Flawed Universe

[Michael]

Without the flawed the universe would be static.

[Akamu]

How is the universe flawed? Could it be possible that it just is, and maybe we attribute flaws to it via our own biases and perceptions?

[Taeguk]

I agree with Akamu---who says the universe is "flawed"? That's just a value judgment, and not a particularly helpful one at that.

Personally, I think the universe is perfect just as it is. To use the language of Daoism, the world is a sacred vessel...

I think a more accurate statement might be: Without emptiness (in the sense of sunyata) the universe would be static.

[scameter]

I don't know.

[bhujjy]

Re: Flawed Universe

A quick primer on the flawed: :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do&feature=related

[Michael]

I'm with scam and soc here.

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. Flaw? Smaw.

But the question does pop up, could emptiness and flaw be the same?

[bhujjy]

Per Wikipedia

- the notion of 'flawed' requires a consideration of 'perfection'

- perfection:
- to be complete (needs nothing added or subtracted)

- Lucilio Vanini, early 1600's, noted that a perfect thing cannot 'improve'
- and so he had the impertinence to redefine perfection as something that had potential, essentially giving God a B+

- Lucilio was condemned as an atheist(optimist?) and had his tongue cut out, strangled, burned, and then presumably found himself in the presence of Rowan Atkinson.

[Taeguk]

But the question does pop up, could emptiness and flaw be the same?

I don't see how, really, unless you're using some definition of the word "flaw" I'm unaware of:

flaw: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flaw)

a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault

By "emptiness" I am referring to a lack of inherent existence (http://thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html) (i.e. "self-nature") and thus by implication Pratityasamutpada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyata#.C5.9A.C5.ABnyat.C4.81_in_N.C4.81g.C4.81rj una.27s_Madhyamaka_school).

I personally don't see where "flaw" intersects with "sunyata"/"dependent-origination", but perhaps you can explain the connection.

Perhaps what you were driving at in the original post, Michael, was that "movement" is a progression, a movement from a state of lower perfection to a state of higher perfection (bhujjy also seems to be implying this is what you meant). In other words, you are describing a sort of progressive hierarchy? :think:

I am personally not sure if such a notion makes sense, or is anything other than projecting human judgments (i.e. "flaw" and "perfection") onto phenomena. And the idea of a progressive hierarchy just seems too teleological to me. Like Akamu, I prefer to think the universe just is, and that the internal dialectic of "flaw" and "perfection" stops us from seeing its true nature in its resplendent ordinariness.

[Michael]

Of course it doesn't make sense!!!

But I would have to agree on the judgemental dimension of 'Flaw'.

Funny thing is, that cuts both ways.

Got to be very, very careful of that one. It's all too easy to get cut on the perfect edge of that blade.

I meant 'flaw' in the sense that what we see as flaw is simply the essential process of change. Perfection is stasis.

Which is not to say the universe is not 'just is'. Hence my question about questions - though I think I made a major mistake by using the singular rather than the plural.

Consider, without flaw you can't have change. What is a flaw? It is the weakest part of the whole. The point of change. This is the point of no resistance, the point of natural change.

This is the point at which what is and what is not interact.

The Flawed Mother


On this utterly still day
the rain falls unceasingly -
as the tears
from her ever open eyes -
and around her feet
are swathed blooms
of snowdrop, hyacinth
and lily.

[Taeguk]

Hi Michael,

Of course it doesn't make sense!!!

But I would have to agree on the judgemental dimension of 'Flaw'.

Funny thing is, that cuts both ways.

Got to be very, very careful of that one. It's all too easy to get cut on the perfect edge of that blade.

You make an excellent point---I will be sure to be very careful of my fingers when handling it :lol:



I meant 'flaw' in the sense that what we see as flaw is simply the essential process of change. Perfection is stasis.

Well, some of us (perhaps many of us?) see it this way. I personally find perfection in change, flux, and flow.


Consider, without flaw you can't have change. What is a flaw? It is the weakest part of the whole. The point of change. This is the point of no resistance, the point of natural change.

This is the point at which what is and what is not interact.

Thank you for this passage and the poem, Michael---I don't think I quite understood what you were driving at before. On the whole I agree with you :)

[Michael]

I don't think I understand what I am driving at, Taeguk!!!

But that passage does contain what I have been attempting to say.

I must apologise for my inability to articulate with greater intellectual rigour. I apprehend rather than comprehend.

[Taeguk]

I must apologise for my inability to articulate with greater intellectual rigour. I apprehend rather than comprehend.

Not at all, Michael---you are just as rigorous as anyone else here, and I'm always interested in what you have to say. :)

[bhujjy]

Flaw - Perfection.
Change - without change.

Michael, such an apprehension may look like this.

http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html

This what I see when I look at a tree.
A flawed/flawless living statue.

http://www.tonyhowell.co.uk/new/4994tree.htm

:)

[Michael]

bhujjy, thank you for the trees. A delight.

You don't need fractals to see what I'm talking about. Everything is flawed.

[sonrisa]

bhujjy--This what I see when I look at a tree.
A flawed/flawless living statue

-- reminds me of that poem we had to learn in school:
I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree

sorry can't remmber the rest of it, it's been awhile since I was in school! :P

[bhujjy]

Sonrisa,
You read my mind. :)
http://www.bartleby.com/104/119.html

[sonrisa]

yep! that's the one :)

[Wuji]

Without the flawed the universe would be static.
To be flawed sugests that there is a plan or model that has varied from it's initial intention. If so intent prouced the plan and intent must have modified it to its variant form, or flawed it in other words. Therefor intent is moving the universe? If we intend things enough then what cant be achieved?

[Gaucho]

??????????

[piroko]

Michael, you said that the flaw is the weakest part of the whole. I believe that a flaw can also be the strongest part of the whole, and it can strengthen the whole, when acknowledged as a flaw.

[Michael]

Indeed, piroko, in a way the flaw is the the strongest for it enables the rest. It can also be seen as the weakest point. So the weakest becomes the strongest. I think this is delightful.

Wuji, aren't you creating and answering your own logics here? Because something has a flaw does not suggest that there is a plan, nor does it suggest intention.

