|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2019 6:38:39 GMT -5
I haven't read the article yet, but FWIW it's possible to directly apprehend the unity of THIS. In that contextless context there is no space, and the term aliveness is more appropriate than deadness, although no term is truly applicable.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 19, 2019 7:26:50 GMT -5
I haven't read the article yet, but FWIW it's possible to directly apprehend the unity of THIS. In that contextless context there is no space, and the term aliveness is more appropriate than deadness, although no term is truly applicable. You, and I think reefs, have had a bit of flak for this notion of aliveness, but I can't think of anything more appropriate. It certainly isn't an absence. it's vibrational and that's lively. For all the talk of Maya being a dream it certainly has much more of a vividness for me now. if consciousness itself is lively then so are the objects being perceived within consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2019 5:55:08 GMT -5
I haven't read the article yet, but FWIW it's possible to directly apprehend the unity of THIS. In that contextless context there is no space, and the term aliveness is more appropriate than deadness, although no term is truly applicable. You, and I think reefs, have had a bit of flak for this notion of aliveness, but I can't think of anything more appropriate. It certainly isn't an absence. it's vibrational and that's lively. For all the talk of Maya being a dream it certainly has much more of a vividness for me now. if consciousness itself is lively then so are the objects being perceived within consciousness. I think it’s useful to remind everyone that what we are pointing to can only be seen from prior to mind. Which means what we are pointing to has to be realized. There’s no way around it. It cannot be conceptualized. Which means aliveness doesn’t even come close to what we are pointing to. In that sense, trying to defend it by intellectual means is going to be as convincing as trying to attack or disprove it by intellectual means. That’s why we’ve regularly offered to agree to disagree on the matter. Because when peeps try to conceptualize the aliveness pointer anyway, what we usually get is either animism or even worse, anthropomorphism. And that's making a mockery out of it, be it knowingly or unknowingly. As for the counter-argument, I think if the assertion would have been “I honestly don’t know” then no one would have had an issue with that. Even if the assertion would have been “I cannot know” – I’d say, okay, fine. That's at least an honest statement from the perspective of the intellect. But the assertion “I cannot know and you can’t know either” – that’s where it gets problematic. Because it’s not even a logically sound argument. And there's a realization that will actually reveal the exact opposite. True not-knowing would be statement #1 (“I honestly don’t know”). Statement #2 (“I cannot know”) is already knowing something. And with statement #3 (“I cannot know and you can’t know either”) we are already far into TMT territory where the first part of the statement contradicts the second part. In short, the aliveness pointer can only be fully understood by those who have an actual reference for it. And those who do have that reference will use the word 'knowing' in a different way than those who don't have that reference. So here the distinction between gnosis and conceptual knowledge could be useful. But then again, in order to really understand this distinction, it would require an actual reference for an instance of gnosis. So we are basically back to square one again. Without any reference for what prior to mind means, this discussion won't be meaningful at all. Open-mindedness might help though.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2019 12:55:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2019 14:57:04 GMT -5
My local PBS station featured Carroll and this video. Although anything is possible, the MW theory made me think of Occam's Razor and "the simplest solution is probably the best solution." For me, the problem with the MW theory is that it's based upon distinctions that are, in fact, imaginary branching division points, and no such points actually exist in the way that's implied. All one needs to do is directly apprehend the unity of the cosmos, but that seeing can't be grasped by the intellect. Imagining wholeness branching is like imagining anything else--it's imaginary. As Laughter has pointed out, QM is a complex extension of a basic idea--that reality is composed of separate stuff--and it's not. It's all one piece of cloth. Just out of curiosity, have any world-class physicists ever reported apprehending the Infinite directly?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2019 16:38:44 GMT -5
My local PBS station featured Carroll and this video. Although anything is possible, the MW theory made me think of Occam's Razor and "the simplest solution is probably the best solution." For me, the problem with the MW theory is that it's based upon distinctions that are, in fact, imaginary branching division points, and no such points actually exist in the way that's implied. All one needs to do is directly apprehend the unity of the cosmos, but that seeing can't be grasped by the intellect. Imagining wholeness branching is like imagining anything else--it's imaginary. As Laughter has pointed out, QM is a complex extension of a basic idea--that reality is composed of separate stuff--and it's not. It's all one piece of cloth. Just out of curiosity, have any world-class physicists ever reported apprehending the Infinite directly? I agree. I've always considered the Many Worlds Interpretation