|
Post by klaus on Oct 25, 2010 17:36:52 GMT -5
Michaelsees,
What exactly is relationship between garbage and can?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 25, 2010 17:57:15 GMT -5
"containers" and in truth so are we just containers well maybe a bit more.. just having fun here with concepts peace
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Oct 25, 2010 18:08:17 GMT -5
HOLY SMOKE!
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 25, 2010 18:23:00 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Oct 25, 2010 19:08:11 GMT -5
michaelsees,
peace.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 25, 2010 19:47:53 GMT -5
|
|
goody
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by goody on Oct 25, 2010 20:48:07 GMT -5
OK, I just ignore the humor here and continue my question... ZD: you said "you...have always been one-with the ocean, but you are not ALL of the ocean...", did you mean that in the context of the illusory world since there is no you in Reality? Enlightenment means you are back to 100% That after you drop this mind/body? Or maybe they can't be answered at all because That is unimaginable? Any answers from anybody are welcome! Including those who have strong sense of dry humor or black humor
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 25, 2010 21:28:28 GMT -5
Who is the "I" that is ignoring the humor. It can help to take a look at something very fresh in your mind and see what is there
peace
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 25, 2010 22:32:25 GMT -5
OK, I just ignore the humor here and continue my question... ZD: you said "you...have always been one-with the ocean, but you are not ALL of the ocean...", did you mean that in the context of the illusory world since there is no you in Reality? Enlightenment means you are back to 100% That after you drop this mind/body? Or maybe they can't be answered at all because That is unimaginable? Any answers from anybody are welcome! Including those who have strong sense of dry humor or black humor Goody: No, I didn't mean it in the context of the illusory world. What I meant is that although there is only oneness, oneness is vast beyond comprehension. The power and scale of THAT is totally humbling when directly perceived. I do not know how to adequately convey within language what I'm pointing to here; I can only bow in silent wonder. I am one-with THAT, and I AM THAT, but I am not ALL of THAT. I'm unable to say any more than this. Beyond, all words fail.
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 26, 2010 13:15:57 GMT -5
"I am one-with THAT, and I AM THAT, but I am not ALL of THAT."
This is pretty much the same as physicalism.
There is no doubt that monist ontology is the only way to go, but there is much doubt as to the nature of this monism. Well, not that much doubt actually, because a monism wherein the universe is essentially stupid and dead (except for some temporary appearances) is absolutely consistent with everyone's experience, whereas a monism in which the universe is essentially alive, intelligent and aware is absolutely inconsistent with everyone's experience.
|
|
|
Post by desertrain on Oct 26, 2010 14:23:11 GMT -5
question: What kind of experience or evidence would be needed to support the notion that the universe is intelligent and aware? Do you have an idea what such an universe should look like? Why do you think this one we're living in couldn't be intelligent and aware? I'm asking this because my experience isn't absolutely inconsistent with an intelligent universe.
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 26, 2010 15:33:13 GMT -5
Hi Desertrain,
"What kind of experience or evidence would be needed to support the notion that the universe is intelligent and aware? Do you have an idea what such an universe should look like?" I don't understand the definitions of awareness and intelligence used in nonduality. Therefore I have no idea what such a universe should look like or what evidence would be required. What evidence would you want me to show you to prove that ghjghgflashfhasfsaf? I'm sorry I can't explain it any better, you have to experience ghjghgflashfhasfsaf for yourself to know. See the problem? All I'm saying is that the common definitions of awareness and intelligence have absolutely no place in inanimate matter. And so in this case the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.
"Why do you think this one we're living in couldn't be intelligent and aware?" There is no scientific observation that demands the universe to be intelligent or aware, every observation is consistent with a dead and stupid universe. For the notion of an intelligent and aware universe to be true one would have to establish radically different definitions of intelligence and awareness, so radical in fact that nobody could understand. A while ago Enigma explained his understanding of "intelligence", be honest with yourself if you understand it or not.
"I'm asking this because my experience isn't absolutely inconsistent with an intelligent universe." Care to elaborate on the experience? More importantly: is it absolutely inconsistent with a non-intelligent universe? I can understand if you don't choose sides, but just in case you had to, what would make you throw away Occam's Razor?
|
|
goody
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by goody on Oct 26, 2010 16:24:47 GMT -5
Q: The “anthropic principle” has been accepted by lots of philosophers and scientists, which implies SOMETHING behind in this manifested universe has to be intelligent. But if we see from the point of view of That, the anthropic principle is even totally unnecessary: If the universe wants to experience lives of human kind, it has to be this way: I am That.
However this is not a forum for philosophies, I don't want to talk about this topic too much, but I strongly believe that Truth can be experienced and WE are the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by karen on Oct 26, 2010 17:44:45 GMT -5
There is no doubt that monist ontology is the only way to go, but there is much doubt as to the nature of this monism. Well, not that much doubt actually, because a monism wherein the universe is essentially stupid and dead (except for some temporary appearances) is absolutely consistent with everyone's experience, whereas a monism in which the universe is essentially alive, intelligent and aware is absolutely inconsistent with everyone's experience. That is an extraordinary claim. Personally I've never experienced everyone elses' experience.
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 26, 2010 18:27:55 GMT -5
There is no doubt that monist ontology is the only way to go, but there is much doubt as to the nature of this monism. Well, not that much doubt actually, because a monism wherein the universe is essentially stupid and dead (except for some temporary appearances) is absolutely consistent with everyone's experience, whereas a monism in which the universe is essentially alive, intelligent and aware is absolutely inconsistent with everyone's experience. That is an extraordinary claim. Personally I've never experienced everyone elses' experience. Me neither. And neither have ZD or Enigma, yet you choose to believe them more that you do believe me?! No seriously, you know that it isn't an extraordinary claim at all and you know that you have to force yourself not to assume that most people's experience (not to be confused with 'beliefs') is pretty much the same as mine and yours.
|
|