Progress in consciousness?

Perhaps Kant is not the way to go. Terry comes across as the kind of person that finds him a bit too subjective (I mean, one could disagree with his observations and state that they are opinions).

I've personally always liked Einstein. If anybody has the _real_ answer, a scientific answer, surely he does.

After being confronted with buddhism and hearing Einstein's quotation that time and space are simply the way we currently measure reality. (And the all time favorite that reality is an illusion. But I used to figure he was kidding). I've come across this:
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
I've added Buddha to my list of people (thusfar it consists out of 2 people) whom I believe had the answer, or at least have an understanding of it.

I also used to think that his quotation on 'we can't fix problems using the same thinking we used to create them' was simply referring to conflict (war & peace), but not I believe he might aswell have been referring (perhaps he did) to meta i.e. physics. I state physics as being just one of the meta-categories because I believe other deeper philosophical questions can be answered with this ammo. Such as the linguistic paradox (This sentence is not true) and as he demonstrated himself several time-paradoxes (not time travel like in the movies, rather time displacement (relativity theory).

Note: This is one of the very few post by which I completely stand. Every day, no matter what. This is what I really think. The often juvenile approach of testing and saying other points of view seems to have died out. For now :p

Does it seem to you, Rex, that the linguistic paradox, "This sentence is not true" reveals the limitation of both language and logic?

By the way, Kant and Einstein were addressing different issues. I can't compare them.

Yes, I would state that RESPECTIVELY the linguistic paradox shows the limitation (inherent lack of functioning) of both language and logic.

Language because:
Linguistic, merely because we're talking about language.
Logic because:
Paradox, logic fails within the same level of reasoning.

They can be 'separated'.

I believe that Einsteins QUOTATION can be used to address the same issue (paradoxes, the tripwire and basis of philosophy), even though it might not be meant in this way. That it can be used to not only answer 'scientific' questions concerning Einsteins field of research(his issues) but all philosophical questioning, and most certainly all questioning.

Because sometimes, it CAN be solved using the same logic and level of reasoning we used, but that's a given from which we already start to work and work by daily, always, it's what one could call logic, to continuously step up a level and 'meta' everything wouldn't solve everything either. Although that kind of thinking makes the man the philosopher.

The more you ask me to explain, the more subjective the explanation will become and perhaps less fitting to a universal agreement which we're trying to find here. In other words, you asked for it

Rex, in response to your comment:
"The more you ask me to explain, the more subjective the explanation will become and perhaps less fitting to a universal agreement which we're trying to find here."

I say that's fine. I'm a strong fan of (deep) subjectivity. We can't all go where you go. Sometimes with similar experiences and great effort we may. But your subjective experiences are no less valid because someone can't follow you than are the esoteric formulations of mathematical theorists.



_________________

JLN,
This is something I've thought about. I agree with what you state above. However, something just doesn't seem quite "right" about it. It almost seems a bit elitist. Lets say some person is mentally retarded or has a very low IQ. Something in me wants to say that this person has just as much chance at "spiritual revelation" as a genius.

I know this is not precisely what you are commenting on...probably not even in the ballpark...but here I go anyway: Is consciousness an intellectual pursuit? That is, can the more intelligent realize more "very important" spiritual truths than lesser intelligent individuals? This could be true. Seems strange, though. Something unfair about it. Like try as they might, the lesser intelligent folks just won't quite see the things that the more intelligent see easily. Not that anyone said this needs to be "fair." One could argue the karma angle, I suppose.

The village idiot won't be able to understand many Truths. Half the village population might not quite grasp it. Does this invalidate the experience or knowledge for those that can understand? Somehow, it seems important truths, even important experience, should be equally accessible to all. Perhaps not. No answers...just contemplating this aspect...if all aren't capable of feeling something, understanding something, going to a particular space...can that thing be of ultimate importance...

It took me a while, but I found it.
http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Stories/cucumber.html

Rex, thanks. That was wonderful.
Notice the similarity [and one has to read your link in order to appreciate this] in Wu-ming's response ("Yes") to that of Yogi Bera's, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
"'One young monk told of an encounter in which Wu-ming asked him, "Can you tell me where my home is?" Confused as to the spirit of the question. The monk replied, "Is the home you speak of to be found in the relative world of time and place, or do you mean the Original Home of all pervading Buddha nature?

After pausing a moment to consider the question, Wu-ming looked up and, grinning as only he is capable, said, 'Yes.'"

It is the case, I'm sure, that Wu-ming was chosen as the successor to the master of the monastery, not because of his great enlilghtenment but because of his abilitly (resulting from his simplicity and unsophistication) to facilitate the enlightenment of others, which is the sole function of a Master.
Another observation: Have you seen the Peter Sellars movie, Being There. The "plot" is virtually the same.

