|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 17, 2014 14:02:48 GMT -5
The science of Physics had to reinvent itself since the 1930's, and in a collective sense, hasn't really been all that honest or forthcoming with "itself" or humanity at large on the implications of the collapse of those assumptions. Instead of building some new house of cards, just see the implication of that collapse for what it is. You're wrong. Science is the most honest thing on earth. It is honest about the implications. There is no collapse of a "house of cards". Actually this collapse is just wishful thinking of spiritual folks who crave authority and desperately want the physicalists to be wrong and the spiritualists to be right. The latest status quo is that obviously there is a physical world out there made up from quarks and atoms. There is exactly zero reason to assume that something like consciousness exists. If anyone thinks that this is wrong then he has to show actual evidence, and personal spiritual experiences are obviously not evidence, it's just brain disorder, not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2014 14:04:31 GMT -5
One's own frame of reference is always the only place to look to for stability. Do we really know this? Seems to me that this "One" doesn't really refer to any frame of reference. Precisely. It is said that after his Enlightenment Buddha realized he had a choice to make, he could either keep silent because what happened to him cannot be described, or, he could try to help people as best as he could by using language and other possible means. He decided to stick around, and point...... It mostly seems to me, and this is no secret, that E is speaking from conceptual non-dualism, not the frame of reference of ONE. (IOW, he ain't no Buddha, IMvhO). But I would like to keep this stuff on another thread, maybe the If non-duality is the case thread, and keep this thread on physics or thus related stuff.........please sdp There's an analogy to be drawn between decoherence and messenger/message. The ideas that point beyond ideas aren't the property or source of any individual they are just expressions that have been stumbled upon and repeated. There is a conversation. If you think about it, the context for that conversation is ever arbitrary. You write to me, I write to you, and the content of that is actually just the hopelessly knotted tangle of ideas from all the past conversations that have happened down through the mists of time back to when humans started grunting at each other. Any idea of the messenger is just some construct we've fabricated in our mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 17, 2014 14:08:53 GMT -5
The science of Physics had to reinvent itself since the 1930's, and in a collective sense, hasn't really been all that honest or forthcoming with "itself" or humanity at large on the implications of the collapse of those assumptions. Instead of building some new house of cards, just see the implication of that collapse for what it is. You're wrong. Science is the most honest thing on earth. It is honest about the implications. There is no collapse of a "house of cards". Actually this collapse is just wishful thinking of spiritual folks who crave authority and desperately want the physicalists to be wrong and the spiritualists to be right. The latest status quo is that obviously there is a physical world out there made up from quarks and atoms. There is exactly zero reason to assume that something like consciousness exists. If anyone thinks that this is wrong then he has to show actual evidence, and personal spiritual experiences are obviously not evidence, it's just brain disorder, not evidence. In so far as there are spiritualists who would take up from where the Physicists' silence on the nature of the conscious observer leaves off and fill it in with speculation, I'd agree. That Einstein and Bohr collapsed Newton's assumptions is undeniable as is the fact of a continuing investigation rooted in that failed assumption (the subject-object split). What the collapse points to is an absence, the analog of which can be found in mental stillness that refrains from filling the void of the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Mar 17, 2014 14:22:03 GMT -5
In so far as there are spiritualists who would take up from where the Physicists' silence on the nature of the conscious observer leaves off and fill it in with speculation, I'd agree. That Einstein and Bohr collapsed Newton's assumptions is undeniable as is the fact of a continuing investigation rooted in that failed assumption (the subject-object split). What the collapse points to is an absence, the analog of which can be found in mental stillness that refrains from filling the void of the collapse. You exagerate the importance of Newton's model. It was 500 years ago. Get over it. Subject-object split has nothing to do with anything. Subject never had any role in physics. It may only have a role when someone finds evidence that it exists. The assumption that there is an objective world out there suffered exactly zero damage despite all the recent discoveries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 14:25:10 GMT -5
M'aam I'm gonna have to ask you to put down the paint brush please. I'll put down the brush when he provides an answer that contradicts my pic...(which is really more of a question at this point). hehe...Kay, that IS funny. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 18:52:49 GMT -5
