Unusual Discussions.

[rich]

Was thinking about Ted Williams' son keeping his father's head cyrogenically preserved.

Can you imagine the shock which this brain would undergo if ever brought to life again without a body, discovering it had no arms, legs hands or a functional body.

If transplant of head to another body was possible, think of the frustration which would be experienced by the brain trying to find itself attached to a new body. I think that type of scientific research should be outlawed, for it is unatural. :ph34r:

P.S. What is the meaning of the smilie ph34r, posted at the end of the above post? :unsure:

[Thomas Knierim]

Perhaps Mr. Williams is counting on advanced biotechnology to reconstruct the missing parts from a piece of DNA, as we see it done in science fiction movies. In this case, his father may be pleased to receive a freshly grown body, although confused by the circumstances of his resuscitation. Or perhaps Williams jr. is keeping it as a souvenir. "Wanna see the cyrogenic fridge in my new apartment?" Quite a strange pick-up line. I suppose one must either possess a pretty sombre sense of humor or a necrophically deranged mind for this kind of thing.

Cheers, Thomas

[Polaris]

It reminds me of that old Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain" where this race of 'not so bright' people stole Spock's brain and stuck it in the computer that operated the complex they lived in. Spock could talk through the computer and said it felt like his arms reached outward indefinately. Dr. McCoy had to put the "Colander of Knowledge" on his head to gain the information needed to put Spock's brain BACK into his head. It was "so simple even a child could do it!" :D

[a random hack]

reminds me of the book 'I will fear no evil' bu R.A. Heinein :),
where old mans brain is transplanted into young womans body, after she was 'killed' ina mugging, and how the man and woman's consciousness-es shared the one body...

[Polaris]

:lol: That Steve Martin & Lily Tomlin film "All Of Me"

Laugh? I thought I'd die! :lol: :lol:

[a random hack]

That Steve Martin & Lily Tomlin film "All Of Me"

Laugh? I thought I'd die!

:lol::lol: this was my favorite movie for quite a while....that Lily Tomlin, another sexy lesbian to die for :D

[sonrisa]

y'all been passing out too much Halloween candy. Outta here.... B)

[rich]

[deleted]

[rich]

Could it be, when our body dies, our consciousness is aware of
not being able to communictate to the people of the world where our
bodies once lived?

All we are, are unseen energy or a glob of thoughts, floating around in space. Such happenings could be an unliving hell to anyone. :(

[vicente]

There is no beginning or end Rich. There is no time, no singularity, no creation, no creator, no body to die. When we let go of our belief in beginnings and ends, in time, singularity, creation, Creators, and objects, when we remove those covers, those garments, then Consciousness is revealed.

There are no others Rich. The moment we perceive others, Consciousness becomes as veiled. If you wish to cling to that concept for your identity, that there is separation, then you will perceive the experience of death.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 8 2003, 04:25 AM
There is no beginning or end Rich. There is no time, no singularity, no creation, no creator, no body to die. When we let go of our belief in beginnings and ends, in time, singularity, creation, Creators, and objects, when we remove those covers, those garments, then Consciousness is revealed.

There are no others Rich. The moment we perceive others, Consciousness becomes as veiled. If you wish to cling to that concept for your identity, that there is separation, then you will perceive the experience of death.

Vicente
:)
Vicente,
Please explain exactly what you mean.

There are no others Rich. What do you mean, other human-beings? Whom are those, I daily interact with. They aren't?

The moment we perceive others, Consciousness becomes as veiled.
Isn't Consciousness being aware of those which surround you?

There is no time, no singularity, no creation, no creator, no body to die.
What is life, from whence did we arrive here? All of us do have bodies, and we eat to sustain our bodies, we spend thousands of $ eacy year on medicines for our bodies, making us aware, that indeed, we do have bodies.
Should we Make beLIEve we do not have a body? Think not, but maybe what appears as what you said, is not actually what you mean. Try to bring me to a realization of what you actually are saying. :)

[vicente]

Rich,...it is "thought" that perceives others around us, not Consciousness.

Try the following transcipt Rich,...perhaps it will assist alittle:
http://www.intuition.org/txt/krishna.htm

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

There is no time, no singularity, no creation, no creator, no body to die.*


not "no body" but:


krishnamuriti:

The body is not interested in that at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli, and it has no separate, independent existence of its own. Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in its own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death, you see. So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body.*



called body only 'seems' dyingchangingnotdyingnotchanging

:)

[rich]

Thank you for posting Thought/Mind link. Trying to understand what krishnamuriti is writing. Do not know if you can teach an old dog new tricks. :D

[vicente]

If you think an old dog cannot learn new tricks, then I suppose they cannot,...but what about unlearning whats false?

Are you afraid to get naked?
When fear ends, Thoughtless is realized.

:)

[rich]

vicente posted: [color=blue]
but what about unlearning whats false?</span>


It appears that vicente is making a judgement on what knowledge
rich needs to unlearn. :o Since you do not know me that well, how can you make such a bold statement? :unsure: B)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by rich@Nov 7 2003, 01:41 PM
Could it be, when our body dies, our consciousness is aware of not being able to communictate to the people of the world where our bodies once lived?

All we are, are unseen energy or a glob of thoughts, floating around in space. Such happenings could be an unliving hell to anyone. :(
Hi richie,

For other perspectives, you might want to check out (look up reviews on places like amazon.com maybe):

(1) Robert Monroe's books. Journeys Out of Body, or something close to that, is one of three (I think), which he wrote based on his personal experiences. I don't have any of these (all 'lent out' - meaning there were never returned) to give you more info from these.
-------------
(2) Seth Speaks, by Jane Roberts. There are other 'Seth' books as well, by the same author, but this one is necessary to appreciate the others, I think. From the back cover:

"Seth was one of my first metaphysical teachers. He remains a constant source of knoweldge and inspiration in my life." - Marianne Williamson, author of A Return to Love

"The Seth books present an alternate map of reality with a new diagram of the psyche . . . useful to all explorers of consciousness." - Deepak Chopra, author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind

"I would like to see the Seth books as required reading for anyone on their spiritual pathway. . . " - Louise Hay, author of You Can Heal Your Life
-------------
That being said, some of the 'abstractions' in the Seth books (like the 'simultaneity' of all 'time') are 'hard' to wrap one's mind around, IMO. The book mentioned below is much more straight forward and easily digestible, however.
-------------
(3) Destiny of Souls, by Michael Newton, Ph.D. From the back cover of this book:

In Destiny of Souls, 67 people just like you recall their life between lives through Dr. Newton's personal work in spiritual hypnotherapy. Based on his groundbreaking research into the afterlife, . . . learn fascinating details about:
• Our purpose on Earth
• Spiritual setting where souls go after death
• Ways spirits connect with and comfort the living
• Spirit guides and the council of wise beings who interview us after each life
• Soulmates
• Links between soul groups and human families
• Soul recreation and travle between lives
• The soul-brain connection
• Why we choose certain bodies
------------

I'm pretty sure vicente would say what's in these books is no more than a bunch of beLIEfs, but then I'm also pretty sure that the authors' of these books would say that vicente doesn't know what he is talking about.

Not an 'unliving hell', what you have to look forward to, at least according to them. Personally, I found what they 'report' both quite sensible and inspiring.
:)

[vicente]

Contrary to your supposition, not only have I read all the titles you mentioned, and even been to the Monroe Institute, but would wager that all would also understand my posts here,...Robert, Deepak and Louise for sure.

The truth is DavidS, because I do not believe in your god, you will find fault no matter what I say. Such is the nature of fear.

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

:)

[rich]

Thanks for posting the titles and authors of the books in your post. Will try to read them later. Right now it is time to call it a day. Keep well. :)

[DavidS]

Hi vicente -

Contrary to your supposition, not only have I read all the titles you mentioned, and even been to the Monroe Institute, ...

I did not 'suppose' you were unfamiliar with the 'sources' I mentioned. I 'supposed' that you would relegate them to the beLIEf-bin.

but would wager that all would also understand my posts here,...Robert, Deepak and Louise for sure.

I would wager otherwise, particularly in relation to neti-neti statements like "There is no beginning or end ... There is no time, no singularity, no creation, no creator, no body to die. When we let go of our belief in beginnings and ends, in time, singularity, creation, Creators, and objects, when we remove those covers, those garments, then Consciousness is revealed." and 'absolutely' 'exclusive' claims/assertions like "Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god."

Yes, I find 'fault' in your 'logic' - among other things, you contradict yourself by saying "The celebration begins on November 8th at 6:13 PM MST, the beginning of the end of the 'base energy' Abrahamic religions."

No 'time', no 'belief' in 'beginnings' and 'endings'? BULLDANG!

You beLIEve that I 'confront' your excesses in this regard out of fear (ostensibly because what you say 'threatens' my god-concept)? Strikes me as being a very self-serving beLIEf on your part. Then you don't have to take to heart my feedback that you still spout 'sophist' hogwash whenever it suits your particular purposes, my 'opportunistic', speaking-with-a-'forked'-tongue (as 'evidenced' above) fellow-discussant.
:ph34r:

[vicente]

DavidS, you certainly ponce upon the difficulty with language. There is, irrefutably, no beginning nor end, yet from a duality perspective, which is not real, there appears to be a beginning and end of things,...things that in actuality do not exist,...for there is no underlying, fundamental thing in this perceived universe.

It is perfectly OK with me that your quantum understanding of things appears rather early 60ish. However, since the 1960's, those years when people actually thought Leave It To Beaver was a documentary, there have been some advances in the understanding of quantum consciousness,...ie., ancient Maya awareness of Zero and Vajra's comprehension of Clear Light verses projected light, doved tailed quite nicely with insightfulness' like Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle's 'No Boundary theory', which, described simply, states that there is no time, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, no beginning nor end. Gee, who would have guessed that some of the planets most brillant people would verify Vicente's ponderings.

Of course I understand it can take many years for people to accept the fact that atoms are not the basic building blocks of nature, as Beaver Cleavor learned. Yes, the truth is quite shocking to people..

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

splat

[sonrisa]

Asheera- :D :P

[sahyo]

hehe ;) :D

[vicente]

Rich says, "I am a body, I interact with others, the world is real", and no one laughs,...Vicente says, "Rich, you are not your body, there are no others, the world is an illusion", and everyone laughs.

¡Go Figure!
Vicente
:)

[rich]

asheera posted:asheera
Posted on Nov 9 2003, 08:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hehe



vicente posted:Posted on Nov 10 2003, 02:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich says, "I am a body, I interact with others, the world is real", and no one laughs,...Vicente says, "Rich, you are not your body, there are no others, the world is an illusion", and everyone laughs.

¡Go Figure!
Vicente



Vicente, Maybe they like your sense of humor better than mine, maybe they agree with you,
I really do not know. I think asheera was laughing at Sonrisa, but, ICBW. Actually not "everyone" was laughing, so I wouldn't be concerned. :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 8 2003, 04:24 PM
DavidS, you certainly ponce upon the difficulty with language. There is, irrefutably, no beginning nor end, yet from a duality perspective, which is not real, there appears to be a beginning and end of things,...things that in actuality do not exist,...for there is no underlying, fundamental thing in this perceived universe.
Hi vicente -

I think your expression of the quantum mechanical 'vision' is apt. I am taking any issue with that. What I was 'pouncing on' was your expressing that in response to richie's posting: "Could it be, when our body dies, our consciousness is aware of not being able to communicate to the people of the world where our bodies once lived?"

Now that I 'know' that you are familiar with Robert Monroe's, Jane Robert's Seth's, and Michael Newton's work, it seems an even more 'egregious' response, in the sense of not relating to the concern he expressed, but simply grinding your own 'message'-axe, ending with "There are no others Rich, ..." etc.

Just imagine a 'counselor' saying that to someone who is personally facing, contemplating and sharing personal death-n-separation concerns.

Given that you are familair with the works mentioned, let me suggest for your consideration that 'difficulty' with language isn't the issue at all -- rather, it is your self-centered, parrotic-personal-position-repeating (no-matter-what-anyone-else-is-expressing) abuse of it which I am calling into question.

There are no 'others'? In 'ultimate' terms, that may be true, but who/what do you think richie is, and who/what is writing these words to vicente HERE and NOW?

Assuming you once again wish to 'bury' and 'disregard' the relevance of 'happenings' in the realm of 'dualistic appearance' . . . IOW, if it's all just 'you', or just 'consciousness', why don't you listen closely and 'sympathetically' relate to what is being said to 'you' by 'you'? Why are you so caught up in what's going on in just inside vicente's 'head'?

Sincerely - David

[vicente]

¿Sympathy? or ¿Cruelty?

If Rich's question was "Could it be, when our body dies, our consciousness is aware of not being able to communicate to the people of the world where our bodies once lived?",...what is so unsympathetic in the Buddhist or ontosophical response that Consciousness was never aware of any others to begin with.

I could be dishonest, or for me personally directly deceive, and say oh poor fellow, don't worry, the angels will be there to take you to you lost loved ones who are happily playing in God's arms.

I had a death experience myself. The difference with mine, verses others, like authoress PMH (Phylis) Atwater, with whom I once served on a University of Science and Philosophy committee with, is that through a sort of fluke, I surrendered my beliefs before crossing the thresholdless threshold. This isn't suggesting that my experience was superior to others, but that through a beliefless state, the Still blissful Light of Nowness contained no god or other condition, simply a Consciousness of Love.

I lived in the Charlottesville area of Virginia for near two years and had many conversations with some of todays leading edge death reseachers, however, their humancentric point of view and belief in a god, in my opinion, muddles the experience. Thus, as I often say, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief.

The comment of your po(u)ncing upon the difficulty with language, was in no way meant as a slight, but that your post, I felt, highlighted some difficulty we have in communicating with language, and what meanings are being pointed to through our words.

Deepak has a nice video on death and dying which I would use to initiate a discussion if call upon to converse on "death and separation concerns".

I should note, that besides a death experience (1974), for some reason called a NDE, I've also had a diagnosed terminal illness (lympoma) in 1982, and was at that time given 3 months to live. I mention this because the mind-set of person, who at least believes their death is near, is quite different than the everyday Joe/Josephine. There is as a relaxment from anxiety. For me, my biggest difficulty at the time was calming down my loved ones,...spouse, children, mother, father, brothers and sisters, etc.

My intention is not to "bury" the perceptions of duality, that is, the holographic dream we express ourselfs through, but to make suggestions in regards to what is duality and what is not,...for in all my observations, Consciousness does not exist in duality,...only ego 'thinks' the dream is real. But for some, they are in the dream, yet not attached to the dream. To realize that, all you need is one truth, and then play neti-neti.

There are many truths, yet all truths are the samething. The Now is not the past. If you can realize that truth, the false can be readily observed, and concerns of so-called death won't be so concerning.

Vicente
:)

[sahyo]

for in all my observations, Consciousness does not exist in duality


"my observations"? ;)

[vicente]

Got me Asheera,...
for in all metasensory observations, that is, beyond the sense perceptions of observer/observed, Consciousness does not exist in duality. This is to say, that once Consciousness is experienced, which is only experienced within the Clear Stillness of Light, that upon reengagement with the dream, what Consciousness is not is easily understood.

Even though this appears difficult to grasp on a conceptual, intellectual level,...I feel there are methods to realize it within duality's languages. For instance, what is Nowness. This is to say again (what DavidS calls my parrotic repetition) that what is not Now, is not Now. The past is not the Now, so no past, which would include any perceived object, is not in the Now. Anything in motion is not in the Now. There is no instant of time that could be called Now in the phenomenal universe. Still Light, the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion, is in the Now.