That said I do believe that intent does shape the universe. But not intent as we know it. The flaw is not a departure from the intent, but an essential part of it.

[Smurf]

I think with this discussion the existence of flaws does definately rely on some sort of notion of perfection. For without which we wouldn't think of things not-perfect as flawed. We would simply see them as they are.
Now if you go the tack of the idea that perfection is something "complete" then of course the ultimate level of this completeness constitutes everything. The parts that make up everything are finite, ergo flawed in relation to the completeness. Of course, it's very easy to view something as bad when it "pales" in comparison to perfection. But, rather that it is a necessary part to the whole. In this way it is easy to understand why flaws can in turn be viewed as "good" things. As that which supports the beautiful variety of the everything.

Let's face it, who wants to be perfect anyways? You've got nowhere to go then! :P

[Michael]

The question then arises, Smurf, is there anything that isn't flawed at some level?

And further, could something physical that was entirely flawness exist in this continuum for more than a moment?

Consider the concept of the flaw. The perfect is the unbending. It stands immutable, unassailable. . The flaw is the yeilding. Yin and Yang. Both are necessary. Concept does not stand above them.

[Brahmanyan]

Very interesting discussion. But, for me the Universe wakes up with me and dies with me. What ever I see or feel is the reflection of my mind. The perception that Universe is flawed or not also my own.

[Michael]

The perception that Universe is flawed or not also my own.

Our own, perhaps?

[Smurf]

Yeah I see perfection being made up of everything which is flawed. Finite inside the Infinite ;)
I couldn't see them existing side-by-side as it were. Simply in addition to "And further, could something physical that was entirely flawness exist in this continuum for more than a moment?"
I don't think that it could, again it would be the infinite trying to invert itself. Such a thing seems to be conceptually impossible.

[Ninya]

Whether or not the universe is flawed depends entirely on what it's for. If it's for us, it's flawed-- we die, there is suffering, etc. If it just is, it just is-- I suppose it's perfect, since it lacks flaws.

[Robin]

Whether or not the universe is flawed depends entirely on what it's for. If it's for us, it's flawed-- we die, there is suffering, etc. If it just is, it just is-- I suppose it's perfect, since it lacks flaws.

Read The Disappearance of the Universe (http://www.garyrenard.com/) a great book that addresses this topic superbly!

Cheers

Robin
http://livingacim.com

[rahulkumble]

Remember the 10 blind men trying to assess an elephant.

We're all like that, trying to find perfection or flaws in the universe. Does it matter? Its the human craving to find perfection in everything. Maybe its an innate flaw in all of us.

[Michael]

Is it really so difficult to see that in the flaw is the perfection?

[Robin]

Is it really so difficult to see that in the flaw is the perfection?

That's a fancy statement for utter meaninglessness, please explain your meaning?

[Michael]

That's a fancy statement for utter meaninglessness, please explain your meaning?

No. I will not. You will not understand it until you find it self-evident. Anyway, there can be no explanation for a fancy statement that's utterly meaningless.

[Robin]

No. I will not. You will not understand it until you find it self-evident. Anyway, there can be no explanation for a fancy statement that's utterly meaningless.

That Figures!

[scameter]

I don't really think that universe is "flawed", since flawed seems to be more of a subjective judgement from our experience. I simply think that life is how it is, without being specifically good or bad, but the different levels of order, which are self-inclusive, such as individual people and individual particles of energy, tend to conflict with one another due to their difference of character. And, it just so happens that humans are self-aware and emotional enough to deeply feel that conflict and express it to one another, whereas most other things in existence simply react to it.

[MultipleTentacles]

I believe that Michael and Akamu are both right. Firstly, there is "flaw," in that nothing is ever complete, nothing is ever changelessly perfect. The more consistently great something is, the more we are justified in calling it perfect. Yet, everything is in flux, so we cannot say something is ultimately "perfect."

Akamu says that flaw is just part of our perception, and that the universe just is what it is. This, I think, is also true.

The problems I have with the use of the word "flaw" referring to the universe is that it implies that somebody needs to do something to fix it, or that something diminishes the worth of the thing in question. The second is obviously false--the universe's worth is not diminished by the fact of change. The first is troublesome--it is impossible to fix every "flaw" in the universe, and I think such is a useless endeavor--while on the other hand, we certainly should go on living and breathing.

While I do not disagree with Michael's interpretation, the word "flaw" implies something to be rejected, and so if you told most people "hey, guess what, the universe is flawed," they would get a sad feeling in their gut (assuming, of course, that they cared.)

[jufa]

To say the universe is flawed one must view the universe from an infinite vision. To do this, one must represent the infinity of the universe without any fragmented I think, I believe, if, maybe, or suppose, and be able to say definitively, where comprehension by the collective universal mentality can say yes, in the exactness of the word, picture, image, and thought of represented.

Is the universe flawed? How can one discern such when the intent, purpose, and will for the universe to exist has not been established?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[MultipleTentacles]

To say the universe is flawed one must view the universe from an infinite vision.

This much I agree with completely.

To do this, one must represent the infinity of the universe without any fragmented I think, I believe, if, maybe, or suppose, and be able to say definitively, where comprehension by the collective universal mentality can say yes, in the exactness of the word, picture, image, and thought of represented.

Who would want to do something like that? I guess if you're a Christian, you may believe something like that is bound to happen, and that such a thing would indicate the end of the world--i.e. that God would want to do something like that. (Not that this necessarily is false.) But certainly, I think, no ordinary being really wants to do something like that.

Furthermore, I think that in a very important sense, something like you're describing (i.e. anything at all which a "collective universal mentality" can even apprehend, let alone "say yes" to) does not exist in perceivable reality. It is a metaphysical concept, and I find it's much better to leave stuff like that up to God and let Him sort it out.

My point is, I'm pretty sure you don't have to believe in metaphysical ultimate infinities to make generalizations about the universe that are meaningful to people. Perhaps not everyone will "say yes," but a few might. And that's good enough.

[jufa]

Who would want to do something like that? I guess if you're a Christian, you may believe something like that is bound to happen, and that such a thing would indicate the end of the world--i.e. that God would want to do something like that. (Not that this necessarily is false.) But certainly, I think, no ordinary being really wants to do something like that.