Extra Medium, I appreciate your ethical concern, actually your expression of compassion for people less capable through no fault of their own. Actually, most people, including myself, are ignorant in some areas because they have chosen not to prepare ourselves in those areas. But "village idiots" are innocent, and we can only appreciate their predicament, even if they can't.
But I should stress that, as I see it, spiritual understanding is not the result of INTELLECTUAL pursuit. If it were the world would be a better place, since intelligent people would more likely be enlightened, which would mean they were more likely to be compassionate. Unfortunately, intelligence is just as likely to be used to injure others as it is to help them.
I remember a monk being chastised by a zen master with "You are too smart for your own good." The message was that the monk relied too much on his analytical skills, on his cleverness, as if the koan he was assigned were an intellectual puzzle, which it was not. I once, as a young man in my mid-twenties, had the audicity to ask Aldous Huxley (a life-long aspiring mystic. He was 69) if his literary skills might have inhibited mystical insight. I was thinking of his use of mescalin to open the "doors of" his "perception." He very graciously [probably to avoid embarrassing me] answered that that was possibly very true. But, I think he would have agreed that intellectuals in general must deal with an excessive reliance on, what we might now refer to as, the left side of the brain.
Spiritual maturity, has nothing to do with, in my judgement, one's I.Q.. And I agree that it's too easy to invoke the karma card.

JLN,

Great reply. My ego wishes it had wrote that.

At this juncture, I'd like to share a poem by one of our lesser known mystics, Donald Rumsfeld:

The Unknown

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We know that we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
That we don't know.
(Donald Rumsfeld, 2002 briefing)

-this is not meant to get us started on non-duality again!

Some may think I am trying to poke fun at someone here, but actually, I think the above is one of the more intelligent statements I've heard a politician make.

Extra Medium

Twyvel, your posts of the other day have given me much to contemplate. And not very comfortably, I must say. My statement earlier that change is the most fundamental feature of Reality (hindu: Brahma) is now unsettled, which is good, of course. I probably could have said change is most fundamental feature of "observable" Reality. Your quote that "Nothing ever happens" goes far beyond rational understanding. It is only grasped mystically. Nothing can either change or not change if it is merely illusory, merely phenomenal experience of an observer which cnnot be observed (talking about consciousness, not the object-skull "in" which it occurs). But, of course, all phenomena are continually changing. We cannot find anything in the observable world that is not changing, even lead. I know a Hindu who believes we may eventually realize "The Unchanging" by means of meditation. That may be. The only thing that concerns me is the nature of my relation to "my" experienced "objects," my connection to the world of experience of the illusory nature of the subject-object chasm.
What we are TALKING about here are metaphysical theoretical issues which I am unable to resolve intellectually. But according to my feelings (and they are only feelings) on the matter there IS a reality beyond or behind appearances. It is nothing I, or anyone, can experience, of course, but I consider it the Ground of all that I CAN experience. This MAY be The Unchanging of my Hindu friend.
I cannot rest--yet--on a foundation of nothingness. That may reflect the limits of my zen understanding. But as Nietzsche, a man of no mean intuitions, put it, and I paraphrase: Nihilists prefer to put their last trust in a sure nothing [I cannot see how that can be sure], rather than in an uncertain something. For me that uncertain something is akin to Kant's Noumena. I AM Brahma (unchanging or not) even though it is absolutely myterious to me intellectually.

By the way, I agree that "I", as ego, cannot die because "I" was never born, to paraphrase you and Nisargadatta.

Damn, never thought I'd see a post, read it 5times just for the sake of getting it and fail, for now...

JLN:


In the late afternoon of our journey we notice a partner, someon that has grown into us during our passing. Shadow, self, ego, no matter the name he is us.
And we mourn in contemplation of his non-existence yet only in his death can we finish our walk in the realization that we are.

This read around that seemed like the spiritual suicide I read about in buddhist scriptures(well reviews on buddhist train of thought and contemplations on the scriptures, not reading those Too much of a doctrine).

Rex, I agree. Much of the formal Buddhist literature smacks of "doctrine", which tends to alienate me as well. The sutras, on the other hand, are works that must be comtemplated for a life time. As you continue your life, especially if it is a "meditative" life, an observant one, little by little bits of the sutras come to make profound sense. This does not come by way of hermeneutical analysis; it comes byway of intuitive "openings." By the way, from my perspective the phrase "spiritual suicide" is an oxymoron. Ego suicide, on the other hand, is a form of "spiritual birth."

My excuses. Allow me to adapt my terminology to suit yours, which is of course far more correct. I meant spiritual as a descriptive term, not the object. The object is of course the ego, and therefor one would be wiser to call this case of spiritual 'change', ego suicide.

I 'believe' the only doctrine you should follow is to start from the paradox of doubt everything. That nothing is true and all is relative. Only from this void of logic knowledge restraining itself within one linear thought to meta thoughts. Other doctrine would seem derived from following one of the several (perhaps 2) train of thought. And can simply be found in a step somewhere on a path to The Questions. Rather than 'The Answers', for they too should be doubted and held in retrospect to the questions, therefor doubting the axiomatic nature of the answer and feeling to dualistic other side of possibilities, that the answer is false.

What are you taking? Got more?

Sorry, wrong thread :p

JLN:
"I agree that 'I' as ego cannot die because 'I'

was never born" .....you said. Then you say a
later post that 'spritual suicide' is an oxymoron,
but 'spiriual birth' is O.K. As I read these statements i have to conclude that you are contradicting yourself......even solidifying the contradiction even more by stating that 'ego suicide'
is not an oxymoron...that is, ego can die.
Buddhist language takes great liberties in its
meanings .....but it should not be at the expense of
coherancy. Don't you agree?
Geligesti:
Speaking of coherency , what do you mean by your
statement "And we mourn in contemplation of his non-existence , yet only in his death...." that is, the death of our ego, "can we finish our walk in the realization that we are" Why are you mourning the so-called death of something that prevented the
realization of who you are?