ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

2/19/2007                                                                                       View Comments

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

This is a small portion of the book that I have been working on about Christianity. Even this small portion is not what I want it to be nor is it "cleaned and polished" as some of my book already is. I share this unfinished portion now because of the need to have people think and understand the foundations of the major world religions and WHY they are harmful to the mind and consciousness of humanity.

Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thanks!

John Blatt


*************************************************

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
By John Blatt


It is common knowledge that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lies at the very foundation of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Regardless of the various interpretations there is no dispute – that at this Tree the whole of these religions are founded. Yet there is one extremely important fact that is repeatedly overlooked in the understanding of this doctrine within the teachings of these religions, especially within Christianity. These Old Testament scriptures (see above) unquestionably - yet subtly - proclaims that unrestricted knowledge was to be withheld from mankind and the only "true" knowledge is that which is confined to what God authorizes.

From a non-religious perspective it seems clear that, according to the Old Testament, God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and placed it in the garden of Eden where all the other good trees were for eating of its fruits. God created it and yet did not want mankind to eat from it. Why? For the moment try to forget that this was, according to the New Testament, the beginning of God’s plan of salvation, saving humankind from their Fall. Try to forget that it was the Serpent that tempted Eve. Even try to forget that it was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let’s just think about the Tree of Knowledge itself. It was the Tree of Knowledge. Knowledge. What is knowledge?

Regardless if you believe in these scriptures or not, these passages clearly prohibits and condemns the acquiring of knowledge. Yet even further, in essence, what these texts suggest is the prohibition of thinking. It attributes the process of human thinking as something that Evil tempts you to do – think for yourself, acquire knowledge (which is the act of thinking), gain wisdom – is looked upon as something that is initially controlled by God and that God warns man not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge – that is, to have man gain his own knowledge. The knowledge that God wants man to have is the knowledge that He dictates, not what man himself/herself dictates. The Serpent, the one prompting Eve to think for herself, is viewed here as the Tempter, the Deceiver, and ultimately interpreted as Satan, the Devil, the Dragon, and the Evil One.

Let’s shine some light on this and turn this around properly. From a non-Christian perspective the Bible is at best errant and contradictory. It very well may also be the most brilliantly constructed set of psychological documents in history. The Bible, in my opinion, is exactly that. A series of mind-control documents that were created by incredibly knowledgeable men for the precise purpose of manipulating mankind and controlling the minds and knowledge of the world. Look at Genesis 3 again. Think not from the perspective that God is dictating anything or that even Adam and Eve existed. Think now for a moment that the Old Testament is man-made, not divinely inspired. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil takes on a new light. It becomes the control factor of billions of people. How? By creating a “divine world-view” and telling all of its adherents that Knowledge is to be restricted to “His Knowledge” or devotion to “Orthodox teaching”. To lay out in the beginning that man is NOT to gain knowledge on his own (and in doing so in the first place created the Fall of mankind), but to rely on only that which the Bible-God says to rely on. Men and women are NOT to think on their own, to attain knowledge and wisdom upon what they believe is best for themselves, but only what God says is best for them. Obtaining knowledge of all that is “good” and all that is “evil” on mankind’s own volition is Evil. It is this “eating of the tree of knowledge” by Adam and Eve to be the fall of mankind. We have become corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, this sets all of humanity in a position to be completely dependent on the “knowledge of God” derived from the Old and New Testaments and Koran, since our “minds have been darkened” and the wisdom of God is now “foolish to men”. Thus we are set in a system of control so amazing and so “fearfully and wonderfully made” that we cannot think now outside of this system, outside of this man-made Bible-box, because we cannot understand the "things of God" on our own. We must rely now on God’s Word and its interpretation by the Elders of His Church to teach us His Truth. If we question it, we are rebelling against the knowledge of God. If we question it, we are doing what Eve did in the Garden – think for herself and seek knowledge not based on God’s dictates (according to the bible).

[Another thing to remember is that this is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - this again, is very sublte control, because it states that the knowledge to be had is either Good or Evil. One of the best ways to manipulate a mass of people is to give them two oppositing forces to believe in, neither of which are what they are. This is literally a magic trick. A good magician makes the audience concentrate on two objects while the real trick is going on somewhere else, the focus is drawn away from the real issue. You create two opposing forces and do not give them any other options. People are suckers for battles or fights. The fight between good and evil. If there is no actual good or evil, but only what we are made to believe or think (it only has power if we give it power, it only exists if we believe it exists) then we are stuck with a foundational premise of viewing the world that is controlled with two "opposing forces" that don't even exist.]

Thus, from the very beginning in each of these religions, uncontrolled knowledge [knowledge outside the confines of the bible] (that is, knowledge that is not specifically approved by God, or practically speaking, approved by the Word of God) is a temptation, it is a deception, it is evil. Knowledge, and thus the process of thinking, must be controlled by God for our own protection – for our own good, because we are weak creatures. In the beginning God called man “very good”. Yet, not good enough to allow man to truly think for himself. He needed to be restricted from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He was commanded not to eat thereof. Adam, though “very good” and very appealing to God in the beginning, wasn’t good enough to have access to all knowledge. The knowledge of good and evil was bad for Adam. Why? Because if Adam had knowledge he would become like God himself, the ability to think for himself freely. "God" was the first Freethinker, yet, according to these texts he did not want mankind to have knowledge and to think according to this knowledge. In truth, God forbid man to think for himself. This, of course, is not true in reality, but according to the Old Testament it is. Thus the condemnation and guilt of mankind came from taking in knowledge and thinking for themselves. It makes the act of thinking and knowledge (the fuel of thought) evil. Thus at the very bedrock of the worlds "great" religions is: mind control. Only that which God dictates as approved knowledge is approved knowledge. Mankind, left to think for himself without God’s restriction, produces only evil and condemnation. Man changed from being “very good” to being evil, that “the evil of man was great on the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day long.” This is because mankind took into himself knowledge. He thought for himself. by the help of the Serpent, and thus became evil.

This is the thrust of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. That only the approved knowledge of God (the knowledge approved by God which happens to be the approved Word of God, the Scriptures) is acceptable knowledge and acceptable to think about. Mankind cannot be left to go his own way, to think for himself, to have all knowledge. His way must be restricted, his thoughts must be wrangled in and guided correctly, the knowledge that he should have is the knowledge of God – of what he approves. Thus the reason why he gave mankind “the good Book”, the “Word of God” the “Holy Scriptures”. "Yes, men wrote the Word of God but they were men who were approved by God to write it and divinely inspired them to do so." "Thus, to have all knowledge, to think freely without restraint or restriction, to reason and question, to go the way we think is best…is all anathema." "The Serpent is responsible for deceiving all of us in Adam and because of him we are now lost, naked, and ashamed." This is what these texts want us to believe.

Ultimately, those who are responsible for creating Genesis and the rest of the books of the Jewish Old Testament, the Muslim Koran, and the Christian New Testament are the ones who truly wanted to keep mankind from the Tree of the Knowledge. To keep mankind from thinking for themselves without restriction. To not question the approved knowledge and to forbid mankind from knowing what the authors of these works know. Knowledge is power. Thus all independent thinking and the seeking of wisdom on our own (outside of this god) is welded into our conscious and subconscious minds as coming from the Evil One. Even if we seek to think for ourselves and reject the teachings and gods of these religions there is the deep programming, the deep indoctrination that says to us that we have gone the way of the Serpent.

So the work has been accomplished quite amazingly according to plan. The majority of mankind are gripped by a fundamental mind control system that cannot be seen or understood by most. The easiest way to control the world is to control the thinking of mankind. How do you control the thinking of mankind? Just look at the religions that hold up the Tree of Knowledge at its beginning and you will see. Programming genius. Those who created these texts knew exactly how to use what is now called "Thought Reform" on the minds of men, for they have been successful in reforming the thought processes of trillions of men, women and children and controlling the knowledge and thus the reality of mankind for thousands of years. This is why the evolution of humanity is governed directly by these religions. We can speak of world consciousness, peace, and the evolution of humanity's consciousness all we like, but without this true knowledge, without being deprogrammed from this restriction of knowledge and devolved view of man we have no hope. As long as our minds are programmed and conditioned to accept these lies humanity is forever bound to darkness and control.

This fake tree is about to be hacked down. Men’s thinking and knowledge has been manipulated and governed for long enough.

83 comments:

mizlee said...

Hi! Loved reading your excerpt. It doesn't need much polishing, but it needs to be tightened up just a little to eliminate a bit of repetitiveness. I really liked the example of the fallacious dichotomy, and I would be tempted to use Pascal's wager and/or the phrase "you are either with me or against me" as examples to illustrate. A couple of minor misspellings need to be addressed, but then, they may have been just typos. And yes, with a Master's degree in English, I do at least feel modestly qualified to comment constructively. I am assuming you are amenable to the criticism.

mizlee at aol dot com

ryan said...

This is one of those posts that make us stare at the wall for an hour. Good. Really good.

An' miz lee, you be black as th ace o' spades an yo aint foolin nobody. Come over an talk to me....my frens call me sheree.

john said...

John, you are referring to a prostitant christian version of text has been so misquoted that it is just as you have described.

Before you abandon the tree,however, look further back to the original text.

Called the "Tree of Life" or Cosmic Tree, you can find access to some information about the real tree by studying the mystic jewish Kabbalah.

You should be advised that much effort has been made to hide the information referred to in the text.

If you decide to look further into the Tree of Life, you should begin by understanding that the tree models the connection between the unknowable cause at the top and the manifestation effect on earth at the botom.

Almost with all religions, there is a piece of essential knowledge that is hidden and never revealed except by word of mouth at the highest level of the religion.

In fact, likely, it has been lost by most religions and there is no one to realize it.

The "Coptic Gospel of Thomas" verse 39 quotes the mystic Jesus as saying, "The parisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You however, be as wise as serpents and and innocent as doves."

This text comes from the documments found at Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. They have not been massaged by edits over time and give a fasinating view back into the time and life of the real mystic we now call Jesus.

(An do not be misled about this man Jesus because of what you read about him in Christian text. Consider how he stood up against all the powers over him in his time to claim his personal and individual mystic union with deity.)

If you have not looked over the Nag Hammadi documents, I encourage you to read them. Roman christians destroyed the "gnostic" movement early on that grew from the true message from the mystic Jesus.

The concept of "gnosis" is yet another access to the "inner sanctum" or hidden knowledge that can be examined by studying the "Gnostic Gospels" as the Nag Hammadi are now reffered to.

Jewish Mysticm has kept the hidden knowledge of the tree alive, but will not reveal it except on exlusive innitiation unavailbe to gentiles. Most jewish people are not even aware of what I speak.

I can assure you that the knowledge of the Tree is on earth even now, and is now hidden by a very few from the masses. No one who has the knowledge is willing to give it away carelessly.

The concept of an "inner sanctum" within the "santum" is an example of how the knowledge is held in secret. Only the iniatiated few may enter and know.

I've fould one place that makes the knowledge available after a process of email discussion. The site has no commercial aspect. As a wandering mystic myself, i recommend it to my fellow travelers: www.mysticshaven.com.

John, from another john, keep questioning until truth rings true even to your deepest doubts, but do not give up the quest because of false information.

another john

ryan said...

There aint no truth. Truth is one of those ideals like chastity. It is an ideal, get it? An ideal.

john said...

Truth and fact are both concepts, ideas, and even perhaps ideals. There is our concept of the Universe or, lets say, life. Our concept likely will not be based on the absolute truth or fact of the Universe or Life, however, that does not deny the fact and truth of the Universe and Life.

Just because you do not know the Truth of the Universe and Life does not mean it does not exist.
The Truth is in the existance of the Universe, life, and yourself.


The Truth I allude to is the independent self satisfaction that there is something unknown and unexplained that can be experienced only by the individual.
That experience begins to fill the individual with a new awareness that is quickly recognized by the individual as knowledge and awareness that was not in the individual's intellect before. It is a very subjective and personal experience that can only be real by personal experience.

If there is no truth, then what is there?

john

ryan said...

There is no truth. And here is what is left: the morning sun on your face; the touch of your beloved at 2 in the night; the laughter of your first-born; the graves of your friends; the grief and pain as you bury your children. That is truth.......that is real.

ryan said...

I am having trouble posting. It is not "taking". Webmaster, come to my aid.....what the fuck is going wrong?

john said...

That is very existential and reminds me of my early bohemian days. I love the pure truth of it and the exquisite prose of its expression.

It is surely "a" truth (both beautiful and poignant) and offers wispers and indications perhaps of "the" truth. It reminds me of Kahlil Gibran's "A tear and a smile".

If you wish to point to this statement as an indication of truth, then we are in agreement.

I would further suggest, if we continued to examine every element, component, and aspect of the truth you express in the statement, we would, together, go on to discover an even deeper and broader truth.

Your statement then does not deny the fact of truth, but supports it.

One test for truth, by the way, is that it gives resolution, peace, and contentment when known. I can gain these things from your statement knowing the truth beyond your statement.

(Also, by the way, physical science has progressed a long way toward finding the "Truth" in studying the elemental structure of our universe. For thoes with an adversion to religion might find the study of physical science enlightening.)

Soon perhaps the Truth of the mystics and the Truth of the scientists will ring in harmony.)

john

.:webmaster:. said...

Ryan, it is "taking."

ryan said...

And then there is the truth of the WM coming to your aid. Not because he is obeying god. Not because he owes it to me. Because he wants to.

Dave8 said...

In response to the thread and epistemology vs. truth... perhaps there should be a distinction made between universal truth, and individual/personal truth. Of course, the universal truth would be considered an "objective" truth, and the individual would be considered subjective.

The paradox exists, when a subjective individual proposes they hold a truly objective (human-less) truth. In fact, one must assume they are in third person and talking of "knowledge" which transcends themselves - an out of body experience per se. Much of the bible is presented in such a manner - a subjective human portraying "knowledge" as "transcendent truth", a fallacious argument to say the least.

John Blatt: "We have become corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

From a traditional perspective, knowledge in itself is "not" sin... as was alluded in the thread. If the holy bible were considered true knowledge from an objective being sitting outside of the natural realm, then it must indeed be "true", and helpful to the believer, thus, "that" knowledge is not of sin. This of course, conflicts with the essence that all mankind is the offspring of original sin. And, the solution to this obvious hurdle, was that "god breathed" the words in the bible, thus, god facilitated the writing of the bible, and with god's help, mankind was above sin at the moment they scribed the books of the bible...

Anyway, to the point. We are not considered by "most" Christian theology/tradition (per my experience) to be "corrupt, sinful, deluded, and immoral by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in a processual way.

We are of sin because of ancestry... and the attributes that were handed down through the bloodlines... and the attribute most cited as the foundation for all sin passed down is - desire. And desire, can be founded as good or evil... a desire to hearken to the words of a transcendent god via even a proselyte is a good thing, yet the desire to be as knowledgeable as god is not necessarily a good thing (see the Tower of Babel story).

To know "of" god, is not the same as to "know" god. To "desire" to "know" god via "knowledge" is not one of the "good" desires to hold. The Jews to this day do not dare write the full name of god (they typically write G-d), as that suggests they have an elevated level of knowledge regarding god, a knowledge that raises them above and beyond knowing "of" him...

Desire again is a theme that runs throughout the bible itself, and continues throughout catholic tradition in many forms... for instance, there are the seven deadly sins...

1-Lust (Latin, luxuria)
2-Gluttony (Latin, gula)
3-Greed/Avarice (Latin, avaritia)
4-Sloth/Laziness (Latin, acedia)
5-Wrath/Anger (Latin, ira)
6-Envy/Jealousy (Latin, invidia)
7-Pride/Hubris/Vanity (Latin, superbia)

When any of these topics are "sought" out by someone, they are said to desire that which is "sinful". But, its the "desire", that propels one to even "think" about sinning, its that genetic something that has been passed down for thousands of years that "causes" us to seek "sin"... Attaining/Desiring knowledge, is no less sinful an act when placed as the "8th" deadly sin, if in fact it brings about the unbalance of humanity...

The Jews have been recognized, although not in much writing (perhaps it's good for book fodder), as presenting the "first" deadly "sin"... and like tradition, the Roman Catholics followed suit, by suggesting the other seven - but again, as usual they were late to the god game or of having any "original" thought. In short, they extended what the Jews were already teaching via oral tradition - the sin of desire.

The Catholics just applied "desire" to categorical areas that were prevalent at the time of their writings. In short, it was a sin to be "greedy", thus, one must pay penance and feel "good" about it, when a man of the cloth required payment - very rewarding for the church indeed. A fool with money is soon departed... and the Catholic priests obviously thought... gee, if they are going to engage in frivolity, they can give us the money, as we would be the better stewards... making themselves, in theory not greedy, but "prudent" - I call it greedy, and this greed has been cinemized via movies such as Robin Hood, etc.

Anyway, "desire" is the prime motivator for our original sin... there are many religious and philosophical belief systems that suggest that "desire" is in fact the root of suffering... some belief systems would go as far as suggesting that detachment from material goods allows one to examine the truth of need vs. want - where "wanting" places a person in a position where they can be controlled. Some economic systems are built on the premise of creating "value" and "materialism" in order to keep its citizens focused on what they can "see", like the magician you spoke of, and not necessarily what is hidden (the theory of economics, etc.)

The tree of knowledge represents that "material" something that... when desired in excess, becomes sinful... There was the potential for the Jewish God to be questioned, as the Jewish God was more Natural and of the substance of life/reality/universe... Christianity placed god outside of the Natural reality, and beyond any mortal "knowledge", in a transcendent state, its how they solved the unending questions being posed by philosophers and thinkers of their time... The response from many Catholic Bishops to questions became "only god knows", and "have faith"... that we (Catholic Bishops) will act on god's true will (truth).

This theme has been threaded in modern day cinema, as secular entertainment, albeit... I wonder how many actually get the point being made and the parallels with ancient Christianity...

Jurassic Park (1993):
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!"

The deriving of knowledge without "discipline" can create travesty in life, and the Garden of Eden in theory, was the "genesis" for the "unchecked" and "undisciplined" desire for "knowledge". Eve failed in her ability to "control" her desire, and thus, through her experience (eating the apple) she became knowledgeable/aware of certain aspects of her reality. This is a lesson to parents of children, and to societies who hold knowledge that when held by "closed minded" individuals/groups, they can inflict suffering that extends to others.

John Blatt: "[Another thing to remember is that this is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - this again, is very subtle control, because it states that the knowledge to be had is either Good or Evil."

Again, the primary sin (thing to avoid) is "desire", the object happens to be "knowledge", but I agree, knowledge... depending on how it is "obtained", through disciplined rigor (educational institutions are supposed to be engaged in forcing disciplined discovery)/undisciplined stupor (the local fanatic club is all over this one), can be either good/positive or evil/negative.

John Blatt: "How do you control the thinking of mankind? Just look at the religions that hold up the Tree of Knowledge at its beginning and you will see. Programming genius."

As you attested, knowledge could be "good" or "evil", not necessarily always "evil".

I would concede that this "topic" is not one hears on Sunday sermon, because it calls into question the very roots of religion - knowledge, and which parts are "good" and which parts are "evil". The genesis of religious "knowledge” begins in "genesis", where knowledge is derived through unbridled desire.

The consequences for humanity and women in general; damnation for all of humanity through original sin (per Catholic tradition, as original sin is not in the bible per se), bleeding/menstruation, child bearing pain, etc., etc.

Women are to be subjugated below men, as woman was the fall of humanity. The physical trials they experience, is considered evidence for Eve's sin, and to this day, women are considered slightly better than farm animals in many Muslim nations. Women, in general must "hide" their face in "shame" via a burqa as a daily reminder that they must "submit" to the "will" of the male, because the "male" is obviously more prone to making a well-disciplined decision.

A thought provoking thread, enjoyed the read.

Dave8 said...

During undergrad, I had a psychology professor who discussed Female Genital Mutilation... of course, the mutilation of the female genitalia does "reduce" the desire a woman would have for sexual contact... now that's one way to restrict and discipline a woman's unbridled "desire".

Muslim:
Fatwas published:

"Fatwas are published opinions by Muslim religious scholars. They are non-binding in law. But Muslim believers are expected to follow them. In Egypt, a number of Fatwas have been issued by the influential Egyptian Fatwa.

Committee on FGM:

--1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision.

--1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.

--1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

There is "no" other reason to mutilate the female genitalia, other than to stifle female "desire".

john said...

David8, i feel you make an excellent point regaring sujective and objective truth.

In this case i suggest that the portal to discover the universal truth is only through the individual experience of the subjective truth.

It can not be achieved by committee.

In other words, we can never become a member of the "universal truth religion" except by individual personal experience that satisfies our personal sense of being.

I've seen it expressed as being part of a religion that has only one teacher and one follower, both being the same individual person.

This "universal truth religion" however would be available only to an individual that is alone (or in this case actually "all one".

When the universal truth is realized all divisions and forms vanish. The individual begins to lose the bounderies of self and living entities become as a mirrow. One sort of desolves into this unorganized truth religion until even the religion vanishes and the individual realizes its true being.

and so on...

john

Dave8 said...

John: "Truth and fact are both concepts, ideas, and even perhaps ideals. There is our concept of the Universe or, lets say, life. Our concept likely will not be based on the absolute truth or fact of the Universe or Life, however, that does not deny the fact and truth of the Universe and Life."

:-) Just musing... Does Existence promote Truth? -or- Does Truth promote Existence?

Kahlil Gibran suggests in The Prophet; On Self-Knowledge... 'Say not, I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth"'. and continuing... 'Say not, "I have found the path of the soul.", Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path,"'

Does our truth unfold before Existence, or does Existence unfold to bear its Truth before us?

john said...

Dave8, in this case i suggest that there would be no truth without existance. Since we have to agree that there is existance, we can then question the truth regarding that existance.

Speaking with the same understanding of the universal truth as Gibran, Hazrat Khan put it "the soul of all is one Soul, and the truth is one Truth..."

Regarding existance or reality unfording, I would suggest that it could be better stated as "something/nothing creates a potential and initiates an unpredicted unfolding that is other than the something/nothing that caused the potential in the first place".

I would say that our being exists within that established potential and that we fulfill that potential in a very random and haphazard manner.

john

mike said...

It is said that Adam sinned by his own free will. But, without knowledge did Adam truly have free will? It seems that God did set it up so that Adam would fail. Pretty sick to send people to hell now when it was God that really caused man to fall. What do you think?

Dave8 said...

John: "Speaking with the same understanding of the universal truth as Gibran, Hazrat Khan put it "the soul of all is one Soul, and the truth is one Truth..."

Am back, had a few chores... "Hazrat Khan", suggests, or so it seems that all is of one, and one is of all, fill in the blank on what that "one" represents...

Reflecting back to the movie City Slickers... Mitch Robbins (Billy Crystal) meets Curly (Jack Palance) who counsels Mitch that life is about one thing. The movie brings the viewer to consider "life" as nothing more complex than that "one thing".

So, it would seem we are viewing the proposal of Khan in the quest for defining that "one" thing... and what is presented as an indicator to the "truth" of that "one thing", is that the one thing is immanent throughout "Existence"... the only fallacy/sin, thus is in separation... a distinction between attributes of the same reality/Existence.

John: '"something/nothing creates a potential and initiates an unpredicted unfolding that is other than the something/nothing that caused the potential in the first place".'

I only highlight to draw notice, to the distinction/separation the statement makes between the "initial" something/nothing that is predicated via potential, and the "final" something/nothing.

A distinction is made between the "general" oneness, and "particular" objects/subsets of the oneness. Since Khan suggests all is of one... then at what level/mode would you presume a distinction could be made? Would that require one to be capable of understanding the entire generality of Existence and drawing a distinction to the particular objects/subsets, or could a presumption be made that the particular object/subset could not in fact be reflexive of the "one thing", based on something/nothing? Thanks for the response.

john said...

Wow, Daniel8, i did not intend to step this deeply into this. I've enjoyed looking over this blog site and identify with many of the postings, and will continue to monitor this blog and respond occassionally.

Regarding the "truth" indicated by the concept of "all is one". Taking strickly a scientistic view of the elemental structure of everyting we would agree is real, literally everything is composed of the same basic element and came from the same single element in origination. It may seem that there is a difference, but under close examination, the distinction vanishes.

A question would be, with all the diversity of form and structure in the universe, why is everything composed of the same basic element that is interchangable and indistinguishable?

Can any rational person, who is aquainted with the basic science of today, question that everything originally came from one single small particle?

Is the truth behind the limited spectrum of energy our eyes sense not the actual indisguishability of matter/engery in it's elemental state?

Is the Universe one enity or unrelated pieces?

...separated from what, in what manner, and how?

Regarding separation being evil, I understand how that can be considered, however, I can not from any perspective accept the existance of actual separation in the sense that anyting can be excluded from the universe or existance in it's elemental form.

Evil, is an ancient and vast concept that i am not inclined to discuss at this time, however, i do not consider my being separate from evil.

And finally for now...regarding the difference between "'general' oneness,and 'particular' objects/subsets of the oneness".

I might say that a general "oneness" is my body. A "particular" object/subset might be an organ or better an atom.

I might further say that a general "oneness" is the universe and my body is a "particular" oject/subset of the universe.

There is no way to exclude or exhile me from the universe and my being was produced in accordance with all prior function of the whole and will intergrate seamlessly into the progression.

My view would be that life, existance and the universe is a game/process that "god/something/nothing" plays with itself.

The singular "god/nothing/something" allows something "other" to exist, which creates an illusion for both the "g/n/s" and the "other".

Most do not realize that the illusion is on both the part of the creator and the created.

The game/proces involves the remembering on both the part of the "g/n/s'" and the "other"

(I feel we, as the "other", expect far too much from the "g/n/s" in this game/process and fail to realize the extent of our role in the game/process. We expect the "g/n/s" to be an active participant when we actually should take the responsibility ourselves.)

And about the "reflective" factor: i would suggest that in any creation there is some indication of the creator and reference to the reality associated with the creator in the art." As..."we might be able to deternime something about the artist simply by viewing and considering the painting".

john

Dave8 said...

Mike: "It is said that Adam sinned by his own free will. But, without knowledge did Adam truly have free will? It seems that God did set it up so that Adam would fail. Pretty sick to send people to hell now when it was God that really caused man to fall. What do you think?"

The free ability to project one's influence (free will) could be considered instinctive, and knowledge independent. I suppose it depends on how one would characterize "free will". Would suggest that the probability of "projecting" one's will freely, in order to affect a specific result does increase with knowledge, hence the dominance of free will over the remainder of the animal kingdom.

There are many metaphorical aspects to this one story in genesis... Sure, if god of the bible is the god of all, then it logically follows that god planned out the damnation of all of humanity using a tree, and two mentally sterile humans.

A religionist, who believes in the "literal" acts of genesis, would have to be considered delusion by any competent mental evaluator. A further inspection of genesis would likely spawn a few thoughts... Eve desired Knowledge, and Knowledge is Power, thus Eve desired Power... Adam desired Eve, and Eve was Seductive, thus Adam desired Eve's Seduction/Sex.

There have been renowned biologists in recent years, who have written books on the genetic predisposition of women to secure safety for their offspring, thus explaining their desire for power... with power, the likely survivability of the offspring increases.

Moral of genesis... A normal women, give her an "average" name - Eve... was willing to sacrifice eternal bliss in Paradise and her lover (I'm thinking black-widow here) in order to secure Power (Knowledge). A normal man, give him an "average" name - Adam... was incapable of thinking of anything more than his sexual desire... he was mesmerized by his sexual appetite to the point, that he was incapable of thinking of the "eternal" consequences of his actions... he blindly followed his seducer in hopes that he would be "rewarded"...

Now, obviously there are even finer points that could be made, but in general... knowledge is not good or evil... erratic and unbridled "desire" though... well, a person can lose it all, not only for their "own" eternity... but for the eternity of the collective of humanity as well.

To understand the Natural tendency of the female and male, in theory, provides enlightenment. Throughout history, males and females have been portrayed and treated according to their caricatures... Males, incapable of restraining their desire to fornicate with anything and everything (consider the tendency of society to applaud the male gigolo while chastising the female for equal acts). For the male, it's not the procreation that drives; it's the search for sexual release. Females, ruthless in their desire to procreate, willing to sacrifice as many males as it takes to find a winner in a pool of salivating herds of males.

Did I mention, that in the Talmud, Adam was so "fixated" on fornicating, that he was considered to have had sex with not "one", but "all" animals in the Garden of Eden before trying Eve, to which he found a liking.

Fornication, as Adam and Eve were never symbolically married, and Adam being so pent up with a burning "desire", that he committed bestiality with "every" animal he could find... wonder how fast a perfect squirrel can really run.

The tree is interesting, but reading between the lines becomes much more enjoyable... anyone reading genesis literally not only needs to have their head examined, but they are also losing out on some prime entertainment.

Dave8 said...

John: "Wow, Daniel8, i did not intend to step this deeply into this. I've enjoyed looking over this blog site and identify with many of the postings, and will continue to monitor this blog and respond occassionally."

:-) Screen name is "Dave8", but... I suppose Daniel8 is a nice enough name, I've been called worse...

John: "Regarding separation being evil, I understand how that can be considered, however, I can not from any perspective accept the existance of actual separation in the sense that anyting can be excluded from the universe or existance in it's elemental form."

Thus, we are applying our extremely limited subjective experience to the whole of Existence/Universe. Would it not be fair to suggest that the premise can only hold true for that part of the Universe experienced?

In an abstract sense, we can not know "everything" in Existence (we are not biologically capable), thus... that part which is unknown, is in "fact" removed from our Reality... In order to form or postulate a theory, we must apply what we have to an "unknown", because we believe there is potential for consistency (determinism), based on our limited subjective experience.

Would it not be fair to suggest, that the "unknown", (indeterminism) creates a "type" of "separation", between the subjective human (mentally/physically) and the whole of Existence?

It seems hard to conceive of anything that is "separate" in the Universe, even at the most "elemental level", yet... if we begin to postulate the "potential" for a singularity prior to our current physical state of being (pre-birth), then would it not be logical to suggest that there must be at least "some" potential for a "type" of separation when exceeding our bounds of experiential knowledge?

Would you consider the pre-birth "potential" for a Universal singularity, based on "best explanation", to be as valid as the claim of the "potential" for a Universal "non-singularity" based on "best explanation"? One must speculate without observation that there exists "potential" when there is a lack of knowledge, either pre-existence/being or via non-omniscience of the Universe as they live.

Some may suggest that neither can be validated... we can not prove that a Universal singularity existed pre-birth nor a Universal singularity as we live... unless we are to consider ourselves not only the center of the Universe, but the whole of the Universe - and... we are fully aware of "all" interactions within our sphere of reality.

To leave our sphere of reality, places us in a precarious position... if we speculate on the "potential" for a particular scenario, it seems we must also speculate on the equal "potential", not for that particular scenario - especially in matters of cosmology, where the only two dimensions well documented are time and space (locality), which require our body to be at some space in time, to validate any experiential claim.

Else, we begin to validate claims, based on "best explanation", and... don't know about you, but that "unknown" cosmological variable seems to be equally "fertile" ground for the rabid god-bot to speculate, as it does for the theoretical physicist...

Some would annihilate all that exceeds personal temporal existence... I tend to focus on that singularity in the sense that it is "Natural", and this of course removes many religious candidates from entering their god as a competitor on the grounds of Natural ignorance...

Still, however... do you assign great weight when applying your personal subjective experience to areas of the Universe you have not experienced?

John: "Evil, is an ancient and vast concept that i am not inclined to discuss at this time, however, i do not consider my being separate from evil."

Well, it seems we must accept "all" in our sphere of reality that has no separation :-) Evil & Good seem to be a matter of economy... helping a neighbor mow their grass makes the neighbor happy, but makes the local lawn-care company mad...

Dropping a nuclear weapon on an enemy nation, brings about the praise of families who get their loved ones returned from a foreign war, even though innocent civilians are melted into concrete by the sheer heat of the explosion...

Obviously, until there is a singularity of purpose with motivation to act in the human race, there will be those who feel slighted and perceive the one who slighted them as evil... Suppose, that means world peace is off the list of things to accomplish in my life-time, unless our planet is attacked by aliens, and we are forced to work together :-)

The American Indians were forced off their lands, the early American settlers were considered heroes to their national leaders... yet, the same settlers were considered evil by the Native Americans...

One singular "event", spinning in a moral contradiction of both "good" and "evil"... One singular "political candidate", spinning in both "good" and "evil" positions... Joy, knowing the difference and ignoring the noise...

John: "My view would be that life, existance and the universe is a game/process that "god/something/nothing" plays with itself."

So, g/s/n is indifferent to the meanderings of humanity... but, yet humanity must somehow be "part" of the game... especially, if we consider the "potential" for a oneness to exist... I suppose I am not aware of what my atoms are doing in my hands at this moment, and I am playing with my keyboard... yet, if a number of atoms were charged and I got shocked touching anything metal around me - I think I'd notice and attempt to remove that which I don't desire... Perhaps, "Nature" finds a way to "remove" undesirable traits... Suppose Natural Selection and reward for desirable traits would be a close parallel, what do you think?

John: "The singular "god/nothing/something" allows something "other" to exist, which creates an illusion for both the "g/n/s" and the "other".

If there is a singularity, would it not be understood that the g/n/s doesn't have the option of allowing something to "exist" or "not" to exist... One would have to remove the binding thought of the permanence of a singularity, if in fact, the g/n/s is capable of disallowing the existence of "all" things, whether important on unimportant in the process of its existence...

I could conceive of an illusion if the g/n/s is as unaware of "everything", as "humanity" per se is... yet, this g/n/s doesn't have the potential to "disallow" humanity to exist... if the premise is that the g/n/s can't conceive we exist then we have a disinterested blind watchmaker...

However, how are we part of a singularity that goes unnoticed by something that encompasses "all"?

John: "Most do not realize that the illusion is on both the part of the creator and the created."

Thus, the "unknown" in our "universe", which we "may" consider "potential", is that which we must seek in order to resolve the illusion of a partial reality... and... in much the same manner, the indifferent Nature of the Universe creates a blind spot/illusion during "it's" existence?

John: "The game/process involves the remembering on both the part of the "g/n/s'" and the "other""

Thus, we now have an indifferent Universe, which stores memories... of which, no memories exist specifically of humanity in any part...

John: "(I feel we, as the "other", expect far too much from the "g/n/s" in this game/process and fail to realize the extent of our role in the game/process. We expect the "g/n/s" to be an active participant when we actually should take the responsibility ourselves.)

Yet, when speaking from the point of view - "other", one is postulating far too much on behalf of a g/n/s for there to exist a viable "illusion" from an "other" perspective... a true "illusion", is something that we can only perceive by "external" observation...

To speak of the "intent" of a g/n/s, such as "indifference", and it's/the potential to "store" memory... one must know more about it, than it does about humanity... if not, and we are equal in our ability to perceive "its" modus operandi, then it should be capable of reciprocating awareness... thus again, removing the "illusion" from both ends of the equation...

However, let's suggest that the minuscule subset of humanity goes unnoticed by g/n/s in the vast array of a Universe... We are posited to become its operator, in order to get its attention...

In short, humanity must become the dominant cognizant force in order to project its influence, so to wake up a sleeping giant… on an indifferent, and potentially un-programmable/totally inert Universe... This is an endeavor that must start from the presupposition, that the Universe (g/n/s) is "not" indifferent and can be influenced, and that it is not "totally" inert... that there is "something" about this g/n/s that compels one to believe it must cling to a mutually beneficial relationship, typically one that would suggest survival in an interdependent state... where both parties consider their mutual existence one that is "valuable"...

If we (humanity) are to be considered the single atom within the Universe body... I am compelled to ask you... would you really care, or even conceive that an "atom" would need to be "considered" as a critical component for your "survival", or positing such an influence that you would have to seriously "consider" saving a single atom? Especially, if you had the entire Universe to yourself, and could accumulate/create as many "other" atoms as you would possible care to? May we presuppose while we are at it, that "we" as humanity, may not be the "only" atoms available to this indifferent g/n/s, but that there may well be many "others" out in that "unknown" where "potentially" anything can be, or not...

John: "And about the "reflective" factor: i would suggest that in any creation there is some indication of the creator and reference to the reality associated with the creator in the art." As..."we might be able to determine something about the artist simply by viewing and considering the painting".

Agreed, yet the paintbrush may likely be wielded by nothing more than indifferent energy... Suppose we must keep an eye of wisdom at the center of out attention in order to find peace… Have a great one.

mike said...

Man, there are some really smart people on this website. I love it. Thanks for the comments all.

john said...

My sincere apology to Dave8 for addressing him as Daniel. Certainly an example of my fallibility. Even though i work in the cyber world this is my first time ever at responding to blogs after happening on to this blog site a few days ago.

Having spent many years being considered “too far out there” by my family and people in my midst, and being thought of as a religious and spiritual whore that will accept intimate intercourse with about any religion or spirituality, I have come to enjoy the quiet solitude of my personal contemplations.

Frankly, regarding spiritual matters, I have never experienced a religion or spiritual endeavor that did not give me some benefit and leave me with some fear and concern regarding the religion. For this reason I have never been able to settle down with just one.

I’ve gained from all… Zoroaster to Ram Dass and beyond…and been intimate with every thing from wicca to sufi. When someone asks we what my religion is, to be honest, I would have to include a list too long and paradoxical to seem valid.

One of the things that has benefited me most is correlation and comparison. Finding the same basic information concealed in various manners within religions and such (like freemasonry and the Rosae Crucis) has allowed me to see the same information expressed (and concealed) from a variety of perspectives.

Almost always finding the same basic information at the core has lead me to a certainty that is perhaps unwarranted. Perhaps I delude myself to hold off the hounds of bewilderment.

This dialectic, however, is very fascinating and interesting to me. I am not interested in holding a “position”, however, because I feel sure we can find agreement in your logic.

So in the tradition of the classic Greeks, I will seek to further our dialect, somewhat, for the sheer enjoyment of it.

There is an essay on a website I read recently that would relate to our discussion: “www.mysticshaven.com/es_goodevil.htm”. Oddly enough it appears to me to address some of the issues we are considering.

I admit, however, that I have developed a bias that affects all else. I would describe myself as a “mystic” and therefore feel it is sufficient to suggest that there is knowledge and awareness to be had simply by sitting mindlessly with a receptive attitude toward the potential of communion with something people call God, Goddess, Allah, etc.”

After making this suggestion to anyone, in my mind, the person will either discover this for himself or herself or not. Of what I speak is only valid by individual experience. A person cannot validate my experience and I cannot validate their experience. However, there is a “mystical tradition” that would certainly qualify as a bias on my part. I would quickly point out that there is no mystic religion, theology, or authority, however, and there is nothing a person can join to be a mystic.

No one should take what I suggest as valid unless they can validate it themselves. This has always been the mystic way. In referring to the “mystic way” I indicate a solitary and individual quest for reality by a skeptical mind and hesitant heart. A person can tell me about it, but it is not real to me unless I can experience it for my self.

What is the “it”? Edgar Casey called it the “astral plane” if I remember correctly. I believe Carl Jung called it the “Collective Unconscious”, I cannot explain it, but, by my experience, when we connect with what I will call the “intellect of the universe”, something connects back that expands understanding and awareness in the individual beyond their personal experience of reality. It is as though a person tunes into a source of awareness and knowledge beyond themselves. It can also seem as if something receptive has been established on the other end. I hesitate somewhat to describe what the experience is for me, because I assume each individual would describe the experience differently and does not have to meet my description of the phenomenon to be valid for another individual.

Typically, however, such an experience will effect a change in the personality of the individual that becomes more obvious over time. Because the understanding and awareness does not come in words and concepts it is also difficult to frame the experience in language. Humans have been using meditation and prayer, however, for this purpose over history and much has been written regarding the experience. “The Awakening” by Pir Vialyat Inayat Khan, who recently passed away, is a brief and excellent handbook for guidance toward a personal mystical experience.

I will say that one aspect of the “mystic experience” seems to be a deep realization that nothing is separate. However, as Dave8 might say, ‘this on the surface is a limited subjective experience imposed on the whole of existence’.

The mention of “pre-birth” by Dave8 validates to me that the individual is a product of the whole, simply individualized for a period of space/time. The process of death and reintegration further supports the concept of the homogenization of it all. I would model it as existence being an ocean. A portion of the ocean can be scoped up and contained separately in a vessel, however, when the vessel is emptied back into the ocean, the separation is indistinguishable. It's all ocean at all times in reality.

Dave8 mentioned, “until there is a singularity of purpose with motivation to act in the human race, there will be those who feel slighted and perceive the one slighted them to be evil…suppose, that means world peace is off the list …”

I feel this is the point. Until we realize our unity and the singularity of our being on earth and in the universe, there can be no world peace. However, should we all realize our unity, then heaven on earth would surely be at hand.

I feel we are evolving toward total enlightenment of humankind and a paradise of mutual understanding and love on earth. Will it be in our lifetime? It is for us to decide.


Further as a side point regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While I certainly would not point to protestant biblical text as credible, however, I do read the text quiet differently, and understand the implications of this text and the original Hebrew to be very different than I am reading in this posting.

Adam and Eve did eat the fruit and consume the forbidden knowledge from the tree and went on to populate the entire earth according to the text. While Adam and Eve were chastised by God, I do not find any thing that says they went to Hell or were sentenced to Hell. In fact the Hebrew version of this story implies far more was gained by humankind and is retained by humankind than God intended. The implication of this story touches what I refer to as the “Hidden and concealed knowledge of the inner sanctum”. Read Genesis, chapter 3, verse 22, 23,24:

“And the Lord God, said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

The text indicates that humankind obtained and holds much more “power” than God had intended. In fact God attempted to put a guard on ”The Tree of Life” to keep mankind from obtaining this knowledge as well.

I have mentioned the “Tree of Life” previously, and some among us continue to seek that knowledge even today.

john

j.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave8 said...

John: "My sincere apology to Dave8 for addressing him as Daniel. Certainly an example of my fallibility. Even though i work in the cyber world this is my first time ever at responding to blogs after happening on to this blog site a few days ago."

No offense, welcome to the site... I have been here a while, I perch here often... more times than others depending on my locality in the world/work habits ;-)

John: "Having spent many years being considered “too far out there” by my family and people in my midst, and being thought of as a religious and spiritual whore that will accept intimate intercourse with about any religion or spirituality, I have come to enjoy the quiet solitude of my personal contemplations."

Congratulations, a free mind is a great thing, personal contemplation keeps me sane as well... I am presented by family as "spiritual", meaning I'm on a journey (their definition)... The family uses words with dual meanings, it gives everyone what they seem to want ;-)

Spirituality could mean, I am on a journey to self-enlightenment, aren’t we all on some journey, but... many people "accept" the word "spiritual" to mean "religious" as they paint the word with comforting colors they are accustomed to... family tends to allow many to paint as they please... allowing people to remain in their comfort zone is much easier than attempting to provide therapy via dialectical psychology.

John: "Frankly, regarding spiritual matters, I have never experienced a religion or spiritual endeavor that did not give me some benefit and leave me with some fear and concern regarding the religion. For this reason I have never been able to settle down with just one."

All belief systems do have a story/history, and I find people watching interesting... I could sit at the airport and just watch for days, picking out the little subtleties that go by unnoticed by most... but mean so much in the true understanding of that person. I find that a person exposes their blind spots out in the open often, because they are not aware of them... but those blind spots not only reveal thought patterns, but a part of their history, and I find that people watching allows me to learn and experience them... even if we never have to meet...

Plato: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle."

I quote philosophers, thinkers, etc., many times... I may not necessarily agree with how they built an entire philosophy and the resulting message... but I still admire the little pieces of their philosophical house at times... I don't mind admiring the paint job, but I would likely not buy too many philosophical houses that have been built throughout history ;-)

John: "I’ve gained from all… Zoroaster to Ram Dass and beyond…and been intimate with every thing from wicca to sufi. When someone asks we what my religion is, to be honest, I would have to include a list too long and paradoxical to seem valid."

It would be like... let's say, looking at a bunch of houses and picking out all the houses, because each one seemed to have the little subtle things that begged admiration; one house has a nice deck which allows a host to throw parties, one has a pool that allows one to exercise and relax on their own time, one has a spa, etc., etc.

An explanation, to those who have expectations that one can only admire, and worship the attributes of "one house", create the atmosphere of paradox for those who are open minded - it's not the reverse. Being flexible and open minded allows one to smile at those things they admire...

I remain silent in contemplation among many, because a single comment around them is akin to validating the value of their entire philosophical/religious house. Typically, because their sphere of reality is so shallow, that all they can see is the wall, they have not become secure enough to step back and see the rest of the crumbling foundation, etc. - at times. I don't tend to feed, hopelessness, nor do I tend to reward myopicness. I do tend to care though, because the sheer fact that many are unable to step back means they are insecure or believe they will "lose" something in such an endeavor.

John: "One of the things that has benefited me most is correlation and comparison. Finding the same basic information concealed in various manners within religions and such (like freemasonry and the Rosae Crucis) has allowed me to see the same information expressed (and concealed) from a variety of perspectives."

True… tis why I mentioned the eye of wisdom, etc., I can admire your eclectic search... your art has revealed something of it's creator ;-) There is nothing wrong with house hopping, and window-shopping; those who are secure in their life don't see threat, only potential...

John: "Almost always finding the same basic information at the core has lead me to a certainty that is perhaps unwarranted. Perhaps I delude myself to hold off the hounds of bewilderment."

It is human to seek shelter... we start building mental rooms to live within early on... our rooms over time, are surrounded by other rooms within the house, etc... Humans build themselves into a room, it provides layers of security... it takes many years, an entire life, and perhaps for some - never, to be able to walk out of the room and find their way outside of the house. The hounds of bewilderment could pique our curiosity, or freeze us in our tracks, it's our decision, at times, we just need an outside perspective/voice to understand we have options... that there really is an outside of the room, and real people are alive out there, and likely enjoying the wonderment :-)

John: "This dialectic, however, is very fascinating and interesting to me. I am not interested in holding a “position”, however, because I feel sure we can find agreement in your logic."

Likewise, I tend not to hold a position either... philosophy or, if one prefers theosophy can be both a position and a process of inquiry... I tend to accept that my house must change to meet new environmental factors I was not aware of, thus I adopt a processual method for building... my house, is thus... never finished. But... I do like the companionship of friends while I build, and there is nothing wrong with honest work ;-)

John: "So in the tradition of the classic Greeks, I will seek to further our dialect, somewhat, for the sheer enjoyment of it."

Sounds great :-)

John: "There is an essay on a website I read recently that would relate to our discussion: “www.mysticshaven.com/es_goodevil.htm”. Oddly enough it appears to me to address some of the issues we are considering."

Interesting read... I notice the correlation that g/n/s is considered to be a conscious being, albeit in what would be considered a "dream state" of sorts... some religious themes would call that a veil between humanity and the g/n/s. As well, the g/n/s is given total responsibility for the creation of good & evil and is the sole progenitor for all deeds, be either good or bad, the g/n/s created the "potential". And, potential opened a portal for diversity of willed/unwilled actions... The analogy uses a lot of metaphor...

John: "I admit, however, that I have developed a bias that affects all else. I would describe myself as a “mystic” and therefore feel it is sufficient to suggest that there is knowledge and awareness to be had simply by sitting mindlessly with a receptive attitude toward the potential of communion with something people call God, Goddess, Allah, etc.”

Being an open channel to absorb information, allows one to find the potential for inner peace, which allows them to leave their house... and enjoy the view.

John: "After making this suggestion to anyone, in my mind, the person will either discover this for himself or herself or not. Of what I speak is only valid by individual experience. A person cannot validate my experience and I cannot validate their experience."

Agreed, although in the general we are likely to come close, it's during the inspection of our experience we are not capable of comparing sufficiently... our ability to communicate effectively, and cohesively in regard to states of mind, experience, etc., is so vague that even if we entered a common process we would fall short during the communication process (linguistically). At this point, non-verbal communication appears to be, equal to or superior to common language, per some whom conduct research.

John: "However, there is a “mystical tradition” that would certainly qualify as a bias on my part. I would quickly point out that there is no mystic religion, theology, or authority, however, and there is nothing a person can join to be a mystic."

But... one can surely accept that they are part of the same whole/one, and in that, there is a common bond and community at some level :-) Lets call it the authority of Nature? Of which, we are not only a member of the family, but willing/non-willing participants...

John: "No one should take what I suggest as valid unless they can validate it themselves. This has always been the mystic way."

This suggests that one can assert there is a process by which others can employ in order to test information... but, it requires the individual to accept the process, and validate that information derived from that process, be epistemologically valid, to the point of having value.

John: "In referring to the “mystic way” I indicate a solitary and individual quest for reality by a skeptical mind and hesitant heart. A person can tell me about it, but it is not real to me unless I can experience it for my self."

If I paint a picture, and tell you how beautiful it is, I realize you will not get the same understanding unless you look at the painting for yourself... reality, seems to be an ever-changing masterpiece.

John: "What is the “it”? Edgar Casey called it the “astral plane” if I remember correctly. I believe Carl Jung called it the “Collective Unconscious”, I cannot explain it, but, by my experience, when we connect with what I will call the “intellect of the universe”, something connects back that expands understanding and awareness in the individual beyond their personal experience of reality."

Filling the gaps, where we intuitively understand, gaps exist. Sometimes, people, places, objects, etc., are the missing pieces that when located and fixed in our mental map, give us a clearer understanding of the whole picture... we are continuously engaged, subconsciously/consciously in the deconstruction and reconstruction of our reality... we use methods to model this mental reality... some people, realize after reconstructing a mental reality from the pieces of information they hold, that there are gaps, and missing links... there is relief at times, in knowing that the pieces must exist out "there" somewhere...

John: "It is as though a person tunes into a source of awareness and knowledge beyond themselves."

Or becomes more intrinsically conscious of the mental picture they overlay on reality... which may create an exact match, or... maybe not... when a match isn't perfect, a conflict arises and we are compelled to continue to deconstruct and reconstruct mental information...

John: "It can also seem as if something receptive has been established on the other end."

Interesting that two people could come together, and both be a missing piece for the other... I have heard the term soul-mate, etc., etc., to describe the meeting of someone who presents that certain "something" that was missing in the bigger picture... The movie quote in Jerry Maguire... "You complete me"... Sappy, but relevant... each person filled something in each other’s life that was missing. Sometimes, a piece has to be missing before there is the feeling of loss in the incomplete picture once held, that brought about comfort, etc.

John: "I hesitate somewhat to describe what the experience is for me, because I assume each individual would describe the experience differently and does not have to meet my description of the phenomenon to be valid for another individual."

I have had experience, that could be construed as hallucination... but, arguing the point, isn't all of our cognizant affairs and how we build our mental reality sort of an optical illusion per se anyway... I mean, we only have these smaller pieces of a bigger puzzle, and our mind continues desperately to make the pieces form a more "complete" picture... I believe we are compelled by Nature to engage in such activity, as this strife/tension pulls us forward to "reconstruct" the next version of life in the Universe...

There are certain truths, that I have found to be constant, and deconstruction and reconstruction, which is supported by the observation of continual "change" is inevitable, our very homeostasis requires this process in order for us to maintain sanity in our lives. Nothing is as it appears, and when it appears, it will change...

On Abraham Lincoln: "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: 'And this, too, shall pass away.'"

To refuse to allow Nature to work within us, to "create" us through this continual process of "change" via reconstruction and deconstruction, creates tension and "strife"... it places a person outside of balance, per se... If one thread runs through orthodox religious belief, its the total adherence to their steadfast goal of "non-change"... it causes unnatural and highly stressful and unhealthy manifestations.

Its not that I don't mind reading the words of a book, or some magic spell somewhere, etc., I just don't particularly feel like challenging Nature to the point of my own demise... I find that stubbornly ignorant and hubristically unintelligent...

Stephen Hawking: "“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”"

We don't have to buy the whole philosophical house, but yet, for those standing back far enough, we must accept the beauty of a statement that seems to ring true in "every" account that we can apply the statement to in our lives... This statement rings true, without exception, thus, it may not necessarily be a Universal Absolute Truth, but its good enough for me to use in the reconstruction of my mental picture of reality... There is no "conflict" with that statement and my mental reality, or within my current sphere of physical (locality) reality...

John: "Typically, however, such an experience will effect a change in the personality of the individual that becomes more obvious over time. Because the understanding and awareness does not come in words and concepts it is also difficult to frame the experience in language. Humans have been using meditation and prayer, however, for this purpose over history and much has been written regarding the experience."

I agree, communication must evolve... non-communication is sometimes more "important" in the exchange of a moment, than sound...

John: "“The Awakening” by Pir Vialyat Inayat Khan, who recently passed away, is a brief and excellent handbook for guidance toward a personal mystical experience."

How do you perceive the word mystical? Is it something beyond knowledge, or is it within the grasp of human cognition? Maybe I am biased in focusing on the more "traditionally used" word, to suggest there is that which is "unknown", but "yet"... known "enough" to talk about in great detail. Metaphor, is used to talk in the general, and... of course, there could definitely be a discussion on whether talking in the general is any more valuable than talking in the particular, but... aren't we compelled to "deconstruct" the word "mystical" so that we can understand it in view of all of the other meanings that one word could mean?

John: "I will say that one aspect of the “mystic experience” seems to be a deep realization that nothing is separate. However, as Dave8 might say, ‘this on the surface is a limited subjective experience imposed on the whole of existence’.

If we are there, wherever "there" is, then there is no honesty in denying it :-)

John: "The mention of “pre-birth” by Dave8 validates to me that the individual is a product of the whole, simply individualized for a period of space/time. The process of death and reintegration further supports the concept of the homogenization of it all. I would model it as existence being an ocean. A portion of the ocean can be scoped up and contained separately in a vessel, however, when the vessel is emptied back into the ocean, the separation is indistinguishable. It's all ocean at all times in reality."

Agree, but even when a portion of the ocean is scooped up in a bottle, there is still a "link" between it and the ocean it was removed from; physically, spatially, mentally, linguistically, etc., etc. We break out rules to inspect the separation, but that separated water is still in the same Universe that the ocean resides in, it's all still part of the same bowl of soup.

John: "I feel this is the point. Until we realize our unity and the singularity of our being on earth and in the universe, there can be no world peace. However, should we all realize our unity, then heaven on earth would surely be at hand."

Perhaps, after a few more billion years of Universal deconstruction and reconstruction, we, it, is, g/n/s will conform to become one harmoniously... and thus, no longer "exist" in Nature as a sensor to the affects of reconstruction and deconstruction... we will finally enter into a state, where strife no longer "exists" - the religious may call that heaven.

John: "I feel we are evolving toward total enlightenment of humankind and a paradise of mutual understanding and love on earth. Will it be in our lifetime? It is for us to decide."

Well... As much as I would like to believe we are able to control the deconstruction and reconstruction of those variables within our Universe... I would reserve the belief, that Nature is in its own cycle of reconstruction and deconstruction... Its hard for me to envision humanity as "controlling" the entirety of the Universe, so that, the invisible perpetual process of reconstruction and deconstruction becomes controlled. I am humble enough to admit, there are parts of the Universe I don't know exist in the "more particular", I can generally see entire patches of Universe in the sky, but I can not suggest that I can a rich working experiential knowledge of that part of the Universe... perhaps, epistemology, is a follow up discussion...

John: "Further as a side point regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While I certainly would not point to protestant biblical text as credible, however, I do read the text quiet differently, and understand the implications of this text and the original Hebrew to be very different than I am reading in this posting."

Agreed, I implied that metaphorically it could be read differently, especially in light of the diversity of belief on this thread and site... I took the Jewish view, through cross-examination of their Talmud and Torah... Males are conquerors, women are sustainers, and we are Naturally driven towards those ends... we exist in a state of "strife", which through discipline can become balanced and fruitful for a couple, and further for all of humanity.

John: "Adam and Eve did eat the fruit and consume the forbidden knowledge from the tree and went on to populate the entire earth according to the text. While Adam and Eve were chastised by God, I do not find any thing that says they went to Hell or were sentenced to Hell."

Agreed, actually once there was an understanding in their places, harmony was reached, and Adam live for quite a long time, despite the fact that "god" threatened to kill them if they partook of the fruit.

John: "In fact the Hebrew version of this story implies far more was gained by humankind and is retained by humankind than God intended. The implication of this story touches what I refer to as the “Hidden and concealed knowledge of the inner sanctum”. Read Genesis, chapter 3, verse 22, 23,24: “And the Lord God, said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

A metaphor for accepting responsibility for wrongdoing... a just god overseeing petulant and disobedient children, who were driven by desire, and lacked the knowledge and discipline to control their Natural urges. A lesson was learned per your statement by Adam, and thus, knowledge was obtained through experience. Adam learned from the school of hard knocks.

Rita Mae Brown: "Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad judgment."

Pearl S. Buck: "One faces the future with one's past."

John: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” The text indicates that humankind obtained and holds much more “power” than God had intended. In fact God attempted to put a guard on ”The Tree of Life” to keep mankind from obtaining this knowledge as well."

A warning that "knowledge", can be destructive especially for a species driven and compelled through their existence with biological urges, which manifest in desire. "Knowledge" becomes the means to an end, and the end is one, which a person desires. Again, the Tower of Babel is another story, which promotes the admonishment of humanity when they attempt to become a "god" of equal knowledge or status.

Perhaps, there is wisdom in creating a system that places rigor on the individual to earn knowledge, its that mental strife that becomes more important than the knowledge itself… those who have had to rigorously construct and deconstruct informational pieces together over and over, will likely realize the bigger picture; that they, along with humanity are part of the bigger picture as “one” inseparable community… and thus, they will be less likely to use their knowledge to hurt that which they have become mentally/intimately a part of.

I believe, in my humble opinion, that there exists “too” much unearned knowledge globally… I mean knowledge, not “information”, I make a distinction between the two… knowledge is the synthesis of information. And, specifically that “knowledge” that can be used to leverage/project power over others.

The terrorists of 9/11 were provided informational training, and only enough to fly (not land) a airliner. They didn’t have “knowledge”, nor were the inclined or required to produce documentation that certified them as “knowledgeable”. They wielded enough information via monkey training (for money) to carry out their “desire”. Kind of like knowing where “one apple” from the tree of knowledge exists – just enough to do the job.

John: "I have mentioned the “Tree of Life” previously, and some among us continue to seek that knowledge even today."

I understand. Wondering though, if you held ultimate control of the Universe and you could "suspend" it in an unchanging "state"... how would you describe that "state"? Have a great one.

john said...

Dave8, while this is pleasantly reminiscent of a stroll along a wooded path with a friend, speaking openly about our deepest being, I feel I must remind myself and acknowledge that we are not alone in this discussion.

Most important to me at this point is to add a public disclaimer: As Dave8 mentioned in the prior posting, we are each on a journey…a valid journey. We are observing existence on earth from a multifaceted perspective that provides a vast number of valid and real ways to view anything at any time. I think of it as if we are all a part of “God/Nothing/Something’s” eye on earth. Through us, every aspect and viewpoint is observed. Admittedly, a blurred and somewhat tormented vision at the moment, however, if all involved would simply realize that we are all viewing our Self, we could get on with this “peace on earth”, “heaven is at hand” thing…no one loves anyone more than we love our self.

So, if and likely, I offend a brother or sister human in my rantings here, understand that I am in my place with my limited vision, still on my journey. From my perspective, there are no judgments to be made, or punishments to be suffered, or Hell’s to cross…each and every precious piece of “light” (every soul) is gathered back to the whole…each tiny piece is absolutely essential to the whole. There is nothing but the “whole” or the” whole in pieces”. Nothing more and nothing less. It cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed…(as Dave8 might say, ‘it can only change’.

For some, however, if so inclined, I would ask that you consider me a part of you and you a part of me and that together we are part of the universe in one being. I would ask that if you do have communion with Deity that you help persuade IT that we are all in this thing together. (End of disclaimer)

I also wonder about the other John whose consideration of the “Tree” caught my attention. John, your points are well taken and I hope we have not veered too far from your intended direction. Hopefully, you and anyone else will contribute more dimension to the verbal meanderings currently underway.

Dave8, in noting the difference in “religion” and “spirituality” allows someone like myself to admit that I’m unsure but still looking. Having some “native” American orientation, it always seemed odd to me that my Dad’s family considered it appropriate to “keep the spirits of our ancestors” alive in our minds and to acknowledge our desire to have their “spirit” presence among us in certain ways; while my Mom’s family were afraid of “ghosts” and did not cultivate their presence in any manner. My dad’s family was very “spiritual” indeed.

Some among us, for good reason, would consider “spirituality” to mean believing in “God” and such. I like the word, as Dave8 said, because it allows people to fit an odd ball, like some of us, into their rational mix… sort of like a “wild card”.

As much a I try (and believe me I have tried) I still have difficulty with the “nihilist/agnostic/atheist’s” perspective. Personally, I would like to be able to believe that “at the end” the lights simply go out…. nothing more. “I wasn’t, then I was, and then I wasn’t again, halleluiah!” I have no problem with that concept if I could just hold it in belief.

I do not agree, but do somewhat envy the person that has satisfied themselves that there is no, what we might call, “deity”, and that we are in a “natural phenomena” that is self-originating and self-perpetuation with no rationale, awareness, or conclusion.

It is easy to see where this leaves a person like me sitting here contemplating my own existence. Science insists that to be rational I must accept that the infinite universe sprang from a finite particle, creating before it, it’s own infinite environment and potential into which it originated. Ok, so the infinite sprung from the finite. Actually, in this case, I do believe them “with my particular slant”.

Now I have to deal with “where did these intellectual concepts and yearnings in my head come from”. The same people that tell me that a million monkeys at a million keyboards would eventually create a coherent story are the same people who say an unthinkable trillion bits of energy/matter exploded from nothing and randomly bumped me and my intellect into existence in an accidental and pointless process.

So,I contemplate something unable to even contemplate! This mindless, thoughtless, unaware, world of particles has no way to realize it accidentally created “pleasure”…it can never know or understand the unimaginable complexities that sprang from its formless simplicity.

So, as much as I would like to think otherwise, I have come to the conclusion that “it is not as simple as that”. It bothers me, however, that the alternative might seem to be, that the prospect of “deity”, means retribution and punishment is a factor. True “enlightenment”, as it has been expressed by mystics and the “messengers” over time, is quite the contrary…it is more like participation in the process…acknowledged, carefully considered, and positive participation because to the “enlightened” we are each a spark of the one “light source” that energizes all living matter with life and intellect”. For this reason, to the “enlightened” what we do to another we do to our Self. I believe a brother said it once like…”do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.

While I still hope not to offend, I do feel this is the time for this to be said out loud:

In the context of discussing the “Trees”, I will take this opportunity to chastise my mystic Jewish brothers (if any chance notice) for withholding the knowledge of the Tree of Life from humankind.

If they read these words, then they know I know and I say to them not “I am” but “We are”.

In good faith some of our Hebrew brothers feel that only they can maintain and use the knowledge of the Tree of Life for the benefit of mankind. They would consider themselves intermediaries and responsible to fix the difficulties that afflict us.

This has failed; those who have held the knowledge hidden have misunderstood and have failed humankind up to now. Since they would deny a being like me access to the knowledge, then they have failed to provide it to one for whom they held it in trust. I have every right to know, as does every other human being on earth. This is the time for all the hidden knowledge to be given to all he people on earth. To the occult I also urge: Open your vaults and remove the veils.

Israel, you should have listened to my mystic brother, and your blood son we call Jesus, when he sought to give the message to all. See what a mockery that has been made of this wondrous human by your abandonment and your denial of his truth.

Unless the knowledge is given to all who seek, it will never bring peace and heaven to earth. The Universe is ours to know and experience and every being has a birthright to know the extent of our power and being.

I feel deep in my heart that there will appear one day an object in the universe that will test us. I have a feeling that either the nations will unite to destroy the object effectively or we will perhaps fail in hatred and turmoil together. I feel there is a rather urgent need for us to awaken to the true reality of our united being. The release and teaching of the knowledge held in the Tree of Life will give us the insight to better affect our destiny.

(Ok, so I got a bit carried away…)

Regarding male and female…I truly feel this is one of the most completely misunderstood aspects of humankind. The “Tree of Life” deals with the male/female aspect of G-d and existence, and hopefully, this will be a subject we can examine together in the future.

To bring a conclusion to all this, Dave8 wondered if I held ultimate control of the Universe and could “suspend” it in an unchanging state…how would I describe that “state”?

I would have to respond “orgasmic” …a state of orgasm. …because this is the state of absolute creative ecstasy.

john

dano said...

john wrote:
"To bring a conclusion to all this, Dave8 wondered if I held ultimate control of the Universe and could “suspend” it in an unchanging state…how would I describe that “state”?
I would have to respond “orgasmic” …a state of orgasm. …because this is the state of absolute creative ecstasy."

Dan here:
john! This perfectly describes my idea of the perfect way to suspend life here on earth.

Right in the middle of exclaiming "Oh God! Yes! yes!" , and the lights go out, just like they did when Dino was getting it on, and the "big rock" hit, and Dino went home to the lord.

One hundred and seventy-thousand generations of saurs. gone in the blink of an eye.

Dan (I think whatever force created "EVERYTHING" can get along OK without any persuading from us!!!)

john said...

dano, perhaps the universe is detached and impartial enough to allow a #9 or #10 atroid impact and bury our bones with the dinosaurs, but my inclination is that our destiny lies in the stars..."from star dust we are made and to the stars we shall reach" is my dream for the seeds in my loins.

My fear is that the strength of America will be so diminished by hatred and destruction by that time that America will be unable to add that essential element to any effective effort to dissuade such an impact in the future. I feel it will require a united effort to avoid the "big rock".

So, Dan, for people like me and our ancestors who would prefer to stay around in such a hypothetical situation, if you have any influence with any force please use it to help dispel the allusion of separation.

john

Dave8 said...

Forrest Gump: 'My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."'

With ultimate knowledge, would there ever be the excitement of surprise, adventure, exhilaration, that 'rush', etc? As you stated, this topic has generally stayed on the thread of discourse, but I echo your concern that we are not walking down a different path, and wiping our feet on the wrong doorstep, at each interval of discourse :-)

Your post brings about a different dimension, slightly to the ongoing discussion, albeit... the thread encourages discussion regarding a metaphor, that could be philologically construed in so many forms that any and all correlations made to an omni dimensional literary device, would seem pertinent.

Suppose we can continue, until we're told to put a sock in it ;-)

I read through your post, and would like to ask you to envision yourself in that... "...state of orgasm"

John: "Dave8, while this is pleasantly reminiscent of a stroll along a wooded path with a friend, speaking openly about our deepest being, I feel I must remind myself and acknowledge that we are not alone in this discussion."

Well, it is a public forum :-) Dano seems to agree with the premise of a "perpetual orgasmic state" as being desirable. And so, in the "desire" for more "knowledge/fruit", lets walk onward...

I typically talk process, and deconstruct what is produced as knowledge into information, stopping along the way to observe broken links, etc..., When I do construct for coherence, the intent is to show contrast as a secondary method to bring about the attention of the individual who stubbornly believes they live in a one dimensional reality.

Once multi-dimensions are accepted, we move on to which method is best for making decisions in life, etc., etc. For instance, dropping the single dimension of "deity", and opening ones mind up to "other" possibilities, allows for enlightenment to take place... if we accept we do not know all, then of course, we can always learn of new circumstances. As you put it, those singular rays of light, prismatically forming through humanity to form that single light source indicative of "all" colors - wisdom.

Your initial post suggested you were a multi dimensional thinker, thus gate one was cleared... It's very easy to deconstruct thoughts, ideas, etc., but we appear to be in between building and inspecting, and building and inspecting, etc :-)

John: "Most important to me at this point is to add a public disclaimer: As Dave8 mentioned in the prior posting, we are each on a journey…a valid journey. We are observing existence on earth from a multifaceted perspective that provides a vast number of valid and real ways to view anything at any time. I think of it as if we are all a part of “God/Nothing/Something’s” eye on earth."

Then, we should expect that the culmination of experience of humanity is being taken in and experienced by a Universal g/n/s?

John: "Through us, every aspect and viewpoint is observed."

By g/n/s? So, we now have a non-blind watchmaker?

John: "Admittedly, a blurred and somewhat tormented vision at the moment..."

So, a non-blind, but vision impaired g/n/s watchmaker?

John: "however, if all involved would simply realize that we are all viewing our Self..."

If all is "One", and we are part of that "One", and it's a Universal Self, then we are it, and it is we, "One" homogenous "Deity" of "We"... but, nothing else, need there be?

John: "...we could get on with this “peace on earth”, “heaven is at hand” thing…no one loves anyone more than we love our self."

It is that little word "Deity", and how humanity ascribes meaning to that word that appears to be a stumbling block... there are religions that present humanity as being capable of "living as gods" in the afterlife, religions that suggest they are "Christian" I might add. This is a divisive view within Christianity, and is used to separate out mainstream belief with; that "other" cult of Christianity.

Most "all" Christian denominations, if not "all", suggest that there will be only "one" Alpha God, and of course, that Alpha God is "male", not an androgynistic G-d (Kabbalah).

Christianity ascribes to a "caste" system, in both heaven and on earth... Satan is just another lower class citizen of the "All", and Priests are one step up above everyone else on earth, etc...

Not teasing, but... if all were one, then they would all be part of the same "commune", in political/economic terms, that would be communism... Not sure, if some countries in the world are open to the thought of perfection being considered in terms of communism in the here and now, or in the afterlife :-)

John: "So, if and likely, I offend a brother or sister human in my rantings here, understand that I am in my place with my limited vision, still on my journey. From my perspective, there are no judgments to be made, or punishments to be suffered, or Hell’s to cross…each and every precious piece of “light” (every soul) is gathered back to the whole…each tiny piece is absolutely essential to the whole. There is nothing but the “whole” or the” whole in pieces”. Nothing more and nothing less. It cannot be created and it cannot be destroyed…(as Dave8 might say, ‘it can only change’."

Well, creation/(re)construction and destruction/(de)construction are inclusive of change ;-) Regarding the word "essential"... "essential" in what "form"? And, "light", and "soul"... how would you describe "those" terms? Energy? Energy that retains knowledge/information/memory?

John: "For some, however, if so inclined, I would ask that you consider me a part of you and you a part of me and that together we are part of the universe in one being. I would ask that if you do have communion with Deity that you help persuade IT that we are all in this thing together. (End of disclaimer)"

Just trying to get the parameters of the disclaimer :-) Since... we are all in this together.

John: "I also wonder about the other John whose consideration of the “Tree” caught my attention. John, your points are well taken and I hope we have not veered too far from your intended direction. Hopefully, you and anyone else will contribute more dimension to the verbal meanderings currently underway."

Agree, the more parallels the better...

John: "Dave8, in noting the difference in “religion” and “spirituality” allows someone like myself to admit that I’m unsure but still looking. Having some “native” American orientation, it always seemed odd to me that my Dad’s family considered it appropriate to “keep the spirits of our ancestors” alive in our minds and to acknowledge our desire to have their “spirit” presence among us in certain ways; while my Mom’s family were afraid of “ghosts” and did not cultivate their presence in any manner. My dad’s family was very “spiritual” indeed."

I understand this to mean, keep the "spirit" of the ancestor(s), keep their memory as part of your information/knowledge... and never forget, you are but a part of their reflection that moves forth in the future...

Just, as humanity metaphorically, is a "reflection" of the "past", per modern theology... man is Adam, and woman is eve, in all "aspects", and we would do well to keep the "spirit/essence" of their "nature/acts" close to our minds, as that seems to be the roots of our "knowledge"...

John: "Some among us, for good reason, would consider “spirituality” to mean believing in “God” and such. I like the word, as Dave8 said, because it allows people to fit an odd ball, like some of us, into their rational mix… sort of like a “wild card”."

We are part of the indistinguishable one at the most fundamental of existence :-) A wanderer need not be a "wild card", just an equal companion on their walk in life, the only mistake is to stand in front of others who are persuaded/compelled by Nature to move forward in life...

John: "As much a I try (and believe me I have tried) I still have difficulty with the “nihilist/agnostic/atheist’s” perspective. Personally, I would like to be able to believe that “at the end” the lights simply go out…. nothing more. “I wasn’t, then I was, and then I wasn’t again, halleluiah!” I have no problem with that concept if I could just hold it in belief."

What does it take to believe? Some people believe in ghosts, and need nothing to believe, just "words"... perhaps, the desire that there isn't finality is a strong enough incentive to hold onto any belief - even if the belief is in direct contrast to their observable reality.

Here's how I see the stacking of the deck...

Christianity:
-I was (but in a perfect state)
-I was again (but not in a perfect state)
-I had a choice to stay or change my state of substance and became "again" (even though I make such a decision in a non-perfect substance form/mind).
-Whatever I decide in my non-perfect mind, is how I stay - forever

This ideal of "substance", was a conflicted argument made since pre-Socratic philosophy, which spilled onto the scene when Constantine-I forced the Roman Clergy to vote and create religious standards... this is why one can't figure out if Jesus was really divine or not, the vote was based on popular belief, with no supporting evidence.

To this day, not only is "substance" theory a sensitive topic among theologians, but the debate has spilled over into the sciences since theologians have made an effort to use science as a form of manipulation to promote their view.

John: ..."nihilist/agnostic/atheist’s" perspective..."

Now, just because I think this would be fun, let's see if you really don't accept any shade of those "three" perspectives... this is how I'd deconstruct an argument, if you indeed held to your statements as Universal Absolute Truths...

John: "Regarding the "truth" indicated by the concept of "all is one". Taking strickly a scientistic view of the elemental structure of everyting we would agree is real, literally everything is composed of the same basic element and came from the same single element in origination. It may seem that there is a difference, but under close examination, the distinction vanishes."

Clearly, to speak of "everything" being the exact same, removes humanity...

Nihilism:
-6. Annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nihilism

John: "In this case i suggest that the portal to discover the universal truth is only through the individual experience of the subjective truth."

Agnosticism:
-1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

John: "This dialectic, however, is very fascinating and interesting to me. I am not interested in holding a “position”,"

Atheism:
-"1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If you hold no position, you appear to hold no "belief" one way or another regarding Deity, or Supreme Being, thus you have no "allegiance" to a specific "god", or ritualistic worship of Deity.

It appears, you theorize using mereological nihilism to an end-state where all of humanity and the Universe are "One", thus a "Supreme" and "Separate" god, does not exist. That would be using mereological nihilism to support an atheistic view in the traditional sense of "god", or so a charge would be levied by the majority of Christianity. You my brother would be considered an Atheistic "heretic" among the most liberal of Christian denominations.

As well, you would really turn on the burners by suggesting humanity is epistemologically imprisoned in subjectivity, and thus not capable of "ever" finding or understanding Truth. The orthodox Christians and "other" religious venues would likely disagree, as they "know" Truth, because they can mereologically annihilate themselves as well, and theorize "Objective" Truth, and most times throw in "Transcendence" or Multiple Existences as a bonus (Heaven, Hell, etc), while they are theorizing in their out-of-body experience.

I like theorizing myself, much to my entertainment, and I don't take a hard-line stance, as I am more prone to process, not product.

I feel it necessary at this point, to acknowledge the term "retorsion argument"... Let's suppose someone writes a book on the philosophical renderings of a walrus via a Walrus' non-verbal communication skills. The author's intent is to present and "inspire" a discussion, suggesting there is in fact, philosophical value in the contemplation of Walrus communication. The moment, a person opens their mouth to "criticize" the author, using any form of communication, they can be said to be supporting a philosophical discourse, thus, providing "proof" and "validity" to the theory, that there is in "fact", philosophical value in contemplating walrus communication.

Thus, the author just needs to sell a book, and generate discussion, as... that alone validates the claim and intent of the author.

Moral of the example; one needs to investigate the "intent" and "goal" of an individual who proposes discourse, as its possible to feed a fantasy unwittingly. In short, some things are just better left alone, especially if the intent of the rhetoritician is to build credibility for their subject matter, based on popular involvement. Just because something is popular, doesn't necessarily make it "true", or “True”, “real”, or "Real".

Just wanted to bring that out, as... I have no intention or hidden agenda to present anything I have said to be "real", nor "Real", in the sense that all humans should take it as having "value"... as you have stated in the past, neither do you suggest your point of view to be Absolute... it's up to the reader to validate any claim made.

Knowing that, I just want to extend to you that I am not deconstructing your words in an effort to discredit your views, nor insult your intelligence. I do have a short fuse however for those who center their discourse on repetitive passivity or apathy. As if, the continuance of their comments gives them some level of credibility/shelter, because they are still capable of moving their fingers on a keyboard.

This of course would be, someone who is not on a journey, but moreover a scratched record that continues to move in a circle and "bump" back on the same track, over and over again... I tend to "bump" or "nudge" as necessary, but that has not been my intent here.

John: "I do not agree, but do somewhat envy the person that has satisfied themselves that there is no, what we might call, “deity”, and that we are in a “natural phenomena” that is self-originating and self-perpetuation with no rationale, awareness, or conclusion."

Okay, again, remember that orgasmic state you suggested was the epitome of what one would expect as the best of all states of being? Now, focus on that "moment", if you have ever had one... Well, would such an "orgasmic suspension" require any thought or mental strife that compelled you to explain (in your special moment) any of the following...

-deity
-rationale
-self-perpetuation
-awareness
-conclusion
-envy
-satisfaction
-themselves
-person
-cosmology theory of origination and on...

John, I test at the top of that 1% IQ scale thingy in regards to visual-spatial and linguistic aptitude, and... as much as I see patterns and constantly think about words, theory, and abstract stuff... I don't seek orgasmic episodes with a pen in my hand, waiting for that next epiphany :-) Surely, you are not going to suggest that during the "exact" moment of orgasmic experience, you are postulating the creation of a better linguistic system for communication using a Fibonacci sequence... or are you?

John: "It is easy to see where this leaves a person like me sitting here contemplating my own existence."

Once again, at your immediate moment of ecstasy, are you contemplating anything... or is your being, and your very existence in a suspended state of bliss/emotion? You are likely not, thinking about your existence; yet, the euphoria you feel is all that matters - that "one thing".

You see, as much as we'd like to believe we can shave away and focus on that "one" thing in life that makes everything else make sense, our bio-senses are picking up, receiving, translating, and even recording to some degree external and internal activity - we are never truly focused, some are better focused than others.

However, in that "moment" of suspended ecstasy, we are biologically forced to present "all" of our attention to that "moment" in time, and at that "one" moment, there is truly only "one thing", even at the briefest of moments that we are focused on... there exists no strife, we are not fully engaged in sensing the environment around us, to keep us locked and anchored in our reality in order to keep us psychologically secure/sane, nope... at that "moment" we lose the internal binding/strife... and it's wonderful.

Thus, there are moments in your life, without the need of lengthy dissertations, cross-references, and lest I say research to suggest that you can experience that which may lead you to momentarily lose yourself in the moment... It doesn't take a scientific explanation, unless you want to take that "moment", and put it in those terms, yet... it's still an experience you have. Which is making you question your existence in your moment of ecstasy, science or your circumstances, of which you have likely placed yourself in.

John: "Science insists..."

And... science as well as government is one of those phenomenon we talk about in the general, because it's easy to frame a reference, but... one has to accept that the framed reference is "not" inclusive of all the entirety of the views that exist within that framework. I don't particularly, insist nor demand anything of you.

We have arguments all the time between the need to call the U.S. a True Republic or a True Democracy, and whatever the popular vote becomes, doesn't necessarily reflect the truth of the system, nor of the future utility of the political system itself. There are leaders in these areas, science, politics, etc., and I'm sure we can all agree that a leader in a field doesn't necessarily present the aggregate intellect of an entire nation, nor speak as their inclusive spokesperson.

"It" is, what "it" becomes...", I'm not sure one could easily define science, that would be a nice little web of discussion, thus, since things change, perhaps we can suggest at best, generally speaking that science as a fluid thought process, "tends", to work a certain way, and not necessarily deliver edicts...

John: "...that to be rational I must accept that the infinite universe sprang from a finite particle, creating before it, it’s own infinite environment and potential into which it originated. Ok, so the infinite sprung from the finite."

Now, which scientist are you referring to, as I suggested earlier, I tend to take pieces of insight... not whole house philosophies for many scientists. Whom do you propose, is pushing the type of cosmology or teleology you are referring to?

John: "Actually, in this case, I do believe them “with my particular slant”."

And, per se, who is "them"?

John: "Now I have to deal with “where did these intellectual concepts and yearnings in my head come from”."

Did I mention innate biological strife, and the natural instinct to anchor oneself in their reality by constantly deconstructing and reconstructing their mental reality, and further, that we seek comfort by applying those maps to our reality without rest, even during sleep (dreaming, etc.).

Further, that we seek herd like comfort by using our "other" senses, "other people", and we communicate with them in order to increase our comfort that all is in accord with out "mental picture"...

Further, that we do this by presenting those mental maps, using our unique mental competencies that are hard wired in our neural cage during the second tri-mester of our infancy, and that, some of those competencies are more aligned to visual-spatial, mathematical, linguistic, logical, etc., areas.

And yet further, that we communicate based on these competencies, so that others can share in our mutually beneficial comfort. Hurdles being, not "all" people speak the same neural competencies... I do understand mathematics, and I could do well in the field, but it's not a natural competency... I'd spend much more energy trying to symbolize an idea with numbers, than in my strength area of linguistics or visual-spatial communication/symbols.

So, in short, your "yearnings" are innate. But, we all have choices in life I suppose, there are quite a few religious people who are extremely adept at forcing their mentally forced mental image to conform to their observable reality, no matter how big the contrast - talk about mental energy wasted. I digress...

John: "...The same people that tell me that a million monkeys at a million keyboards would eventually create a coherent story are the same people who say an unthinkable trillion bits of energy/matter exploded from nothing and randomly bumped me and my intellect into existence in an accidental and pointless process."

A well thought out statement, but of course, an alternative story would be...

"The same people that tell me that a million people at a million church meetings would eventually create a coherent story (who can only spatially communicate in terms of two dimensions, and subjectively) are the same people who say an unthinkable (yet, they thought of it) trillion bits (bits is short for "binary digits", and a trillion binary digits is 1Tb/125GB, I have more than that much memory on my external hard-drive, Maxtor has a sale, $150 for a 300GB drive, we could hold two universes in there :-)) of energy/matter (energy/matter is not quantified in bits, they each have their unique quantifiers) exploded (but could have just oozed euphorically) from nothing (third person philosophizing using nihilism) and specifically with purpose (thus, removing my "free will"), facilitated the creation of me and my intellect, so that I could experience this wonderful existence..."

How unfortunate, that a beautiful story, with such rich metaphor, get bent by using an "omniscient" creator, which removes "free will", and thus, any responsibility for those areas of deontology (morality, ethics, etc.)

Morality doesn't exist, for someone who thinks as a third person omniscient being, and when a religious theologian attempts to write in that context, it directly conflicts with any coherent argument they would make for "free will" and ultimately - morality. So, as long as a theologian stays in "first person" as they write and subjectively make declaration, they can cogitate on what morality is/ought to be, using their own non-contradictory "free will".

But surely, there is a logical way out of this quagmire... between monkeys at keyboards, exploding dwarf stars, universes encapsulated in hard drives, and the like. I admit, I am at a loss on how I would go about fixing a story where I must stay in first-person, but attempt to speak Universally, on morality, ethics, etc.

John: "So, I contemplate something unable to even contemplate!"

Well, it appears that we are both still searching earnestly at this point to construct something that we can overlay on reality to check for validity :-)

John: "This mindless, thoughtless, unaware, world of particles has no way to realize it accidentally created “pleasure”…it can never know or understand the unimaginable complexities that sprang from its formless simplicity."

Sounds like that mindless, thoughtless, unaware or caring moment someone has an orgasmic moment, where the possibility for an unimaginably complex product might well, spring from such simple mindedness - tension release.

Also, this passage does speak in the present tense, but in third party present tense. Third person, creates this "separation" thing, and well... not really sure if I understand how someone separates themselves from a unity of One. This passage is like listening to a eulogy, for someone who gave birth and will never know the pleasure or potential of their offspring because they are "separated", "inert", "dead", or something to that effect. Who killed "it"?

When in your "orgasmic" moment, could you use the term "equilibrium" in your state of being, to describe the moment... a moment in perfect tranquility and cerebral equilibrium? This equilibrium... isn't just a human precept... Energy flows/changes from a higher concentration to a lower concentration until the concentrations are equal, creating continuous moments of "equilibrium". If one wants to color words using human emotion, they could just as likely have written the passage above to suggest that each time "equilibrium" is attained, there is a serene moment/pause for those objects involved.

I'd consider such a moment, towards equilibrium part of the deconstruction phase of the object's life. We begin to die, the moment we are conceived. And, why should we think any differently, than what we observe in front of our very own eyes? Natural forces, bring us back to the unexcited state of equilibrium, those orgasmic moments, etc., and in a finality of eventual "death", where physical forces no longer place us in a position of tension/strife.

Perhaps, the better question is... on the construction (albeit, we'd have to lay out the criteria of construction and deconstruction, as one's construction is obviously the potential for one's deconstruction) side of the house, like... what would cause the second law of thermodynamics to be "wrong". And, I don't mean that in the sense of chaos/disorder...

John: "So, as much as I would like to think otherwise, I have come to the conclusion that “it is not as simple as that”. It bothers me, however, that the alternative might seem to be, that the prospect of “deity”, means retribution and punishment is a factor."

Well, again, I have a pretty good intellect, but I'm not Deity quality, with Universal knowledge, and... I seem to believe I would be compassionate towards my pet dog, even if he tracks mud in the house... I'd almost have to consider that an "omniscient", and "omni-intelligent" being, would assert at a minimum the same "logical" and "level headed" conclusion that I would draw with my pet.

If not, then I'm dealing with an ambiguous and ambivalent god, and thus, nothing I could do "here" on this single little "planet" in the middle of "nowhere", in regards to a vast Universe, where the planet is "never" in the same spatial spot it was a second ago - is going to matter. I have no way to predict the causal effects of my actions, working from a state of life towards afterlife. Therefore, death is to be avoided at all cost, in order to push back the obvious potential for an abusive god parent, but... there may just be a loving god parent (called Nature), that welcomes us back to the serenity of peace and equilibrium. I'm compelled to want to have a fair shot with the Nature I observe, than with the thought of a rogue god.

John: "True “enlightenment”, as it has been expressed by mystics and the “messengers” over time, is quite the contrary…it is more like participation in the process…acknowledged, carefully considered, and positive participation because to the “enlightened” we are each a spark of the one “light source” that energizes all living matter with life and intellect”. For this reason, to the “enlightened” what we do to another we do to our Self."

Projective beings, susceptible to Karmic conditions.

John: "I believe a brother said it once like…”do unto others as you would have others do unto you”."

Or, do unto yourself. If you believe in Karma.

John: "While I still hope not to offend, I do feel this is the time for this to be said out loud: In the context of discussing the “Trees”, I will take this opportunity to chastise my mystic Jewish brothers (if any chance notice) for withholding the knowledge of the Tree of Life from humankind."

Obviously, there is this caste system of knowledge that continues to run like a pattern throughout history..., in the U.S., we call that filtering... the Jews have other names :-) We seem to disagree on who should wield knowledge... Again, disciplined training for information is fine... however, whole-package knowledge without rigor/discipline that can be leveraged for destructive purposes on a mass scale - I think not.

Out of curiosity, many Jews and Jewish type sects don't necessarily know each other, or each other’s business, even if they were standing in front of each other talking about the weather - why would they discuss anything from one who is so far removed from the core Jewish belief system in nationality, belief, circumstance, culture, threat, etc?

John: "If they read these words, then they know I know and I say to them not “I am” but “We are”."

Uh, "We are" according to what sect? Perhaps, we need to fall back on our Special-K (Kabbalah) diet... "We" back in the day, wasn't of your lineage. We isn't a Universal "We", it's more of a "we" in ideology, with the favor of a Universally Supreme "G-d". For "you" to become part of the "we", there must pass certain signs... uh, all of which have coincidentally came to pass per the historical record, without an utterance from big G.

JC and the boys weren't really a favored commodity back in the day either, and JC was true Jew. Perhaps, the "we" attempted to teach him the secrets held in the Tree of Life, and he kindly extended the middle digits, both hands. Maybe he knew what was really going on, I mean, if the Tree of Life secrets held were to enable a people with insurmountable power, then they lost their big chance to whip it out on Hitler and crew. I digress...

John: "In good faith some of our Hebrew brothers feel that only they can maintain and use the knowledge of the Tree of Life for the benefit of mankind. They would consider themselves intermediaries and responsible to fix the difficulties that afflict us."

I have an affliction?

John: "This has failed; those who have held the knowledge hidden have misunderstood and have failed humankind up to now."

What if their "hidden" knowledge, or rite of passage decreed they keep their signs secret? Then it’s obviously not a failure of the individuals, but perhaps the security system itself.

Quite frankly, I'll reiterate, I'd rather lose the knowledge used to create nuclear weapons than to release it to "everyone" in the world, who demanded an equal right to that knowledge and the means to leverage that knowledge.

John: "Since they would deny a being like me access to the knowledge, then they have failed to provide it to one for whom they held it in trust. I have every right to know, as does every other human being on earth. This is the time for all the hidden knowledge to be given to all he people on earth."

Cricket, cricket.

John: "To the occult I also urge: Open your vaults and remove the veils."

Aleister Crowley has a few books...

-777 And Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877286701/spellsandmagic

-Book of Lies (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877285160/spellsandmagic

John: "Israel, you should have listened to my mystic brother, and your blood son we call Jesus, when he sought to give the message to all. See what a mockery that has been made of this wondrous human by your abandonment and your denial of his truth."

If JC was their truth, the all Jews are soaking up the rays of heaven right now. They have already been made a mockery of... and then, there is the alternative.

John: "Unless the knowledge is given to all who seek, it will never bring peace and heaven to earth. The Universe is ours to know and experience and every being has a birthright to know the extent of our power and being."

In like, a scenario where "we", or "We"... were given more "power", per se, than was intended, via the Tree of Life, but... somewhere on the edge of our consciousness, as we mentally build our reality over and over, we miss that little piece of information, that is hanging on the periphery of our intellect which would give us that much more a clear picture of our being and our truer connection with the fabric of Existence? Kind of like being an orphan, looking for that long lost connection to the parents that gave them Life...

John: "I feel deep in my heart that there will appear one day an object in the universe that will test us. I have a feeling that either the nations will unite to destroy the object effectively or we will perhaps fail in hatred and turmoil together."

Perhaps, we will succeed by providing an efficient outlet for our hatred and turmoil together, and it will become an efficient tool used to gain us our "desires".

John: "I feel there is a rather urgent need for us to awaken to the true reality of our united being. The release and teaching of the knowledge held in the Tree of Life will give us the insight to better affect our destiny."

Try the Kabbalah flavor with the little “c”, and use the magical alphabet… And, again, to better affect our ability to reach a unified orgasmic state, held in infinite suspension… although this sounds great, infinity is a long time to be “suspended”… I’m not sure I could imagine such a length of time, perhaps symbolically, but not in real time J

John: “(Ok, so I got a bit carried away…) “

Well, that’s okay; it allows us wild cards to jump in J

John: “Regarding male and female…I truly feel this is one of the most completely misunderstood aspects of humankind. The “Tree of Life” deals with the male/female aspect of G-d and existence, and hopefully, this will be a subject we can examine together in the future.”

The mirror of Self, an androgynous G-d, and the splitting of gender, creating strife in the Garden… whence, all humanity has attempted to seal back together through the reunification between the male and female that were once of “One” nature/gender. Yeah, wonder how a Christian would accept a flat out – your “G” is a she-he… or more an “It”, which would line up beautifully with a G-d that encompassed “All”… But, the Christian god is not the G-d of the Jews, nor do they have the same root beliefs regarding the Nature of their Deities, yet… they are reading from the same written books, under different oral traditions and cultural persuasion. I’d have to say, an androgynous deity makes much more sense, than a deity that has no mate to create our human perception of unity.

John: “To bring a conclusion to all this, Dave8 wondered if I held ultimate control of the Universe and could “suspend” it in an unchanging state…how would I describe that “state”? I would have to respond “orgasmic” …a state of orgasm. …because this is the state of absolute creative ecstasy.”

Amen. Well, great hearing from ya', as usual, hopefully there are those you seek that are listening, and will help provide you with information sealant, that can be used to soften the edges of the mentally created and arranged puzzle pieces..., puzzles are so tricky, they give the appearance of the whole picture, but there is something about those formed lines of separation on each piece of the puzzle that gives it that appearance of separation... Take care.

john said...

It appears to be appropriate in these posting to show the prior statement being responded to, so i will follow that format somewhat.

Dave8 wrote:
John, I test at the top of that 1% IQ scale thingy in regards to visual-spatial and linguistic aptitude, and... as much as I see patterns and constantly think about words, theory, and abstract stuff... I don't seek orgasmic episodes with a pen in my hand, waiting for that next epiphany :-) Surely, you are not going to suggest that during the "exact" moment of orgasmic experience, you are postulating the creation of a better linguistic system for communication using a Fibonacci sequence... or are you?

Dave8, I left high school in the twelfth grade without graduating. I've never been tested, but I can assure you I would likely test below the mean. That is not to say I do not consider myself coherent and intelligent. It is more that I recognize my lack of formal education. I have, however, found that once I get the particular vernacular and academic indoctrination associated with the particular skill or science, then I have no difficulty with the actual information. Some time the words folks create to describe an object or concept are difficult, if unknown, but, almost always, the object or concept is simple in thought form. I do understand that I will likely use words and concepts that are not "mainstream academia" nor even appropriate in a coherent manner. I have had the good fortune to be able to read and study extensively in most areas of my interest, and I am now getting to be a somewhat "old" guy, but it has been under my own haphazard direction (sort of like the universe, perhaps) So I have arrived at a "level of education", but like the universe, again, not determined, and not able to reference by any standards.

Regarding the contemplation of a better linguistic system for communication or the Fibonacci sequence during organism is another "experience" that does not require words and is beyond any words. As with experiences in mysticism, the experience of orgasism needs no words to understand and appreciate. You can talk about all like, but you will really never appreciate it until you have experienced for yourself.

In the interest of keeping these responses as brief as possible, I suggest that we agree that our view of "what there is" and the "nature of knowledge" is different. This difference has been addressed in a better manner that i could possibly provide in an article regarding "Mysticism" at "wikipedia.org". There is a direct link to the article a "mysticshaven.com" on the "Links" page. If you have a moment to look, you can scroll down to the section titled: "Ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology.'

I found this article helpful in better understanding your point of view. So I will consider, at this point, that this article can stand as a bridge between our points of view, and will stand as a comment relating to this discussion.

There is also another fundamental issue to be considered. To effect our communication we have only "words". In the context of these considerations, "words", perhaps can be given no validity. Certainly words are very limited at best. The nearest "Webster" i have handy says this about the meaning of "word": "A speech sound, or series of them, serving to communicate meaning and consisting of at least one base morpheme with or without prefixes or suffixes; unit of language between the morpheme and the sentence.

First, if the universe is without meaning, then words must be meaningless.