Furthermore, I think that in a very important sense, something like you're describing (i.e. anything at all which a "collective universal mentality" can even apprehend, let alone "say yes" to) does not exist in perceivable reality. It is a metaphysical concept, and I find it's much better to leave stuff like that up to God and let Him sort it out.

My point is, I'm pretty sure you don't have to believe in metaphysical ultimate infinities to make generalizations about the universe that are meaningful to people. Perhaps not everyone will "say yes," but a few might. And that's good enough.

This has nothing to do with a God, or religion. To speak on the universe in any way from a fragmented mind is as you stated above:

I guess.

Such guessing is happening here now, and it has nothing to do with being religious. Is not the title of this thread "Flawed Universe"? How can one even begin to think in such terms if they did not believe they had an infinite view of creation and represent?

It is not about what one thinks. What you think, or I, or anyone else is personalized to beliefs. Thus, to say what is not allow of anothers belief, but allowable because of someone elses belief, is a judgmental called based upon one being in control of the situation, circumstance, or conditions, and will know the direction of that conversation from beginning to end. Can it be said?

Life itself is a metaphor. And a metaphor is a presumed position. But can that position be claimed by all beliefs? Metaphysic is a Quantum Theory, it is not some illusive belief one applies to religion. This is why I asked in my original post for one to speak what they know, not what they think, no ifs, ands, buts, I guess, I believe.

Can we speak the truth here of what we know?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[MultipleTentacles]

It is not about what one thinks. What you think, or I, or anyone else is personalized to beliefs.

Okay, fair enough. I think you're essentially saying that if I say "I think this," that is guiding the conversation in such a direction as to be undebatable, because no one can argue with it. Thus, it is best to base a discussion on what appears as real.

Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you. Anyway, I agree with this view. I still use the words "I think" or "I believe" mainly to indicate that I could be wrong, and I am willing to accept that another position on the matter may be possible. I don't use them to stifle conversation--I expect that if one is going to debate my position, they won't debate the "I believe" part, but rather all the stuff that I have indicated I believe.

Now another part of what you're saying is, if I'm understanding you correctly, that everyone's experience is true and real. Thus if one has experienced the universe as flawed, one must have experienced the entire universe. In a very important sense, this is true I think, because all things that exist exist in relationship to every other thing that exists. Thus one can experience just one thing, and in a very real sense also experience the entire universe. It may therefore be the case that the originator of this thread saw something he created, or something somebody else created, noticed that it was imperfect, then drew a conclusion based on a generalization.

I also think that it is an important faculty to have the ability to think "I could be wrong," or "my beliefs don't coincide directly with others'." If one loses this faculty, one may end up in a mental hospital. While it may be true to some extent that "everything I experience is real," it may also be true that the deductions based on these experiences are tenuous at best, and could well be traded for other, more accurate deductions.

[jufa]

Thank you for your reply. You ar correct, and I agree with you when you state: if I say "I think this," that is guiding the conversation in such a direction as to be undebatable, because no one can argue with it.

Will skip your second paragraph because I am also in agreement there. Will move on to:

Now another part of what you're saying is, if I'm understanding you correctly, that everyone's experience is true and real. Thus if one has experienced the universe as flawed, one must have experienced the entire universe. In a very important sense, this is true I think, because all things that exist exist in relationship to every other thing that exists. Thus one can experience just one thing, and in a very real sense also experience the entire universe. It may therefore be the case that the originator of this thread saw something he created, or something somebody else created, noticed that it was imperfect, then drew a conclusion based on a generalization.

Regardless of what man appear upon the outer perimeter of our conscience minds, all that we are aware of and come to conclude upon is our inner subjective feelings interpreting our outer objective views. What the problem with such dependence is the belief we have of them being separate entities. They are not. All which our minds respond to is our inner subjective interpretation of things we feel when they appear to be outer visions of objective. All which we intake finds a home within us based upon our experinces. Nothing anyone does to us has meaning if we cannot comprehend it. Comprehension is neither subjective nor objective, but they are the foundation which makes up our Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personalities. And these are the mask we wear to hide our inner world for the collective whole. No one can enter our world because no one can live our experience. We open doors for some to walk within the corridors, but no one can go into the invisibility of our being because all that exist exist in us. So the question is not about what are you aware of, but how do you interpret that which you are aware of. Are you aware that you are always the teacher teaching yourself? That you are always the student learning from that which your experience has taught you? Now, are you aware that all that you know you inherited from your ancestors? And all you have done is expand the thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and concepts you inherited?

Man can never stop thinking because this is a thought world. Even in the phase of insanity man is bombarded with thoughts. If there is a flaw in the universe, it is in the individual man himself. From my experience, I am purposed to stop the buck of the enslaving human mentality here. This is what The Buddha, and Jesus, and Laotzu did. This is why you can find none of their ancestry. They stepped out of the dark into the light. And all who will follow their example will do the same. If I become the light to you, and you step into my presence, together our light becomes one, and we have eliminated the darkness which once covered our space.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Smurf]

I've come to think that the universe is not flawed, it is as it is.
No-thing is perfect as for that thing to exist in co-operation with flawed things would be paradoxical, logically. I certainly don't believe in perfection, or flawed things. Seeing as things can change in their nature, we cannot pinpoint what one thing is, so we cannot prescribe specific definition to a "thing". We cannot posit essence onto something that has potential to become, to process; something that is is a constant flux. Hence we cannot posit limited terms of "flaw", and we don't/can't even know what perfection is anyway...

[MidnightSun]

Quite stoic, isn't it? According to stoics universe is a perfectly functioning organism, where everything and everyone plays its part or something like that.

Some would say that world is imperfect with wars and evil and my existance, but a stoic would say that it's beyond our minds to realise beauty of all events and beings.

[MultipleTentacles]

Jufa, I think the Buddha taught that "inner" and "outer" are the same--that our "subjective experience" is nothing more than an arising concept which comes from something else--not necessarily our ancestors. Our karmic actions cause other things to arise, and these in turn reinforce our consciousness. In short,I think you're saying that "we" inherit this and that thought, that "we" experience this and that experience, that "we" are our own teachers, that "we" let things into our minds, etc. Who is "we?" According to Buddha, "we" is just another thought that arises from this and that circumstance, and a quite mistaken thought at that.

MidnightSun: I think it's better to say "everything is neither perfect nor flawed, nor both perfect and flawed, nor both not perfect and not flawed." Because clearly some things appear as perfect, and some things (perhaps quite a bit more things, lol) appear as flawed, and later the perfect-appearing things look flawed, and the flawed-looking things look perfect.

To say the universe is flawed one must view the universe from an infinite vision. To do this, one must represent the infinity of the universe without any fragmented I think, I believe, if, maybe, or suppose, and be able to say definitively, where comprehension by the collective universal mentality can say yes, in the exactness of the word, picture, image, and thought of represented.

... I think this is very eloquent.

[jufa]

Hi M.T!!

Buddhdism does teach subjective and objective are the same. This did not originate with The Buddha though. Jewish mysticism as well as christian mystics have always taught this. Laotzu, who The Buddha is supposed to be a reincarnation of - can't figure this out since there are a succession of Buddhas - is the forrunner of Buddhist teaching. New Agers and Unity teach such, and Joel S. Goldsmith taught non-dualism when he was alive, and which The Infinite Way still teaches.

Consider this path of reasoning. The law of the universe is "every thing after its kind." Now man is the only entity of evidence which thinks upon those things which enter into his mind from invisible. What does man think upon? Those things which has been in existence before existence of individual man of modern day. Everything man thinks upon has been labeled and sealed, and this begs the question when, and who began such an act. Did a stone, or tree, or a bird, or bear, or cat, or dog implant these seeds in the minds of men, or was it man's himself who became aware, and found a means to bring forth understanding of communication for those "after his kind"?

The law of the universe is no thought returns to the sender void, but accomplish that which it was sent forth to do. This means karma is another word for the fulfilling of the thoughts and actions taken upon those thoughts sent forth. Karma is therefore a return investment of individual thoughts. My thoughts are not your thoughts, so my karma cannot become your karma. This, put in another way is to say that which truly belongs to you, no one can ever take from you, nor can you ever loose it. Even death cannot take away from you that which is your. This is why it is foolish to myself to take anything from anyone selflessly, for you will receive back, in some form, something which you believe is essential to you at some point in your life.

Now, lets get to the heart of the matter we are discussing here. When and how does a child begin to preceive objects?
Is the perception of separate objects an ability that the child learns from its parents, or is it an innate function of the developing physical brain? There has been much research on the development in the infant of the ability to perceive separate objects and to conceive of them as existing independently of the infant's perception of them.

In his book Visual Intelligence (1998, pp. 12-16), Donald D. Hoffman describes the development in the child's mind of the ability to make conceptual sense out of the confusion of retinal images presented to it:

"Among the most amazing facts about vision is that kids are accomplished geniuses at vision before they can walk. Before age one, they can construct a visual world in three dimensions, navigate through it quite purposefully on all fours, organize it into objects, and grasp, bite, and recognize those objects . . . By about the age of one month, kids blink if something moves toward their eyes on a collision course. By three months they use visual motion to construct boundaries of objects. By four months they use motion and stereovision to construct the 3D shapes of objects. By seven months they also use shading, perspective, interposition (in which one object partially occludes another), and prior familiarity with objects to construct depth and shape. By one year they are visual geniuses, and proceed to learn names for the objects, actions, and relations they construct . . .

. . . each child constructs a visual world with three spatial dimensions--height, width, and depth. But an image has just two dimensions--height and width. It follows that, for a given image, there are countless 3D worlds that a child could construct . . .

. . . This ambiguity holds not just for depth, but for all aspects of our visual constructions, including motion, surface colors, and illumination . . .

. . . This makes the task sound impossible. How could a child sort through countless possible visual worlds and arrive at much the same answer as every other child?"

Hoffman concludes that all children are born with the same rules by which they construct their visual worlds, and which allow each of them to see much the same world as any other child. Thus, the principal prerequisite for perceiving objects turns out to be an inherited predisposition to do so. Hoffman argues that the universal rules of vision parallel the universal rules of language (see Noam Chomsky, Reflections on Language, 1975) by which a child’s ability to learn a language is also part of its heredity.

[MultipleTentacles]

Jufa,

Consciousness requires object. There cannot be consciousness without object to build off of. Thus there has to be some form of resonance, objects acting off of one another, and there has to be some form of response to the situation coming from some sort of system whereby objects are assimilated and processed. Call this system "life."

Now from life comes consciousness. The role of consciousness is the protector of life. Life invests in consciousness, and the result has been positive, since competition between consciousness and non-consciousness has produced consciousness. As a protector of life, the important thing to know about consciousness is that it is full of compassion and love, because these things are prerequisites to the idea of a protector of life.

Now the entire goal of Buddhism, of life, of consciousness, is to fully embrace one's innate role as the protector of life. The problem is that few people have a cohesive idea of what life really is. From the very beginning life has been battling with death. And it is not as though life is over here and death is over there. Death and the things which lead to death happen as part of our normal thought process. How then can one simply kick the darkness when it has been part of our thought process from beginningless time? It's a VERY DIFFICULT process.

So what was the original thought that produced objects? My answer is... hell if I know, but objects are all I've got to battle death.

Furthermore, objects exist as part of the mind as well as what is outside of the mind. In fact, what we conventionally call "mind" is nothing more than a few objects. The magical thing about the object which is no object (not the absence of object, nor the thought that no objects exist [nihilism], but rather the object that is no object) is that we humans have the gift to be able to perceive it and to some extent recognize it. This object which is no object is a very powerful medicine, because contemplating it calms delusions. Delusions calm, love and compassion can come into play.

Thinking in this way, one can easily come to the conclusion that there is no flaw, because how can the idea of flaw even enter into existence? And yet there is one big, huge, glaring flaw called "evil," or value of death over life. So there is flaw. And yet because the thought which is no thought is not something unifying, there can be no "flaw" and "no flaw" perceived as one. However, both these things exist--both "flaw" and "no flaw"--simultaneously, by virtue of both existing at the same time. Thus there is no "not flaw" and "not no flaw". Which is why I said, "I think it's better to say 'everything is neither perfect nor flawed, nor both perfect and flawed, nor both not perfect and not flawed.'"

