only do this because our egos have also attributed
ourselves with separate existence. Once the ego is overcome there are no
'objects' at all and there is no individual self to conceive of itself or of
objects - there is just the unified dance of universal consciousness. Buddha
said: "events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer of any
deed."
The whole idea of an 'external' world is just a logical outcome of
perceptual illusions and naive realism - it has NO existence of its own.
This is also the general mystic perspective on the relationship between
universal consciousness, the individual self and the phenomenal world. Only
universal consciousness actually exists and all the selves, objects and the
whole phenomenal world only have relative reality within the context of our
illusions.
We agree that:
>>Awareness without ego is "pure awareness".
But we must have very different associations with the term "pure awareness".
To me pure awareness is PURE awareness with NOTHING but awareness. There is
no mind, no self, no memory, no thought and so on - it is nothing but direct
simple awareness. This is the manner that it is used in mystic discourses.
For example, Chuang-Tzu put it: "The perfect man employs his mind as a
mirror. It grasps nothing; it refuses nothing. It receives but does not
keep." In this sense it is passive - it is the watcher - employing only pure
awareness without thought or memory. This is the state of deep meditation.
> I disagree. I suspect that pure egoless awareness is quite brilliant
> and clear in thought and memory.
How could this be? Thought and memory aren't some magical phenomena that
just come with awareness. They are very high-level modifications of
awareness. To use an analogy - pure awareness is like energy, say
electricity within a circuit. If the circuit is structured into something
like a computer then computation and memory arise but these things aren't
inherent in electricity. It is the same with "pure awareness". As it flows
through the cognitive circuitry of a mind it creates the capacity for
thought and memory.
> My mention of hydraencphalics was simply to point out that 95%
> of the brain can be missing and in some cases, the persons are
> conscious (apparenly :)), have normal and even high IQs, and can
> function well.
It is a fascinating and profound phenomenon - I agree :)
It blows apart the naïve idea that mind resides solely in the brain - but it
only has relevance to high-level consciousness.
> More complex natural systems have more degrees of freedom. That
> doesn't mean less complex natural systems don't have minds and
> clarity of thought.
I guess we have very different understandings of what is mind and thought.
To me they are not inherent qualities of existence. They are high level
forms that arise in very particular circumstances such as organic life. So
to me to say that a particle has mind and thought makes no sense at all. It
is permeated by proto-awareness because it is just a pattern of
proto-awareness - the whole cosmos is just a pattern of proto-awareness.
Some of these patterns have high level inner and outer forms such as bodies
and minds but all these forms are really just patterns of proto-awareness.
In this sense I say that all that truly exists is conscious energy and
EVERYTHING else is patterns within the dance of that energy. When these
patterns flow into a pattern such as the egoic mind that I call 'myself' the
'I' experiences objects of perception and it attributes those objects with
external existence - but in reality there is no 'I', there are no objects,
there is no external world, there is no mind, no thoughts, no time (which is
an artifact of memory) and no space (which is an artifact of 'objectified'
perception). It is ALL universal consciousness.
> AI now will beat chess grand masters. AI found errors in Russell and
> Whiteheads "Princpia Mathemtica" and creatively found additional
> axioms in their set theory they hadn't thought of. For this kind of
> logical and mathematical intelligence, AI intelligence will soon make
> humans look like complete idiots :)
These are all cases of following systematic algorithmic procedures - I see
nothing 'creative' about it.
> You're enough to tire an old man out with all your
> verbiage :)
Hehehehe :)
It's not easy when using words that implicitly reinforce the very illusions
that I am trying to dispel. If we were using a non-empiricist language I
could express myself VERY succinctly and empiricists would need to write
pages and pages.
But if you look into the rest of the last post I touch on issues that draw
out the nature of universal consciousness and the differences with the
universal logos.
Ciao
John
Art
<john.r...@anandavala.info> wrote:
>> Sense of being a separate self is different from sense of self.
>In what way? What is 'self' if not something that is discerned as distinct
>from 'other'?
I imagine a living cell's "sense of self" as being its "I am I"
awareness which is more of a sense of its uniqueness than a sense of
self. At the same time it associates itself with a larger energy
gestalt and knows that it is a portion of the larger gestalt.
It's the same sort of thing as in the adult human. We have a inner
spiritual core that knows we are unique spiritual entities, but are
part of a larger energy gestalt. A sense of separateness in humans
arises because of the necessity to function in physical reality with
the five senses. By age two (the "teribble twos" as my wife
calls it )) the outer ego has already become a selfish tyrant :)
The child is still though quite immersed in its "naive" world view
for quite a number of years. That's why "become as a child"
iis so important to spiritual understanding. The outer ego is
very flexible and it knows that it depends for its very existence
on the inner ego. So it's possible to expand it to allow
for mystical/spirtual experiences.
>> All
>> consciousness manifest as an "object" has a "I am I" awareness ...
>> a sense of uniqueness. It also is capable of memory and thought.
>
>We differ greatly on this. I say that consciousness doesn't manifest as
>objects at all !!! It is the mind that manifests objects!
Notice in my web page that I make no distinction between consciousness
and mind. When somebody says, "An idea comes to mind", isn't it the
same thing as saying "An idea surfaced to my conscious awareness"?
>> AI now will beat chess grand masters. AI found errors in Russell and
>> Whiteheads "Princpia Mathemtica" and creatively found additional
>> axioms in their set theory they hadn't thought of. For this kind of
>> logical and mathematical intelligence, AI intelligence will soon make
>> humans look like complete idiots :)
>These are all cases of following systematic algorithmic procedures - I see
>nothing 'creative' about it.
When a machine comes up with a previously unknown mathematical
theorem, I say it's creative, by definition.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg