|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 13, 2023 11:58:22 GMT -5
Okay. That helps. My only comments: 1. Oneness and what we call "the world" are one and the same, and I'm not sure who on the forum ever claimed that the world is not real. I prefer the term "actual" because most people equate the word "real" with "existent," and the idea of existing is usually applied to the idea that things exist separately from one another. Most adults do not realize that separateness is a culturally-indoctrinated idea. Absolute truth includes red and green traffic lights, but it's understood that images, ideas, and symbols, such as "red and green traffic lights," are abstractions (the map) that artificially divide oneness (the territory) into imaginary states. If the mind is quiescent and particular realizations have occurred, one lives in a state of oneness without reflective thoughts about oneness. 3. Obvious/ordinary meaning is included in Oneness, and if people search for anything deeper than the obvious/ordinary sense of meaning, it usually means (haha) that they're attached to an abstraction that represents an abstraction. I'm reminded of the humorous story of the psychology professor going to class when a student says, "Good morning," and the professor continues walking while thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?" Obviously "good morning" means "good morning," but the professor was living in his head and overlooking the obvious. FWIW, I've never met a ND sage who would claim that the world is meaningless. A sage would simply say, "It is what it is," more like a verb than a noun. 4. The claim that "organic life couldn't exist if there were no distinctions" is clearly erroneous because bacteria exist and I doubt that they make distinctions. Distinctions are abstractions that seem to occur only in animals with an intellect capable of imagining separate states. The problem for humans is that it's difficult to detach from distinctions and see the unified field of oneness that gives rise to distinctions of separate states. When I first looked at the title of this thread, these words of Lao Tau came to mind: "Students learn by daily gain, The Way is found by daily loss, Loss after loss until finally there is peace. By letting go, everything gets done; The world is won by those who give it up. For those who try unceasingly, The world remains forever out of reach." IOW, I would title such a thread, "Moving from complexity to simplicity."  You insist that distinctions are limited to conceptual distinctions. If there were not a distinction between bacteria, and what it eats, it would not seek to eat (it would already have-be what it needs). There would be no movement toward what it needs, or no reason to take-in what it needs. Bacteria recognizes something that isn't-it, to make it into itself. I don't know how that's not clear. Plants recognize something (make a distinction) that isn't-it, photons (from the Sun), and turn them into itself. And so they turn photons into sugar, a source of food for everything else living. A more simplerer, integraler version would be Intelligence at work via aspects. No need to anthropomorphize them as things with human intelligence doing human things. Plus, such a discussion is more apt to move in the direction of disintegration. Stamets sounds purddy metaphysical when he gets on a rant sometimes. Interestingly, fungi and humans formed off the same branch (i.e., not the plant one), inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Behold, Intelligence at work!! 'Tis a beautiful thang. And the story of the experiment... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2023 15:44:54 GMT -5
Okay. That helps. My only comments: 1. Oneness and what we call "the world" are one and the same, and I'm not sure who on the forum ever claimed that the world is not real. I prefer the term "actual" because most people equate the word "real" with "existent," and the idea of existing is usually applied to the idea that things exist separately from one another. Most adults do not realize that separateness is a culturally-indoctrinated idea. Absolute truth includes red and green traffic lights, but it's understood that images, ideas, and symbols, such as "red and green traffic lights," are abstractions (the map) that artificially divide oneness (the territory) into imaginary states. If the mind is quiescent and particular realizations have occurred, one lives in a state of oneness without reflective thoughts about oneness. 3. Obvious/ordinary meaning is included in Oneness, and if people search for anything deeper than the obvious/ordinary sense of meaning, it usually means (haha) that they're attached to an abstraction that represents an abstraction. I'm reminded of the humorous story of the psychology professor going to class when a student says, "Good morning," and the professor continues walking while thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?" Obviously "good morning" means "good morning," but the professor was living in his head and overlooking the obvious. FWIW, I've never met a ND sage who would claim that the world is meaningless. A sage would simply say, "It is what it is," more like a verb than a noun. 4. The claim that "organic life couldn't exist if there were no distinctions" is clearly erroneous because bacteria exist and I doubt that they make distinctions. Distinctions are abstractions that seem to occur only in animals with an intellect capable of imagining separate states. The problem for humans is that it's difficult to detach from distinctions and see the unified field of oneness that gives rise to distinctions of separate states. When I first looked at the title of this thread, these words of Lao Tau came to mind: "Students learn by daily gain, The Way is found by daily loss, Loss after loss until finally there is peace. By letting go, everything gets done; The world is won by those who give it up. For those who try unceasingly, The world remains forever out of reach." IOW, I would title such a thread, "Moving from complexity to simplicity." You insist that distinctions are limited to conceptual distinctions. If there were not a distinction between bacteria, and what it eats, it would not seek to eat (it would already have-be what it needs). There would be no movement toward what it needs, or no reason to take-in what it needs. Bacteria recognizes something that isn't-it, to make it into itself. I don't know how that's not clear. Plants recognize something (make a distinction) that isn't-it, photons (from the Sun), and turn them into itself. And so they turn photons into sugar, a source of food for everything else living. IOW, if bacteria or an amoeba or plant or animal didn't make a distinction between what-it-is and what it is not, they would die. SN spells it out in the above post, but intelligence does not require the act of distinction. Acts of distinction are a function of the intellect. THIS is unfathomably intelligent, and the show goes on with or without making distinctions. Every blood cell in the body "knows" where to go and what to do, and they're not thinking to themselves, "Oh, this is where I need to go next." The problem is that as humans we're so used to thinking in terms of distinctions that we think they're a necessary aspect of intelligence. The level of intelligence to which I refer is absolutely mind-boggling, and the slime mold activities illustrate that. The videos that accompany Stamet's talk give insight into the intelligence of THIS that can't even be imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 13, 2023 16:46:55 GMT -5
