Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2019 8:08:01 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. There is the Vulcan mind meld.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2019 12:22:29 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. I've been waiting patiently for a response to my post in address to this bit, but evidently, none is coming.
Reefs: "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. "
True disinterest in a particular conversation I can understand. Laughter provides a good example of what that actually looks like. Beyond a brief assertion that in his estimation "not knowing can come to an end," he makes no comment whatsoever upon anything those of us who say it cannot be known, say. It's clear he really has no interest in discussing the disagreement.
You on the other hand, clearly demonstrate in the bolded, that you DO still have interest in the discussion...that you still DO have interest in addressing my argument. It's evidenced right there in the bolded. What you have no interest in though, is anything I have to say in response to that.
& Why is it okay for you to discuss this topic in this quantum mechanics thread, but if I want to respond to your posts where you directly speak to my views, I have to do it in the petty thread...you know...the one that you are keeping closed?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2019 6:16:53 GMT -5
I've been waiting patiently for a response to my post in address to this bit, but evidently, none is coming. Why is it okay for you to discuss this topic in this quantum mechanics thread, but if I want to respond to your posts where you directly speak to my views, I have to do it in the petty thread...you know...the one that you are keeping closed? You can answers this all by yourself. You just have to read what I wrote, I've outlined the entire process: @ Enigma, Figgles, Laughter: Please confirm that you fully understand this and I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread. (send me a PM or reply on the forum) 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. Until then, the pettifoggery thread stays closed. Which means no food fights during that time. You see, the way you phrase your posts makes it clear to me that you are mainly interested in a food fight. As such, any potential conversation with you on this particular topic would have to be moved into the pettifoggery thread. So the reason why there has been no response to your post is because the pettifoggery thread is still closed. And the reason why the pettifoggery thread is still closed is because I haven't heard from Enigma yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 9:22:58 GMT -5
I've been waiting patiently for a response to my post in address to this bit, but evidently, none is coming. Why is it okay for you to discuss this topic in this quantum mechanics thread, but if I want to respond to your posts where you directly speak to my views, I have to do it in the petty thread...you know...the one that you are keeping closed? You can answers this all by yourself. You just have to read what I wrote, I've outlined the entire process: @ Enigma, Figgles, Laughter: Please confirm that you fully understand this and I'll reopen the pettifoggery thread. (send me a PM or reply on the forum) 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. Until then, the pettifoggery thread stays closed. Which means no food fights during that time. You see, the way you phrase your posts makes it clear to me that you are mainly interested in a food fight. As such, any potential conversation with you on this particular topic would have to be moved into the pettifoggery thread. So the reason why there has been no response to your post is because the pettifoggery thread is still closed. And the reason why the pettifoggery thread is still closed is because I haven't heard from Enigma yet. An unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2019 3:29:34 GMT -5
Interpretation. Observe and interpret. Make sense of the experience.
In the spiritual practice you just observe; not because its what you do, but because that is what is happening. Just apprehend the truth of 'what is' and 'know' in the most subjective sense this is what 'this' is like. Not making sense of it by interpreting it.
That is absolutely useless in any practical sense, so we engage the intellect by noticing pattern. Pattern makes events predictable, and that means we can produce knowledge. I have done research, not scientific, but social research, and from the observed data extrapolated patterns that imply trends which make things predictable. Then I can write my report and claim a bunch of things and thus create knowledge that is objective (though social research is quite ambiguous even at the best of times).
From knowledge comes power, and this opens up a world of ethics... to be innocent is to be free of ethics, but that is to be free of knowledge, and it's not good to be free of knowledge, only to be free from it. Freedom from knowledge is not freedom from ethics. Only the insane are so free, and in this way, innocence is akin to insanity.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 7, 2020 14:05:14 GMT -5
Especially for laughter:
Without going back to look for the appropriate post to respond to, I know you think that hidden variable theories are dead. But nonlocality AKA entanglement shows there is something below the quantum level which does connect everything. That something has to be in some sense hidden-variable-like. So the only question is, is it structured-organized-ordering? I say it necessarily has to be. A something chaotic or random would not form uniting links, wouldn't BE connecting/ordering.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2020 15:56:05 GMT -5
Especially for laughter: Without going back to look for the appropriate post to respond to, I know you think that hidden variable theories are dead. But nonlocality AKA entanglement shows there is something below the quantum level which does connect everything. That something has to be in some sense hidden-variable-like. So the only question is, is it structured-organized-ordering? I say it necessarily has to be. A something chaotic or random would not form uniting links, wouldn't BE connecting/ordering. Not a "thing", and not underneath, as the notion of direction or structure simply doesn't apply. Interconnectivity is one of Plato's shadows. This isn't to downplay it, as, personally, it was the biggest hint I ever got in life as to the existential truth. Reality, is neither objective, nor subjective, nor any sort of combination between the two. What is pointed to by the notion of the absolute, is transcendent of relationship. I understand your interest here, but quantification or any other means of looking for patterns in the way that appearances appear will only ever result in relative answers that generate more questions.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 8, 2020 15:14:46 GMT -5