However, I think the idea of "no flaw" takes a front-row seat, as it were, so I do not argue with the people who say, offhand, "I see no flaw." I argue with people who see a sense of mystery, who think "there is flaw, and no flaw, so there must be mystery," because I also think there is no mystery. In short, I think saying "there is mystery" is a way of giving up and not dealing with the problem.

[jufa]

Consciousness requires object. There cannot be consciousness without object to build off of. Thus there has to be some form of resonance, objects acting off of one another, and there has to be some form of response to the situation coming from some sort of system whereby objects are assimilated and processed. Call this system "life."

Now from life comes consciousness. The role of consciousness is the protector of life. Life invests in consciousness, and the result has been positive, since competition between consciousness and non-consciousness has produced consciousness. As a protector of life, the important thing to know about consciousness is that it is full of compassion and love, because these things are prerequisites to the idea of a protector of life.

Now you have stepped into the sphere of metaphysical mystism. God is consciousness, God is the individual consciousness of everything that is of creation for creation is created in the Creator. Consciousness is awareness. To be aware that LIFE/CONSCIOUSNSS are, one must be alive, and to be alive is to be consciously aware. So in your words:

Consciousness requires object.

then you must present LIFE AS AN OBJECT WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS DRAWS FROM. You cannot do this because Consciousness is Life, and Life is unconditional just as Consciousness is unconditional. Being Life and Consciousness are one and the same, then the object of both is thought. This means Consciousness does not require objects, but thought requires a vision. So then, should it be true as you say:

There cannot be consciousness without object to build off of. Thus there has to be some form of resonance, objects acting off of one another, and there has to be some form of response to the situation coming from some sort of system whereby objects are assimilated and processed.

Then you can present to me the logic for a Conscious universe as well as Life and show their separation from one another. If you can't, then the sematics you have presented are of effect of that which you have give no Conscious knowledge for existence.

My Friend, allow me to give you an insight into what I've found all religious teachings to be inclusive of theism, athesim, and gnostic. They are all the enlightment and revelations of one man whom was true to following that which was given to him out of the invisible. Buddhism, Judaeo-Christian, Mohammmedanism, it does not matter, teach an illusion because they say if these teaching are followed, they will get you to where you want to go. Isn't it strange that of all the centuries of devoted followers of these religions, only the ONE who is taught of has reached Nirvana, or found their Silent Peace, or Ascended and became one with the universe? Why is this? Because man is following someone elses dream of prefection. And, to be a little more percise, did not Laotzu, Guatama, and Jesus are the only ones who relinguished all earthly possession -"son of man has no place to lay his head"- and stepped out into the world depending upon the invisible source of supply? This should be the beginning of all teaching of all religions. Why, because nothing of this world is yours. All that you possess and cannot be taken away from you is within. Enlightenment is about transcending the dogma of all religions and teaching and becoming responsibly to find the truth of one self. Religions teaching are pointer, no more, no less.

So what was the original thought that produced objects? My answer is... hell if I know, but objects are all I've got to battle death.

Now this statement voids all you talk about object and the mind, because you yourself stated you have no idea about what you are attempt to say mystically, but I know that my senses are all I have to fight with. I say, if this is your truth, then why depend on objects when the battle is fought from within out?

Let me tell you a secret. Life does not move. Consciousness does not move. Truth does not move. All that ever moves in Life, in Consciousness, in Truth is you thinking. What you think is the product of your living. thoughts, and interpretation of what you think based on your human indoctrination. You as all mankind are enslaved by kept captive in the moving world of your thoughts. As the buck stopped with Laotzu, Guatama, and Jesus, now it must stop with you. If you don't stop it in you, the next generation will inherit the thoughts, feeling, beliefs, and ideas you teach and demonstrate.

[Smurf]

Have you read Kierkegaard, Jufa?

[jufa]

No Smurf, I have never heard of him.

[MultipleTentacles]

Consciousness is Life, and Life is unconditional just as Consciousness is unconditional.

Perhaps we have two different definitions of "consciousness." I define consciousness as "awareness of object." You seem to be defining consciousness as something all-inclusive. The thought of something all-inclusive, which I have in fact seen termed as Atman or big self, or God, is a noble thought if it is correct in basis. For example, if one says, "life is a ball game," this is kind of silly and somewhat incorrect and not very useful. It implies an attachment to the form of playing ball, and projecting that attachment on everything. If, however, someone says "life is the Dharma body of the of enlightenment," this is more correct, mostly because nothing in particular has been pointed out, and to point out something particular is missing the point. (If one is pointing out something in particular, one cannot be pointing out all that is.)

When I use the term consciousness, I mean that state of awareness of the world. When I'm conscious, I'm not asleep (and also not dreaming), nor passed out. When I am passed out, or asleep (and not dreaming), I am not conscious, because there is nothing to be conscious of. No sensory inputs at all. I think death is similar with the exception that there is no longer the basis for continuation of the same consciousness, because one's memory is wiped out. One has to adopt an entirely new "consciousness," like getting amnesia. (Although technically it is the same stream of consciousness, if one likes to be finicky about terms, like me, it is not exactly the same consciousness per se.)

Isn't it strange that of all the centuries of devoted followers of these religions, only the ONE who is taught of has reached Nirvana, or found their Silent Peace, or Ascended and became one with the universe? Why is this? Because man is following someone elses dream of prefection. ... As the buck stopped with Laotzu, Guatama, and Jesus, now it must stop with you. If you don't stop it in you, the next generation will inherit the thoughts, feeling, beliefs, and ideas you teach and demonstrate.

I think you have a good understanding of religion. It's always "someone else's dream of perfection." This is why the Buddha said to test his insights. I would be cautious, however, because what someone else dreams of perfection may not coincide with your truth, or even their truth. It could be someone makes religious claims to gain power -- like the local fundamentalist Christian group who says "believe what I say or you will go to hell", or because they are attached to the qualities of the religious leader -- like the lead singer of Godsmack (I think it's Godsmack...) who thinks he's Jesus.

Also, while I'd like to think the buck stops with me, I also have a responsibility to be ABSOLUTELY SURE what I say and do is in accord with eternal truths. I may be able to give some inspiration some of the time, but I'm certainly no great master. At least not yet.