Silence is in the Now. The voidance of noise, the opposite of noise, is not in the Now.

The Unconditional is in the Now. A condition is not.

Is it because I have experienced the Stillness of Light that I understand the simplicity of the above? Is it possible that one cannot grasp what a word like 'Now' points to in its purest definition, without having been awake, even if only for a short while?

Vicente
:)

[a random hack]

I should note, that besides a death experience (1974), for some reason called a NDE, I've also had a diagnosed terminal illness (lympoma) in 1982, and was at that time given 3 months to live.

s'funny how when we dying (when aren't we?), doctors (usually) give us an amount of time to live..... like they know :D

I mention this because the mind-set of person, who at least believes their death is near, is quite different than the everyday Joe/Josephine. There is as a relaxment from anxiety. For me, my biggest difficulty at the time was calming down my loved ones,...spouse, children, mother, father, brothers and sisters, etc.

:)

[DavidS]

Hi vicente -

I appreciate the clarifications relating to your personal ex·peer·iences. :ph34r: (zen bowing).

I still think-n-feel that "all perceptions of separateness, etc. are just 'illusions' " kinds of responses are quite unhelpful (and un related-relating!) to someone/anyone 'concerned' with what will 'happen' to those that they 'love', including 'themselves' as 'persons'. Like going to a doctor about an 'ail'ment and being told something like "It's all just in your head!"

Also, I don't 'see' a black-n-white 'differences' between 'transendental'-bliss-experiences which 'include' (specific) 'others' and those that don't. Both have something to 'recommend' them, IMO. For me the criterion, in terms of the 'value' of an ex·peer·ience, is how (in what ways a person·ality is) love-'transformed' in 'consequence'. It all depends on what one does with/makes of his or her ex·peer·ience, whether this be an 'NDE' on or not'. Your 'championing' of your kind of ex·peer·ience and associated 'put-down·ing' of other kinds is (i.e., 'looks' to 'me' like it is) very ego-self-serving-n-glorifying-n-separative, IMO.

There is no 'one size fits all', or 'one path suits all', thang when it comes to personal love- and wisdom-transformation, IMO.

[vicente]

Gee DavidS, are you really as void of having any contribution to the evolution of humanity as your posts suggest? Or perhaps you, like many college professor types, were born with an 'arrogant gene' from which you believe you are so much intellectually superior to everyone else? You know the kind, the "many path advocators", who, unable to grasp the one, simple path, proselytize and put-down those who can. Whatever your particular block, I'm not certain how much lower I can go to present the irrefutable truth that "thinking and feeling" are inherently flawed,...it may actually be easier to describe the colour blue to a 1st century Greek. Of course a Buddhist on the other hand, may say it's pointless tossing pearls to swine.

Other than the above, your post(s) highlight your ducking from, and fear of, addressing the subject at hand,...ie., no comment, not even an attempt, to discuss Nowness, Light, motion, etc.,...sort of like the pathetic terminal irony found in TV sitcoms, as Seinfeld, who resists disappointment or failure (thus growth) by refusing to identify with any asperation or relationship in a serious way.

The accusation, in your 'kind' opinion, of me being into self-serving, ego, glorification, is another example of your (most likely unconscious) fear-based agenda. I'm sure your attacking of anything and everything which contributes to awakening served you well in the past,...but such tactics, and your desperation to cling to your beliefs for your identity, are nothing short of a pure waste.

To conclude, although your ego does not wish to understand what ego is, I will, with you in mind, start a new thread, "what is ego". And don't worry, it's no big effort,...I wrote it years ago.

Vicente
:)

[eumeme]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 8 2003, 05:30 AM
Rich,...it is "thought" that perceives others around us, not Consciousness.

Try the following transcipt Rich,...perhaps it will assist alittle:
http://www.intuition.org/txt/krishna.htm

Vicente
:)
Vicente,

I'm reading U.G.Krishnamurti and I'm convinced that consciousness (mind, self ) is only one ancient thought among the others in the brain.

What I don't believe is that you can get rid of consciousness permanently as U.G. asserts (the 'calamity' etc.) and still be able to function in the human society.

For example I don't see a reason to communicate with the others once you've unplug the mind... :unsure:

There is no reason to help the others because there are no others, just deluded humans that believe to exists!

What do you think?

Can you also comment the critique to U.G. on this link:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ksolway/ug.html

(my opinion is that there is some truth in the criticism espressed but I don't think the author is not completely free of bias)

Bruno

[...]

Bruno, realising that there is no doer negates the necessaty to speak about the body as having a individualized entity present, which is always the case whether thought/thinking is present or not....

Get it?

[vicente]

EU=good MEME= a self-reproducing idea, that spreads from one mind to another,...that's quite a name.

In my opinion, consciousness (lower case) is about thinking,...and thus I would agree with the premise that we can dissolve thinking, or at least put the "I Am" before the "i think"; that is, the not I, the ego. This dissolvement of thinking has been termed by bodhisattvas as Thoughtlessness. I myself have experienced hours, days, and even weeks of Thoughtlessness, and in fact, was very physically, emotionally and spiritually productive during those times.

If I responded directly to a question like "why we are here", I'd wager you'd want to stone me with rocks,...for most people cannot handle the truth that natures music does not exist outside of things. So I'll leave you with the following 3 questions which were asked to ACIM's Foundation For Inner Peace:

1. If God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).
These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:
The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.
You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.
It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.


2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that God did not create the entire physical universe?

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of God, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

Perception is not an attribute of God. His is the realm of knowledge....In God you cannot see. Perception has no function in God, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).
In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which God did not create:
The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).
And finally, a similar statement in the text:
God's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet are His laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).
These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.
Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of God. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).
To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:
How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).
In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.


3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.


Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente wrote an exceedingly long post to answer 3 questions. They have been answered via the opinion/s of an/other mortal being/s.

1. If God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

2. Does A Course in Miracles really mean that God did not create the entire physical universe?

3. What about the beauty and goodness in the world?



Some of the opinions of the author, I may be inclined to agree with.
However, that is not the point, whether one agrees or disagrees with what was written. Any human being on this planet will never know,(or if you prefer, gnow if the opinion/s of the author of A Course In Miricales are absolute truth.

I presume that Truth is what each of us seek, and I think it is
something we will have to find through ourselves. Thanks for posting
the authors ideas anyway, some of them may be found useful. :) ;)

[eumeme]

Originally posted by ...+Nov 13 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (... @ Nov 13 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Bruno, realising that there is no doer negates the necessaty to speak about the body as having a individualized entity present, which is always the case whether thought/thinking is present or not....

Get it? [/b]
I'm not sure ...!

Do you mean:

Realizing that there is no self make the discussion about self pointless, and this is true anyway?

here is my understanding of your sentence:

Realizing that there is no self (doer) make the discussion about (to speak about) self (the body as having a individualized entity present) pointless (negates the necessity) , and this is true (which is always the case) anyway (whether thought/thinking is present or not)

I partially agree with it (if I got the right meaning of it - I'm not entirely sure of what do you mean with doer: could be Self or God or other). Partially because my belief system partially refuses absolutes.

The issues on which I'm currently working are the followings:

a. I'm not sure that a society/culture could evolve without a self, it seems to be an inevitable phase - I'm trying to prove it.
b. I don't know if a society/culture could keep evolving after the discovery that a self doesn't exists.
c. I understand that the problem with the two sentence above is a definition of society/culture evolution: mine would be to increase the overall knowledge of the society/culture in order to maximize its existence.

Please note that I don't think that evolution of society/culture is good or bad (I don't believe anymore in good or bad...), it's just a self preserving mechanism like life. I used to think that was good because I was on the same team! :D

Questions, comments and development on a, b, c are very welcomed!

