|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 22:01:31 GMT -5
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.. So you're beginning to confuse yourself with all of this contradiction. That's a good sign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 22:09:34 GMT -5
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'? For me, it's this whole importance you assign TO declaring 'what is the case.' To be at one with the present moment......attention focused right here, right now, .....there is no room for a sense of 'what is actually the case.' there is is just 'this.' The very idea of something being 'actual' or 'the case' is from that position, just TMT. The importance you place upon 'what is the case' takes you outside of the moment at hand, into stories about 'this.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 22:29:11 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.. 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'.. So what exactly "is"? Can you be precise?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 22:40:16 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. Right, I'm not talking about some oneness experience. 'Appearance' doesn't imply a separate part. 'Part' does. Making distinctions is what experience is all about. Why turn that into a problem? Individuals are distinct, but they are not separate. Your oneness experience doesn't mean anything, especially if you don't yet comprehend what oneness actually means. Your tendency is to "sit" in some transcendent position, and 'from where you sit', you can then dismiss any distinction that you don't care to acknowledge. It's more than a possibility. It was Pilgrim's comment that if we're God, we should be able to heal the sick and so on. That's precisely when I stepped in to challenge the connected parts idea, because he made it clear that he had created that divide. Of course. Why are you talking about that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 22:47:56 GMT -5
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'? For me, it's this whole importance you assign TO declaring 'what is the case.' To be at one with the present moment......attention focused right here, right now, .....there is no room for a sense of 'what is actually the case.' there is is just 'this.' The very idea of something being 'actual' or 'the case' is from that position, just TMT. The importance you place upon 'what is the case' takes you outside of the moment at hand, into stories about 'this.' At the present moment, neither of us is at one with the present moment. What we're doing is having a TMT discussion on a TMT discussion forum. ![O_o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/browraise.png)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 17, 2014 22:50:45 GMT -5
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'.. So what exactly "is"? Can you be precise? 'What is' is the isness that is ising it's isness that it is. ![P-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/pirate.png)
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 17, 2014 23:36:20 GMT -5
E, if "Oneness is not two", one cannot talk about Oneness. Any definition of oneness which you try to give is irrelevant.
SDP, it's very much insightful. Now it becomes clearer to me why MrG can do things, and how he can see the past and the future. He let himself be connected to that black hole energy.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Mar 18, 2014 5:26:59 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 You and Laughter are doing an excellent job of explaining physics in layman terms, I've learned a better understanding of the concepts being discussed and look forward to more. The italicized is a way to look at 'this' and not see any separation, no quibble about one as god, one is god or one is a part of god. From the perspective of me it/this is all me. The apparent paradoxes are set aside for a moment which are only boundaries put there by mind and a sense of freedom can be felt....
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 18, 2014 5:31:05 GMT -5
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'.. So what exactly "is"? Can you be precise? Stop thinking, begin looking with unconditional sincerity.. you don't need me to tell you what 'is', live your own Life..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 18, 2014 8:40:45 GMT -5
] 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 You and Laughter are doing an excellent job of explaining physics in layman terms, I've learned a better understanding of the concepts being discussed and look forward to more. The italicized is a way to look at 'this' and not see any separation, no quibble about one as god, one is god or one is a part of god. From the perspective of me it/this is all me. The apparent paradoxes are set aside for a moment which are only boundaries put there by mind and a sense of freedom can be felt.... Thanks runstill and arisha....... sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 18, 2014 9:51:45 GMT -5
For anyone interested I finally went back to reread the OP. I added some things for clarity and made any necessary corrections. Edit in italics. (I also added some guidelines to the OP).
sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 18, 2014 10:44:43 GMT -5
Again, please try to keep this thread on subject, questions or posts on physics or on metaphysics in relation to physics, and thus impersonal. Thanks.
sdp
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 18, 2014 19:10:26 GMT -5
My view of contemporary physics is somewhat different than what has been posted so far. I understand lots of the basic ideas accepted my physicists, but these days I don't remember much of the math other than basic equations like f=ma, e=mc2, etc. At one time I understood a lot more, but most of it has now faded from my memory banks. My basic interest in physical phenomena was in understanding things like, "What is a subatomic particle, really?", "What can explain the observer paradoxes?", "How can "spooky action at a distance be possible?" (a la Bell's Theorem), "What can explain spiritual 'miracles' such as passing one's hand through a solid object?" (reported in Tibetan Buddhism as well as in many other religious traditions), and so forth.