[jufa]

"]MT,

Perhaps we have two different definitions of "consciousness." I define consciousness as "awareness of object." You seem to be defining consciousness as something all-inclusive. The thought of something all-inclusive, which I have in fact seen termed as Atman or big self, or God, is a noble thought if it is correct in basis. For example, if one says, "life is a ball game," this is kind of silly and somewhat incorrect and not very useful. It implies an attachment to the form of playing ball, and projecting that attachment on everything. If, however, someone says "life is the Dharma body of the of enlightenment," this is more correct, mostly because nothing in particular has been pointed out, and to point out something particular is missing the point. (If one is pointing out something in particular, one cannot be pointing out all that is.)

Should your definition of Consciousness be that of only only objects you are aware of, then you could not be consciously aware of your feeling. But lets take another step to reach a point relative for us both to walk upon in harmony. So the question which is always before us, and which we mostly ignore, as you have done in your statement of your being aware of only object, is are we aware of the meaning of someone elses words base and thought recognition when we say when we see things different? To incorporate a God as a noble thought even confound our awareness because I, and I am such you also, have seen no God, nor know not of anyone else who has, yet consciousness of a God has been expressed by you. You can't have it both ways my Friend. Either

if one says, "life is a ball game," this is kind of silly and somewhat incorrect and not very useful. It implies an attachment to the form of playing ball, and projecting that attachment on everything.

the implied awareness you mentioned above is all inclusive Consciousness, and just as correct as

If, however, someone says "life is the Dharma body of the of enlightenment," this is more correct, mostly because nothing in particular has been pointed out, and to point out something particular is missing the point.[/QUOTE]

is all inclusive to what one is aware of.

Now your term of use of Consciousness as being that state of the world, is also all inclusive of anything you are aware of in this universe. If you are aware of it, then Consciousness is your awareness. When you speak of a black hole, Consciousness is there because your consciousness is what makes you aware of the black hole. Now this leads to your Buddha teaching, which oppose your line of thought as to saying

[QUOTE]" I define consciousness as "awareness of object."

for how can you

test his insights.

when no veiwable, tastable, touchable, seeable, or hearable insight of The Blessed One are not available from Him to observe?

The buck doesn't stops with you if you do not stop it. If you want to quit smoking, your eternal truth, which is the same as mine, tell you: "well then Son, you must transcend the enslaving thought of addiction." And how do one transcend? Centuries; eons men, women, and children have been seeking to transcend. Do you know what transcend means? It means stop. When your eternal truth tell you to put it down, and you do, you have transcended that addition. Your purpose is to make this world a better place than what it was when you entered into it. And if you do not stop the thought of greed, selflessness, lust, hate, prejudice in you, you have passed those thoughts onto your children in display and demonstration. That is when LIFE BECOMES A REPETITIVE BALL GAME. [/COLOR]

p.s. Sorry it took me so long in repling, had trouble with the reply system.

[wayland]

Without the flawed the universe would be static.

hello Michael,

If you could get an agreement from everyone in this thread about the beauty of the flawed universe, what would we do with it then? Write it in a book for all to sign? What if jufa agreed? Isn't it possible that the universe would spin and then stop and then spin again without the flawed. Isn't it possible that a perfect universe would remain perfectly in motion?

"Without flaws the universe would be static.", does sound a little better. I can almost feel your love for the struggle of the living and it seems that you want to connect everyone in a concept of admiring big pieces of rock crashing into one another.

What I enjoy is the randomness of flaws and how when my concepts and philosophies are flawed, they take their toles at the worst possible moment. If I were to write this statement for myself, I would take the science out of it and just say "Without flaws the universe would be boring." Or would it? Flaws can define a face. Would a perfect face become boring? Static is neutral in my mind. What is it in yours?

, Wayland

[jufa]

If you could get an agreement . . .about the beauty of the flawed universe Agree to beauty by whose statdard?

What if jufa agreed? Would that settle the question of the universe being flawed or unflawed, or what beauty is?

Isn't it possible that the universe would spin and then stop and then spin again without the flawed Not according to the natural rhythm of the functioning of the universe; being everything is interdependent on each other to fulfill the purpose of NATURAL LAWS.

"Without flaws the universe would be boring." Or would it? If you could figure the logic for the universe, you could answer this question. Do you know of any logical reason for your logic to ask this question?

Flaws can define a face. Would a perfect face become boring? Static is neutral in my mind. What is it in yours? And this is true. And they can also define the beauty of the flawed Static is static regardless of where it is or what one thinks it is.

Would a perfect face become boring? What is perfect in a beautifuf, flawed universe?

[MultipleTentacles]

Should your definition of Consciousness be that of only only objects you are aware of, then you could not be consciously aware of your feeling.

No, I could, and that's exactly what I mean, being aware of a feeling. Someone pinches my arm, I am "conscious" of the feeling. I am not conscious of anything that has not come into contact with my senses.

But lets take another step to reach a point relative for us both to walk upon in harmony. So the question which is always before us, and which we mostly ignore, as you have done in your statement of your being aware of only object, is are we aware of the meaning of someone elses words base and thought recognition when we say when we see things different? To incorporate a God as a noble thought even confound our awareness because I, and I am such you also, have seen no God, nor know not of anyone else who has, yet consciousness of a God has been expressed by you. You can't have it both ways my Friend.

I can if I want to! One can have a tentative experience of God when one sees ultimate truth and conventional truth at the same time. One may say "seeing ultimate truth is impossible." Perhaps so. But it is not impossible to get a good enough feel for general truth to give one a solid basis upon which one can erect the edifice of her worldview.

Now your term of use of Consciousness as being that state of the world, is also all inclusive of anything you are aware of in this universe. If you are aware of it, then Consciousness is your awareness. When you speak of a black hole, Consciousness is there because your consciousness is what makes you aware of the black hole.

I agree with this.

Now this leads to your Buddha teaching, which oppose your line of thought as to saying

"I define consciousness as 'awareness of object.'"

for how can you

"test his insights"

when no veiwable, tastable, touchable, seeable, or hearable insight of The Blessed One are not available from Him to observe?