Bruno :rolleyes:

P.S.

<!--QuoteBegin--Vicente@Nov 13 2003, 01:46 AM

EU=good MEME= a self-reproducing idea, that spreads from one mind to another,...that's quite a name.
[/quote]
Thank you Vicente, I've chosen this name some years ago when my belief system still deeply believed in the duality Good/Bad. :unsure:

[...]

I partially agree with it (if I got the right meaning of it - I'm not entirely sure of what do you mean with doer: could be Self or God or other).

No doer means no individuality...

Partially because my belief system partially refuses absolutes.

Interesting. Why?

The issues on which I'm currently working are the followings: a. I'm not sure that a society/culture could evolve without a self, it seems to be an inevitable phase - I'm trying to prove it.

Reality is unfolding through the seeing eye without interference of a someone...

b. I don't know if a society/culture could keep evolving after the discovery that a self doesn't exists.

Nothing changes after such a discovery...

c. I understand that the problem with the two sentence above is a definition of society/culture evolution: mine would be to increase the overall knowledge of the society/culture in order to maximize its existence.

Shit just happens, eumeme...

Please note that I don't think that evolution of society/culture is good or bad (I don't believe anymore in good or bad...), it's just a self preserving mechanism like life. I used to think that was good because I was on the same team!

What shapes society/culture is not under the control of the collective, nothing is. We all are on the same team...

[eumeme]

No doer means no individuality...

... can you explain the difference between individuality and self?

Interesting. Why?

Simply because I've never encountered in my universe a true absolute that could stand the time... Sooner or later every absolutes that I had was proved wrong... But my belief system is continuosly adapting so, I never know, it is possible that you convince me of the contrary...

Reality is unfolding through the seeing eye without interference of a someone...

This is nice but not helping in finding out my proof.
Let me see... :huh:

Reality is (the Reality unfolding through the seeing eye with the interference of a someone) with that interference removed by the appropriate algorithm... (this is not helping too... but I like the idea and expresses my point of view! :D )

Nothing changes after such a discovery...

... interesting. Why? :unsure:

Shit just happens, eumeme...

... so what does the fact that the future is unknown adds to the definition of culture/society evolution?
It seems to me that evolution has nothing to do with the future, just with the past!

What shapes society/culture is not under the control of the collective, nothing is.

I'm not saying that it is under control of the collective: I actually believe that what shapes society/culture are physics laws. I'm not sure of your "nothing is", but without a definition of "collective" I can't say.

We all are on the same team...

Everything is in the same team... before I had a "lifecentric" point of view (being in the life team ;) )...


Bruno :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

when thought ceases, so will statements like "through the seeing eye", ...

[eumeme]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 13 2003, 07:46 PM
when thought ceases, so will statements like "through the seeing eye", ...
Is it possible to write a reply here when thought ceases? :unsure:

Bruno :rolleyes:

[vicente]

Eumeme asks:
a. I'm not sure that a society/culture could evolve without a self, it seems to be an inevitable phase - I'm trying to prove it.
b. I don't know if a society/culture could keep evolving after the discovery that a self doesn't exists.
c. I understand that the problem with the two sentence above is a definition of society/culture evolution: mine would be to increase the overall knowledge of the society/culture in order to maximize its existence.

Have you ever, while dreaming, became cognizant you were dreaming,...that all you were engaged with was a dream? If you haven't, then imagine what that dream would then be like,...ie., how would you then respond to something fearful, if you understood it was not real?

... suggests:
"What shapes society/culture is not under the control of the collective"

Some say there is no absolute truth, but if that was absolutely true, then that would be the absolute truth. In Reality however, that is, from the point of view of Nowness (not the now of the immediate past, but the unseparate Now, where the energy and motion of perceived separation does not exist), there is absolute truth.

Much of this kind of dialogue merely appears difficult. So imagine a seesaw in a playground. Everyone in our perceived "society/culture" is upon this seesaw. Most fluctuate up and down, from end to end,...often passing the center so quickly they never notice the harmonic balanced interchange. Those who have let go of the concepts of good and bad, stay somewhat in the middle, and some of those, like bodhisattvas, directly over the fulcrum.

So,...from a duality point of view, there is change or evolution as society/culture uncovers their fears and embraces neutrality, yet from the fulcrums point of view there is never change, for the Still Light of Source is Changeless.

On a personal level, my own continuum of awakenings is accompanied by more consideration, more compassion, more specificity in how I communicate. Therefore, as I see little difference between the microcosm and macrocosm, I'd say that the more we let go of concepts such as god, religion and other ego barriers we built and cling to, which obscures the Love that we are, the more consideration, compassion and communion will become past of the Collective.

To put it in a nutshell: Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

Vicente
:)

[eumeme]

Thank you Vicente, but again I'm getting nowhere with my questions.
(please don't tell me that there is no destinations or no goals: I know it by myself, but this is my fun: I can't help it, I enjoy it and the deepest force that I found inside me so far is the search for pleasure... :P )

Let me restate my case.

My definition of society/culture evolution:

The "mechanism" that tend to increase the overall knowledge of the society/culture in order to maximize its existence/persistence.

If this definition is accepted one of the four following statement must be true:

A. The self/individuality is a requirement for the society/culture evolution at some stage of the society/culture history.
B. The self/individuality is a requirement for the society/culture evolution for the entire history of the society/culture.
C. The self/individuality is not a requirement for the society/culture evolution.
D. There is no way to know if A or B or C is true (it's an undecidable problem).

Is anybody interested in helping me finding out which one of this statements is true and why?

Thanx

Bruno :rolleyes:

To clarify my intentions:

I'm not here to compete with anybody, I don't have the time for this.
I just though that a forum like this could be used to join forces together in order to attack problems... :)
I'll be very happy to do the same with everybody else.
But it seems that everybody has already all the answers and is totally deaf to my questions...
I don't want to change any of your belief system and I'm willing to change mine, but my priority, in this moment, is to find the answers to my questions, not the answers to questions I didn't make... :blink:

[sahyo]

Is it possible to write a reply here when thought ceases?


does singbirding not singing? ;)

[vicente]

Eumeme,..."I just though that a forum like this could be used to join forces together in order to attack problems..."

Krishnamurti said, and I would agree, that "the goal, which you have invented, is responsible for your search. As long as the goal is there, so long will the search continue".

Eumeme,..." please don't tell me that there is no destinations or no goals". OK!

I left a hint above, within those 3 ACIM questions, which suggests that your definition of "societal/cultural evolution", that is, to maximize existence/persistence, is flawed. Such a definition, in essence, merely suggests that you believe that the dream is real, when it is false.

Eckhart Tolle, in his 'The Power of Now', says on page 4, that "attention must be drawn to what is false in you, for unless you learn to recognize the false as the false - as not you - there can be no transformation, and you will always end up being drawn back into the illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself".

I am not here to compete with you, but simply to respond from a point of view that I observe in relationship with how Light/Nowness/Love would see it.

To directly answer your question as is: The "self/individual", by your definition, is indeed a requirement for the perpetuation of "societal/cultural evolution". My question is, do we want more of that object-ive falsity?

Individuality, not only from my perspective, but also from the points of view of quantum mechanics, Buddhism, Light, etc., is delusion based on a perception that objects, time and self are real.

What colour is a ripe banana? It is no colour. A banana, to human perception, absorbs all wavelengths except yellow, which it reflects. I feel your questions are aimed at showing that a banana is yellow, and perhaps rejecting dialogue that shows a banana is not yellow.

From my perspective, I've responded to your questions,...that is, to the core substance of the questions, from which perhaps you could rephrase them in a way that would truely "attack the problem", and not perpetuate the illusion.

