Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2022 7:05:39 GMT -5
I basically said that in my sentence after....I'm assuming Sree thinks that we think that that is all we are. Your assumption is correct. If you are a human being, then you are what is defined as a human being by science. Which branch of science says that there is more to the human being that what science has defined this creature walking on two legs? Physics. And since everything is based on physics, that means: every branch of science. The only paradigms where a "human" is a creature walking on two legs are paradigms where an approximation is used, just because it's useful. So, in zoology for example. In physics they have a funny term for that: "spherical cows". [1] According to the physics: 1. We have no idea about the exact essence of a "human being", since we have no complete prefect working theory of everything. The absolute mystery is alive and well. And as relativity and QM demonstrate, that "last 0.001%" that you don't know... that can change everything about the other 99.999% that you think you know. There are famous statements from a few scientists before 1900 that went something like: "We have it all figured it out. We just need to measure the speed of light in the ether..." Haha. 2. It would appear though, based on the best physics we have, that there are no actual borders between a "human being" and its surroundings, and everything is connected to everything else in the universe, in an incredibly complex yet elegant pattern, that behaves a lot like a wave from a string instrument. If we try to compute and predict the exact behavior of this wave, down to the sub-atomic "particle-waves" like electrons, we can use all our best computers and maybe simulate the behavior of a few atoms with amazing precision. [2] Beyond that it becomes too much for even our best supercomputing clusters. And yes the "atoms" are basically more spherical cows. To be more precise they are part of the wave function with everything else around them. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow [2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio_quantum_chemistry_methods
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:19:07 GMT -5
That's interesting (and a bit confusing) because I'm very sure that lots of folks here don't believe they are 'human beings living on planet earth'. In fact, I can't think of someone here that does believe that. There may be a context in which folks here consider it appropriate to say that we are not cats, and we are not living on the moon, but folks don't consider that a spiritual context. Have I understood you right? If so, can I ask what has made you think that folks here believe they are human beings living on planet earth? Of course, they don't believe they are human beings living on planet earth. They think they are more than that. These folks can't have it both ways. They are either human beings or they are not.
You heard me right. I know folks here and everywhere, unless they are nutjobs, believe they are human beings living on planet earth. You don't think the Pope and the Dalai Lama believe that they are human beings living on planet earth? They may think they are more than human. Good luck with that. Charles Manson thought he was more than that and he ended up in prison.
My question was intended to put the ugly truth front and center. The conditioning of science is all powerful. It forces us to see what we are: human beings living on planet earth. Perception is reality. You cannot be more than what science says. To do that, you must be able to, rationally, take apart its doctrines that shape perception.
OK sree, out of your own mouth, if this is your view of life and the structure of the universe, you will get nowhere on ST's. This, is indeed not true. You will never convince anyone here that your view is correct. We are indeed much, much, much, much more than science can even begin to approach. All this is why I could see sdp and sree would never get anywhere in dialogue. We are not even on the same playing field. Nobody here on ST's in on the playing field you describe. You still don't understand, you see the world through the sree-window. The sree-window filters-out everything that-is-not-it, filters out everything that does not correspond to itself. Only *sree-sized things* get through the sree-window. This is why you had to chop out the parts of Krishnamurti you could not understand. This is why you got kicked off all the Krishnamurti forums, you tried to make the people see Krishnamurti from you own tiny Krishnamurti window. See how that worked out?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:27:08 GMT -5
The whole academic world is also debating accepted theories about the material universe. What I think you all (and this includes academia) are wrong is about what we are. Don't you believe you are a human being? It all begins here. You can philosophize all you want but this fundamental belief conditions all inquiry. Don't you accept that you are living on the planet earth seen in video below?
