| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Meta Forum » Is this the Red Pill? A Metaphysical Wake Up Call?
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| ZerkonX |
 Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:03:14 -0700, Temporal wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anandavala wrote:
Quote: 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
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
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.
Quote: Let me know if there are other terms you'd like clarified and I'll see
what I can do...
Not necessary. I think you covered it well enough. Yes, it was an
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].
Quote: 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
All I can agree to is that most of what we speak is metaphor. About
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.
Quote: 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.
Yes, all word objects carry different sets of relationships for each
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.
Quote: Cynic and skeptic retain much the same meanings in either paradigm
that is why it is trivial to define them.
Actually I liked how you presented the idea of a skeptic as distinct
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.
Quote: 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.
You know what, ,'dude'. Your starting to sound very frustrated to me.
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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The idea of 'The Matrix' is the spawn of calculus, and its co-parent
phenomenology. Neither is it surprising that 'The Matrix' is erotic
with computers and drugs since computers and most modern chemical
stimulants are themselves the spawn of calculus and phenomenology.
Calculus: An abomination on the true relationship between numbers with
zero and infinity. Pure logic is the respect of zero and one, not an
electronic 'hack' to make the calculation of zero possible. There is
no such transistor where current exhibits zero.
What do you get when you cross an electro hack with a system of
'transcendental' logic ?
The result is an abomination child idea (The Matrix) (no different to
a panopticon) that assumes
1. That nothing is infinite, and it does this --- > a priori
2. That all objects of the universe are the result of a sick
relationship of parent and child that feed on each other.
3. That to bust out requires drugs...
to which it makes (after the drugs of course) those in the physical
and ontological reality, aspiring Jesus figures with superpowers.
-y |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Another follower of 'The Secret', and thus another person scared of
moral philosophy.
-y
On Apr 28, 8:43 pm, "Temporal" <44444> wrote:
Quote: ZerkonX wrote in message ...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:03:14 -0700, Temporal wrote:
If so, then what does it take for one and another to agree it is Good or not?
[SNIP] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Temporal |
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ZerkonX wrote in message ...
Quote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:03:14 -0700, Temporal wrote:
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.
I see your point well explained here ZerkonX; My mistake not to have
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.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Temporal |
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This is just a Post Scriptum Zerkon. (LOL... sounds really funny now.)
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.
“I’ll never attend an anti-war rally. If you have a peace rally, invite me.”
~ Mother Teresa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This was never my statement.
-y
Temporal Wrote
Quote: So you previously stated:
"It's not what you are thinking about it's how you are thinking." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yeah I agree with her. She was a smart lady.
-y
Quote: "I'll never attend an anti-war rally. If you have a peace rally, invite me."
~ Mother Teresa |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anandavala |
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 28, 12:08 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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
terms that might be useful at the beginning. Thank you for showing me
this. Its a wonderful idea!
You can see it at:
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html#...
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...
Not necessary. I think you covered it well enough. Yes, it was an
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
All I can agree to is that most of what we speak is metaphor. About
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.
Yes, all word objects carry different sets of relationships for each
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.
Actually I liked how you presented the idea of a skeptic as distinct
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.
You know what, ,'dude'. Your starting to sound very frustrated to me.
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.
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anandavala |
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Could people Please remove the newsgroup <alt.metaphysics.lightwork>
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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. What is interesting about this of course is that it
is possible to reach a TOE in words. 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.
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I think it is more that Cartesian dualism. I think they require each
other to make valid points and visa versa.
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
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anandavala |
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 11:05 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: 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...
Quote: 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)
Quote: 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.
Quote:
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:
Quote: 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.
Quote:
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anandavala |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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.
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 :)
John
http://www.anandavala.info |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Y |
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yep, I like it, ,
I'm also pretty sure that a passage for 'time' does not exist. Clocks
are inertia meters.
-y |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:00 pm
|
|