|
Post by bluey on Sept 7, 2019 18:25:11 GMT -5
The monkey is reaching For the moon in the water. Until death overtakes him He’ll never give up. If he’d let go the branch and Disappear in the deep pool, The whole world would shine With dazzling pureness. – Hakuin I'm going to borrow this if you don't mind my boss has just spent a few weeks with a billionaire from his hometown and he's looking for a teacher. In fact there seems to be a few people, which is interesting as Eckhart Tolle seems to be well known in the business world from the emails I receive which is great as I come across so many people now compared to twenty years ago who are more open to This. One time zero but now anywhere I go I just meet people especially in the business world who say yes I know of Eckhart. I just want to taste what he's tasted. Seems he's gone all over china Japan and is at present going to see Deepak Chopra. This will serve him.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 7, 2019 22:52:39 GMT -5
I would probably define an existential question as "any question that cannot be resolved through thought." This would include anything from "Is there a God?" to "Who am I, really?" to "What is the meaning of life?" to "What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" That's a rather broad definition. I basically agree but would throw out the last question. I found this one on here, rather well written: That's pretty good, except for the final part about choices (but that's how a philosopher typically would look at it, I guess). And notice how the philosopher builds in the duality between "what is my essence?" and "what is the meaning of life?". This is based on the direction of attention, either inward or outward. This is because philosophy is the product of the "Western Mind" which has only widely disseminated the notion of how the dichotomy is self-creating (inner defining outer and vice-versa) within the last century and a half or so. Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization. But I opine that they are an auspicious branch from which the monkey might hang. Maybe not for Jan, maybe not for many others. But, someone favoring these understandings is responding to an intuition that always gets rejected and drowned out by the culture at large.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 5:43:58 GMT -5
And notice how the philosopher builds in the duality between "what is my essence?" and "what is the meaning of life?". This is based on the direction of attention, either inward or outward. This is because philosophy is the product of the "Western Mind" which has only widely disseminated the notion of how the dichotomy is self-creating (inner defining outer and vice-versa) within the last century and a half or so. Well, philosophers are part of "The Outward Only Club" as Jed says. I know it's a popular theory that the 'Western Mind' is behind most shortcomings of modern philosophy but this perspective has probably something to do with our understanding of history (i.e. that 'we' - aka 'the West' - got the correct time line). Based on the little I know about Indian philosophy and history, it seems to me that at least in India (and also China) these philosophical ideas are nothing new and have been known centuries before. The problem here though is that no one seems to trust their time lines and so it's not taken seriously. But there seem to be stages and cycles of development that span over millennia. Some cultures are aware of this, some aren't. Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization. But I opine that they are an auspicious branch from which the monkey might hang. Maybe not for Jan, maybe not for many others. But, someone favoring these understandings is responding to an intuition that always gets rejected and drowned out by the culture at large. Jan didn't find the trick for koans, that was the other guy. I'm not even sure Jan ever solved the Mu koan.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 5:51:01 GMT -5
And notice how the philosopher builds in the duality between "what is my essence?" and "what is the meaning of life?". This is based on the direction of attention, either inward or outward. This is because philosophy is the product of the "Western Mind" which has only widely disseminated the notion of how the dichotomy is self-creating (inner defining outer and vice-versa) within the last century and a half or so. Well, philosophers are part of "The Outward Only Club" as Jed says. I know it's a popular theory that the 'Western Mind' is behind most shortcomings of modern philosophy but this perspective has probably something to do with our understanding of history (i.e. that 'we' - aka 'the West' - got the correct time line). Based on the little I know about Indian philosophy and history, it seems to me that at least in India (and also China) these philosophical ideas are nothing new and have been known centuries before. The problem here though is that no one seems to trust their time lines and so it's not taken seriously. But there seem to be stages and cycles of development that span over millennia. Some cultures are aware of this, some aren't. Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization. But I opine that they are an auspicious branch from which the monkey might hang. Maybe not for Jan, maybe not for many others. But, someone favoring these understandings is responding to an intuition that always gets rejected and drowned out by the culture at large. Jan didn't find the trick for koans, that was the other guy. I'm not even sure Jan ever solved the Mu koan. Sure sure, I was referring to western philosophy, which is really the only form I'm acquainted with. Although I have a vague notion of the distinction between Confucianism and Taoism and their differences, but don't think of the latter as a philosophy. What's notable about the European timeline is how non-duality was actively and violently suppressed after the Council of Nicea.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 6:19:15 GMT -5