I am a human being, but belief plays no part in that statement. Human beings are not what you or the scientists think they are. You won't find out what a human being is by trying to answer what a human body is made of. Anyone can follow any question to its end. You are either satisfied, or you find another question. Some people repeat this process their whole life, or become satisfied or give up. But some questions, lead somewhere, and ~you~ are lucky if they will not let you go.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:39:40 GMT -5
Before that happened Somers was in a state of suffering. Then everything became Ocean as he is fond of saying. So it came out of the blue as you say and the suffering disappeared. But that's not how awakening usually happens. In his case there was no active seeking so we can't say what was driving his seeking since there was none. None that he was conscious of as it was happening. There's always something happening, after all. sca is correct, he is necessarily correct. Just because we do not understand the ~causes~ doesn't mean there wasn't a cause. The whole point is there most definitely something going on in the subconscious of Somers. Just because it is a "black box" doesn't mean there isn't a long chain of causal events. Why do physicists have the names dark matter and dark energy? They see manifestations, they make observations of events which current models cannot account for. Physicists (sree) can account for only 4% of what's occurring in the universe. The other 96% they don't know wtf is going on, so they call these mysteries, dark matter (physicists don't know why galaxies rotate at the speeds they do) and dark energy (physicists don't know why the expansion of the universe is speeding up). Acausal just means we don't know the cause, acausal is a black box.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:52:45 GMT -5
No no no no! 😀 What is the value of seeing deeper into a transient impermanent object? That's just more mind, more perception. You need to get out of the way of mind altogether! Then what remains? You! What you are fundamentally cannot be anything you know no matter how deep or how high the appreciation. Yes, no doubt. Mostly for sca. Anybody can follow any path, and reach a significant ~place~. Did you ever play the multiple two-curved-monkeys game? The end of one question can ~pick up~ another question. Eventually the person can reach a significant question, and can get-somewhere. Looking back, one can see how precarious one's path was all along. If you've played the game, you know how easy it is to drop all the monkeys. But what's playing the game is not the self we think we are. What doesn't give up, what will start the game again even upon dropping all the monkeys, is a deeper aspect of self. "What you are seeking, is what's seeking".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 7:56:00 GMT -5
I suppose it's possible, but why believe that it's necessary? Sometimes one looks at the stars (or ??) and feels how amazing and mind blowing creation is, and feels a pull or a wonder/curiosity about what it is, really. It seems to me there is a positive pull there that doesn't require an idea about universal suffering. But I get it... I've been quite miserable and depressed at times. Yeah. Like Carl Sagan, for instance. But he comes from a generation that was raised prior to the cultural influence of secular humanism that he helped propagate. Carl had a sense of mystery. He reminds me of my father that way, who always had this keen sense of truth, and right and wrong, even though he was a lapsed Catholic. This landscape of the conditioned mind is always shifting, and as Toffler predicted, the rate at which it's shifting is accelerating. Never read Future Shock, didn't have to because so many people summarized it. I think Sagan peeked something deeply. He could not have written Contact, if he hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 8:02:53 GMT -5
Your assumption is correct. If you are a human being, then you are what is defined as a human being by science. Which branch of science says that there is more to the human being that what science has defined this creature walking on two legs? I'm not big into science, but I'm guessing no branch of science. Not science as a whole, but here are the guys sree could go to: Max Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Pauli. All had a more expansive view of ~what man is~, knew man is not confined to a bag of skin. There are more, these just come to mind. But yes, most scientists are atheists.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:03:54 GMT -5
Of course, they don't believe they are human beings living on planet earth.They think they are more than that. These folks can't have it both ways. They are either human beings or they are not.
You heard me right. I know folks here and everywhere, unless they are nutjobs, believe they are human beings living on planet earth. You don't think the Pope and the Dalai Lama believe that they are human beings living on planet earth? They may think they are more than human. Good luck with that. Charles Manson thought he was more than that and he ended up in prison.
My question was intended to put the ugly truth front and center. The conditioning of science is all powerful. It forces us to see what we are: human beings living on planet earth. Perception is reality. You cannot be more than what science says. To do that, you must be able to, rationally, take apart its doctrines that shape perception.