virtually absurd. My argument has just been: "Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed". It seemed to me that if every possibility is actualized in a world that splits off, then where is all that *new energy* coming from? But in a recently viewed video by Carroll (not the PBS one), he said this is not what is happening, the world is not altered. Now, I didn't follow the point he was making, but he seems to have answered this question. I browsed the book yesterday at a Books-A-Million, and ordered it on Amazon. It seems an excellent book on QM, period. I don't do A-Z Prime so it arrives next week, can't wait. As to the last question, I'm sure David Bohm had at least an intellectualized understanding of Oneness, he uses the word Wholeness. I don't know if he directly apprehended wholeness. He was closely associated with J Krishnamurti for many years, I think over 20 years, and I know JK did have this direct-knowing of Oneness (he hinted at it, and it probably occurred very often if not daily, but he wouldn't try to describe it). Fred Alan Wolf, who I think was in the what the Bleep Do We Know? film is another possibility. (He's written numerous related books).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 28, 2019 10:43:11 GMT -5
Received the new Sean Carroll book Something Deeply Hidden. So far very good. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM is actually a view of wholeness. Carroll says let's just take QM as simply as possible. To do this is to take the wave function as the whole of the universe, all that is. Now, the following is my analogy, previously considered. Take a horse race. The wave function is the race from start to finish, the whole. (This, [basically as with everything in the classical world], BTW, according to Carroll, evolves according to Schrodinger's equation, deterministically, discussed previously here). But for the finish two horses are so close we cannot determine who won. So we take a measurement, a photo, we have a photo-finish. So the Many-Worlds are the complete horse race. The photo at the end is a "quantum experiment", which us really an artificial *extraction*-out-of the whole. So the quantum wave function IS the Whole, a quantum experiment is a tiny snapshot of the whole.
Carroll says we don't have two worlds, a classical world and a quantum world, with a split between the micro world and macro world, one world obeying classical laws and one world obeying quantum rules. He says we have a quantum world obeying quantum laws, period.
Carroll says there are two other candidates that explain QM from the perspective of wholeness, the de Broglie-Bohm theory AKA Bohmian mechanics, and QBism AKA quantum Bayesianism. But her prefers the Many-Worlds interpretation.
That's up to page 53. Will share more as I get further.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 28, 2019 12:13:39 GMT -5
Figgles, FYI, you still owe me a reply to this one. Until then, the pettifoggery thread stays closed. Which means no food fights during that time. R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2019 12:16:07 GMT -5
Figgles, FYI, you still owe me a reply to this one. Until then, the pettifoggery thread stays closed. Which means no food fights during that time. R Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 28, 2019 12:29:50 GMT -5
Figgles, FYI, you still owe me a reply to this one. Until then, the pettifoggery thread stays closed. Which means no food fights during that time. R Got it. Good. Laughter already confirmed that he understood. That leaves Enigma. As soon as I get his confirmation, I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread and you can give it another go if anyone is still interested in this.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 28, 2019 12:31:30 GMT -5
Good. Laughter already confirmed that he understood. That leaves Enigma. As soon as I get his confirmation, I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread and you can give it another go if anyone is still interested in this. Or can even remember what it was all about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2019 14:43:38 GMT -5
You, and I think reefs, have had a bit of flak for this notion of aliveness, but I can't think of anything more appropriate. It certainly isn't an absence. it's vibrational and that's lively. For all the talk of Maya being a dream it certainly has much more of a vividness for me now. if consciousness itself is lively then so are the objects being perceived within consciousness. I think it’s useful to remind everyone that what we are pointing to can only be seen from prior to mind. Which means what we are pointing to has to be realized. There’s no way around it. It cannot be conceptualized. Which means aliveness doesn’t even come close to what we are pointing to. In that sense, trying to defend it by intellectual means is going to be as convincing as trying to attack or disprove it by intellectual means. That’s why we’ve regularly offered to agree to disagree on the matter. Because when peeps try to conceptualize the aliveness pointer anyway, what we usually get is either animism or even worse, anthropomorphism. And that's making a mockery out of it, be it knowingly or unknowingly. As for the counter-argument, I think if the assertion would have been “I honestly don’t know” then no one would have had an issue with that. Even if the assertion would have been “I cannot know” – I’d say, okay, fine. That's at least an honest statement from the perspective of the intellect. But the assertion “I cannot know and you can’t know either” – that’s where it gets problematic. Because it’s not even a logically sound argument. And there's a realization that will actually reveal the exact opposite.
True not-knowing would be statement #1 (“I honestly don’t know”). Statement #2 (“I cannot know”) is already knowing something. And with statement #3 (“I cannot know and you can’t know either”) we are already far into TMT territory where the first part of the statement contradicts the second part.
In short, the aliveness pointer can only be fully understood by those who have an actual reference for it. And those who do have that reference will use the word 'knowing' in a different way than those who don't have that reference. So here the distinction between gnosis and conceptual knowledge could be useful. But then again, in order to really understand this distinction, it would require an actual reference for an instance of gnosis. So we are basically back to square one again. Without any reference for what prior to mind means, this discussion won't be meaningful at all. Open-mindedness might help though. When it was said it 'cannot be known,' with regards to an appearance, what was meant is it is unknowable by any means, either intellectual/conceptual or via realization.
To say that I don't know re: the appearing person and that if you are a perceiver, you also cannot/do not know, is simply to speak to the general, inherent emptiness (un-knowability via conceputal/intellectual knowing or realizational knowing) of all that appears...which is the same as speaking of all appearance as arising dependently....ie; not existing in it's own right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2019 15:26:15 GMT -5
I haven't read the article yet, but FWIW it's possible to directly apprehend the unity of THIS. In that contextless context there is no space, and the term aliveness is more appropriate than deadness, although no term is truly applicable. You, and I think reefs, have had a bit of flak for this notion of aliveness, but I can't think of anything more appropriate. It certainly isn't an absence. it's vibrational and that's lively. For all the talk of Maya being a dream it certainly has much more of a vividness for me now. if consciousness itself is lively then so are the objects being perceived within consciousness. There is a difference between a mere 'notion' of aliveness, liveliness, vividness, vibrancy, etc, as applicable to the experience of creation/life itself appearing/unfolding vs. an assertion that denotes such a notion to be a realization of the True nature of THIS.
If all that had been asserted was that there was a certain 'liveliness' to it all, I don't think anyone would have said much.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 28, 2019 21:13:17 GMT -5
There is a difference between a mere 'notion' of aliveness, liveliness, vividness, vibrancy, etc, as applicable to the experience of creation/life itself appearing/unfolding vs. an assertion that denotes such a notion to be a realization of the True nature of THIS. If all that had been asserted was that there was a certain 'liveliness' to it all, I don't think anyone would have said much. I cannot see how there can be a mere notion of aliveness without the actual experience of aliveness. However in communicating that experience to another, it may well be viewed as a mere notion. You cannot communicate your own experience directly to the mind of someone else. The only intermediary is language. When I communicate an idea to you then you will retain an idea of what I communicated. Maybe that's a kind of mental quantum entanglement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 11:15:31 GMT -5
There is a difference between a mere 'notion' of aliveness, liveliness, vividness, vibrancy, etc, as applicable to the experience of creation/life itself appearing/unfolding vs. an assertion that denotes such a notion to be a realization of the True nature of THIS. If all that had been asserted was that there was a certain 'liveliness' to it all, I don't think anyone would have said much. I cannot see how there can be a mere notion of aliveness without the actual experience of aliveness. However in communicating that experience to another, it may well be viewed as a mere notion. You cannot communicate your own experience directly to the mind of someone else. The only intermediary is language. When I communicate an idea to you then you will retain an idea of what I communicated. Maybe that's a kind of mental quantum entanglement. Agreed. "Aliveness" is experienced.
|
|