Oneness isn't a collection of parts connected together. Why is that distinction (All things that appear are connected VS. Oneness,) so important to you? I'd say your vehemence over that particular distinction, over the precise way Oneness is talked about, or described is what's at the crux of many of the arguments you engage in. I think you've agreed that Oneness actually defies description, but we all try anyway....so why the quibble with those whose attempt at description includes parts or appearances? What does it matter if someone says "everything appearing is at it's basis, connected...thus One" vs. "There is only One" When you insist upon 'no parts' you seem to be insisting upon negating appearances....negating experience itself. (just sayin... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) ) First of all, oneness doesn't defy description, it just doesn't require one. There's nothing difficult about the idea of oneness. It means 'not two'. Secondly, appearances ARE included in oneness, obviously. To exclude anything from oneness would mean oneness is not the case. I'm not negating anything. To suggest oneness is made up of parts that are in some way interconnected, validates the illusion of a separate reality of the parts and denies oneness. The reason folks conceptualize oneness as a collection of parts is because they don't understand what oneness means, and so I address that. There isn't an alternative way to view oneness. When oneness is seen as a collection of parts, the separate, volitional person is validated, and there may be the insistence that this validated person is not God, or that it needs to join with God, or remember it's connection with God, and all of that is misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 18:57:01 GMT -5
Oneness isn't a collection of parts connected together. Does that make you happy? With what I'm considering here the physical body would be another analogy. The head needs a heart to pump blood, the heart needs legs to go get food. The legs need arms to lift the food to the mouth. The mouth need an a$$ to eliminate wastes. I didn't mean to overstep your boundaries......... sdp To say "all is one" contradicts the idea that everything is connected.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 18:58:44 GMT -5
Why is that distinction (All things that appear are connected VS. Oneness,) so important to you? I'd say your vehemence over that particular distinction, over the precise way Oneness is talked about, or described is what's at the crux of many of the arguments you engage in. I think you've agreed that Oneness actually defies description, but we all try anyway....so why the quibble with those whose attempt at description includes parts or appearances? What does it matter if someone says "everything appearing is at it's basis, connected...thus One" vs. "There is only One" When you insist upon 'no parts' you seem to be insisting upon negating appearances....negating experience itself. (just sayin... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) ) It's called choking on a gnat yet swallowing a camel......... sdp Separate parts do that sometimes because their connection to oneness is faulty. ![B-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/notamused.png)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 19:08:24 GMT -5
Actually it's just a distinction. The fact of a differential implies no value in and of itself other than the personal choice of which side of the divide is favored. I'm beginning to see that where you are concerned laffy, that is the case. You seem able to see both sides of this equation, with no real attachment to either one....I can buy your assertion that you simply 'prefer' to use a particular language over another...to adopt a certain perspective over another. You do seem to acknowledge the validity of others ways of trying to talk about Oneness...of slightly altered perspectives. When it comes to E though, I"m not sure. It seems as though his assertions that: "Oneness isn't a collection of parts connected together." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3487/nature-physical-reality#ixzz2wFDppXt2is more than a mere 'personal preference' for a particular way of talking about Oneness. Seems He's making a statement of 'wrongness' or 'falseness' regarding one perspective over another. he can clear that up though, if he cares to. .....E?? Oneness is not a matter of perspective, any more than the number one might actually be 2 and 3 added together if you look at it in just the right way.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 19:12:10 GMT -5
Actually it's just a distinction. The fact of a differential implies no value in and of itself other than the personal choice of which side of the divide is favored. Yes, it depends upon your frame of reference. My frame of reference is usually, me. We all know that E's constant and unfailing frame of reference is always and only, ONE. sdp How can you even talk about oneness from a separate frame of reference?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 19:19:35 GMT -5