Well, philosophers are part of "The Outward Only Club" as Jed says. I know it's a popular theory that the 'Western Mind' is behind most shortcomings of modern philosophy but this perspective has probably something to do with our understanding of history (i.e. that 'we' - aka 'the West' - got the correct time line). Based on the little I know about Indian philosophy and history, it seems to me that at least in India (and also China) these philosophical ideas are nothing new and have been known centuries before. The problem here though is that no one seems to trust their time lines and so it's not taken seriously. But there seem to be stages and cycles of development that span over millennia. Some cultures are aware of this, some aren't. Jan didn't find the trick for koans, that was the other guy. I'm not even sure Jan ever solved the Mu koan. Sure sure, I was referring to western philosophy, which is really the only form I'm acquainted with. Although I have a vague notion of the distinction between Confucianism and Taoism and their differences, but don't think of the latter as a philosophy. What's notable about the European timeline is how non-duality was actively and violently suppressed after the Council of Nicea. Yes, that's an important date. But a more important date seems to be the year when Scaliger published his chronology (at the end of the 16th century) which basically determines until today how we think about 'ancient' times. I think I mentioned Fomenko and his book Science or Fiction? before. According to him, everything that happened before the Renaissance can't really be verified anymore and may as well never have happened (or at least didn't happen the way we think it happened or have been told it happened). Ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece may not have been that ancient, actually. It only became so ancient because civilizations that actually may have co-existed simultaneously had later been put in a consecutive timeline. Interesting theory. Now, this goes totally against established history, of course, and Fomenko's theory has earned the label 'pseudohistorical theory' based on that, but he raises some very important points about current and past dating methods and how historians actually get their timelines. Absolutely worth a read. As Tolstoy once said, history would be a wonderful thing if it only were true. So yeah, ancient times, who knows? But more importantly, who cares, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 6:38:10 GMT -5
Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization... The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 8:23:58 GMT -5
Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization... The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? The moon doesn't exist but for the mind and the mind doesn't exist. What does that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 10:18:54 GMT -5
The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? The moon doesn't exist but for the mind and the mind doesn't exist. What does that tell you? Is that QM or Zazeniac? I'd really like to hear the QM perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 10:27:40 GMT -5
The moon doesn't exist but for the mind and the mind doesn't exist. What does that tell you? Is that QM or Zazeniac? I'd really like to hear the QM perspective. Zazeniac's view but partially derived from my studies of QM. Particle doesn't appear in the conventional way we use the term "real" until it is observed and the wave function collapses.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 10:57:52 GMT -5
Is that QM or Zazeniac? I'd really like to hear the QM perspective. Zazeniac's view but partially derived from my studies of QM. Particle doesn't appear in the conventional way we use the term "real" until it is observed and the wave function collapses. Yes, I get that. Until it is experienced, it's just potentiality. My question is if QM allows for a shared reality though as Seth suggests. And my guess is that initially it did but that there might be some radical thinkers who walked straight into solipsism again. What Seth says is that the sense organs create the camouflage (our universe or reality). And since we all have more or less identical sense organs, we experience a more or less identical reality. Entities with different sense organs experience a different reality (see plants or bugs etc.). Translated in QM terms, a number of similar observers with similar tools of observation would necessarily have similar experiences. Which means the Moon would not cease to exist just because it's not in your personal field of awareness anymore. The Moon could only cease to exist when none of the participants/observers has the Moon in their field of awareness anymore. From my perspective it is a context mix anyway to assume that the Moon would cease to exist when I turn my head and stop observing it. As A-H like to say, "You as humans haven't scraped enough dirt together to launch another planet into orbit!" I'm just wondering if QM is solipsistic. And if so, then, as they say, a solipsistic interpretation of QM wouldn't be informative anymore. My guess is, it's not inherently solipsistic. It's a matter of personal interpretation. And as Laughter said, QM is not realization based anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 12:53:50 GMT -5
Zazeniac's view but partially derived from my studies of QM. Particle doesn't appear in the conventional way we use the term "real" until it is observed and the wave function collapses. Yes, I get that. Until it is experienced, it's just potentiality. My question is if QM allows for a shared reality though as Seth suggests. And my guess is that initially it did but that there might be some radical thinkers who walked straight into solipsism again. What Seth says is that the sense organs create the camouflage (our universe or reality). And since we all have more or less identical sense organs, we experience a more or less identical reality. Entities with different sense organs experience a different reality (see plants or bugs etc.). Translated in QM terms, a number of similar observers with similar tools of observation would necessarily have similar experiences. Which means the Moon would not cease to exist just because it's not in your personal field of awareness anymore. The Moon could only cease to exist when none of the participants/observers has the Moon in