All of these questions were resolved when I realized via a CC experience that there is no such thing as time, space, or thingness except as ideas. Ideas are abstract models that seek to primarily predict observed phenomena, but the underlying reality is a living whole. What does this mean? It means that there is no such thing as empty space or dead space. What we call "space" is actually the fabric of a living field, literally, and what we conceive of as particles would probably be better thought of as energy fields exhibiting probabalistic tendencies.
The old atomic model encouraged us to imagine particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons as discrete things composing matter, but that model quickly had to be modified and was replaced by the idea of small quarks which composed the larger particles. Eventually that model had to be modified and the tiniest particles broke down into more and more exotic particles. Now, with larger and larger colliders, all of these exotica will eventually break down into more and more complex exotica because the basic model is a model of something that can never, even in theory, be captured by a model. Physicists are a bit like a dog chasing its own tail, but never able to run fast enough to get hold of it. The object of investigation will always recede into the background faster than the speed (or perhaps at the same speed as) the chasing observers.
The realization that I had in 1984 was that even the space in front of our eyes, between the body/mind and whatever is being observed, is alive. The entire universe is alive, Igor; it's alive. Ha ha.
Chilton Pearce wrote a book titled, "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg," which dealt with particular issues of non-locality. One of his points, translated into physical terms, is that mind and matter are a unified whole, so there are no inviolable laws of physics. What we call the electromagnetic force fields that prevent our hand from passing through a tabletop are not what they seem. They are ourself, our true self, and mind is capable of altering them through non-local interactivity. It is probablistic, but the odds of passing one's hand through a "solid" piece of rock is not zero, and even quantum mechanics apparently allows for this. I could write a lot more about this, but this at least gives a slightly different perspective upon the usual way of considering these issues. In this sense, "the dime in the football stadium" is seen quite differently--as a field of beingness exhibiting probablistic tendencies that are only mathematically localized.
To put it somewhat differently, reality is a superposition of infinite potentiality. An observation collapses the wave function, but only in an intellectual sense. The wave function, itself, is an idea about isness, and isness cannot be grasped by the intellect. IOW, its turtles all the way down.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 18, 2014 23:41:06 GMT -5
My view of contemporary physics is somewhat different than what has been posted so far. I understand lots of the basic ideas accepted my physicists, but these days I don't remember much of the math other than basic equations like f=ma, e=mc2, etc. At one time I understood a lot more, but most of it has now faded from my memory banks. My basic interest in physical phenomena was in understanding things like, "What is a subatomic particle, really?", "What can explain the observer paradoxes?", "How can "spooky action at a distance be possible?" (a la Bell's Theorem), "What can explain spiritual 'miracles' such as passing one's hand through a solid object?" (reported in Tibetan Buddhism as well as in many other religious traditions), and so forth. All of these questions were resolved when I realized via a CC experience that there is no such thing as time, space, or thingness except as ideas. Ideas are abstract models that seek to primarily predict observed phenomena, but the underlying reality is a living whole. What does this mean? It means that there is no such thing as empty space or dead space. What we call "space" is actually the fabric of a living field, literally, and what we conceive of as particles would probably be better thought of as energy fields exhibiting probabalistic tendencies. The old atomic model encouraged us to imagine particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons as discrete things composing matter, but that model quickly had to be modified and was replaced by the idea of small quarks which composed the larger particles. Eventually that model had to be modified and the tiniest particles broke down into more and more exotic particles. Now, with larger and larger colliders, all of these exotica will eventually break down into more and more complex exotica because the basic model is a model of something that can never, even in theory, be captured by a model. Physicists are a bit like a dog chasing its own tail, but never able to run fast enough to get hold of it. The object of investigation will always recede into the background faster than the speed (or perhaps at the same speed as) the chasing observers. The realization that I had in 1984 was that even the space in front of our eyes, between the body/mind and whatever is being observed, is alive. The