Good point. I can't. What I meant was, I can test the words attributed to him by relating them to my own experiences and seeing if they conflict. I just find it more useful to say "test his insights" because people can come to the conclusion themselves that experiencing things from his point of view is impossible.

The buck doesn't stops with you if you do not stop it. If you want to quit smoking, your eternal truth, which is the same as mine, tell you: "well then Son, you must transcend the enslaving thought of addiction." And how do one transcend? Centuries; eons men, women, and children have been seeking to transcend. Do you know what transcend means? It means stop. When your eternal truth tell you to put it down, and you do, you have transcended that addition. Your purpose is to make this world a better place than what it was when you entered into it. And if you do not stop the thought of greed, selflessness, lust, hate, prejudice in you, you have passed those thoughts onto your children in display and demonstration. That is when LIFE BECOMES A REPETITIVE BALL GAME.

Yep.

Now to relate this back to the topic at hand, here is how I view the universe to be flawed. When one says "the universe is flawed," what one really means is "the picture of the universe that I see is flawed." Pictures are always flawed for the viewer, never flawed for the creator. (I know this because I am a creator: I write music (http://www.artistserver.com/neotone), make movies, write poetry and prose, (http://www.enzyme-pro.com) and blog (http://aquadoxical.blogspot.com), and each time I create something new, I always view it as perfect until flaws later become apparent. When I am a creator, the creation is perfect. When I am a critic, the creation becomes flawed.) No matter how wise one gets, one can always see some kind of flaw. But the flaws become less and less devastating the wiser one gets. I'm pretty sure the creator of all there is sees no flaw. One doesn't even need to believe in any specific creator of all there is; I say these things with the faith of a statistician.

I would like to see more discussion on Wayland's question:

If you could get an agreement from everyone in this thread about the beauty of the flawed universe, what would we do with it then? Write it in a book for all to sign? What if jufa agreed?

Now Jufa originally said,

Is the universe flawed? How can one discern such when the intent, purpose, and will for the universe to exist has not been established?

The significance of him agreeing is that he would likely have some idea of the intent, purpose, and will for the universe to exist.

I think there are some people who DO think the intent, purpose, and will for the universe to exist has been discerned, and CAN be put down in a book. I got this gut feeling when I watched the Japanese anime "Akira." (Which is quite a movie, by the way.) I think if we could agree on such a thing, it would be very useful. But the chances are 1/infinity that we got it right. This is why I think the better religions of the world stress the importance of doing practical things for the benefit of everybody, and faith that you got it right, rather than trying to PROVE you got it right.

[wayland]

hey jufa and everybody else too,

How you doin? I like your color. I'm looking into doing something like that. It's a bit overwhelming to see a whole page you've written though. I'm new to this world. Please point out my lack of courtesy based on my inexperience with the general rules. For instance, making comments like these on an open reply to everyone that might be reading. Is that a no-no? Also, why didn't my previous quotes show up in this reply like yours did?

Agree to beauty by whose statdard?

O.K. you got me. I threw the word beauty in there because Michael is showing us a statement that reads very well if you take the optomist's approach to whatever "the flawed" means which I think you may have touched on earlier in this thread with the objective, subjective discussion. Allow that I don't know Michael's intention behind this statement, it's still very hard to read into this from a pessimist's point of view.

Would that settle the question of the universe being flawed or unflawed, or what beauty is?

Sorry about the whole beauty thing. Maybe everyone reading this does see beauty in the concept of flaws though. Shouldn't we find out? This wasn't intentional. I'm getting side tracked. I haven't heard a question yet except from you about whether the universe is flawed. Why do we have to settle this question "flaw" or "no flaw" if this discussion hasn't been needed to simplify or agree or even disagree with what's being stated? In the original idea "The Flawed" doesn't have to suggest the Universe unless that's how you wanna go with it. I first thought of the flawed as giant diamonds with tiny cracks. I then considered the flawed as the people who got together and agreed what the words in the dictionary were going to mean.

Not according to the natural rhythm of the functioning of the universe; being everything is interdependent on each other to fulfill the purpose of NATURAL LAWS.

With no flaws in existence would there be a natural functioning rhythm in which we could possibly account for or would there be NATURAL LAWS?

If you could figure the logic for the universe, you could answer this question. Do you know of any logical reason for your logic to ask this question?

I'm not sure about logical reasons for asking questions based on abstract words like "flaw" and "no flaw" but rationally my logic wants to ask any questions that might help me be a better person somehow. That's partly why we're all here at thebigview right? Not to intentionally exclude all the evil doers out there but can't I assume the only reason we're discussing this thread is to get some much needed company. Couldn't all of us reading these replies agree that the concept of flaws is a good thing and move on?

And this is true. And they can also define Static is static regardless of where it is or what one thinks it is.

There are tones to the word static. It's likely that the reader of the sentence will first recognize static has a connection to the word "still" . The words "potential energy" are connected to the word static too. Emotions are connected to these words and I feel a play on science when I hear the word static. What do you feel?

What is perfect in a beautifuf, flawed universe?

Wow! that's an awesome question. That's almost magic or something. What a way to end this reply. I guess you can't have the perfect without having the flawed. I heard from a dolphin that the Universe right next to ours was perfect. All of the planet's orbits are circles instead of ellipses and no one has invented leap years yet.

[Gelatinous Pope]

your mind is flawed

there is no universe

[jufa]

No, I could, and that's exactly what I mean, being aware of a feeling. Someone pinches my arm, I am "conscious" of the feeling. I am not conscious of anything that has not come into contact with my senses.To be aware does not means observing, it means knowing something has taken place. If your arm had not been touched, would you be aware you had been touched? Did it make a difference whether or not you saw what touched you to awaken your feeling? :wallbash:

I can if I want to! One can have a tentative experience of God when one sees ultimate truth and conventional truth at the same time. One may say "seeing ultimate truth is impossible." Perhaps so. But it is not impossible to get a good enough feel for general truth to give one a solid basis upon which one can erect the edifice of her worldview.Whether you can or not, I don't know, and couldn't know your personal experiences. But do question your statement of seeing ultimate truth and conventional truth at the same time. at the same time. One would have to cancel out the other, and to me conventional truth would have to be eliminated because ultimate truth precede all else.