Vicente
:)

[eumeme]

Vicente,

please understand that I'm reassesting my belief system after my recent understanding that my self is an illusion (I don't believe that you can get rid entirely of your belief system as U.G.Krishnamurti says - we can only adapt to the new knowledge acquired - unless you damage your brain with a gun or other means).

Without my self I wouldn't be able to write here - and you neither... what my mind has received from the accumulation of thousands of years of knowledge of the culture/society allows me to write here and discuss with you.

I'm sure that I can pretend (at the cost of deluding myself) to not be here anymore and let mywordsgoastheyflow but I know that this an illusion over the first illusion and frankly I don't need it now...

The proof that nobody here is immune from the illusion of the self is that he's writing here: even if we try to disguise the writings with 'oracle' or fuzzy responses or not using a name. Every time we communicate we make use of a language, a naming system, a belief system, an illusion.

Unfortunately imho the only way to leave the illusion for good is to completely abandon the society/culture and stop communicating with others and yourself.

Before I'll take this path, I want to be sure that this is the illusion and not the opposite: if the evolution ultimate goal is to create the self so that the evolution could take another accelleration, should I oppose to it?
Probably life exists to accelerate the increase of the entropy of the universe: and perhaps the mind/self/culture is just another mechanism to increase the entropy even faster (this is a fact on our planet if you look around!).

So now you know the reasons for my questions.

I know that everything and its opposite has been written, but I don't want to base changes to my belief system on what others have written without considering evolution...

Society/culture is what has brought us here, we know the power of individuality, we are his sons...

Without individuality we lose the will to do anything apart from survive and reproduce (we become again simply genes vessels and we help them in their goal of pemanency on this planet as long as possible).

With individuality we seem to delude ourselves and we see reality through colour-changing sunglasses...

Probably there is a third way: keeping our illusion knowing that it's an illusion like the genius John Nash did (I mean in the film "a beautiful mind").

We only need to find the algorithm of the colour-changing glasses to create a specific counter colour-changing-filter to reduce the effect of the glasses and set up a mechanism in order to keep improving the filter. It is not a new solution... it is what has taken us here after thousands of years... ;)

Bruno :rolleyes:

[vicente]

Eumeme,...I appreciate your assessing, yet in my opinion you're as putting the cart before the horse. This is to say, you seem to be defining the real through the conceptuality of what is not real.

I for one would not wish you to change your beliefs,...only vacate your beliefs. This is to say, when you "see" the core of a belief, and you will realize when you do, for "seeing" the core is not a memory, but a re-lived experienced, that belief and the vibration attached to it, will effortlessly dissolve, and no longer be part of your overall vibrational pattern.

ACIM has an interesting quote appropriate to this:
"the task is not to seek for love, but to find all the barriers within you that you have built against it".

We had a theme on another forum that the forum was about 'letting go'. Instead of learning, it was about unlearning. This is to say, suppose the answer you seek is not in the accumulation of more knowledge, but in letting go of all the knowledge you have accumulated?

I am not suggesting you or anyone to recluse yourself in a cave. Actually, I would say such an action would be to your deprivation. To grasp what I mean, simply recall the saying regarding the beam in your eye, verses the splinter in your neighbors. Hiding away is a rejection of the mirrors to see ourselfs, thus adding many lifetimes, if there is such a thing, to our uncovering.

Yes, I would agree there is a way to be in the illusion and not of the illusion. Many, since the 11th century, have called this the 4th Way. It is a Way that has similarities to prison life. Most of the Collective are prisioners and don't realize it. A few others realize they are in prison and opt to be as trustees within the prison. Even a few less, realize they are in prison, but engage in ways to escape. The 4th, less then 1% of the Collective, have already escaped. They are no longer attached to the dream that has no dreamer. No longer completely controlled by the dream and merely existing to feed the illusion.

The who, when, why and what for of these 4th Way beings is not important,...for it cannot be understood on a conceptual level.

The first document to my understanding that describes how to realize this Fourth Way was written around 1040CE. Below is one translation:
http://www.dabase.net/mahamud2.htm

Vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 11 2003, 06:06 PM
Gee DavidS, are you really as void of having any contribution to the evolution of humanity as your posts suggest? Etc.
Gee, if that's what you see and say, vicente, then that must be 'true' -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
for you at least.
:lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 12 2003, 11:46 AM
We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of God, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this.
The way I 'see' things (which I realize is quite 'opposite' to the way you 'see' things, vicente - I am not saying this to be 'argumentative' but simply to let Bruno and others know how I 'see' things in 'contrast' to the way you 'see' things), there is only All That Is (which has both 'manifest' and 'unmanifest' 'elements'). All That Is is what 'I' 'define' the term God to mean. Thus, God is All That is. Thus, everythang and nonthang (i.e. All) is God, and it's all real -- even the slightest, most fleeting 'thought' and 'feeling' is real, and really God 'in' action. Thus, as you may imagine, the material vicente quotes strikes me as being laughably ludicrous, as what I say must strike him as being, as you may also imagine.

For similar reasons, I find Dots' saying things like "There is no doer" and "No doer means no individuality..." 'incredibly' side-splitting as well. I wonder who or what the heck he thinks is 'seeing' things this way and and 'saying' all this. The 'Void' I guess! :lol:

I hope you have a good sense of humor, Bruno. Welcome to Wonderland. You've really stepped through the looking glass into a veritable hall of mirrors which reflect negative as positive and positive as negative. Methinks you'll need every ounce of your wits to not get completely boloxed in!

:lol:

[vicente]

Yes DavidS, I would also say that there is only All That Is,...the difference is that what I understand "Is" is different from what you understand Is. To me, this is not a problem. I say, lets discuss it and see if we can verify what Is and what Isn't (neti-neti).

On my end, I've attempted to share on Light, on the Now, on knowledge vs gnowledge, etc., in looking for some way where the question, what is All That Is, can be address.

I'll take a whirl again. Lets discuss All That Is in relation to quantum mechanics, specifically the No Boundary theory (Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle), which says there is no time, no singularity, no Big Bang, no creation, no Creator, thus no beginning or end,...all the things which Eastern wise ones been saying for thousands of years.

If there is no time, then there is no underlying fundamental energy or particle,...just the fulcrum of Still, Unconconditional Light.

As you, DavidS, are part of the majority who believe objects, duality, time, etc are real, that is, part of All That Is, I seriously look forward to discussing why you feel that way. Simply because I'm amazed that someone, especially with your seeming level of philosophical understanding, thinks that way, shouldn't be taken as some form of slight, any more if someone asked why you're using a shoe to frame a house when there is a perfectly good hammer on the nail pouch.

Vicente
:)

[...]

... can you explain the difference between individuality and self?

There is none...

Simply because I've never encountered in my universe a true absolute that could stand the time... Sooner or later every absolutes that I had was proved wrong... But my belief system is continuosly adapting so, I never know, it is possible that you convince me of the contrary...

That there is experiencing is not an absolute?

This is nice but not helping in finding out my proof.

You are the proof...

Nothing changes after such a discovery... ... interesting. Why?

Perhaps you seek change from the idea that Now isn't Now or the state of affairs is inappropiate, unwanted. Discovery will show that all is Now and needs no change...

... so what does the fact that the future is unknown adds to the definition of culture/society evolution? It seems to me that evolution has nothing to do with the future, just with the past!

True...

I'm not saying that it is under control of the collective: I actually believe that what shapes society/culture are physics laws. I'm not sure of your "nothing is", but without a definition of "collective" I can't say.

Are these physic laws property of a someone, an individuality? Without beliefs, what's the answer?

[...]

when thought ceases, so will statements like "through the seeing eye", ...

When will statements like above cease?

[...]

I wonder who or what the heck he thinks is 'seeing' things this way and and 'saying' all this. The 'Void' I guess!

How can the perciever not have come forth from the void? How can the perciever be separate from the void? How can the perciever not be the void?