Especially for laughter: Without going back to look for the appropriate post to respond to, I know you think that hidden variable theories are dead. But nonlocality AKA entanglement shows there is something below the quantum level which does connect everything. That something has to be in some sense hidden-variable-like. So the only question is, is it structured-organized-ordering? I say it necessarily has to be. A something chaotic or random would not form uniting links, wouldn't BE connecting/ordering. Not a "thing", and not underneath, as the notion of direction or structure simply doesn't apply. Interconnectivity is one of Plato's shadows. This isn't to downplay it, as, personally, it was the biggest hint I ever got in life as to the existential truth. Reality, is neither objective, nor subjective, nor any sort of combination between the two. What is pointed to by the notion of the absolute, is transcendent of relationship. I understand your interest here, but quantification or any other means of looking for patterns in the way that appearances appear will only ever result in relative answers that generate more questions. OK, I should have said some-no-thing, (or some_____). Are you saying there is no some-no-thing as basis of all that is? The purpose of my suggestion is to explain quantum events such as the double-slit experiment. A kind of polarization is taking place, purely ~mechanical-like~, conscious-observation not necessary. An underlying sub-structure allows for this. You may be correct, it might still be subjective, but ~it~ might get us closer to understanding what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2020 23:42:13 GMT -5
Not a "thing", and not underneath, as the notion of direction or structure simply doesn't apply. Interconnectivity is one of Plato's shadows. This isn't to downplay it, as, personally, it was the biggest hint I ever got in life as to the existential truth. Reality, is neither objective, nor subjective, nor any sort of combination between the two. What is pointed to by the notion of the absolute, is transcendent of relationship. I understand your interest here, but quantification or any other means of looking for patterns in the way that appearances appear will only ever result in relative answers that generate more questions. OK, I should have said some-no-thing, (or some_____). Are you saying there is no some-no-thing as basis of all that is? The purpose of my suggestion is to explain quantum events such as the double-slit experiment. A kind of polarization is taking place, purely ~mechanical-like~, conscious-observation not necessary. An underlying sub-structure allows for this. You may be correct, it might still be subjective, but ~it~ might get us closer to understanding what is happening. We've been over this ground together multiple times. One point I've made continually is that there's never going to be an end to relative, intellectual exploration of the nature of physical phenomena based on the assumption of objectivity. It's just that you're never going to find the answer to the underlying question, as the interest is ultimately directed toward what can't be expressed by an intellectual model. To say that a conscious human being isn't necessary to cause a physical event by waveform collapse is a philosophical statement I've already agreed with, but likely not in the sense that you're thinking. The double-slit experiment demonstrates the limits of the objective, material assumption. It is the entirety of all eternity and what you think of as creation that conspire to any and every "waveform collapse". There will likely be some sort of way forward for science based on a model involving consciousness as the media for a Universal, energetic monism. But no experiment will ever answer the underlying question, "what is consciousness?".
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 9, 2020 4:37:55 GMT -5
OK, I should have said some-no-thing, (or some_____). Are you saying there is no some-no-thing as basis of all that is? The purpose of my suggestion is to explain quantum events such as the double-slit experiment. A kind of polarization is taking place, purely ~mechanical-like~, conscious-observation not necessary. An underlying sub-structure allows for this. You may be correct, it might still be subjective, but ~it~ might get us closer to understanding what is happening. We've been over this ground together multiple times. One point I've made continually is that there's never going to be an end to relative, intellectual exploration of the nature of physical phenomena based on the assumption of objectivity. It's just that you're never going to find the answer to the underlying question, as the interest is ultimately directed toward what can't be expressed by an intellectual model. To say that a conscious human being isn't necessary to cause a physical event by waveform collapse is a philosophical statement I've already agreed with, but likely not in the sense that you're thinking. The double-slit experiment demonstrates the limits of the objective, material assumption. It is the entirety of all eternity and what you think of as creation that conspire to any and every "waveform collapse". There will likely be some sort of way forward for science based on a model involving consciousness as the media for a Universal, energetic monism. But no experiment will ever answer the underlying question, "what is consciousness?". I reckon they could potentially provide an intellectual answer to that, and might even be able to talk in better terms than 'monism' but fully agree there's definitely a point at which even the best science ends, and spirituality and 'empty faith' begins. As they say, understanding is not direct knowing. In your understanding of 'monism', does there have to be an outer edge/boundary to the 'one'?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 9, 2020 6:20:47 GMT -5