You insist that distinctions are limited to conceptual distinctions. If there were not a distinction between bacteria, and what it eats, it would not seek to eat (it would already have-be what it needs). There would be no movement toward what it needs, or no reason to take-in what it needs. Bacteria recognizes something that isn't-it, to make it into itself. I don't know how that's not clear. Plants recognize something (make a distinction) that isn't-it, photons (from the Sun), and turn them into itself. And so they turn photons into sugar, a source of food for everything else living. IOW, if bacteria or an amoeba or plant or animal didn't make a distinction between what-it-is and what it is not, they would die. SN spells it out in the above post, but intelligence does not require the act of distinction. Acts of distinction are a function of the intellect. THIS is unfathomably intelligent, and the show goes on with or without making distinctions. Every blood cell in the body "knows" where to go and what to do, and they're not thinking to themselves, "Oh, this is where I need to go next." The problem is that as humans we're so used to thinking in terms of distinctions that we think they're a necessary aspect of intelligence. The level of intelligence to which I refer is absolutely mind-boggling, and the slime mold activities illustrate that. The videos that accompany Stamet's talk give insight into the intelligence of THIS that can't even be imagined. Nobody is suggesting a blood cell is thinking, that's your projection. You have a knee-jerk reaction when you see the word distinction. I just got in, haven't looked at sN video. A plant differentiates between oxygen and carbon dioxide. Most of our environmental problem comes from too much carbon (dioxide) in the atmosphere, it's quite an important problem. Is differentiation a better word for you? A plant knows oxygen, OTOH and carbon dioxide OToH. Of course the words oxygen and carbon dioxide mean nothing to the plant (duh), but plants *know* the molecular structure, kind of like lock-&-key (that's probably a metaphor). IOW, if we put a plant in an atmosphere with only-oxygen, no carbon dioxide, it's gonna die. (And vice versa for a human being-animal). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 15, 2023 10:15:09 GMT -5
Nobody is suggesting a blood cell is thinking, that's your projection. You have a knee-jerk reaction when you see the word distinction. I just got in, haven't looked at sN video. A plant differentiates between oxygen and carbon dioxide. Most of our environmental problem comes from too much carbon (dioxide) in the atmosphere, it's quite an important problem. Is differentiation a better word for you? A plant knows oxygen, OTOH and carbon dioxide OToH. Of course the words oxygen and carbon dioxide mean nothing to the plant (duh), but plants *know* the molecular structure, kind of like lock-&-key (that's probably a metaphor). IOW, if we put a plant in an atmosphere with only-oxygen, no carbon dioxide, it's gonna die. (And vice versa for a human being-animal). We position it as a problem, but it might not be. Maybe more CO2 is actually a good thing.
It's all relative... For example, the atmosphere has a specific recipe. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an essential part of the recipe because they trap heat in the atmosphere. With no CO2 Planet Earth would be in a perpetual ice age. But a small amount of CO2 keeps the planet in the famous “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” condition: not too hot, not too cold, but the “just right” zone that’s ideal for life as we know it. Too much CO2 overheats the planet. By studying Earth’s history, scientists have learned that when there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet was hot. In fact, the last time the Earth had as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it now does was the Pliocene Epoch, more than 3 million years ago. At that time, Earth’s atmosphere was 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer (2 to 4 degrees Celsius) than it is today. And global sea level was 50 to 80 feet (15 to 25 meters) higher. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Second link: Do scientists agree on climate change? Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2023 21:16:36 GMT -5
SN spells it out in the above post, but intelligence does not require the act of distinction. Acts of distinction are a function of the intellect. THIS is unfathomably intelligent, and the show goes on with or without making distinctions. Every blood cell in the body "knows" where to go and what to do, and they're not thinking to themselves, "Oh, this is where I need to go next." The problem is that as humans we're so used to thinking in terms of distinctions that we think they're a necessary aspect of intelligence. The level of intelligence to which I refer is absolutely mind-boggling, and the slime mold activities illustrate that. The videos that accompany Stamet's talk give insight into the intelligence of THIS that can't even be imagined. Nobody is suggesting a blood cell is thinking, that's your projection. You have a knee-jerk reaction when you see the word distinction. I just got in, haven't looked at sN video. A plant differentiates between oxygen and carbon dioxide. Most of our environmental problem comes from too much carbon (dioxide) in the atmosphere, it's quite an important problem. Is differentiation a better word for you? A plant knows oxygen, OTOH and carbon dioxide OToH. Of course the words oxygen and carbon dioxide mean nothing to the plant (duh), but plants *know* the molecular structure, kind of like lock-&-key (that's probably a metaphor). IOW, if we put a plant in an atmosphere with only-oxygen, no carbon dioxide, it's gonna die. (And vice versa for a human being-animal). To say that the plant differentiates is to mistake the map for the territory. It's like saying the tongue differentiates between sweet and viscous and clear and non-viscous. It's an after-the-fact description of the mechanics, of the blueprint and the dynamics of the machine. I know you understand the finger/moon, but this is very deep water. You can think of it in terms of levels if you'd like, and I apologize for the condescension. The type of practice that reveals the relationship between the driver, horse, carriage and passenger can be auspicious, but it all has to be seen clearly for what it is. Your point about death is just self-inquiry in disguise. What is it, that dies? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 29, 2023 15:08:11 GMT -5
 But, none the wiser ... |
|