I really only understand your first paragraph, and I can address that. I consider the issue of 'having it both ways' to be a matter of context. It's reasonable to say, 'I am a human, not a cat or a tortoise'. It's true within a particular context. But it's not a transcendent context, not the context that we come here to discuss (though as it turns out, we sometimes do discuss it) Your second and third paragraph confuses me greatly. In fact, it confuses me so much that I've attempted twice to write a paragraph explaining what I don't understand, but have deleted them both, because I feel like I am responding to my sense of confusion, with even more confusion. Maybe what I said in my first paragraph is enough to be going on with. Even after I'd seen the people-peep illusion for what it was, after the perspective shifted radically and quite suddenly away from the atheist core, my mind still had this momentum where it was still trying to figure stuff out. It was really disorienting and confusing, but, for me, as I've mentioned, it was really fun. Eventually watching thoughts got me conscious to this " figure-stuff-out-movement-of-mind". So I imagine I can directly relate to what sree wrote there, perhaps you might find the translation useful. Once I became conscious of it, it stopped.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:05:42 GMT -5
I am a human being, but belief plays no part in that statement. Human beings are not what you or the scientists think they are. You won't find out what a human being is by trying to answer what a human body is made of. We are not ~made from~ one something-nothing. There is the Whole, there is ~the avatar~ which is formed from ~nearby~ and cultural influences. But there is an in-between, ~our~ essence. The small s self is who most people think they are, but are not. Essence is the true individuation. The ~avatar~ is important for functioning in life, but we need not say "I" to it (from it). Essence is the mystery. Only until you get your makeout session with Gracie.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:11:29 GMT -5
Your assumption is correct. If you are a human being, then you are what is defined as a human being by science. Which branch of science says that there is more to the human being that what science has defined this creature walking on two legs? Physics. And since everything is based on physics, that means: every branch of science. The only paradigms where a "human" is a creature walking on two legs are paradigms where an approximation is used, just because it's useful. So, in zoology for example. In physics they have a funny term for that: "spherical cows". [1] According to the physics: 1. We have no idea about the exact essence of a "human being", since we have no complete prefect working theory of everything. The absolute mystery is alive and well. And as relativity and QM demonstrate, that "last 0.001%" that you don't know... that can change everything about the other 99.999% that you think you know. There are famous statements from a few scientists before 1900 that went something like: "We have it all figured it out. We just need to measure the speed of light in the ether..." Haha. 2. It would appear though, based on the best physics we have, that there are no actual borders between a "human being" and its surroundings, and everything is connected to everything else in the universe, in an incredibly complex yet elegant pattern, that behaves a lot like a wave from a string instrument. If we try to compute and predict the exact behavior of this wave, down to the sub-atomic "particle-waves" like electrons, we can use all our best computers and maybe simulate the behavior of a few atoms with amazing precision. [1] Beyond that it becomes too much for even our best supercomputing clusters. And yes the "atoms" are basically more spherical cows. To be more precise they are part of the wave function with everything else around them. [1]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow [2]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_initio_quantum_chemistry_methodsGoswammi, in the Self Aware Universe. uses an amusing allegory of a committee of cross-disciplinary experts gathered to define consciousness to demonstrate how they all fail and fall into a state of finger-pointing and passing the buck. Bohr and Heisenberg went to very great pains to refrain from any metaphysical speculation about their resulting model. As one writer (the name of whom I don't recall) put it: the Quantum Observer isn't a physical phenomenon, so Physics can't tell us what it is. So I'd opine that what we know from Physics is a demarcation of a sort of limit, beyond which there is no relative, material knowledge. I think this is resonant with the excerpt you've posted, but perhaps a little off key.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:15:04 GMT -5
Of course, they don't believe they are human beings living on planet earth. They think they are more than that. These folks can't have it both ways. They are either human beings or they are not.