[sahyo]

when thought ceases, so will statements like "through the seeing eye", ...

When will statements like above cease?


:lol: ....is it a statement, ...?

[sahyo]

... :

..resting on the couch, her beside me she asked: "whatcha thinking?" Then i realised there hadn't been one shred of a thought for quite awhile, there had been no me for quite awhile, only 'being'...


a statement like this?

[sahyo]

... :

There is no-one without Buddha nature...


a statement, ...?

[sahyo]

Reality is unfolding through the seeing eye*


wasn't whether "through the seeing eye" was stating or not, but that if thought was absent wouldn't have thought"Reality is unfolding through the seeing eye"

:)

[a random hack]

who dares say 'thought is absent'?

[sahyo]

if thought was absent wouldn't have thought"Reality is unfolding through the seeing eye"


:)

[...]

..you continue to believe that thoughtlesness is important in some way, why?

[sahyo]

thoughtthoughtlessness?
haps if ... not thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not :)

[...]

haps if ... not thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not

... just ...ing. No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not...

[eumeme]

Originally posted by Asheera
haps if ... not thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not


:lol:

It seems very simple... everybody spontaneusly does whatever gives him/her pleasure (i.e. shot of chemical substance like serotonine or endorphine in the brain)... it's one of the side effects of having a brain I guess...
It was meant to be one of the original survival mechanism (avoid pain, danger, death and seek pleasure in food, sex, new knowledge...)

As homo sapiens sapiens we enhanced the mechanism in such a way that we can find pleasure in anything each one of us believe will give him/her pleasure... even near-death experiences or search for perfection or truth...

I always believed that Mother Teresa was one of the major pleasure seeker of the planet (almost at my level :rolleyes: ...)

It's just an addiction to those chemical - not different from the drug addicted syndrome I guess...

I should just stand up and say "My name is Bruno and I'm a pleasure seeker!" - Welcome to the Pleasure Seeker Anonymous! :D

I have to admit that you Asheera have found a way to gather pleasure that gives me pleasure too! :lol: (it's the humor I guess - I'm still trying to understand it - I can't help it - I'm really a pleasure junkie! :P )

Bruno

[eumeme]

Originally posted by DavidS@Nov 14 2003, 07:12 AM
All That Is is what 'I' 'define' the term God to mean.
My belief system in this respect is pretty much similar to yours, but I don't see the point to assign a controversial name like GOD to the Universe... unless you believe there is more than the Universe...

And Richard Feynman (your avatar) wasn't really interested in names (remember the anecdote about bird names with his father) as long that the meaning was the same.

Do you believe that God as you define it is sentient?

Bruno :rolleyes:

[eumeme]

I was wondering... is there anything on which everybody (already registered to this forum) agrees?

something like 1+1=2 for example is acceptable by everybody or not? (where 1 and 2 are the first 2 natural numbers and + and = are as defined in the elementary schools)


Bruno :rolleyes:

[eumeme]

Originally posted by ...@Nov 14 2003, 01:22 PM
That there is experiencing is not an absolute?

I guess that the meaning of your statement is "everybody is experiencing so experiencing is an absolute certainty in the human race" (please correct me if I'm wrong...)

If that's the case I'm still not entirely sure... If we really are inside a computer simulation (like Matrix) and everythink is already predefined and programmed would you say that experiencing is an absolute or it is just what the software make us believe?

In my opinion it's impossible to prove that we are not inside a computer simulation... I only believe it with 1% of my illusory mind but anyway I'm taking account of it before getting hold of an absolute...

On the other hand mathematics seems to be an absolute if you want my opinion... it seems to exist in the culture of all possible "civilized" universes (but I don't know how to prove it and I don't know if there are uncivilized universes out there... :unsure:)


Bruno :rolleyes:

[eumeme]

Originally posted by ...@Nov 14 2003, 01:22 PM
Are these physic laws property of a someone, an individuality? Without beliefs, what's the answer?
I think they are not property of someone but the product of a culture.

The good think about them (that is also the good thing about science) is that they are not the truth, but just a good aproximation of it... It's the best that we can do as humans...

As soon as you can positively prove that they are wrong, bang! they are gone, and new law must take their place...

They are just adapting to the measurements made.

I can't get rid of my belief system (and I don't honestly believe that you can either) so I don't really know how to answer to your second question... :unsure:

Bruno :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

... just ...ing. No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not.


claiming "No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not.", ...,
doesn't change that were thinking which not

[sahyo]

It seems very simple... everybody spontaneusly does whatever gives him/her pleasure (i.e. shot of chemical substance like serotonine or endorphine in the brain)... it's one of the side effects of having a brain I guess...


humans paining-fear-seeking-relief-release

is paining-fear-seeking-relief-release "spontaneusly"?, or only 'seeming'?


It was meant to be one of the original survival mechanism (avoid pain, danger, death and seek pleasure in food, sex, new knowledge...)


yes, though is an'entity'-designer-"was meant to be"?


As homo sapiens sapiens we enhanced the mechanism in such a way that we can find pleasure in anything each one of us believe will give him/her pleasure...


yes most humans "believe"


even near-death experiences or search for perfection or truth...


yes, can happen humans, though not always


I always believed that Mother Teresa was one of the major pleasure seeker of the planet (almost at my level...)

It's just an addiction to those chemical - not different from the drug addicted syndrome I guess...


:D


I should just stand up and say "My name is Bruno and I'm a pleasure seeker!" - Welcome to the Pleasure Seeker Anonymous!


B) , but is bruno which is 'believed'?


I have to admit that you Asheera have found a way to gather pleasure that gives me pleasure too! (it's the humor I guess - I'm still trying to understand it - I can't help it - I'm really a pleasure junkie!)


:lol: :P :D

can "gather pleasure"?

when laughing is 'thinking'?, is 'thinking'-entity-youmeme?, 'ayou'-thinking-youmeme?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Nov 14 2003, 12:51 AM
I'll take a whirl again. Lets discuss All That Is in relation to quantum mechanics, specifically the No Boundary theory (Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle), which says there is no time, no singularity, no Big Bang, no creation, no Creator, thus no beginning or end,...all the things which Eastern wise ones been saying for thousands of years.

If there is no time, then there is no underlying fundamental energy or particle,...just the fulcrum of Still, Unconconditional Light.

As you, DavidS, are part of the majority who believe objects, duality, time, etc are real, that is, part of All That Is, I seriously look forward to discussing why you feel that way. Simply because I'm amazed that someone, especially with your seeming level of philosophical understanding, thinks that way, shouldn't be taken as some form of slight, any more if someone asked why you're using a shoe to frame a house when there is a perfectly good hammer on the nail pouch.
I appreciate the (quality of the) 'spirit' in which you approach the issue 'between' 'you' and 'me', vicente.

Let me begin by saying, "Yes, I think so too," to all your 'quantum mech' (type) conceptualizations.

The 'disagreement' 'between' us, I think, pertains to the very last (analogical) 'assertion' you make, which I simply can't go along with, becuase what you 'see' as a 'shoe' being 'used' to 'frame' the house, I 'see' and, after considerable experimentation, ex·peer·ience as a 'perfectly good hammer', and what you 'see' as a 'perfectly good hammer', I 'see' and, after considerable experimentation, ex·peer·ience to not even be a 'shoe'!

The realization of "no singularity, no Big Bang, no creation, no Creator, thus no beginning or end", while quite (beneficially) useful if 'applied' in certain circumstances, is totally inappropriate and will prove quite mis·lead·ing when and as one is, let's say, driving a car along a road with other cars (going both 'ways') on it, especially in situations where there are ditches on either side, and superespecially when and as there are other roads and many intersections.

Now all that (i.e., 'situations' where there are such roads and travelling cars) may be of no interest to you because it has no 'relevance' to what you personally 'see' as being most 'important', but it is of great interest to me becuase of what I personally 'see' as being most 'important', in terms of 'personal' and 'interpersonal' (i.e., 'communal') development, which I also 'see' as being 'crucial' in terms of there being 'balanced' and 'coordinated' movement towards what is norm·ally referred to as 'the hereafter', both 'here' on the planet and 'elsewhere'.

In the case of drivers of cars on 'common' (or 'commonly used') roads, I think the 'application' good ol' 'Classical Mechanics' is the most 'sensible' approach.

If you 'disagree' with that, then I would suggest the 'disagreement' between us derives from you and I having totally different conceptions-n-understandings pertaining to what 'constitutes' a viable 'house' ('viable' in terms of what people or beings or souls, in the plural can 'successfully' live and 'creatively' function and interrelate 'in').

One thing I think-n-feel pretty sure of is that, if you are 'adventurously' aiming to 'arrive' at some (next) 'destination' of 'choice' (other than 'oblivion', that is), especially if you 'see' a 'car' headed right at your 'car', thinking-and-or-feeling-and-or-saying that there's "no singularity, no Big Bang, no creation, no Creator, thus no beginning or end" will get you absolutely nowhere! fast!! The same 'conclusion' applies to offering that as 'advice' to someone else in such a venture-predicament.

I don't give a rat's ass if your 'theory' is the 'simplest'. As far as I am concerned, the 'proof' of something's utility-value is always in the 'pudding'.

Looking forward to 'successfully' conversational-dance-getting 'down' to 'earth' and 'blissfully' conversational-dance-soaring 'up' to 'heaven' with you, if that be a quantum-mech-'possibility' in this lifetime -

Appreciatively, David. :)

[sahyo]

david:

Of course, I recognize the possibility that some here may 'authentically' only be interested in self-'masturbation'

[...]

If we really are inside a computer simulation (like Matrix) and everythink is already predefined and programmed would you say that experiencing is an absolute or it is just what the software make us believe?

If reality is a computer simulation, then so are we...

[...]

I think they are not property of someone but the product of a culture.

Gravity, entropy, action/reaction are products of culture? Perhaps the interpretation is, but nothing more...

The good think about them (that is also the good thing about science) is that they are not the truth, but just a good aproximation of it... It's the best that we can do as humans...

Yes, when speaking about the words attached to laws of physics, they're an approximation...

As soon as you can positively prove that they are wrong, bang! they are gone, and new law must take their place...

Are we talking about the same thing here?

I can't get rid of my belief system (and I don't honestly believe that you can either) so I don't really know how to answer to your second question...

Without beliefs the answer would have been; "don't know"

[...]

claiming "No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not.", ..., doesn't change that were thinking which not

Should that change?

[sonrisa]

nah!

[sahyo]

Should that change?



did:

claiming "No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not.", ..., doesn't change that were thinking which not


indicate shouldshouldn't change, ...?

[eumeme]

eumeme: Please note that I don't think that evolution of society/culture is good or bad (I don't believe anymore in good or bad...), it's just a self preserving mechanism like life. I used to think that was good because I was on the same team!

...: What shapes society/culture is not under the control of the collective, nothing is. We all are on the same team...

eumeme: I'm not saying that it is under control of the collective: I actually believe that what shapes society/culture are physics laws. I'm not sure of your "nothing is", but without a definition of "collective" I can't say.
Everything is in the same team... before I had a "lifecentric" point of view (being in the life team )...


...: Are these physic laws property of a someone, an individuality? Without beliefs, what's the answer?

eumeme: I think they are not property of someone but the product of a culture.

...:Gravity, entropy, action/reaction are products of culture? Perhaps the interpretation is, but nothing more...

:blink: What is this? An exercise from Arthur Shopenhauer book "The Art of Controversy ... Thirty-Eight Dishonest Ways to Win an Argument" ?
What's the difference between Gravitation law and the interpretation of Gravity?
It appears that humans (unfortunately) don't have direct access to the true Gravitation law (if such a thing exists)! Just to its interpretation and we call it Gravitation law... (btw scientists are still working on the quantuum gravity theory...)


eumeme: The good think about them (the physics laws) (that is also the good thing about science) is that they are not the truth, but just a good aproximation of it... It's the best that we can do as humans...

...: Yes, when speaking about the words attached to laws of physics, they're an approximation...

This is an other argument that can be true or not, I'm prepare to discuss it later if you like...

But whenI'm saying that "the laws of physics are an approximation..." I literally mean it: Newton motion's laws are a good approximation of the motion, but Einstein motion's laws are a better approximation, expecially for speed near the speed of light... Unfortunately there is no way to know if the approximation coincide with the truth, because we don't know the truth, just a little part of it (i.e. we don't see the whole universe)... so it's better to keep an open mind (and open eyes) and accept that limit...

eumeme: As soon as you can positively prove that they are wrong, bang! they are gone, and new law must take their place...

...: Are we talking about the same thing here?

I thought so, but now I don't know: I'm talking about physics laws here! (I hope is not due to my English... it's not my mother tongue as you probably guessed...).
As I said before, Einstein motion's laws replaced Newton ones because Newton's laws are wrong near the speed of light... (they consider time as an absolute which is not...)

...: Are these physic laws property of a someone, an individuality? Without beliefs, what's the answer?

eumeme: I can't get rid of my belief system (and I don't honestly believe that you can either) so I don't really know how to answer to your second question...

...:Without beliefs the answer would have been; "don't know"

I think that in your belief system the extended version of the above would be:
Without beliefs the answer to any questions would have been: "don't know"
It's a statement that doesn't really explain anything...

My belief system statement is: "without beliefs there are no words/concepts/thought/questions hence no answers..."
And this as well doesn't really go anywhere... why did you ask in the first place? (But more important to me... why did I reply in the first instance? :blink: Ah, yes... for my chemical dose of course... :lol: )


Bruno :rolleyes:

[thirst4sun]

I agree that it is unatural, research on this would be a waste of time and money. A question does arise: Would this unatural being still have a soul?

[...]

..a simple yes or no will suffice, asheera...

[...]

It appears that humans (unfortunately) don't have direct access to the true Gravitation law (if such a thing exists)! Just to its interpretation and we call it Gravitation law... (btw scientists are still working on the quantuum gravity theory...)

For another interpretation on gravity and such, check out: this (http://www.tamashii.com)

(I hope is not due to my English... it's not my mother tongue as you probably guessed...).

Same here...

...:Without beliefs the answer would have been; "don't know" It's a statement that doesn't really explain anything...

If it's about truth and nothing but the truth, it's necessary to quit fairytaling (beliefs) and stop to smell the roses...

My belief system statement is: "without beliefs there are no words/concepts/thought/questions hence no answers..."

No...

[...]

Would this unatural being still have a soul?

What is a soul?

[sahyo]

Should that change?



did:

claiming "No which not to thinkassumeconcludebelieving which not.", ..., doesn't change that were thinking which not


indicate shouldshouldn't change, ...?

[sahyo]

..a simple yes or no will suffice, asheera...


:D hehe

[eumeme]

Originally posted by eumeme+Nov 15 2003, 08:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (eumeme @ Nov 15 2003, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by ...@Nov 14 2003, 01:22 PM
That there is experiencing is not an absolute?

I guess that the meaning of your statement is "everybody is experiencing so experiencing is an absolute certainty in the human race" (please correct me if I'm wrong...)

If that's the case I'm still not entirely sure... If we really are inside a computer simulation (like Matrix) and everythink is already predefined and programmed would you say that experiencing is an absolute or it is just what the software make us believe?

In my opinion it's impossible to prove that we are not inside a computer simulation... I only believe it with 1% of my illusory mind but anyway I'm taking account of it before getting hold of an absolute...

