|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 9:32:45 GMT -5
Geee .. I wonder which character .. Sir Lord Darth Vader, Death Star Canteen... .. I was thinking of a more hirsute character, but hey, that one works too!
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 11:13:01 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. You are a human being but it is not a matter of belief, you say. Are you implying that you think you are a human being? Scientists don't "think". They form theories and make conclusions. Their consensus opinion is that we are human beings living on planet earth. This is a living fact. You either accept that fact or you don't. I don't, and that is why I said that we must find out what the boatman is made of. You have to confront the scientists who had made you "think" you are a human being.
Scientists also say that a human body is made of flesh and bones. Do you believe that? I don't. What about you?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 11:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 11:37:49 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. Correct. Scientific protocols are rigorous for establishing facts. And those facts are well-defined. I understand that following the science doesn't give us closure about what we are. If this is the case, then we must examine the science that says we are human beings living on planet earth. If we don't, then we follow the science until it takes up to the Promised Land.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 12:07:57 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. I appreciate your honesty with me, as well as, with yourself. When you can't take my shot, you did not get into a rage, jump over the net into my side of the court, and come after me with your tennis racket. The referee is still out and has not made a call on the shot I made. It could be a foul, or unacceptable within the rules of play. Let's ignore what I said in the second and third paragraph and freeze time on that shot. When you can take it, let me know. We will resume play. I would like to see how you return that shot. This is the way champions should play. If this is Wimbledon and I am playing the next 5 best players in the world, we will set mankind free of suffering in one match.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 12:47:10 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. [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_methodsWe may not know everything about anything, but we do know definitely that we are human beings living on planet earth. This knowledge informs every decision we make in living our daily lives as members of family and society.
In this forum, we are allowed flights of fancy and indulge in beliefs about what we are. We are not different from clubs in New York's West Village where I grew up. Mom would take the dog out and go get coffee on Sunday mornings. She complained about seeing naked men zonked out and lying in the street after the night before. Life as human beings on planet earth is rough and we all need our escapes.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 13:27:51 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? We cannot be more than what science says IF we follow the science. Our perception is shaped by science but we want more than what we see.
Perception is reality. The zen monk, who set himself on fire, rejected science. His perception was not informed by science. He did not practice City Temple Buddhism. His Buddhism was authentic. No kidding. If you are a human being living on planet earth and want more than science, it is best to practice mainstream religion which is 95% science (i.e. 95% sanity).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 14:10:08 GMT -5
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? We cannot be more than what science says IF we follow the science. Our perception is shaped by science but we want more than what we see.
Perception is reality. The zen monk, who set himself on fire, rejected science. His perception was not informed by science. He did not practice City Temple Buddhism. His Buddhism was authentic. No kidding. If you are a human being living on planet earth and want more than science, it is best to practice mainstream religion which is 95% science.
Perception isn't reality, that's nonsense. Philip K. Dick “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” From your definition, there are many in mental hospitals.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 14:10:18 GMT -5
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. They're are more, these just come to mind. But yes, most scientists are atheists. yep, I see. Also appreciated Robert's input on that one. But yeah, I took Sree to basically mean 'atheists/materialists'.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 3, 2022 14:14:17 GMT -5
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. They're are more, these just come to mind. But yes, most scientists are atheists. yep, I see. Also appreciated Robert's input on that one. But yeah, I took Sree to basically mean 'atheists/materialists'. Yes. Quantum Questions, a most excellent > book<. Preface I. Introduction: Of Shadows and Symbols HEISENBERG 2. Truth Dwells in the Deeps 3· Scientific and Religious Truths 4· The Debate between Plato and Democritus 5. Science and the Beautiful 6. If Science Is Conscious of Its Limits ... SCHROEDINGER 7· Why Not Talk Physics? 8. The Oneness of Mind 9· The I That Is God to. The Mystic Vision EINSTEIN 1 r. Cosmic Religious Feeling 12... Science and Religion DE BROGLIE 13. The Aspiration Towards Spirit 14. The Mechanism Demands a Mysticism jEANS 15. In the Mind of Some Eternal Spirit r6. A Universe of Pure Thoughtviii I Contents PLANCK IJ. The Mystery of Our Being PAULI 18. Embracing the Rational and the Mystical EDDINGTON I9. Beyond the Veil of Physics 20. Mind�Stuff 21. Defense of Mysticism '59 '99 209
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 3, 2022 14:16:57 GMT -5
Sir Lord Darth Vader, Death Star Canteen... .. I was thinking of a more hirsute character, but hey, that one works too! Not gonna lie, I initially went looking for the hirsute character, before deciding on the more open ended cantina image
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 15:17:44 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. You are a human being but it is not a matter of belief, you say. Are you implying that you think you are a human being? Scientists don't "think". They form theories and make conclusions. Their consensus opinion is that we are human beings living on planet earth. This is a living fact. You either accept that fact or you don't. I don't, and that is why I said that we must find out what the boatman is made of. You have to confront the scientists who had made you "think" you are a human being.
Scientists also say that a human body is made of flesh and bones. Do you believe that? I don't. What about you?
Scientists think for a living and theories, conclusions and opinions are all founded on thinking. So, you are clearly quite confused: I quite obviously stated (not "implied") the opposite. "No belief involved" means the statement doesn't involve contemplative or reflective thinking. This is another one of those silly games. Self-evidence + convenience of expression requires no thought, no hesitation, no intermediate mental process. But you imagine and project a state of mind onto me that simply isn't happening here. Perhaps that's just because you can't imagine the absence of that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2022 15:22:01 GMT -5
.. I was thinking of a more hirsute character, but hey, that one works too! Not gonna lie, I initially went looking for the hirsute character, before deciding on the more open ended cantina image shame on us both! (the nondual flavor of shame that is, of course )
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 19:31:39 GMT -5
We cannot be more than what science says IF we follow the science. Our perception is shaped by science but we want more than what we see.
Perception is reality. The zen monk, who set himself on fire, rejected science. His perception was not informed by science. He did not practice City Temple Buddhism. His Buddhism was authentic. No kidding. If you are a human being living on planet earth and want more than science, it is best to practice mainstream religion which is 95% science.
Perception isn't reality, that's nonsense. Philip K. Dick “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” From your definition, there are many in mental hospitals.I wish. But we are all running loose in this forum, in the streets and all over the world controlling humanity as leaders of nations and world religions. We are all mad, stardust. No wonder you tried to end the misery back when you returned to Virginia from Colorado. You were immersed in a world of toxic human energy. And all you had at the age of four was one sane protector, your grandfather. And you lost him. Now, that is a situation that can make me cry but not Gandhi and the asinine advice to find an orphan and raise him to become someone fit for a mental hospital.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 3, 2022 19:46:23 GMT -5
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. They're are more, these just come to mind. But yes, most scientists are atheists. yep, I see. Also appreciated Robert's input on that one. But yeah, I took Sree to basically mean 'atheists/materialists'.I did not mean that, andrew. aetheists/materialists are names for boatmen. The boatman, actually, does not exist. He is an illusion. What exists is atheism, materialism, spiritualism. Einstein was a perception of reality: space-time continuum. In my opinion, this is bs. Did Einstein contribute to the invention of the GPS? I doubt it, but we can discuss this.
There is no Sree. It is just a name to denote a window, a perception of reality.
|
|