their field of awareness anymore. From my perspective it is a context mix anyway to assume that the Moon would cease to exist when I turn my head and stop observing it. As A-H like to say, "You as humans haven't scraped enough dirt together to launch another planet into orbit!" I'm just wondering if QM is solipsistic. And if so, then, as they say, a solipsistic interpretation of QM wouldn't be informative anymore. My guess is, it's not inherently solipsistic. It's a matter of personal interpretation. And as Laughter said, QM is not realization based anyway. I think you'd get a variety of responses depending on the physicist. According to some, the Copenhagen interpretation, violates the Realism Principle and therefore suggests there's no objective reality, but I don't think Bohr nor Heisenberg would agree with that. I don't think there's a QM answer to your question. Most physicists are materialists and though QM throws a wrench in that scheme's mechanics, I would venture to say they still desperately want to continue being materialists. I don't believe materialists are solipsistic. I think when you turn your head the world disappears, but it was never outside your mind to begin with. I ascribe to the notion that if there are ten people in a room, ten consciousnessness, you are seeing an illusion because in actuality there is one consciousness and ten perspectives, rooms, perfectly synchronized. But this is mere speculation, fun stuff to consider, thought-stuff, intellectual fodder, having nothing to do with freedom.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 11, 2019 13:47:05 GMT -5
Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization... The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? The link is the best short explanation I've come across that explains your question. At the end it even covers Einstein's question to Abraham Pais, Does the moon exist only when I look at it? The link explains why we have our classical world, which exists without observers, in spite of proven QM and all the measurement problem business and an observation needed to change from a quantum system to a classical world business. It is a little long but worth the read (or maybe twice). www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/beyond-weird-decoherence-quantum-weirdness-schrodingers-cat/573448/IOW, no.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 19:05:07 GMT -5
Similar to how Jan found the trick for koans, how the ruthless truther's came to understand the nature of identity in abstract terms, and the Copenhagen Interpretation, these intellectual understandings - such as the paragraph above - aren't realization... The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? No all of that is an overlay on top of it. The beauty and genius of the CI is all in what it doesn't say, and how it explicitly doesn't say it: classical descriptions only apply to the results of a measurement, and in between measurements, the states of the system are only vaguely related to the classical descriptions. There is no position or velocity of a particle in between measurements because the phenomenon isn't a particle in between measurements. This is actually, in the final analysis, just the simple common-sense of quantization: particles are discrete, not continuous. Dig deep enough into what Heisenberg wrote about it both during and after the time of his work and it gets much clearer. There's an interesting metaphor available with respect to "prior-to mind", but it only remains interesting for so long as the intellect doesn't touch it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 19:33:08 GMT -5
The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just Enigma's "perception is creation" or Seth's "the senses create the camouflage", isn't it? Now, the question for me is, does QM believe, like some here, that when I turn my head and stop looking at the Moon that the Moon ceases to exist? No all of that is an overlay on top of it. The beauty and genius of the CI is all in what it doesn't say, and how it explicitly doesn't say it: classical descriptions only apply to the results of a measurement, and in between measurements, the states of the system are only vaguely related to the classical descriptions. There is no position or velocity of a particle in between measurements because the phenomenon isn't a particle in between measurements. This is actually, in the final analysis, just the simple common-sense of quantization: particles are discrete, not continuous. Dig deep enough into what Heisenberg wrote about it both during and after the time of his work and it gets much clearer. There's an interesting metaphor available with respect to "prior-to mind", but it only remains interesting for so long as the intellect doesn't touch it. Yes, and Zen avoids this issue entirely by focusing on what we might call "actualizing isness." Einstein's question, "Does the moon exist when I'm not looking at it?" is a classic kind of koan from the field of physics. It's similar to some of the initial existential questions that bothered me, such as, "What could explain the observer paradoxes in many different fields of science?" or "What is a subatomic particle, really?" or "How could a subatomic particle move from one point to another point without crossing the space between?" or even, "What is electricity?" The obvious answers to these kinds of questions are NOT what one would imagine. The problem with all intellectual overlays, including QM, is that they're intellectual overlays. haha. The body understands how to answer these questions, but the intellect is the last to know. You've pointed at the issue with your comment about quantization. How can something continuous, unified, infinite, and non-local be quantized? Hint: Only in one's dreams.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 11, 2019 19:51:35 GMT -5
Is that QM or Zazeniac? I'd really like to hear the QM perspective. Zazeniac's view but partially derived from my studies of QM. Particle doesn't appear in the conventional way we use the term "real" until it is observed and the wave function collapses. Even in the C.Interpretation there is no way of saying the observation causes the collapse or vice versa.
|
|