entire universe is alive, Igor; it's alive. Ha ha. Chilton Pearce wrote a book titled, "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg," which dealt with particular issues of non-locality. One of his points, translated into physical terms, is that mind and matter are a unified whole, so there are no inviolable laws of physics. What we call the electromagnetic force fields that prevent our hand from passing through a tabletop are not what they seem. They are ourself, our true self, and mind is capable of altering them through non-local interactivity. It is probablistic, but the odds of passing one's hand through a "solid" piece of rock is not zero, and even quantum mechanics apparently allows for this. I could write a lot more about this, but this at least gives a slightly different perspective upon the usual way of considering these issues. In this sense, "the dime in the football stadium" is seen quite differently--as a field of beingness exhibiting probablistic tendencies that are only mathematically localized. To put it somewhat differently, reality is a superposition of infinite potentiality. An observation collapses the wave function, but only in an intellectual sense. The wave function, itself, is an idea about isness, and isness cannot be grasped by the intellect. IOW, its turtles all the way down. That's very cool zd, and pretty-much very up to date physics in the mind of many physicists. I have been reading a new book, Trespassing On Einstein's Lawn, A Father a Daughter the Meaning of Nothing, and the Beginning of Everything, 2014, by writer and journalist on physics named Amanda Gefter. At the age of fifteen in a Chinese restaurant, Amanda's father asked her the question, "How would you define nothing"? They began to explore this question together and eventually Amanda became an editor and writer for the magazine New Scientist. When she was 21 the two of them crashed a physics conference and talked to physics pioneer John Wheeler. Wheeler was just about the most out there physicist ever (he coined the terms black hole and wormhole). He is famous for the phrase "It from bit". From this he means that the material world arises out of information. From their questions Wheeler made two statements about the nature of reality that kept them searching for the meaning for years, and is essentially the central aspect of the book, what are the basic constituents of reality, what's invariant. First, "The universe is a self-excited circuit". Second, "The boundary of a boundary is zero". I have about 60 pages left in the book. Up unto now and I don't expect it, there has been no mention of God. For many years toward the end of his life (Wheeler died just a few years ago, in his 90's) he kept exploring the idea that the universe came from the observer, observation is somehow what brought something out of nothing. Amanda and her father eventually talked to several of Wheeler's students trying to figure out what Wheeler meant by his statements, but they didn't know.....they went off in different directions. Eventually they learned that Wheeler kept very detailed notebooks, dated observations and conversations. They finally tracked down the notebooks, about forty, in the library of The Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, Penn. and spent about a week going through them. He never reached any conclusions, his long-time secretary wrote down his observations in a notebook, up until the last year of his life, when he could no longer write. A doodle that appeared numerous times in his notebooks was a U (for universe) with a eye on one side looking at the other side. It's a very excellent and entertaining book, but parts way beyond my knowledge. I'll report back on it when I finish. (BTW, Joseph Chilton Pearce is one of my favorite writers. I have all of his books and have read all except not-finishing two, read Crack in the Cosmic Egg back in the '70's. About twenty years ago I heard him speak at a college in Hickory, NC)........ sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 19, 2014 0:18:46 GMT -5
My view of contemporary physics is somewhat different than what has been posted so far. I understand lots of the basic ideas accepted my physicists, but these days I don't remember much of the math other than basic equations like f=ma, e=mc2, etc. At one time I understood a lot more, but most of it has now faded from my memory banks. My basic interest in physical phenomena was in understanding things like, "What is a subatomic particle, really?", "What can explain the observer paradoxes?", "How can "spooky action at a distance be possible?" (a la Bell's Theorem), "What can explain spiritual 'miracles' such as passing one's hand through a solid object?" (reported in Tibetan Buddhism as well as in many other religious traditions), and so forth. All of these questions were resolved when I realized via a CC experience that there is no such thing as time, space, or thingness except as ideas. Ideas are abstract models that seek to primarily predict observed phenomena, but the underlying reality is a living whole. What does this mean? It means that there is no such thing as empty space or dead space. What we call "space" is actually the fabric of a living field, literally, and what we conceive