I'm beginning to see that where you are concerned laffy, that is the case. You seem able to see both sides of this equation, with no real attachment to either one....I can buy your assertion that you simply 'prefer' to use a particular language over another...to adopt a certain perspective over another. You do seem to acknowledge the validity of others ways of trying to talk about Oneness...of slightly altered perspectives. When it comes to E though, I"m not sure. It seems as though his assertions that: "Oneness isn't a collection of parts connected together." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3487/nature-physical-reality#ixzz2wFDppXt2is more than a mere 'personal preference' for a particular way of talking about Oneness. Seems He's making a statement of 'wrongness' or 'falseness' regarding one perspective over another. he can clear that up though, if he cares to. .....E?? M'aam I'm gonna have to ask you to put down the paint brush please. (** points pickle-pult at figgles **) ![](http://s2.thisnext.com/media/largest_dimension/Pickle-Pult-Pickle-Flinging_DE40C44E.jpg) While I am licensed and duly authorized to carry this sidearm, the paperwork involved in a discharge is always a real mess ... .. so please M'aam ... back away from the easel ... nice and slow now ... easy does it .. ![](http://noveltyisland.co.uk/product_images/v/809/catapult__88157_zoom.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 17, 2014 19:55:37 GMT -5
Does that make you happy? With what I'm considering here the physical body would be another analogy. The head needs a heart to pump blood, the heart needs legs to go get food. The legs need arms to lift the food to the mouth. The mouth need an a$$ to eliminate wastes. I didn't mean to overstep your boundaries......... sdp To say "all is one" contradicts the idea that everything is connected. To realize that oneness and manyness happen simultaneously is to acknowledge what is happening.. To claim that parts or whole are exclusive to the the other is a preference, not an observation.. The still mind observes existence happening, neither oneness nor separation.. to invoke either oneness or separation is to create its contrasting principle.. To be so rigidly attached to the idea that what 'is' must conform to the idea, is to be detached from what 'is'..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 17, 2014 20:05:14 GMT -5
I'm beginning to see that where you are concerned laffy, that is the case. You seem able to see both sides of this equation, with no real attachment to either one....I can buy your assertion that you simply 'prefer' to use a particular language over another...to adopt a certain perspective over another. You do seem to acknowledge the validity of others ways of trying to talk about Oneness...of slightly altered perspectives. When it comes to E though, I"m not sure. It seems as though his assertions that: "Oneness isn't a collection of parts connected together." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3487/nature-physical-reality#ixzz2wFDppXt2is more than a mere 'personal preference' for a particular way of talking about Oneness. Seems He's making a statement of 'wrongness' or 'falseness' regarding one perspective over another. he can clear that up though, if he cares to. .....E?? Oneness is not a matter of perspective, any more than the number one might actually be 2 and 3 added together if you look at it in just the right way. Oneness is an idea believed, a mental experience attached to at the expense of clarity.. to insist that oneness is so, is to interrupt the fluid dynamism of what is actually happening, it is to insist that those interested in what is actually happening should stop, and pay attention to somebody's oneness ideas.. Oneness is a word-game in search of players, stillness has let go of the game..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 21:57:43 GMT -5
To say "all is one" contradicts the idea that everything is connected. To realize that oneness and manyness happen simultaneously is to acknowledge what is happening.. Oneness and manyness are not verbs, and so they don't happen, simultaneously or otherwise. If what you mean is that oneness and manyness are both true, that's not possible, as they directly contradict. Parts and whole are not exclusive as there can be parts to a pie and a whole pie. What is exclusive is oneness and parts. So talk to Pilgrim about his invocation. I'm just responding to it, as are you. So is the problem that oneness and manyness are both the case, or that neither is the case, or that I'm detached from 'what is'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 22:00:18 GMT -5
First of all, oneness doesn't defy description, it just doesn't require one. There's nothing difficult about the idea of oneness. It means 'not two'. You are offering a definition of the concept of Oneness/non-duality....as much as we all try, the actual experience of "Oneness" (at-0ne-ment with Source/God) cannot be adequately described with words. Okay....just exchange the word 'appearance' then, for 'parts.' Precise Labels really don't matter. What we're talking about in this case is aspects of experience. Yeah..... AT the foundation of your insistence that there are no 'parts' in Oneness is your reliance upon the delineation between illusion vs. actual.What you don't seem to get though, is that That delineation itself is a divvying up of experience into two. & from where I sit, once Oneness is actually experienced, there is no longer any need (or reason) to divvy up certain aspects/facets of experience as illusion and others as actual. When Oneness with Source is the experience, is the position seeing is happening from, It ALL simply is. It's all included. Your argument hinges upon that possibility...the possibility of creating a divide through identifying with a part. You assume identification/attachment. It's just a possibility though....as you say, it 'may' happen. It's not a given that validating volition or personhood MUST result in a sense of being apart from Source/God. Ime, To really experience being at one with Source is to see and understand that there is no aspect of 'this' that falls outside of God Godding....... and that includes, everything, individuation, the experience of volition & personhood.
|
|