We've been over this ground together multiple times. One point I've made continually is that there's never going to be an end to relative, intellectual exploration of the nature of physical phenomena based on the assumption of objectivity. It's just that you're never going to find the answer to the underlying question, as the interest is ultimately directed toward what can't be expressed by an intellectual model. To say that a conscious human being isn't necessary to cause a physical event by waveform collapse is a philosophical statement I've already agreed with, but likely not in the sense that you're thinking. The double-slit experiment demonstrates the limits of the objective, material assumption. It is the entirety of all eternity and what you think of as creation that conspire to any and every "waveform collapse". There will likely be some sort of way forward for science based on a model involving consciousness as the media for a Universal, energetic monism. But no experiment will ever answer the underlying question, "what is consciousness?". I reckon they could potentially provide an intellectual answer to that, and might even be able to talk in better terms than 'monism' but fully agree there's definitely a point at which even the best science ends, and spirituality and 'empty faith' begins. As they say, understanding is not direct knowing. In your understanding of 'monism', does there have to be an outer edge/boundary to the 'one'? Yes, well, while they will probably come up with many such answers in the future, I doubt they'll ever get to one that never changes over time, with finality. The current conceptions of the Universe as a monism of energy include the possibility of it as having no boundary. But mathematical infinity and the pointer of the absence of limitation are only superficially similar. There are many ways to demonstrate what I mean by that. One is the idea of "Boltzman Brains" - which is quite comical. The other is the bald fact that the very concept of infinity remains a very active topic of fundamental Mathematical research, and for essentially the reasons that lead to the absurdity of Boltzman Brains.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 9, 2020 6:44:11 GMT -5
I reckon they could potentially provide an intellectual answer to that, and might even be able to talk in better terms than 'monism' but fully agree there's definitely a point at which even the best science ends, and spirituality and 'empty faith' begins. As they say, understanding is not direct knowing. In your understanding of 'monism', does there have to be an outer edge/boundary to the 'one'? Yes, well, while they will probably come up with many such answers in the future, I doubt they'll ever get to one that never changes over time, with finality. The current conceptions of the Universe as a monism of energy include the possibility of it as having no boundary. But mathematical infinity and the pointer of the absence of limitation are only superficially similar. There are many ways to demonstrate what I mean by that. One is the idea of "Boltzman Brains" - which is quite comical. The other is the bald fact that the very concept of infinity remains a very active topic of fundamental Mathematical research, and for essentially the reasons that lead to the absurdity of Boltzman Brains. yes Im following you, though I'll have to google Boltzman Brains. So, basically, a 'monism' is the furthest any understanding of universe/reality can go, if 'infinity' can also be said to be a monism Seems to me that at that furthest point, it's a very tenuous line between the understanding and the pointer, but a line nevertheless. In a sense, it's an emotional line....the idea alone of 'infinity' is not frightening or particularly awe-inducing, but the shift from idea to direct knowing can be both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2020 10:14:42 GMT -5
I reckon they could potentially provide an intellectual answer to that, and might even be able to talk in better terms than 'monism' but fully agree there's definitely a point at which even the best science ends, and spirituality and 'empty faith' begins. As they say, understanding is not direct knowing. In your understanding of 'monism', does there have to be an outer edge/boundary to the 'one'? Yes, well, while they will probably come up with many such answers in the future, I doubt they'll ever get to one that never changes over time, with finality. The current conceptions of the Universe as a monism of energy include the possibility of it as having no boundary. But mathematical infinity and the pointer of the absence of limitation are only superficially similar. There are many ways to demonstrate what I mean by that. One is the idea of "Boltzman Brains" - which is quite comical. The other is the bald fact that the very concept of infinity remains a very active topic of fundamental Mathematical research, and for essentially the reasons that lead to the absurdity of Boltzman Brains. Yes. The "spookiness" is permanent.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2020 1:45:17 GMT -5
Yes, well, while they will probably come up with many such answers in the future, I doubt they'll ever get to one that never changes over time, with finality. The current conceptions of the Universe as a monism of energy include the possibility of it as having no boundary. But mathematical infinity and the pointer of the absence of limitation are only superficially similar. There are many ways to demonstrate what I mean by that. One is the idea of "Boltzman Brains" - which is quite comical. The other is the bald fact that the very concept of infinity remains a very active topic of fundamental Mathematical research, and for essentially the reasons that lead to the absurdity of Boltzman Brains. Yes. The "spookiness" is permanent. It's always Halloween in someone's mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2020 1:47:46 GMT -5
Yes, well, while they will probably come up with many such answers in the future, I doubt they'll ever get to one that never changes over time, with finality. The current conceptions of the Universe as a monism of energy include the possibility of it as having no boundary. But mathematical infinity and the pointer of the absence of limitation are only superficially similar. There are many ways to demonstrate what I mean by that. One is the idea of "Boltzman Brains" - which is quite comical. The other is the bald fact that the very concept of infinity remains a very active topic of fundamental Mathematical research, and for essentially the reasons that lead to the absurdity of Boltzman Brains. yes Im following you, though I'll have to google Boltzman Brains. So, basically, a 'monism' is the furthest any understanding of universe/reality can go, if 'infinity' can also be said to be a monism Seems to me that at that furthest point, it's a very tenuous line between the understanding and the pointer, but a line nevertheless. In a sense, it's an emotional line....the idea alone of 'infinity' is not frightening or particularly awe-inducing, but the shift from idea to direct knowing can be both. Yes, there is a line, and I'd have to agree that it might be scary for some -- the culture writes that large in many ways. But, another potential emotional response is a sort of awed euphoria.
|
|