of as particles would probably be better thought of as energy fields exhibiting probabalistic tendencies. The old atomic model encouraged us to imagine particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons as discrete things composing matter, but that model quickly had to be modified and was replaced by the idea of small quarks which composed the larger particles. Eventually that model had to be modified and the tiniest particles broke down into more and more exotic particles. Now, with larger and larger colliders, all of these exotica will eventually break down into more and more complex exotica because the basic model is a model of something that can never, even in theory, be captured by a model. Physicists are a bit like a dog chasing its own tail, but never able to run fast enough to get hold of it. The object of investigation will always recede into the background faster than the speed (or perhaps at the same speed as) the chasing observers. The realization that I had in 1984 was that even the space in front of our eyes, between the body/mind and whatever is being observed, is alive. The entire universe is alive, Igor; it's alive. Ha ha. Chilton Pearce wrote a book titled, "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg," which dealt with particular issues of non-locality. One of his points, translated into physical terms, is that mind and matter are a unified whole, so there are no inviolable laws of physics. What we call the electromagnetic force fields that prevent our hand from passing through a tabletop are not what they seem. They are ourself, our true self, and mind is capable of altering them through non-local interactivity. It is probablistic, but the odds of passing one's hand through a "solid" piece of rock is not zero, and even quantum mechanics apparently allows for this. I could write a lot more about this, but this at least gives a slightly different perspective upon the usual way of considering these issues. In this sense, "the dime in the football stadium" is seen quite differently--as a field of beingness exhibiting probablistic tendencies that are only mathematically localized. To put it somewhat differently, reality is a superposition of infinite potentiality. An observation collapses the wave function, but only in an intellectual sense. The wave function, itself, is an idea about isness, and isness cannot be grasped by the intellect. IOW, its turtles all the way down. That's very cool zd, and pretty-much very up to date physics in the mind of many physicists. I have been reading a new book, Trespassing On Einstein's Lawn, A Father a Daughter the Meaning of Nothing, and the Beginning of Everything, 2014, by writer and journalist on physics named Amanda Gefter. At the age of fifteen in a Chinese restaurant, Amanda's father asked her the question, "How would you define nothing"? They began to explore this question together and eventually Amanda became an editor and writer for the magazine New Scientist. When she was 21 the two of them crashed a physics conference and talked to physics pioneer John Wheeler. Wheeler was just about the most out there physicist ever (he coined the terms black hole and wormhole). He is famous for the phrase "It from bit". From this he means that the material world arises out of information. From their questions Wheeler made two statements about the nature of reality that kept them searching for the meaning for years, and is essentially the central aspect of the book, what are the basic constituents of reality, what's invariant. First, "The universe is a self-excited circuit". Second, "The boundary of a boundary is zero". I have about 60 pages left in the book. Up unto now and I don't expect it, there has been no mention of God. For many years toward the end of his life (Wheeler died just a few years ago, in his 90's) he kept exploring the idea that the universe came from the observer, observation is somehow what brought something out of nothing. Amanda and her father eventually talked to several of Wheeler's students trying to figure out what Wheeler meant by his statements, but they didn't know.....they went off in different directions. Eventually they learned that Wheeler kept very detailed notebooks, dated observations and conversations. They finally tracked down the notebooks, about forty, in the library of The Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, Penn. and spent about a week going through them. He never reached any conclusions, his long-time secretary wrote down his observations in a notebook, up until the last year of his life, when he could no longer write. A doodle that appeared numerous times in his notebooks was a U (for universe) with a eye on one side looking at the other side. It's a very excellent and entertaining book, but parts way beyond my knowledge. I'll report back on it when I finish. (BTW, Joseph Chilton Pearce is one of my favorite writers. I have all of his books and have read all except not-finishing two, read Crack in the Cosmic Egg back in the '70's. About twenty years ago I heard him speak at a college in Hickory, NC)........ sdp That's precisely how I see it, and as far as I know, is the way non-duality sees it. What I don't understand is how we can all agree and still disagree so strongly.
|
|