You heard me right. I know folks here and everywhere, unless they are nutjobs, believe they are human beings living on planet earth. You don't think the Pope and the Dalai Lama believe that they are human beings living on planet earth? They may think they are more than human. Good luck with that. Charles Manson thought he was more than that and he ended up in prison.
My question was intended to put the ugly truth front and center. The conditioning of science is all powerful. It forces us to see what we are: human beings living on planet earth. Perception is reality. You cannot be more than what science says. To do that, you must be able to, rationally, take apart its doctrines that shape perception.
OK sree, out of your own mouth, if this is your view of life and the structure of the universe, you will get nowhere on ST's. This, is indeed not true. You will never convince anyone here that your view is correct. We are indeed much, much, much, much more than science can even begin to approach. All this is why I could see sdp and sree would never get anywhere in dialogue. We are not even on the same playing field. Nobody here on ST's in on the playing field you describe. You still don't understand, you see the world through the sree-window. The sree-window filters-out everything that-is-not-it, filters out everything that does not correspond to itself. Only *sree-sized things* get through the sree-window. This is why you had to chop out the parts of Krishnamurti you could not understand. This is why you got kicked off all the Krishnamurti forums, you tried to make the people see Krishnamurti from you own tiny Krishnamurti window. See how that worked out? Well I'd say that no, we're not more than what science approaches, just completely sideways to the scientific approach. A metaphor would be a fourth spatial direction.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:19:12 GMT -5
I am a human being, but belief plays no part in that statement. Human beings are not what you or the scientists think they are. You won't find out what a human being is by trying to answer what a human body is made of. Anyone can follow any question to its end. You are either satisfied, or you find another question. Some people repeat this process their whole life, or become satisfied or give up. But some questions, lead somewhere, and ~you~ are lucky if they will not let you go. The only thing grasping you so, is yourself. And not even that, because it's not the real you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:21:55 GMT -5
None that he was conscious of as it was happening. There's always something happening, after all. sca is correct, he is necessarily correct. Just because we do not understand the ~causes~ doesn't mean there wasn't a cause. The whole point is there most definitely something going on in the subconscious of Somers. Just because it is a "black box" doesn't mean there isn't a long chain of causal events. Why do physicists have the names dark matter and dark energy? They see manifestations, they make observations of events which current models cannot account for. Physicists (sree) can account for only 4% of what's occurring in the universe. The other 96% they don't know wtf is going on, so they call these mysteries, dark matter (physicists don't know why galaxies rotate at the speeds they do) and dark energy (physicists don't know why the expansion of the universe is speeding up). Acausal just means we don't know the cause, acausal is a black box. That was exactly my point, do you understand? But, to be clear, I wasn't commenting on causality. Different dialog. I'll refrain from confusing this one any further with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:23:13 GMT -5
Mostly for sca. Anybody can follow any path, and reach a significant ~place~. Did you ever play the multiple two-curved-monkeys game? The end of one question can ~pick up~ another question. Eventually the person can reach a significant question, and can get-somewhere. Looking back, one can see how precarious one's path was all along. If you've played the game, you know how easy it is to drop all the monkeys. But what's playing the game is not the self we think we are. What doesn't give up, what will start the game again even upon dropping all the monkeys, is a deeper aspect of self. "What you are seeking, is what's seeking". Yes, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:24:55 GMT -5
Yeah. Like Carl Sagan, for instance. But he comes from a generation that was raised prior to the cultural influence of secular humanism that he helped propagate. Carl had a sense of mystery. He reminds me of my father that way, who always had this keen sense of truth, and right and wrong, even though he was a lapsed Catholic. This landscape of the conditioned mind is always shifting, and as Toffler predicted, the rate at which it's shifting is accelerating. Never read Future Shock, didn't have to because so many people summarized it. I think Sagan peeked something deeply. He could not have written Contact, if he hadn't. He had some very deep existential insights, but ultimately his mind rested on the Universe as a machine. The wonder of all the vast scales in space, time and diversity of form, were enough for Carl.
|
|