Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >> > >>anders_lindman wrote: > >> > >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>anders_lindman wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > >>>> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > >>>>>>anders_lindman wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware of that > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>concept. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>that is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite regression of > >>>>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being aware of > >>>>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or > >>>>>>>>> > > rather all > > > >>>>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Lewis > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so > >>>>>>>> > >>>there > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience > >>>>>>>> > > as in > > > >>>>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is > >>>>>>>> > >>>aware of > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite > >>>>>>>> > >>>variety > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite > >>>>>>>> > > regression can > > > >>>>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I > >>>>>>>> > > wrote > > > >>>>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there always > >>>>>>> > >>>>>seems > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>however > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there would > >>>>>>> > >>>>>be no > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>experience. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > >>>>>>>>terminates infinite regression. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Lewis > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > >>>>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present > >>>>>> > > moment. We > > > >>>>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our > >>>>>> > > awareness of > > > >>>>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really know if > >>>>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > >>>>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the present > >>>>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>/AL > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Lewis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one > >>>>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the > >>>>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out > >>>>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of movement. In > >>>>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But that is > >>>>>only my speculation at the moment. > >>>>> > >>>>>/AL > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Anders, > >>>> > >>>>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, > >>> > > then is > > > >>>>it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of > >>> > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms > >>> > > described > > > >>>>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, > >>>>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? > >>>> > >>>>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? > >>>> > >>>>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? > >>>> > >>>>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above > >>> > >>>draws > >>> > >>> > >>>>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the > >>>>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? > >>>> > >>>>Lewis > >>> > >>> > >>>Hi Lewis, > >>> > >>>This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that > >>>awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to > >>>quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the > >>>Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] > >>>there " . > >>> > >>>Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon > >>>is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For > >>>example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a > >>>higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it > >>>means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The ability > >>>to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the > >>>resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. > >>>Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. > >>> > >>>/AL > >> > >> > >>Thank you Anders. > >> > >>And what about expression in the human appearances with the appearances > >>manifesting that expression in various ways? > >> > >>Lewis > > > > > > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of complexity. > > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part of > > a larger whole called human society. Awareness is only aware of > > complexity. Randomness, noise and chaos is never experienced because > > that is what is rejected by awarness. Every single experience in the > > universe is pure complexity. Random thermal noise in electronic > > circuits are not random at all. Infinite complexity may appear as > > randomness from a limited perspective. Natural disasters may appear as > > chaos from a limited perspective. Cancer in the human body may appear > > as cells making wrong decisions. Awareness never makes a wrong choice. > > > > How come then people are flawed, often downright evil? How come > > childern are born with handicap? What about wars? Terrorists? Famine? > > Suicides? AIDS? > > > > I believe what we see here on earth is only complexity reforming > > itself into a higher state of being. When a caterpillar dissolves > > inside its cocoon it looks like a mess inside, but the dissolving > > caterpillar is to become a beautiful butterfly. Then we might think: > > but why must humanity suffer so? But think again. What humanity? One > > awareness. One humanity. One soul. What about people who are dead? > > What dead people? One awareness. One awareness only. > > > > /AL > > Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be > experienced. > > A few questions on chaos. Is chaos, as a process (not state), only to be > seen as disordered and destructive especially when considered alone? > Considered with all, does it not appear to allow and contribute to > re-formations and constructions through breaking up? Is not war, an > enormously complicated set of responses to imbalances of all kinds, > chaos and part of it all? Does awareness reject this? Does awareness not > participate in this in some way? How can it not? > > Lewis I meant chaos as in randomness. There is also chaos in the form of " the Butterfly Effect " , which means unpredictability because of extreme sensitivity of variations in initial conditions. That kind of chaos is not randomness. That kind of chaos will also result in extreme imbalances, but _only_ from a limited point of view. Reality as a whole is always in perfect balance. A murderer, for example, is totally imbalanced and destructive, but _only_ from a limited point of view. This does not mean that we should accept murderers, it only means that we must look at the _total_ infinite picture before we can make divine judgements (which is not the same as ordinary judgements like putting a murderer into jail). /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>anders_lindman wrote: > > >> > > >>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>anders_lindman wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> > > >>>> > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>anders_lindman wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware > of that > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>concept. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>/AL > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the awareness > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>that is > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite > regression of > > >>>>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being > aware of > > >>>>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or > > >>>>>>>>> > > > rather all > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>Lewis > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to complexity so > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>there > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience > > >>>>>>>> > > > as in > > > > > >>>>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>aware of > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>variety > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite > > >>>>>>>> > > > regression can > > > > > >>>>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I > > >>>>>>>> > > > wrote > > > > > >>>>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>/AL > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there > always > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>seems > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of awareness, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>however > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there > would > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>be no > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>experience. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a posit > > >>>>>>>>terminates infinite regression. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>Lewis > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that > > >>>>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present > > >>>>>> > > > moment. We > > > > > >>>>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our > > >>>>>> > > > awareness of > > > > > >>>>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really > know if > > >>>>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that it is > > >>>>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the > present > > >>>>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>/AL > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Lewis > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one > > >>>>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness are the > > >>>>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out > > >>>>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of > movement. In > > >>>>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But > that is > > >>>>>only my speculation at the moment. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>/AL > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>Anders, > > >>>> > > >>>>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, > > >>> > > > then is > > > > > >>>>it safe to say that what is written above obviates considerations of > > >>> > > >>>the > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms > > >>> > > > described > > > > > >>>>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, > > >>>>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? > > >>>> > > >>>>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? > > >>>> > > >>>>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? > > >>>> > > >>>>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above > > >>> > > >>>draws > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the > > >>>>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? > > >>>> > > >>>>Lewis > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Hi Lewis, > > >>> > > >>>This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that > > >>>awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to > > >>>quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the > > >>>Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me [Christ/God] > > >>>there " . > > >>> > > >>>Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A holon > > >>>is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other whole. For > > >>>example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon on a > > >>>higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it > > >>>means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The > ability > > >>>to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the > > >>>resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. > > >>>Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. > > >>> > > >>>/AL > > >> > > >> > > >>Thank you Anders. > > >> > > >>And what about expression in the human appearances with the > appearances > > >>manifesting that expression in various ways? > > >> > > >>Lewis > > > > > > > > > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of complexity. > > > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part of > > > a larger whole called human society. Awareness is only aware of > > > complexity. Randomness, noise and chaos is never experienced because > > > that is what is rejected by awarness. Every single experience in the > > > universe is pure complexity. Random thermal noise in electronic > > > circuits are not random at all. Infinite complexity may appear as > > > randomness from a limited perspective. Natural disasters may appear as > > > chaos from a limited perspective. Cancer in the human body may appear > > > as cells making wrong decisions. Awareness never makes a wrong choice. > > > > > > How come then people are flawed, often downright evil? How come > > > childern are born with handicap? What about wars? Terrorists? Famine? > > > Suicides? AIDS? > > > > > > I believe what we see here on earth is only complexity reforming > > > itself into a higher state of being. When a caterpillar dissolves > > > inside its cocoon it looks like a mess inside, but the dissolving > > > caterpillar is to become a beautiful butterfly. Then we might think: > > > but why must humanity suffer so? But think again. What humanity? One > > > awareness. One humanity. One soul. What about people who are dead? > > > What dead people? One awareness. One awareness only. > > > > > > /AL > > > > Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be > > experienced. > > > > A few questions on chaos. Is chaos, as a process (not state), only > to be > > seen as disordered and destructive especially when considered alone? > > Considered with all, does it not appear to allow and contribute to > > re-formations and constructions through breaking up? Is not war, an > > enormously complicated set of responses to imbalances of all kinds, > > chaos and part of it all? Does awareness reject this? Does awareness > not > > participate in this in some way? How can it not? > > > > Lewis > > I meant chaos as in randomness. There is also chaos in the form of > " the Butterfly Effect " , which means unpredictability because of > extreme sensitivity of variations in initial conditions. That kind of > chaos is not randomness. That kind of chaos will also result in > extreme imbalances, but _only_ from a limited point of view. Reality > as a whole is always in perfect balance. A murderer, for example, is > totally imbalanced and destructive, but _only_ from a limited point of > view. This does not mean that we should accept murderers, it only > means that we must look at the _total_ infinite picture before we can > make divine judgements (which is not the same as ordinary judgements > like putting a murderer into jail). > > /AL So what I am saying is that awareness is infinite intelligence sorting out complexity out of randomness. There is no randomness in the universe because everything in awareness is complexity. Every single atom and every single quark is a part of a whole web of complexity. No chance. No accidents. No randomness. Awareness participate in the sense that awareness is infinite intelligence making the choices, _all_ choices, and all of them right choices. What about the wrong choices humans make? There are no wrong choices. No human has ever made any wrong choice. :-) /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2005 fmraerdy wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be > > experienced. > > Don't let it interfere with your daily dose of mental masturbation. > > " Drink this ocean " , may be a clever/poetic way of saying " I need to > think about this some more " , which is just a way the mind uses to > distract itself... yet again... with useless mind activity, covering > up the glaring fact that it hasn't a clue, but " I'm going to work on > it! " . > > (BUT, poets and plagiarists and prestidigitateurs need something to > distract the audience, don't they?) > > Hey, L: what's the difference between a physical male sex organ, and > a " penis " ? > > Or, if that one stumps you, how about masturbation, and " mental > masturbation. " > > (You could always drink that ocean, if you've got a few spare > lifetimes.) Hi fmraerdy, I drink does not mean in any way to think. That is your assumption. Drink means to experience as it is clearly stated. Penis and male sexual organ are the same. Masturbation is getting sexual pleasure by manually stimulating the genitals. " Mental masturbation " is unknown to me. If it akin to masturbation, what is being being stimulated and for what pleasure? You seem to know what it is since you label what I do here as that. Please explain. Do you have the experience of mental masturbation, fmraerdy? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > >>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >> >>> >>>anders_lindman wrote: >>> >>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> >>> > wrote: > >>>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> >>>>> >>wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> >>>>>>> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>anders_lindman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Awareness is a concept yes, but only awareness is aware >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>of that >> >>>>>>>>>>>>concept. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. And there is the awareness that is aware of the >>>>>>>>>>>> > awareness > >>>>>>>>that is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>aware of that concept. Does this lead to infinite >>>>>>>>>>>> >>regression of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>awareness being aware of awareness as concept or being >>>>>>>>>>>> >>aware of >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>awareness of another object? If the object awareness or >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>rather all >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>object are removed from awareness what is there? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I believe awareness can only exist in relation to >>>>>>>>>>> > complexity so > >>>>>>there >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>will then always be content, always be diversified experience >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>as in >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>being aware of objects. Awareness is the One Subject that is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>aware of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>itself through a reflection in phenomenal existence. Infinite >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>variety >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>is only in pheonomena, not in awareness. No infinite >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>regression can >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>appear in awareness. Awareness is the unmoved mover. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Or something like that. I am not _entirely_ sure about what I >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>above if it is correct or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Oh Anders. I agree that given what is at the moment there >>>>>>>>>> >>always >> >>>>>>>>seems >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>to be content of some sort and thus the experience of >>>>>>>>>> > awareness, > >>>>>>>>>>however >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>experienced, is present. If there were no appearances there >>>>>>>>>> >>would >> >>>>>>>>be no >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>awareness since these cannot be separated by definition or in >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>experience. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You have posited the unmoved mover like Aristotle. Such a >>>>>>>>>> > posit > >>>>>>>>>>>terminates infinite regression. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If we look at the present moment and awareness we can see that >>>>>>>>>>awareness never moves a single inch away from the present >>>>>>>>> >>>>moment. We >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>are aware of the world now. The world may move, but our >>>>>>>>> >>>>awareness of >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>it does not move away from the now. Maybe we cannot really >>>>>>>>> >>know if >> >>>>>>>>>>awareness is a mover, but at least we can directly see that >>>>>>>>> > it is > >>>>>>>>>>unmoved from the present moment, and all we know is in the >>>>>>>>> >>present >> >>>>>>>>>>moment. All we know about Aristotle is in the present moment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Are you then the unmoved mover? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My theory is that awareness is still and that there is only one >>>>>>>>awareness. With this idea, my awareness and your awareness >>>>>>> > are the > >>>>>>>>same awareness. This one awareness is what canstantly draws out >>>>>>>>complexity out of chaos and this gives the appearance of >>>>>>> >>movement. In >> >>>>>>>>this way we can say that awareness is the unmoved mover. But >>>>>>> >>that is >> >>>>>>>>only my speculation at the moment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>/AL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Anders, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If we stay within theory, within thought, language and concept, >>>>>> >>>>then is >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>it safe to say that what is written above obviates >>>>>> > considerations of > >>>>>>the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>realm of a-theistic Buddhism and lies somewhere in the realms >>>>>> >>>>described >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>by theologians, and philosophers as spiritual or absolute monism, >>>>>>>pantheism, some forms of monotheism, and possibly panentheism? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are these theories and perspectives familiar to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And if they are, do you favor, in theory, one or another? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And can it be said in theory that the awareness spoken about above >>>>>> >>>>>>draws >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>out complexity and also expresses in the appearances with the >>>>>>>appearances manifesting that expression in various ways? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Lewis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi Lewis, >>>>>> >>>>>>This view can probably be described as a form of monism in that >>>>>>awareness drawing out complexity can be seen as one system. Or, to >>>>>>quote Meister Eckhart: " Only God can say I am " - together with the >>>>>>Gospel of Thomas: " Pick up a stone and you will find me >>>>> > [Christ/God] > >>>>>>there " . >>>>>> >>>>>>Complexity can be described as information that forms holons. A >>>>> > holon > >>>>>>is itself a whole and simultaneously a part of some other >>>>> > whole. For > >>>>>>example, a molecule in a cell is a holon, and a cell is a holon >>>>> > on a > >>>>>>higher level. If awareness is the capacity to form holons, then it >>>>>>means that awareness implicit is in the holons themselves. The >>>>> >>ability >> >>>>>>to sort out order/complexity from chaos is implicit a part of the >>>>>>resulting order/complexity. This ability could be called free will. >>>>>>Free will is what chooses complexity out of chaos. >>>>>> >>>>>>/AL >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thank you Anders. >>>>> >>>>>And what about expression in the human appearances with the >>>> >>appearances >> >>>>>manifesting that expression in various ways? >>>>> >>>>>Lewis >>>> >>>> >>>>Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of >>> > complexity. > >>>>One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a >>> > part of > >>>>a larger whole called human society. Awareness is only aware of >>>>complexity. Randomness, noise and chaos is never experienced because >>>>that is what is rejected by awarness. Every single experience in the >>>>universe is pure complexity. Random thermal noise in electronic >>>>circuits are not random at all. Infinite complexity may appear as >>>>randomness from a limited perspective. Natural disasters may >>> > appear as > >>>>chaos from a limited perspective. Cancer in the human body may >>> > appear > >>>>as cells making wrong decisions. Awareness never makes a wrong >>> > choice. > >>>>How come then people are flawed, often downright evil? How come >>>>childern are born with handicap? What about wars? Terrorists? >>> > Famine? > >>>>Suicides? AIDS? >>>> >>>>I believe what we see here on earth is only complexity reforming >>>>itself into a higher state of being. When a caterpillar dissolves >>>>inside its cocoon it looks like a mess inside, but the dissolving >>>>caterpillar is to become a beautiful butterfly. Then we might think: >>>>but why must humanity suffer so? But think again. What humanity? One >>>>awareness. One humanity. One soul. What about people who are dead? >>>>What dead people? One awareness. One awareness only. >>>> >>>>/AL >>> >>>Silence again Anders. it will take time to drink this ocean, to be >>>experienced. >>> >>>A few questions on chaos. Is chaos, as a process (not state), only >> >>to be >> >>>seen as disordered and destructive especially when considered alone? >>>Considered with all, does it not appear to allow and contribute to >>>re-formations and constructions through breaking up? Is not war, an >>>enormously complicated set of responses to imbalances of all kinds, >>>chaos and part of it all? Does awareness reject this? Does awareness >> >>not >> >>>participate in this in some way? How can it not? >>> >>>Lewis >> >>I meant chaos as in randomness. There is also chaos in the form of >> " the Butterfly Effect " , which means unpredictability because of >>extreme sensitivity of variations in initial conditions. That kind of >>chaos is not randomness. That kind of chaos will also result in >>extreme imbalances, but _only_ from a limited point of view. Reality >>as a whole is always in perfect balance. A murderer, for example, is >>totally imbalanced and destructive, but _only_ from a limited point of >>view. This does not mean that we should accept murderers, it only >>means that we must look at the _total_ infinite picture before we can >>make divine judgements (which is not the same as ordinary judgements >>like putting a murderer into jail). >> >>/AL > > > So what I am saying is that awareness is infinite intelligence sorting > out complexity out of randomness. There is no randomness in the > universe because everything in awareness is complexity. Every single > atom and every single quark is a part of a whole web of complexity. No > chance. No accidents. No randomness. Awareness participate in the > sense that awareness is infinite intelligence making the choices, > _all_ choices, and all of them right choices. What about the wrong > choices humans make? There are no wrong choices. No human has ever > made any wrong choice. :-) > > /AL I understand. We are coming full circle to things are as they are. Any going out will only result in coming back in a circle to the indescribable at the individual level since this level cannot conceive the infinite and only limited perspectives obtain. Lewis Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Anders wrote: " Oh no. I cannot die. I am awareness. Listen to Nisargadatta " . What would have happened if Nisargadatta told you that you have two noses, would you have believed it ? No, you wouldn't because you are not interested in two noses - but you are damn interested in eternal life, right ? And as soon as someone seems to promise you such eternal life then your common sense says good bye and Fairy-Tale- Anders will suck in such promises. What about this one ?: " Who follows me will gain eternal life " . But ok: What has Niz meant with awareness ? Does awarenes without a content make any sense ? Defenitely not. Or was awareness for Niz just the noumenon, the unmanifested, the source, the nothingness when manifested it will be awareness=content which then is the I AM or one- ness and yet you are beyond of one-ness as nothingness, as the source, as the potentiality of the unmanifested. Awareness does not exist on its own as a manifestation and if you are awareness then you don't exist - thats all. But you, Anders, believe that awareness exists as a separate thing as kind of mirror where the world is reflected in and when you die you will be still aware. Maybe in an alternative world or in a separate reality. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " fmraerdy " <mybox234@b...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Hey AL, what's cookin'? > > > > > Awareness knows itself as complexity and as the creator of > > complexity. > > > > Oh... that's obvious... brain cells... > > > > > One form of complexity is the human body and mind, which is a part > > of > > > a larger whole called human society. > > > > It's not so much that everything (read: EVERYTHING) you write, hour > > after hour, day after day (just like AC, have you met AC?) is a load > > of semi-smoldering ashes (from those cooked brain cells, no doubt) > > amounting to " nothing at all " (useful, that is), it's that you (and > > AC, have you met AC?) don't seem to " catch on " to that > > semi-smoldering FACT (even when people point it out to you) and > > cauterize your wounds. > > > > " Which wounds? " you ask. > > > > To wit: > > > Awareness is only aware of complexity. Randomness, noise and > > > chaos is never experienced because that is what is rejected > > > by awarness. > > > > No it isn't!! > > And, even if it was " all that " you wouldn't be able to mention it. > > Yet, with " all that " , you continue to apply the scalpel to your own > > gray matter, insistent on being just another " poor soul " dying on the > > vine, from the slow death of a thousand cuts. > > > > Ho hummmmmmmmmmm. > > Oh no. I cannot die. I am awareness. Listen to Nisargadatta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >What would have happened if Nisargadatta told you that you have two >noses, would you have believed it ? No, you wouldn't because you are >not interested in two noses - but you are damn interested in eternal >life, right ? And as soon as someone seems to promise you such >eternal life then your common sense says good bye and Fairy-Tale- >Anders will suck in such promises. What about this one ?: Good morning Werner, but what is your personal experience. Is not your belief that everything will vanish with your physical dead. You have once written to me " the whole world is in your head " . As long you are believing in this idea, you consequently have to say " with the ceasing of the brain functions everything will die. " But what does this idea represent, is this your experience? Or is it not rather a belief, a theory? What would be left if you drop it? Are you afraid that then you might find that you are already dead, or dying any moment? Maybe your theory is a creation of your fear of dying, too. >Awareness does not exist on its own as a manifestation and if you are >awareness then you don't exist - thats all. Do you believe that you ... we... exist, Werner? Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Hi Stefan, Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I go with Pete: We do not know. So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >What would have happened if Nisargadatta told you that you have two > >noses, would you have believed it ? No, you wouldn't because you are > >not interested in two noses - but you are damn interested in eternal > >life, right ? And as soon as someone seems to promise you such > >eternal life then your common sense says good bye and Fairy-Tale- > >Anders will suck in such promises. What about this one ?: > > Good morning Werner, > > but what is your personal experience. Is not your belief that > everything will vanish with your physical dead. You have once written > to me " the whole world is in your head " . As long you are believing in > this idea, you consequently have to say " with the ceasing of the brain > functions everything will die. " But what does this idea represent, is > this your experience? Or is it not rather a belief, a theory? What > would be left if you drop it? Are you afraid that then you might find > that you are already dead, or dying any moment? Maybe your theory is a > creation of your fear of dying, too. > > >Awareness does not exist on its own as a manifestation and if you are > >awareness then you don't exist - thats all. > > Do you believe that you ... we... exist, Werner? > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I go >with Pete: We do not know. > >So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and >when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist I dont understand. Your belief is " I am " , could you explain in which sense it is a belief. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Ok Stefan, As so often I was not precise enough, just muddling along again. When I wrote " I AM and I don't exist " then this is not a belief. Niz has described it as " I am one with, and yet beyond the world " . Werner Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > >Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I > go > >with Pete: We do not know. > > > >So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and > >when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist > > I dont understand. Your belief is " I am " , could you explain in which > sense it is a belief. > > Greetings > Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 In a message dated 2/23/05 2:43:52 AM, wwoehr writes: > >Hi Stefan, > > >Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I go > >with Pete: We do not know. > > >So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and > >when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist > > >Werner > Hi Werner, Since you mentioned my name, here I pop up like a genii out of a bottle. Let's talk a little bit about beliefs. There are beliefs which are based on emotions and hope, and there are beliefs which are based on experience, and logic. I belief that a drive to Los Angeles in non-rush hour traffic would take me less than three hour. This is a belief because I can't be certain it would happen that way. It has been often the case, but traffic might be heavier than expected. So, even if it's reasonable to believe so, I can't be sure. In the same way, I know, and have experienced that my awareness of what I call 'myself' depends on the brain's consciousness and memory. Two faculties that disappear if the brain is anesthetized or suffered with a heavy blow, and I have experienced both, so it's logical two conclude that death will do the same. On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping for emotional reasons. The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear of death that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. Pete Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 In a message dated 2/23/05 10:28:37 AM, writes: > When I wrote " I AM and I don't exist " then this is not a belief. Niz > has described it as " I am one with, and yet beyond the world " . > > Werner > > > P: Are sure is not a belief? There are perceptions, and only perceptions. > Out of this sea of perceptions, a perceiver is extrapolated, extruded > like a wave out of the see. I perceive, therefore, I am. Is that a valid > proposition? Could not perceptions and the perceived be an indivisible > happening, and the perceiver be only a mirage, a ghost image? > If that is so, who is there to survive? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: >When I wrote " I AM and I don't exist " then this is not a belief. Niz >has described it as " I am one with, and yet beyond the world " . If you experience that you do not exist, how can you say you will die. How can something die that does not exist. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > >>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: .... > > > > > > So what I am saying is that awareness is infinite intelligence sorting > > out complexity out of randomness. There is no randomness in the > > universe because everything in awareness is complexity. Every single > > atom and every single quark is a part of a whole web of complexity. No > > chance. No accidents. No randomness. Awareness participate in the > > sense that awareness is infinite intelligence making the choices, > > _all_ choices, and all of them right choices. What about the wrong > > choices humans make? There are no wrong choices. No human has ever > > made any wrong choice. :-) > > > > /AL > > > I understand. We are coming full circle to things are as they are. Any > going out will only result in coming back in a circle to the > indescribable at the individual level since this level cannot conceive > the infinite and only limited perspectives obtain. > > Lewis > We can use science to understand the infinite in a logical way, which is not the same as spiritual realisation, but can be helpful in understanding the immense power of the universe. Quantum mechanics has shown that when anything materialize in the physical universe, then there is a collapse of a wave function. From an infinite set of probabilities, one probability is chosen making the wave function take on a physical manifestation. The physical universe is a coherent structure of particles, space, time, energy e t c with everything extremely well put together. The computer screen in front of me is holding together, and there must be some advanced collapsing of wave functions to make the computer screen hold together in the way it does. The computer screen is held together even as time passes by. The computer screen does not suddenly turn into an apple or into a chaotic mesh of random particles. We can see that everything, like the computer screen is held together in a very advanced way. We can also see the whole universe as objects neatly ordered. This means that the collapse of wavefunctions is perhaps the collapse of one coherent gigantic wave function that encompasses the whole universe. In order to collapse this wave function in a proper manner, a procedure advanced beyond imagination is required. If the wave function is collapsed in a wrong way, my computer screen would instantly become a chaotic mess of random particles/waves. The same with my body. The same with the entire earth, moon, sun and stars. The capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe we can call God. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders wrote: > > " Oh no. I cannot die. I am awareness. Listen to Nisargadatta " . > > What would have happened if Nisargadatta told you that you have two > noses, would you have believed it ? No, you wouldn't because you are > not interested in two noses - but you are damn interested in eternal > life, right ? And as soon as someone seems to promise you such > eternal life then your common sense says good bye and Fairy-Tale- > Anders will suck in such promises. What about this one ?: > > " Who follows me will gain eternal life " . > > But ok: > What has Niz meant with awareness ? Does awarenes without a content > make any sense ? Defenitely not. Or was awareness for Niz just the > noumenon, the unmanifested, the source, the nothingness when > manifested it will be awareness=content which then is the I AM or one- > ness and yet you are beyond of one-ness as nothingness, as the > source, as the potentiality of the unmanifested. > > Awareness does not exist on its own as a manifestation and if you are > awareness then you don't exist - thats all. > > But you, Anders, believe that awareness exists as a separate thing as > kind of mirror where the world is reflected in and when you die you > will be still aware. Maybe in an alternative world or in a separate > reality. > > Werner I find the sense of being self-aware to be a very advanced property, more advanced than any brain could ever produce. I suspect that the power that collapses the quantum mechanical wave function of the universe is awareness itself. The physical universe is a subset of information extremely well chosen from a set of infinite probabilites. The human brain/body is information ordered as complexity. The entire physical universe is information ordered as complexity. There is no real separation between my brain/body and the rest of the physical universe. The physical universe cannot be destroyed because it is just information experienced by awareness. That's what is meant by Maya. Think of awareness as a computer and the physical universe as a virtual reality simulation in that computer. In a computer game we can crash a car, for example, but that car is just information in a computer program. The same with the physical human body - it is just information experienced by awareness. Nothing physical has any real independent existence as real objects. There are no real objects. Just as a car in a computer game is no separate object. Nothing can be killed. Nothing can be destroyed. It's all a gigantic computer game created and experienced by awareness. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Pete, Yes no objection, but when I get asked about something I did experience myself then I have to say it is not a belief. And I only can hope that the questioner then won't start a discussion about delusion and illusion or reality and truth... argh Werner Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/05 2:43:52 AM, wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > >Hi Stefan, > > > > >Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I go > > >with Pete: We do not know. > > > > >So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and > > >when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist > > > > >Werner > > > Hi Werner, > > Since you mentioned my name, here I pop up like a genii out of a bottle. > Let's talk a little bit about beliefs. There are beliefs which are based > on emotions and hope, and there are beliefs which are based on > experience, and logic. I belief that a drive to Los Angeles in non- rush > hour traffic would take me less than three hour. This is a belief because > I can't be certain it would happen that way. It has been often the case, > but traffic might be heavier than expected. So, even if it's reasonable > to believe so, I can't be sure. In the same way, I know, and have > experienced that my awareness of what I call 'myself' > depends on the brain's consciousness and memory. Two faculties that > disappear if the brain is anesthetized or suffered with a heavy blow, and > I > have experienced both, so it's logical two conclude that death will do > the same. > > On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness > would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping > for emotional reasons. The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct > of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear of death > that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. > > Pete > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >> >>anders_lindman wrote: >> >>>Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " >>><anders_lindman> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: >>> > ... > >>> >>>So what I am saying is that awareness is infinite intelligence sorting >>>out complexity out of randomness. There is no randomness in the >>>universe because everything in awareness is complexity. Every single >>>atom and every single quark is a part of a whole web of complexity. No >>>chance. No accidents. No randomness. Awareness participate in the >>>sense that awareness is infinite intelligence making the choices, >>>_all_ choices, and all of them right choices. What about the wrong >>>choices humans make? There are no wrong choices. No human has ever >>>made any wrong choice. :-) >>> >>>/AL >> >> >>I understand. We are coming full circle to things are as they are. Any >>going out will only result in coming back in a circle to the >>indescribable at the individual level since this level cannot conceive >>the infinite and only limited perspectives obtain. >> >>Lewis >> > > > We can use science to understand the infinite in a logical way, which > is not the same as spiritual realisation, but can be helpful in > understanding the immense power of the universe. > > Quantum mechanics has shown that when anything materialize in the > physical universe, then there is a collapse of a wave function. From > an infinite set of probabilities, one probability is chosen making the > wave function take on a physical manifestation. The physical universe > is a coherent structure of particles, space, time, energy e t c with > everything extremely well put together. The computer screen in front > of me is holding together, and there must be some advanced collapsing > of wave functions to make the computer screen hold together in the way > it does. The computer screen is held together even as time passes by. > The computer screen does not suddenly turn into an apple or into a > chaotic mesh of random particles. > > We can see that everything, like the computer screen is held together > in a very advanced way. We can also see the whole universe as objects > neatly ordered. This means that the collapse of wavefunctions is > perhaps the collapse of one coherent gigantic wave function that > encompasses the whole universe. In order to collapse this wave > function in a proper manner, a procedure advanced beyond imagination > is required. If the wave function is collapsed in a wrong way, my > computer screen would instantly become a chaotic mess of random > particles/waves. The same with my body. The same with the entire > earth, moon, sun and stars. > > The capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe > we can call God. > > /AL The infinite has not been conceived in your example Anders. Infinite is not conceivable by definition (extending indefinitely, endless, immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive, inexhaustible, subject to no limitation or external determination) and given the limits of language and concept and the notions of time and space needed to express anything, it is not expressible without limiting it as you have unavoidably done. All that is expressed in words is limited and bounded, even poetry, metaphor, and paradox, which, perhaps, gets us closer than explanations of what you aim to understand and conceive, and we make the stories for understanding not finality which contradicts infinity. Your example is akin to St. Thomas Aquinas' fifth argument for the existence of God where reason is applied to what is perceived as the " governance of things. " In this argument or story Aquinas argues briefly that non-cognitive things such as natural phenomena work toward an end or goal in that, they act the same way always and not randomly or by chance or accidentally, like your computer screen and, therefore, by design. Such non-thinking things, knowing nothing, keep their shape (a goal?) only if there is supportive guidance by a being that knows and understands and has power to do make it so. In this reasoning, Aquinas (and Anders) posits that there is a " God " ( or in Anders case, the capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe) which is that who or that that which orders all natural things in the way they are and do to the ends they attain whatever they are conceived to be. Adding quantum mechanics to this story modernizes it and it is the same story nonetheless. It is venerable story in some quarters. Let us back up a bit to experience. We see a computer monitor before us. We see it over a period of time, from many different angles and record all the details about. It retains its shape. How? Is there anything in your direct experience of it that tells you how it retains its shape? What would those items be? And what other stories are possible? Can you provide a different explanation of this phenomena? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > anders_lindman wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > >> > >>anders_lindman wrote: > >> > >>>Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > >>><anders_lindman> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > >>> > > ... > > > >>> > >>>So what I am saying is that awareness is infinite intelligence sorting > >>>out complexity out of randomness. There is no randomness in the > >>>universe because everything in awareness is complexity. Every single > >>>atom and every single quark is a part of a whole web of complexity. No > >>>chance. No accidents. No randomness. Awareness participate in the > >>>sense that awareness is infinite intelligence making the choices, > >>>_all_ choices, and all of them right choices. What about the wrong > >>>choices humans make? There are no wrong choices. No human has ever > >>>made any wrong choice. :-) > >>> > >>>/AL > >> > >> > >>I understand. We are coming full circle to things are as they are. Any > >>going out will only result in coming back in a circle to the > >>indescribable at the individual level since this level cannot conceive > >>the infinite and only limited perspectives obtain. > >> > >>Lewis > >> > > > > > > We can use science to understand the infinite in a logical way, which > > is not the same as spiritual realisation, but can be helpful in > > understanding the immense power of the universe. > > > > Quantum mechanics has shown that when anything materialize in the > > physical universe, then there is a collapse of a wave function. From > > an infinite set of probabilities, one probability is chosen making the > > wave function take on a physical manifestation. The physical universe > > is a coherent structure of particles, space, time, energy e t c with > > everything extremely well put together. The computer screen in front > > of me is holding together, and there must be some advanced collapsing > > of wave functions to make the computer screen hold together in the way > > it does. The computer screen is held together even as time passes by. > > The computer screen does not suddenly turn into an apple or into a > > chaotic mesh of random particles. > > > > We can see that everything, like the computer screen is held together > > in a very advanced way. We can also see the whole universe as objects > > neatly ordered. This means that the collapse of wavefunctions is > > perhaps the collapse of one coherent gigantic wave function that > > encompasses the whole universe. In order to collapse this wave > > function in a proper manner, a procedure advanced beyond imagination > > is required. If the wave function is collapsed in a wrong way, my > > computer screen would instantly become a chaotic mess of random > > particles/waves. The same with my body. The same with the entire > > earth, moon, sun and stars. > > > > The capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe > > we can call God. > > > > /AL > > The infinite has not been conceived in your example Anders. Infinite is > not conceivable by definition (extending indefinitely, endless, > immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive, inexhaustible, subject > to no limitation or external determination) and given the limits of > language and concept and the notions of time and space needed to express > anything, it is not expressible without limiting it as you have > unavoidably done. All that is expressed in words is limited and bounded, > even poetry, metaphor, and paradox, which, perhaps, gets us closer than > explanations of what you aim to understand and conceive, and we make the > stories for understanding not finality which contradicts infinity. > > Your example is akin to St. Thomas Aquinas' fifth argument for the > existence of God where reason is applied to what is perceived as the > " governance of things. " In this argument or story Aquinas argues briefly > that non-cognitive things such as natural phenomena work toward an end > or goal in that, they act the same way always and not randomly or by > chance or accidentally, like your computer screen and, therefore, by > design. Such non-thinking things, knowing nothing, keep their shape (a > goal?) only if there is supportive guidance by a being that knows and > understands and has power to do make it so. In this reasoning, Aquinas > (and Anders) posits that there is a " God " ( or in Anders case, the > capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe) which > is that who or that that which orders all natural things in the way > they are and do to the ends they attain whatever they are conceived to > be. Adding quantum mechanics to this story modernizes it and it is the > same story nonetheless. It is venerable story in some quarters. > > Let us back up a bit to experience. We see a computer monitor before us. > We see it over a period of time, from many different angles and record > all the details about. It retains its shape. How? Is there anything in > your direct experience of it that tells you how it retains its shape? > What would those items be? And what other stories are possible? Can you > provide a different explanation of this phenomena? > > Lewis I think what happens, if we look at it from the perspective of quantum mechanics, is that the collapse of the wave function is a single event, and that single collapse _includes_ all the past, all past views of the computer monitor, for example. I even suspect one can say that the entire motion of time is a single collapse, a single event. That collapse in its entirety is one single event of extracting complexity out of a pool of infinite possibilities. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 anders_lindman wrote: >>>We can use science to understand the infinite in a logical way, which >>>is not the same as spiritual realisation, but can be helpful in >>>understanding the immense power of the universe. >>> >>>Quantum mechanics has shown that when anything materialize in the >>>physical universe, then there is a collapse of a wave function. From >>>an infinite set of probabilities, one probability is chosen making the >>>wave function take on a physical manifestation. The physical universe >>>is a coherent structure of particles, space, time, energy e t c with >>>everything extremely well put together. The computer screen in front >>>of me is holding together, and there must be some advanced collapsing >>>of wave functions to make the computer screen hold together in the way >>>it does. The computer screen is held together even as time passes by. >>>The computer screen does not suddenly turn into an apple or into a >>>chaotic mesh of random particles. >>> >>>We can see that everything, like the computer screen is held together >>>in a very advanced way. We can also see the whole universe as objects >>>neatly ordered. This means that the collapse of wavefunctions is >>>perhaps the collapse of one coherent gigantic wave function that >>>encompasses the whole universe. In order to collapse this wave >>>function in a proper manner, a procedure advanced beyond imagination >>>is required. If the wave function is collapsed in a wrong way, my >>>computer screen would instantly become a chaotic mess of random >>>particles/waves. The same with my body. The same with the entire >>>earth, moon, sun and stars. >>> >>>The capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe >>>we can call God. >>> >>>/AL >> >>The infinite has not been conceived in your example Anders. Infinite is >>not conceivable by definition (extending indefinitely, endless, >>immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive, inexhaustible, > > subject > >>to no limitation or external determination) and given the limits of >>language and concept and the notions of time and space needed to > > express > >>anything, it is not expressible without limiting it as you have >>unavoidably done. All that is expressed in words is limited and > > bounded, > >>even poetry, metaphor, and paradox, which, perhaps, gets us closer than >>explanations of what you aim to understand and conceive, and we make > > the > >>stories for understanding not finality which contradicts infinity. >> >>Your example is akin to St. Thomas Aquinas' fifth argument for the >>existence of God where reason is applied to what is perceived as the >> " governance of things. " In this argument or story Aquinas argues > > briefly > >>that non-cognitive things such as natural phenomena work