Now to relate this back to the topic at hand, here is how I view the universe to be flawed. When one says "the universe is flawed," what one really means is "the picture of the universe that I see is flawed." Pictures are always flawed for the viewer, never flawed for the creator. (I know this because I am a creator: I write music, make movies, write poetry and prose, and blog, and each time I create something new, I always view it as perfect until flaws later become apparent. When I am a creator, the creation is perfect. When I am a critic, the creation becomes flawed.) No matter how wise one gets, one can always see some kind of flaw. But the flaws become less and less devastating the wiser one gets. I'm pretty sure the creator of all there is sees no flaw. One doesn't even need to believe in any specific creator of all there is; I say these things with the faith of a statistician.

Now you have hit the flaw on the head, your head. How would you know of a flaw in anything if the true flaw was not in you to begin with? "who told you you were naked"?

I think there are some people who DO think the intent, purpose, and will for the universe to exist has been discerned, and CAN be put down in a book. I got this gut feeling when I watched the Japanese anime "Akira." (Which is quite a movie, by the way.) I think if we could agree on such a thing, it would be very useful. But the chances are 1/infinity that we got it right. This is why I think the better religions of the world stress the importance of doing practical things for the benefit of everybody, and faith that you got it right, rather than trying to PROVE you got it right.

What difference does it make what some people think to you, and whether it what they think of intent and purpose can be place on a scroll. People have been doing this for years, and just look, just look at you and I, and Wayland and the others who have and are participating in this dissussion. Nothing no one has said or written down has made any one seek "THE LIGHT" and dissappear into it. No one can prove a right or wrong way because it is an individual way.

[jufa]

Hi Wayland!

You askedHow you doin? I like your color. I'm looking into doing something like that. It's a bit overwhelming to see a whole page you've written though. I'm new to this world. Please point out my lack of courtesy based on my inexperience with the general rules. For instance, making comments like these on an open reply to everyone that might be reading. Is that a no-no? Also, why didn't my previous quotes show up in this reply like yours did? Don't know how to answer you for sometimes I get it right, and then others I have to used the method above.

Aint trying to get any one. This forum is call the "bigview." It is about stretching the mind. Whether it is your mind or mind, it is, to me, about being able to say, huh, I never thought of it from that angle. Man roll on, and get me and the other to start rolling. :thumbsup:

With no flaws in existence would there be a natural functioning rhythm in which we could possibly account for or would there be NATURAL LAWS?How can one tell there is, or is not a flaw if the flaw was not in their interpretation of what is perfection of rhythm, and whether that rhythm was natural or not when the flaw begin in the observers who does not really comprehend what the universe is to say anything of a flaw, or rhythm, or NATURAL LAWS?

I'm not sure about logical reasons for asking questions based on abstract words like "flaw" and "no flaw" but rationally my logic wants to ask any questions that might help me be a better person somehow. That's partly why we're all here at thebigview right? Not to intentionally exclude all the evil doers out there but can't I assume the only reason we're discussing this thread is to get some much needed company. Couldn't all of us reading these replies agree that the concept of flaws is a good thing and move on?

This is not the structure which I put to you. What I put to you is can you find any logic for the existence of the universe. Now the hidden question here is, if there is no logic for the universe to exist, what logic is there for you, I, or anyone else to say we act with logic or reason?

There are tones to the word static. It's likely that the reader of the sentence will first recognize static has a connection to the word "still" . The words "potential energy" are connected to the word static too. Emotions are connected to these words and I feel a play on science when I hear the word static. What do you feel?

My answer is the same as before And this is true. And they ... also define Static is static regardless of where it is or what one thinks it is.
[/

Wow! that's an awesome question. That's almost magic or something. What a way to end this reply. I guess you can't have the perfect without having the flawed. I heard from a dolphin that the Universe right next to ours was perfect. All of the planet's orbits are circles instead of ellipses and no one has invented leap years yet.

Did the dolphins tell you that the universe right next to ours, and ours are not divided, and the circle and the void are one and the same? That all is relative to awareness? Whose shoe, my shoe, your shoe, their shoe, Elvis' and Carl Perkins Blue suede shoes. Ah guoonnn boy and fed then thare chakins.

[MultipleTentacles]

But do question your statement of seeing [ultimate truth and conventional truth] at the same time. One would have to cancel out the other, and to me conventional truth would have to be eliminated because ultimate truth precede all else.

To be fully enlightened, according to my tradition, one has to be able to observe that the sky is blue and see the nature of the universe at the same time. It involves looking deeply at the sky, and seeing it truly is blue, and yet truly empty of notions. At the same time. The Dali Lama says in his book The Heart of Understanding that the mind of a Buddha dawns when one sees conventional truth and ultimate truth in a single cognizant event.

[MultipleTentacles]

P.S.

Jufa, it seems as though you have a great deal of confidence in your lines of thought. I do too. This is why I enjoy butting heads with you so much -- since we share a common ground of confidence, the result can only be good.

[wuwei]

I meant 'flaw' in the sense that what we see as flaw is simply the essential process of change. Perfection is stasis.

Then perfection must be entropy.

[wayland]

Everything moves. Nothing is perfect? For me, perfection is biological. Adaptation is striving for perfection. Does the universe adapt? If it does then it might be flawed because it's alive!

[ABrutalKind]

The question is not if the universe is flawed the question is what is perfection? Do we actually know what that is. Can part of the universe be flawed and part of it be perfect? I have no idea I just like to question.

[j000han]

The question is not if the universe is flawed the question is what is perfection? Do we actually know what that is. Can part of the universe be flawed and part of it be perfect? I have no idea I just like to question.

perfection is merely a human projection.
I think that as yet there is no such thing as a 'perfect' universe.
as to:
[Can part of the universe be flawed and part of it be perfect? I have no idea I just like to question.]
Suppose that one is capable to imagine that it is possible that this lifeform called human being could reach a
a condition on which it would be generally indusputable agreed upon to be perfect.
If so then that would proove the perfection of the universe.
After all who on earth is not somewhat hard pressed to 'believe' that the universe is as such that human suffering is par and the course of creation.
What if it is only for some odd reason that this (solar) system is ****ed up?
:unsure::huh: