Reality

The dualist beliefs that you support Frank are probably the most bizarre of all, :wink:

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, there you are. I was wondering what happened to you.

Terry (and Tywvel), I do not believe there is an "objective" world "out there" versus a "subjective" world "in here." There is just the World. The appearance I give of an subject-object split is a function of language, believe me. I do believe in an invisable observer, and that observer is pretty much equivalent to what I understand by the Hindu "Atman." When I view the world (including "my" thoughts about "it"), that viewing is a function not of a perceivable "I"; all my experience is perceived by whatever is involved in the event: eyes, brain, skull, gravity, temperature range, light, energy, etc. ad infinitum, all ingredients of the Great Conspiracy or Collusion that generates experience. It is not a "me"; it is the World. And paradoxically it sees the world, i.e., the content of "my" consciousness (or -ing). This is what I understand by Meister Eckart's "We see God with the same eye that God sees us." Our experience might be phrased as God seeing itself (with apologies to Frank). There is only World, which we divide into static objects (whereas there are only empty processes) and static subjects (whereas there are only the processes making up the invisable Observer--that which sees but cannot be seen). In a sense we may say that ALL is Objective or ALL is Subjective but only if we somehow see each as not the opposite of the other, otherwise we fall into dualism. I doubt that we can use these concepts non-dualistically since each implies the other in an oppositional way.
Terry, I cannot say HOW or WHY humans came to perceive the world dualistically (and remember, dualism is a characteristic of our thinking about the "objects" of thought, but not of the "objects" themselves. They are essentially constructions). Genesis indicates that it was cause by Satan as he caused our parents' to eat from the analytical tree of knowledge of good and evil (and all other dichotomies). All I can say is that if the function of objectification (of the World into static objects and ourselves into the illusion of subjectively perceived objects), we wouldn't be here now. Indeed, it is possible that many early humans perished for want of the ability to differentiate the aesthetic continuum, for want of the ability to generate this illusion. Who knows? One doesn't have to demonstrate how or why it happened to recognize that it did happen.

0 Replies

truth
Terry, what a task mistress you are. If there appears to be differences between Tywvel's perspective and mine it is principally because Twyvel approaches the topic more from the "inside" than I can. His capacity to talk inside the matter is beyond me; I talk about it in a manner that appears to be more dualistically than my intended meanings would warrant. Fresco, on the other hand knows far more of the anti-dualistic implications of contemporary scientific and philosophical research. I am, it seems to me, somewhere between them, but we all strongly intuit the falsity of dualism, while recognizing its utility and inevitability in everyday common sense life. We only wish to alert everyone to the ultimate falsity as a philosophical (spiritual?) formulation of the world. I know it is counter intuitive in the extreme for you to accept my statement that what occurs in the Andromeda Gallaxy is affecting us now, despite its distance and the time it takes for events "there" to affect us "here." I intuit that everything everywhere is here right now (understood non-locally; they are Cosmic, not provincial Here's and Now's), even though the relativity of time and space might indicate otherwise. Einstein's and Buddha's views of Reality may be different only insofar as they are addressing Reality in "different senses", as when we say, "in a sense.... I do not consider the principle of non-locality to be limited to particle physics. But that's not something I can argue for effectively.
You ask how I know that dualistic thinking is delusional or "fictional". This is what Fresco, Tywvel and I have been trying to tell you all for such a long time now. Pardon the appearance of condescension, but you either see it or you don't. We've been trying by means of metaphors and quotations from "mystics"--and Tywvel's repeated "proof" of the non-existence of a perceivable self-- to stimulate that intuitive awareness, as a favor, not (I hope) as efforts to win contests. By the way, you missed the point of my metaphor of the seashell and the bronze bell to indicate the nature of emptiness in the nature of process. My fault, I'm sure. And I'm sure I misunderstand your metaphor of the wind and the bottle. It seems to me that you've reified the bottle, seeing it as a static thing, necessary for a passing process. Oh well, we're growing dendrites.

0 Replies

Yes JLNobody, thanks for wondering, Smile

, I've been around but haven't been posting much.

I think it's important to add, (concerning this shared perspective/orientation) that the "world" is that which is observed at any one moment; the (ever changing) immediate perceived/observed environment (including the supposed 'self') , whatever that may be. Meaning there is no extension of space beyond observations, since space itself is psychological.

0 Replies

Here's an interesting take:

The Universe as a Hologram

[snip]
....
"Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."...

[/snip]

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

0 Replies

truth
Yes, it seems so to me, that the separateness is an illusion. Therefore what happens in Andromeda Gallaxy is "IN A SENSE" happening here.

0 Replies

Using scientific evidence to disprove the basis for the scientific evidence. I don't know if that's funnier than it is sad or sadder than it is funny. In either event, it's certainly ironic.

0 Replies

twyvel, That's really thinking "out of the box." Interesting at the very least. I'm not so sure any extension beyond what is visible can be expanded to the whole universe.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.[/b]

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

Not exactly. Each part of the hologram gives you a full-sized image of the object from that perspective of that bit of film when the hologram was made. It's like looking out of different sides of a window pane. You see the same scene but from a slightly different angle. Nothing mystical about it, just ordinary optics.

0 Replies

BTW, I read "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot several years ago. I will take another look at it and see whether my perceptions have changed. Smile

0 Replies

Terry,

Try Google references to VON FOERSTER (second order cybernetics), MATURANA (autopoiesis, consciousness), PRIGOGINE ( Theory of Structure). Twyvels holographic references also looks good.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

The dualist beliefs that you support Frank are probably the most bizarre of all, :wink:

Such as ARE "beliefs", Twyvel, I agree with you! :wink:

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, I agree that "the 'world' IS that which is observed at any one moment." But I would include under "observed" our memories of past observations. They serve to affect present on-going observations. This is a complex issue. I do understand John Searles' notion that consciousness is an objective fact in the world, yet that world exists FOR US only to the extent that it is perceived (and remembered). How can we talk about the TOTAL reality that we have absolutely no awareness of? This is the question that comes to mind when I hear discussions about "what's beyond the universe? (after the end of space) and "what was there temporally before time began?" Such questions are meaningless because we have absolutely no observational experience with extra-cosmological space or extra-cosmological time. We LITERALLY don't know what we are talking about. This also applies to our unobserved/unobservable Self.

0 Replies

JLN, Well stated! I'm beginning to grasp a little of what you guys are talking about. LOL

0 Replies

truth
Cicerone, you mean we're NOT crazy? Very Happy

0 Replies

Maybe I'm beginning to join "your crowd." <smile>

0 Replies

Yes JLNobody, >any one moment<, if one could be so bold as to puck a ?'moment' our of the continuum without killing something, Smile

Theoretically a single observation is contaminated with not only ?'our' memories but perhaps all other observations. If there could be a "looking" free of past observations/interpretations/speculations etc., free of ego evolvement, who/how would that looking be?

JLNobody and cicerone imposter

Re: Are we crazy?

I guess ?'crazy' or insanity is relative to sanity, relative to what is considered sane. Some such folks as Ramesh Belsekara and Douglas Harding have talked about the ?'transition' to(?) enlightenment(?) as going through a psychosis, or a > dark night of the soul<.

It is, as I understand it, a sudden realization that everything you took to be ?'real' in your life; other people, relationships, you own body, memories of places and events etc., are seen as nothing but a fiction occurring in a personal dream in which there is no ?'you' except as a pretense. It's a shock, a jolt, a ?'dropping' of the ?'self' that thought it thought, and thought it thought is was a ?'real' tangible being residing in a independent ?'reality'. It is a sudden switch from small mind (internal mentation) to big mind (the universe), from personal consciousness to impersonal consciousness.

And what a deal! The exchange of the little ego/body ?'self' for the world. The real-estate deal of a life time, Surprised

The surprising thing is most of us do not only not realize how identified we are but we do not realize that we are ?'identified' at all. When one gets a strong sense of how much they identify with their body and all it's sensations, (and thoughts) etc., one may recognize how much of an ?'object' they take them ?'self' to be. "I imagine ?'self' to be an object" Now how bizarre is that?

As Huang Po prompts us:

"Let me remind you
That the perceived
Cannot perceive."

I.e. an 'object' cannot perceive or observer.

And even though a ?'panic attack' appears to be a prerequisite for some, awakening can happen (though intemporal as it is said to be) any'how' to anyone, anytime anywhere, so I think.

Wake up to the reality that there was never ever anyone asleep, Razz

"The unobservable self knows but does not speak, and the 'self' that speaks does not know.".............something like that.

0 Replies

truth
Something VERY MUCH like that.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Yes JLNobody, >any one moment<, if one could be so bold as to puck a ?'moment' our of the continuum without killing something,Theoretically a single observation is contaminated with not only ?'our' memories but perhaps all other observations. If there could be a "looking" free of past observations/interpretations/speculations etc., free of ego evolvement, who/how would that looking be?

JLNobody and cicerone imposter

Re: Are we crazy?

I guess ?'crazy' or insanity is relative to sanity, relative to what is considered sane. Some such folks as Ramesh Belsekara and Douglas Harding have talked about the ?'transition' to(?) enlightenment(?) as going through a psychosis, or a > dark night of the soul<.

It is, as I understand it, a sudden realization that everything you took to be ?'real' in your life; other people, relationships, you own body, memories of places and events etc., are seen as nothing but a fiction occurring in a personal dream in which there is no ?'you' except as a pretense. It's a shock, a jolt, a ?'dropping' of the ?'self' that thought it thought, and thought it thought is was a ?'real' tangible being residing in a independent ?'reality'. It is a sudden switch from small mind (internal mentation) to big mind (the universe), from personal consciousness to impersonal consciousness.

And what a deal! The exchange of the little ego/body ?'self' for the world. The real-estate deal of a life time,

The surprising thing is most of us do not only not realize how identified we are but we do not realize that we are ?'identified' at all. When one gets a strong sense of how much they identify with their body and all it's sensations, (and thoughts) etc., one may recognize how much of an ?'object' they take them ?'self' to be. "I imagine ?'self' to be an object" Now how bizarre is that?

As Huang Po prompts us:

"Let me remind you
That the perceived
Cannot perceive."

I.e. an 'object' cannot perceive or observer.

And even though a ?'panic attack' appears to be a prerequisite for some, awakening can happen (though intemporal as it is said to be) any'how' to anyone, anytime anywhere, so I think.

Wake up to the reality that there was never ever anyone asleep,

"The unobservable self knows but does not speak, and the 'self' that speaks does not know.".............something like that.

And then again, maybe these good folk are simply deluding themselves. Perhaps what they see as "insight" is merely self-delusion.

Christians often talk about a "sudden realization" of "godness" -- and completely discount the possibility of it being a delusion. Their most frequent retort to a suggestion that it MIGHT be delusional is "Too bad you can't feel it, or you'd recognize instantly that it cannot be a delusion."

That, it seems to me, is what you people are doing.

I've known druggies who have bursts of insight.

I'll stay very skeptical.

Very!

0 Replies

Frank, I gotta first find out what I'm delusional about! I'm not even half way there. Wink

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know