toward an end >>or goal in that, they act the same way always and not randomly or by >>chance or accidentally, like your computer screen and, therefore, by >>design. Such non-thinking things, knowing nothing, keep their shape (a >>goal?) only if there is supportive guidance by a being that knows and >>understands and has power to do make it so. In this reasoning, Aquinas >>(and Anders) posits that there is a " God " ( or in Anders case, the >>capability to exactly collapse the wave function of the universe) which >>is that who or that that which orders all natural things in the way >>they are and do to the ends they attain whatever they are conceived to >>be. Adding quantum mechanics to this story modernizes it and it is the >>same story nonetheless. It is venerable story in some quarters. >> >>Let us back up a bit to experience. We see a computer monitor before > > us. > >>We see it over a period of time, from many different angles and record >>all the details about. It retains its shape. How? Is there anything in >>your direct experience of it that tells you how it retains its shape? >>What would those items be? And what other stories are possible? Can you >>provide a different explanation of this phenomena? >> >>Lewis > > > I think what happens, if we look at it from the perspective of quantum > mechanics, is that the collapse of the wave function is a single > event, and that single collapse _includes_ all the past, all past > views of the computer monitor, for example. > > I even suspect one can say that the entire motion of time is a single > collapse, a single event. That collapse in its entirety is one single > event of extracting complexity out of a pool of infinite possibilities. > > /AL I understand what you think about collapsing wave wave function. I would like to know your simple experience. When I experience the computer monitor, Anders, it does not change shape. I measured it several times. I do not know how the monitor retains its shape by looking at it, touching it, smelling it, listening to it, or tasting it in other ways that I experience it. The experience of it in this way gives no idea how it appears as it does. The appearance is there and it is there as it is. Do you experience this, Anders? Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: >On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness >would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping >for emotional reasons. Although I dont believe anything llke this, I would like to point you to the word " hope " , which you have used assuming such a motivation without further investigation. >The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct >of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear of >death that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. Now this for sure is a belief of yours, Pete, although I admit in your favor that it is widely spread. But the high rate of suicides, not to speak of suicidal behaviour or unbearable living conditions are facts, that do not support your assumtion. Greetings Stefan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > .... > > I understand what you think about collapsing wave wave function. > > I would like to know your simple experience. > > When I experience the computer monitor, Anders, it does not change > shape. I measured it several times. I do not know how the monitor > retains its shape by looking at it, touching it, smelling it, listening > to it, or tasting it in other ways that I experience it. The experience > of it in this way gives no idea how it appears as it does. The > appearance is there and it is there as it is. Do you experience this, > Anders? > > Lewis Interesting kind of observation you mention. I don't quite know what you mean, but I get the idea of to somehow taste the changelessness of objects; a kind of directness of experiencing the world. And that directness leaves no room for objective measurements, which would only pollute the directness. /AL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > ... > > > > I understand what you think about collapsing wave wave function. > > > > I would like to know your simple experience. > > > > When I experience the computer monitor, Anders, it does not change > > shape. I measured it several times. I do not know how the monitor > > retains its shape by looking at it, touching it, smelling it, listening > > to it, or tasting it in other ways that I experience it. The experience > > of it in this way gives no idea how it appears as it does. The > > appearance is there and it is there as it is. Do you experience this, > > Anders? > > > > Lewis > > Interesting kind of observation you mention. I don't quite know what > you mean, but I get the idea of to somehow taste the changelessness of > objects; a kind of directness of experiencing the world. And that > directness leaves no room for objective measurements, which would only > pollute the directness. > > /AL It seems to me Anders that experience with the five senses and other senses of the appearances does not provide information that tells about it. So that every appearance is a mystery. It exists and that is the initial experience. Then there is wonder or not about an appearance and wonder leads to examination and discovery and experimentation, description, definition, explanations, stories, use and preference and the like. So the initial state is ignorance. Then there is all the rest, the complexity as you call it, when there is more than an initial response to an experience. If we experience a rabid dog or violent person we have different initial experiences and all of what is undergone can be that of ignorance, not knowing what is going on with the appearances in fornt of us or with the experience undergone. That is, the reactions that emerge when undergoing an experience of a rabid dog or violent person. We have initial ignorance then we label and describe to ourselves or have others describe us and so forth and we come to identify all with these labels, descriptions, explanations, etc which are secondary to the initial ignorance. So there is the computer monitor as an initial experience that is primary and then there are all the explanations, identifications etc. that follow. There is nothing polluting about objective measurements or any sort of measurement. It is something done and has its uses. If one measures wrongly and believes that the measurement is correct then there are consequences. Improper measurement in construction, aerospace, pharmacy, medicine, and so on has consequences. Other sorts of thinking and doing has its consequences as well. I was interested in the items you had in your initial experience that allowed you to think of quantum mechanics in relation to a computer monitor that does not change shape. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/05 2:43:52 AM, wwoehr@p... writes: > > > > >Hi Stefan, > > > > >Yes, this is a common discussion, what happens after death. Here I go > > >with Pete: We do not know. > > > > >So we only can speak about our beliefs, and my belief is I AM and > > >when I died I AM is gone. I am and I don't exist > > > > >Werner > > > Hi Werner, > > Since you mentioned my name, here I pop up like a genii out of a bottle. > Let's talk a little bit about beliefs. There are beliefs which are based > on emotions and hope, and there are beliefs which are based on > experience, and logic. I belief that a drive to Los Angeles in non-rush > hour traffic would take me less than three hour. This is a belief because > I can't be certain it would happen that way. It has been often the case, > but traffic might be heavier than expected. So, even if it's reasonable > to believe so, I can't be sure. In the same way, I know, and have > experienced that my awareness of what I call 'myself' > depends on the brain's consciousness and memory. Two faculties that > disappear if the brain is anesthetized or suffered with a heavy blow, and > I > have experienced both, so it's logical two conclude that death will do > the same. > > On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness > would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping > for emotional reasons. The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct > of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear of death > that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. > > Pete Pete, being unconscious through being anesthetized or suffering a heavy blow or sleeping does not allow one too know much one way or another about myself, self or SELF since consciousness is not present. How could one know anything if one is unconscious. One may argue that awareness (which is not consciousness), consciousness and memories continue in during life and after death. How could anyone disprove it or prove it? To make the argument for the belief that brain is the sine qua non source of awareness, consciousness and memory and hence the source of the sense of self, the experience to consider is not unconscious states but dementia, especially progressive Alzheimer's disease. This rocks the boat of unbelievers believing in things otherwise and asks them to reconsider the belief in what is thought to be a clear relation between brain function and self formation through consciousness, memory and stringing sequences of events into a myself, self, or SELF. Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 In a message dated 2/23/05 2:03:38 PM, lbb10 writes: > Since you mentioned my name, here I pop up like a genii out of a bottle. > > Let's talk a little bit about beliefs. There are beliefs which are based > > on emotions and hope, and there are beliefs which are based on > > experience, and logic. I belief that a drive to Los Angeles in non-rush > > hour traffic would take me less than three hour. This is a belief > because > > I can't be certain it would happen that way. It has been often the > case, > > but traffic might be heavier than expected. So, even if it's reasonable > > to believe so, I can't be sure. In the same way, I know, and have > > experienced that my awareness of what I call 'myself' > > depends on the brain's consciousness and memory. Two faculties that > > disappear if the brain is anesthetized or suffered with a heavy > blow, and > > I > > have experienced both, so it's logical two conclude that death will do > > the same. > > > > On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness > > would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping > > for emotional reasons. The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct > > of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear > of death > > that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. > > > > Pete > > L: Pete, being unconscious through being anesthetized or suffering a > heavy blow or sleeping does not allow one too know much one way or > another about myself, self or SELF since consciousness is not present. > P: Precisely, Lewis. Self, or any sense of self can't be there if consciousness is not there. All appearances are co-dependent with consciousness. So if it's reasonable to assume there is no consciousness in death, then survival of any personal traits such as memory or a sense of self is not possible. I fail to see in what way my statement disagrees with yours. > L: How could one know anything if one is unconscious. > P:Exactly, Lewis, so what's the problem? > L: One may argue that > >awareness (which is not consciousness), > P: How do you this? What's the difference? Please define both terms. > L: To make the argument for the belief that brain is the sine qua non > >source of awareness, consciousness and memory and hence the source of > the sense of self, the experience to consider is not unconscious > >states but dementia, especially progressive Alzheimer's disease. This > rocks the boat of unbelievers believing in things otherwise and asks > them to reconsider the belief in what is thought to be a clear > >relation between brain function and self formation through > consciousness, memory and stringing sequences of events into a myself, > >self, or SELF. > P: Well dementia is a good argument too, that it's a better argument is your opinion. And I think you meant: 'This rocks the boat of believers.' > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Lewis & Pete, Mr. Cerosoul hasn't yet come to terms with the " unconscious-thingy " Nisargadatta spoke about. He, Pete, believes in an eternal " unconscious of itself " . All:One Kip Almazy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 24, 2005 Pedsie2 wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/05 2:03:38 PM, lbb10 writes: > > > >>Since you mentioned my name, here I pop up like a genii out of a bottle. >> >>>Let's talk a little bit about beliefs. There are beliefs which are based >>>on emotions and hope, and there are beliefs which are based on >>>experience, and logic. I belief that a drive to Los Angeles in non-rush >>>hour traffic would take me less than three hour. This is a belief >> >>because >> >>>I can't be certain it would happen that way. It has been often the >> >>case, >> >>> but traffic might be heavier than expected. So, even if it's reasonable >>> to believe so, I can't be sure. In the same way, I know, and have >>> experienced that my awareness of what I call 'myself' >>> depends on the brain's consciousness and memory. Two faculties that >>> disappear if the brain is anesthetized or suffered with a heavy >> >>blow, and >> >>>I >>>have experienced both, so it's logical two conclude that death will do >>>the same. >>> >>>On the other hand, one who believes that memories and consciousness >>>would survive death, has not had that experience, and is only hoping >>>for emotional reasons. The urge to survive is the most powerful instinct >>>of every living thing, and at the mental level creates a deep fear >> >>of death >> >>>that try to soothe with hopes of immortality in any shape. >>> >>>Pete >> >>L: Pete, being unconscious through being anesthetized or suffering a >>heavy blow or sleeping does not allow one too know much one way or >>another about myself, self or SELF since consciousness is not present. >> > > P: Precisely, Lewis. Self, or any sense of self can't be there if > consciousness is not there. All appearances are co-dependent with > consciousness. > So if it's reasonable to assume there is no consciousness in death, then > survival of any personal traits such as memory or a sense of self is not > possible. > I fail to see in what way my statement disagrees with yours. There is the belief in a soul or awareness that exists after death and that this soul or awareness uses the brain and body to navigate the world and if the brain or body is disabled then the expression of this soul or awareness is hindered and not negated. It simply is not able to express through its instrument. So there is an apparent loss of this soul or awareness or SELF and for the believers there is no actual loss. > > >>L: How could one know anything if one is unconscious. >> > > P:Exactly, Lewis, so what's the problem? > There is no problem. One cannot make statements of knowledge about awareness or not if one is unconsciousness at time the knowledge is to be gained. Is there awareness in unconsciousness? How could that be done? If it cannot be done, one cannot make the statement since it would be unknown what was there in unconsciousness. It is like talking about what happens after material death without dying, not having the experience of dying and talking about what one has not undergone. Should I believe what other people say about near death experiences? I find no need to believe them or to disbelieve them. Interesting stories. When it happens to this appearance, it will be known or not. > >> L: One may argue that >> >>>awareness (which is not consciousness), >> > P: How do you this? What's the difference? Please define > both terms. > There are different understandings of awareness and consciousness. There is not one for either. There are many depending on the ontology believed. For example, for this instance, consciousness as related to brain science and philosophy can be considered a " field " in which perceptions and qualia and other phenomena appear. In this view, there are no levels of consciousness and by definition there is no awareness, involved. It is equivalent to a screen upon which images appear. It is on or off and functional or dysfunctional to the degrees observed in all the way that can be done and it seems to be directly related to brain function as the stories and observations go. Both philosophers of mind and neuroscientists do not argue over this. It is the same consciousness that animals have and all responding appearances and different in the ways observed such as dogs do not perceive colors as pigeons and humans do. Awareness would be that that is able to [notice] what is in the field of consciousness. And here is where the difficulties in explaining come from and the divisions between those believing that awareness is distinct and apart from and not explainable by brain function, like David Chalmers and his colleagues who have lead this fight ( http://consc.net/online1.html ) and all those neuroscientists who believe the opposite. In either case it is beyond proof or disproof. This is simplified view. Take a look at all the different ways consciousness is conceived at the link provided above and the issues involved. great stories. > >>L: To make the argument for the belief that brain is the sine qua non >> >>>source of awareness, consciousness and memory and hence the source of >> >>the sense of self, the experience to consider is not unconscious >> >>>states but dementia, especially progressive Alzheimer's disease. This >> >>rocks the boat of unbelievers believing in things otherwise and asks >>them to reconsider the belief in what is thought to be a clear >> >>>relation between brain function and self formation through >> >>consciousness, memory and stringing sequences of events into a myself, >> >>>self, or SELF. >> > P: Well dementia is a good argument too, that it's a better argument > is your opinion. And I think you meant: 'This rocks the boat of believers.' Yes, if choose to think of it is an opinion that is ok. It is not held, just asserted as a balance. That is ok is it not? You know for me it does not matter either way what is believed since the phenomena, the appearances remain as they are and the stories affect them not. I go with the appearance as they are. The stories about them are interesting and many and diverse and all about the same thing that remains as it is or changes as it does. And, yes, Pete darling that is exactly what I said. " ...rocks the boat of unbelievers [believing] in things otherwise..... " The unbelievers refers to those who do not believe in brain as the source of consciousness and awareness and believe in things otherwise. So, yes this rocks the boat of believers [in things otherwise]. :-) Lewis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