On the other hand mathematics seems to be an absolute if you want my opinion... it seems to exist in the culture of all possible "civilized" universes (but I don't know how to prove it and I don't know if there are uncivilized universes out there... :unsure:)


Bruno :rolleyes: [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin--...
That there is experiencing is not an absolute?

I guess that the meaning of your statement is "everybody is experiencing so experiencing is an absolute certainty in the human race" (please correct me if I'm wrong...)

....

....
[/quote]

thinking about absolutes I've found one that I believe: Mathematics exists...

Bruno babbling as usual :rolleyes:

[eumeme]

oops... strangerly enough the previous message is not editable... :unsure:

:rolleyes:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by eumeme@Nov 15 2003, 01:16 PM
but I don't see the point to assign a controversial name like GOD to the Universe... unless you believe there is more than the Universe...
I do. "In my Father's house are many mansions." (John 14:2) String theory (the latest candidate for a 'Grand Unifying Theory) also 'postulates' this.

And Richard Feynman (your avatar) wasn't really interested in names (remember the anecdote about bird names with his father) as long that the meaning was the same.
Me not especially interested in names either, but very interested in communication --> mutual understanding, and 'God' is very much 'alive' in many people's minds, as well as in the general vocabulary-n-literature. Wouldn't make sense to insist on restricting the conversation to English terminology or conceptology if-n-when one wishes to talk with Frenchies now, would it? You one of 'em stuck-up, "Don't use the "G" word 'cuz it's 'dirty'" 'white'-glove-wearing gang-folk 'fans' who think of themselves as anti-'fan'-atics?

Do you believe that God as you define it is sentient?
You mean sentient as a unit, I assume? I 'believe' that the All That Is thang must be so, jes as I 'believe' like every other danged 'individual' conglomerate-body thang in existence is (not necessarily 'sentient' in the same ways as 'you' or 'me' tho).

How aboutchoo - what's your 'belief' about the sentience of such thang or thangs?

- David :)

[eumeme]

Originally posted by DavidS+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I do. "In my Father's house are many mansions." (John 14:2) String theory (the latest candidate for a 'Grand Unifying Theory) also 'postulates' this. [/b]

Ok, now I begin to understand your POV. With my second option being true "unless you believe there is more than the Universe..." the rest of my argumentation falls apart.

<!--QuoteBegin--DavidS
How aboutchoo - what's your 'belief' about the sentience of such thang or thangs?[/quote]

I don't believe this universe as a whole is sentient/conscious.
What I believe about this universe is well written here...
http://bigbangtango.net/website/Xerox/Xerox.htm

I cannot exclude though that this universe is a computer simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com) and in this case there would be another number of dimensions of which I almost haven't got a clue (sentient/non sentient?)...

My belief system (irrationaly) refuses to accept the simulation argument as very probable (I use to give 1% probability to it :) )

The only think I'm lately sure of is that Mathematics can be discovered (hence is likely present) in all the possible other dimensions out there (and so it could be the precursor of everything... but this seems really crazy... :blink: )

Finally I don't think that sentient/consciousness is something that really exists in absence of a belief system and a God cannot have a belief system otherwise he/she/it won't be omnipotent: he/she/it will do only what allowed by his/her/its belief system (unless we get rid of the meme "God is omnipotent", btw I don't remember if anyone has solved the paradox of the rock: "God is not able to create a rock so big that he's not able to lift"?).

A belief system can define a purpose, a direction to overtake our animal body physical limitations (i.e. inventing Love, Peace, Rocket Science etc. that don't exists in nature).

The problem is that with the time the biggest human limit becomes the belief system itself... that's why I think virtual reality is going to be the future drug - they will be able to (temporary/permanently ?) switch over other belief systems at will (and suspend theirs)...

Bruno :rolleyes:

[eumeme]

(i.e. inventing Love, Peace, Rocket Science etc. that don't exists in nature).

As "nature" I mean here "the whole Earth excluding humans...". I think that this is the more frequent meaning of the word, but I should refrain to use it in future... too ambiguous...

[DavidS]

I don't believe this universe as a whole is sentient/conscious. . . . Finally I don't think that sentient/consciousness is something that really exists in absence of a belief system and a God cannot have a belief system otherwise he/she/it won't be omnipotent: he/she/it will do only what allowed by his/her/its belief system (unless we get rid of the meme "God is omnipotent"; btw I don't remember if anyone has solved the paradox of the rock: "God is not able to create a rock so big that he's not able to lift"?). .... Etc.
Hi eu (pronounced 'you' :D ) -

There's a kind of 'revolution' (meaning like a wheel turns) picking up 'cultural' steam, in which something like Consciousness Itself is regarded as the 'field' or 'ground' of Being - IOW, the appearance or ex·istence of matter and things like human body-beings and 'societies' are 'seen' as deriving from That. In this view, 'belief systems', for instance, do not 'arise' 'in' "Beings"; rather, "Beings" or "Beingness" 'arise' 'in' the 'belief-system' 'fields' of Consciousness.

I don't know what this does to your queries, but it strikes me that this 'view' (assuming it is 'valid') turms many of your questions and speculations on their head.

Here's a mini 'out-take' from Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology, which I found both very informative and highly entertaining and recommend that you look up on someplace like amazon.com at least (Please note, the quote is totally out of context, and therefore likely to strike the reader as somewhat 'preposterous'. It is shared for its stimulus value, not as any kind of 'convincing' 'argument'):

The Morophongenetic System contains the "selves" and information banks of all living beings. The first description of this system appear in the language of the "reincarnation" model, as shamas and yogis who imprintted this system could only talk-and-think about the flood of non-ego information by assuming some transendental ego that jumped across time from one body to another.

Freud and Jung did a little better. Encountering information from this system in the dreas of their patients, they posited a "racial memory" or "collective consciousness". Nither term qualifies as operational science, but the Fruedian and Jungian records at l;;east alerted other psychologists to pay attention to non-ego information systems.


LSD, again, accelerated progress. Finding that vast floods of non-ego information from past ages appeared in LSD sessions, Leary, at Harvard, posited a "neurogenetic circuit". Grof, in Chechoslovakia, posited a "phylogentietic unconconsious" and other researchers made up other labels or just recorded the data without trying to name it.

The first scientific model opf this system appeared in Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's A New Science of Life. Where Leary and Grof, like Jung and Freud, assumed the non-ego information, not know to the brain, must come from the genes, Sheldrake, a biologist, knew that genes cannot carry such information. He therefore posited a non-local field, like those in quantum theory, which he named the morphogenetic field. This field communicates between genes but cannot be found "in" genes -- just as Johnny Carson "travels" between TV sets but cannot be found "in" any of the TV sets that receive him.

It will probablytake a long, long tiome -- maybe a quarter of a century (i.e., not until around 2015) before we learn the art and science of using the morhogenetic system for fun and profit.

Nonetheless, those who have the most expeerience of this system all seem to agree with Jung (and Leary): this information system contains not only memories of the past but distinct trajectories of the future.

The morphogenetic system may serve as a kind of evolutionary "radar" preparing us for future quantum jumps in consciousness by showing us the records of past mutations.

Woo woo woo wei woo weee! :rolleyes:

[todd]

If transplant of head to another body was possible, think of the frustration which would be experienced by the brain trying to find itself attached to a new body. I think that type of scientific research should be outlawed, for it is unnatural.

At the moment of reattachment, everything would have been lost. Growing a new, identical body, replicating a brand new head/brain will not ever bring life into that body.

If the perception of death, of the end may be endless, it could be like a time expansion, time freezing, like a light speed travel, you are experiencing an endless existence but not in this time frame - in our present, “you” do not exist anymore.

If the “soul” survives I do not see it taking place inside the body, or returning from “astral dimensions”

If it just an absolute stop/ freeze moment I do not think there is time to realize/experience anything.

In all of above, I do not see a came back, of “us”, even if we become gods and able to create life.