Second, words are constructed of sounds that indicate (reference) something not inherent in the sound. Therefore a mutual reference must be achieved with varied receptors (people) based on an utterance, or in this case of writing, an assemblage of symbols indicating a sound, that indicates "something" that may or may not be recognized in a similar manner by all.

And third, most words and concepts are constructed by metaphor. One metaphor is built on another until we have a "house of metaphors" forming a thought or concept. Like a "house of cards", everything falls down when we find that the founding metaphor is an assumption.

We give it a name and suddenly we understand it and have dominion over it, so to speak. I think how well we comprehend and understand the "big bang". Heck, I've read all about it! (One thing that was hanging me up regarding vernacular was our use of the word "singularity" in prior postings. Understanding somewhat how Stephens Hawkins had hung a concept on the word, I was having trouble filtering out that reference as we were communicating.")

Since, everything has to be based on assumptions; associated words, metaphors, and concepts are, therefore, baseless.

This begs the question, "why spend the time and make the effort?"
I will admit, however, that sitting here in the midst of this ineffable abyss, using words to describe and discuss the tangibility of abstract concepts seems logical and has some appeal to me. So to continue...

Regarding the use of the word “Deity”:
When I use that little word "Deity", the concept ends there. I simply, at times, accept that "something" exists that is "other" and "different" than the universe and the universe's components. I have read about concepts of deity ranging from the Babylonian "Enuma Elish', which describes the beginning as "the gods emerged two by two from the formless, watery waste" -- a substance which was itself considered divine; to theories regarding ancestral worship being the initial cause of the "God" concept.

So with this reference I could think of the divine as a "watery waste" from which the gods emerged (in this case two by two, male and female...not just guy gods), or perhaps a dead tribal hero that haunts us even now from the grave. I really like rabbi David A. Cooper's concept described in his book, "God is a Verb". While this is a book regarding the Kabbalah and mystical Judaism, it focuses on an important aspect for the understanding of the knowledge within the Kabbalah. Here rabbi Cooper likens, what we refer to as God, as flowing energy. (Sorry, rabbi, for the over simplification.)

However to speculate, I reason that something that would be total and complete might want to experience something different. I've read some mystics who suggest that "God wants to contemplate Itself" and creates separate vessels and an arena for that to occur. I certainty do not know. In fact, this is a good point to note that I do not so much actually believe in anything as much as I speculate and conjecture. I am accumulating, discarding, and modifying my paradigm in a constant process. One reason I hesitate to write some of this is because i might speculate and conjecture differently tomorrow and consider what I am writing now a "prior version".

Regarding Christianity, i can say only one thing for Christianity, "it recognizes something rather than nothing". A person who is faced with the obvious indication that there is nothing but what we see and experience can discover an alternative concept in Christianity and religions. This is why I endorse religions, but fear them as well. I would liken it to, you go the church to discover you have a soul, and then have to run like hell with it to escape the controls the church wants to attach. Some of us do escape with our souls, so I accept that Christianity and religions serve a good potential. I think of Christianity as a necessary e--l."

Regarding the non-blind and vision impaired watchmaker, I do not want to use reiteration to support a point of view, or be intellectually redundant, however, my experience and reason is that a "controlling force, helping first this one, and then tripping up the other" is not valid. For a number of reasons that would still qualify as conjectures, I believe the "other" or "God" is "passive" and "neutral" and that what we refer to as divine power is within us as individuals. When we get together we magnify that power. Should/When we all get together as kindred humans on earth, we would reflect the totality of that power on earth. We get to direct it, it does not direct us in my opinion. This is at the very foundation of the "hidden truth"...we have the power, if any exists in the universe. And, excuse me if I offend more of the human race, but in my opinion, God’s not going to come help us pay our bills and fix our problems, or even save our earth. God gave us the "power" to look after those things for ourselves...freewill and all. I read that God did this, and God does that, always running around effecting things. Just a simple persons suggestion, "don't count on it". Instead, take charge, take mental control, make effective action, and hold reasonable expectations.

I see every day the power "we" have as humans on earth – often misused and misunderstood. I was part of the early imaginings of “Scott Gordon” that lead to the space program. Like people from Star Trek, we now walk around with those wireless flip phones at our ear. What we imagine together, we can transform and manifest over time together.

My experience indicates that the question is actually:
1. Is God (whatever we might utter in reference to the concept of that word) active and aware,

2. somewhat inactive and aware,

3. not active or aware at all,

4.or nonexistent?

I vote for somewhat or slightly aware. I feel the power to cause and effect 'things" in my sphere of reference is awesome, however, and belongs to me and other humans on earth.

I'm reminded of some protestant scripture (which is of course a bastardizatiom of the mother text) in Genesis 11, vs. 6

“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”

I find this to be true. We first imagine and conceive of something, then we transform it into existence. Of course, like words, this concept is based on the assumption that something other than the universe "exists". If not, what are we doing thinking about it at all, in fact, what are we doing thinking?

Dave8 suggested I remember the orgasmic state and questioned if "such an 'orgasmic suspension' require any thought or mental strife that compelled you to explain (in your special moment any of the following: deity, rational, self-perpetuation...etc.

The question causes me to remember an experience, deep in meditation once, that may not translate well in words or even respond to the question, but here goes: the image in my mind was that I was being attracted to something throbbing. I sensed intense energy and began to move in closer and closer to the throbbing. It was an extraordinarily organic sensation. I began to make out two points first meeting, and then parting. There was intense light at the very point of meeting. From the throbbing, caused by the touching and releasing, flowed at first two tiny strings, each connected to and coming from one of the two points. I felt I was peering into something very intense and mysterious.

Gradually, i began to perceive the strings as they intertwined out from the meeting point to begin to form structure until, in my meditation, I began to see the two strings, while now meeting and parting far off, forming regular everyday things. It was as though i had imagined a point where universall creation was being sustained. It was like a perpetual climax sending out the two strings to intertwine into all matter and energy...yet everything in my meditation could be traced back to that continual touching and parting by two ultimately tiny points. When you asked me about suspending the universe, this memory was triggered in my mind. Admittedly it was just a mental picture, but it has had a profound effect on how I view material objects since.

Was it real, no, Is it significant, no. Is it empirical, perhaps. What's the point? I think of the ecstasy associated with the human creative activity (making babies) experienced by male and female humans to be a "reflection" of the mystery of Universal "creating activity" with the ecstasy being a reflective component. But then, that's just how i stack up the words from the experience and see no reason why these words should relate to anything associated with the wordless reality.

When I wrote "Science insists", perhaps, I used an inaccurate verb, however, my point being, The general consensious among physical scientists is considered to be the "reality of the day" and to question that "reality' is considered "ignorant" and "incorrect". They, people who practice scientific endeavors, typically believe the current empirical theory whether they are in the 18th, 20th or 25th century. Of course, here again we are using words and concepts to explain and validate other words and concepts that are based on assumptions in an environment that supports none.

You mentioned "if the Tree of Life secrets held were to enable a people with insurmountable power, then they lost their big chance to whip it out on Hitler and crew" I feel I should interject that the "power" associated with the Tree of Life is fragmented within the community of human kind. No single individual has more than a piece. It is when people think and work together that the "power" is effective. Certainly not to cast blame on the victums, however, had the Jewish people released and taught the knowledge of the tree to all mankind, the tragedy of the "Third Reich" may have been avoided.

Dave8, you have exposed me as one who vacillates and oozes out of any conceptional form or structure...don't make me say inconsistent, please. I did say that i cannot hold the belief of nihlism, but can easily accept what would be some aspect of a nihilist point of view. Actually, an aspect of nihilism is said to be a part of the mystic awakening. At a stage in development, it is said (wikipeda on mysticism) that the mystic passes into a stage referred to as the "dark night of the soul". Even now these "moods" come on me at times where I submerge into a great depressed funk where I am totally bewildered. At these times I am overwhelmed with pure doubt about everything. All the cards fall down. I then begin to assemble them again, reusing the knowledge and techniques I have garnered from the relics of my forbears. Even as a functioning rationale and belief system begins to develop, I allow the doubts to linger on the fringes. Doubts, like beloved pets, always have a home with me.

Dave8, you have made so many valid and strong points in your prior response, that I feel it necessary to address them, if this discussion continues, over time. One of the most delightful aspects of this writings is that I have learned a great deal in the process. It must be your mental capacity, but the intensity and intellectual level of our communication, however, is very challenging to me. And it takes a bit of time to frame these responses. While the dialogue is stimulating, I feel I am attempting to "prove" something that is merely an observation on my part. Since I have nothing to prove, my heart simply is not in it.

Perhaps this is why I rely on personal experience, rather than "words" and "information". I knew a person who looked in books all his life for answers to the questions that haunted him. Unfortunately the universe does not operate in reference to words and does not provide a written handbook. Perhaps all we actually can rely on is our experience. Words, feelings, intelligence and such are perhaps chemical illusions that are an anomaly in an intellectially sterile universe.

Dave8, I sense that you have a rational or belief system of your own. (Perhaps you would describe it another way) I'm accustomed to religions that explain "what god is" by indicting "what god is not”. Would you give us a hint regarding what you consider "IS"? I do not frame this as a challenge, rather, in our brief communication, I have come to appreciate your intellect and would be most interested in the rational or logic that has satisfied your consideration.

And no, I do not think you have an affliction, unless perhaps, it is to be a thinking person in an environment where thinking may be useless.

john

.:webmaster:. said...

As with experiences in mysticism, the experience of orgasism needs no words to understand and appreciate.

Bad analogy. A sexual orgasm can be studied scientifically. Although the actual "feeling" may not be communicable through the study, every chemical and physiological motivator and response of the experience can be documented and studied. Further, it is obvious, even to the non-orgasmic observer that the entire affair is natural. The mind can produce all kinds of feelings, and mysticism may provide a stimulus for some of those feelings, much like drugs, meditation, or a bat to the side of the head. While it may be impossible to share the actual feeling you’re having, that feeling is still only something happening in your brain. Without your brain, you’d be feeling nothing.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

The Webmaster brings the discussion to a most appropriate point. This, in my mind, is the point of it all.

Consider three situations:

In one room we have a person in orgasm under scientific study. (Not sure how this is done, but use your imagination at will)

In the next room we have a person in deep meditation under scientific study. (Position does not matter)

In the next room we have a mystic in deep contemplation under scientific study. (Must not float in the air)

I feel sure that the data would be different, but for each, there would become the "data profile" that would describe "every chemical and physiological motivator and response of the experience", and that in each case the "data" could "be documented and studied". I feel sure this has already been done.

And it can certainly be augured that the "events" are all just happening in the mind creating all kinds of sensations and feelings. All experiences may be no more that "mind" experiences with nothing happening beyond the mind and, of course, the metabolism.

My point is:

A person will gain far more from the "personal experience" than from viewing and reading the data.

When I am in the presence of a person who has "experienced" an organism and we look into each other’s eyes in recognition of that memory, we would typically smile in mutual memory of the pleasure.

When I am in the presence of a person who has "experienced" the "mystical union" and we look into each other’s eyes in recognition of the union, we would typically smile in the mutual joy of our being.

To the observer, “the entire affair” would seem “natural” viewing the meditation and mystic contemplation study, however, I can not say that the vision of the masturbator all “strapped up” trying to get off would seem exactly “natural”.

I belong to no thing. I pause here simply to add a point of view to the mix. I give you the words in a manner that I would like to receive them. I have nothing to challenge or prove. I make suggestions as a passing stranger might point out a scenic view just off the trail ahead.

I'm reminded of a passage from the preface of Alan Watts's "Supreme Identity",

"I am not one who believes that it is any necessary a virtue in the philosopher to spend his life defending a consistent position. It is surely a kind of spiritual pride to refrain from 'thinking out loud', and to be unwilling to let a thesis appear in print until they are prepared to champion it to the death. Philosophy, like science, is a social function, for man cannot think rightly alone, and the philosopher must publish his thought as much to learn from criticism as to contribute to the sum of wisdom. If, then, I sometimes make statements in an authoritative and dogmatic manner, it is for the sake of clarity rather than from the desire to pose as an oracle."

In another preface to "Nature, Man, and Woman", bro. Watts notes, in looking about his library, that, "volume after volume is so easily identified as supernaturalist or naturalist, vitalist or mechanist, metaphysical or positivist, spiritualist or materialist, and the comparison volumes are uaually so watered down as to be compilations of platitudes and sentimentalities.

"Underlying all these dualities there seems to be a basic division of opinion about these two great poles of human thought, spirit and nature. Some people stand plainly "for" one and "against" the other. Some stand mainly for one but give the other a subordinate role. Others attempt to bring the two together, though human thinking moves in such
firm ruts that it usually turns out that they have settled inadvertently for one or the other. It is doubtless foolhardy for the philosopher to claim that he has broken loose from these ruts and at the same time said anything meaningful. Discussion is so much a matter of juggling with categories that to start breaking up the categories is usually to break up the discussion."

(Note to Dave8) I will continue to respond to your prior post over time.

(Note to Webmaster) Is there any way i can go back and add missing words and correct some of the worst typos?}

john

Dave8 said...

John: "Dave8, I left high school in the twelfth grade without graduating. I've never been tested, but I can assure you I would likely test below the mean."

But you have experiential intelligence, and that is very valuable, it's the nexus of all other intelligences, whether perceived or not.

John: "That is not to say I do not consider myself coherent and intelligent. It is more that I recognize my lack of formal education. I have, however, found that once I get the particular vernacular and academic indoctrination associated with the particular skill or science, then I have no difficulty with the actual information. Some time the words folks create to describe an object or concept are difficult, if unknown, but, almost always, the object or concept is simple in thought form. I do understand that I will likely use words and concepts that are not "mainstream academia" nor even appropriate in a coherent manner. I have had the good fortune to be able to read and study extensively in most areas of my interest, and I am now getting to be a somewhat "old" guy, but it has been under my own haphazard direction (sort of like the universe, perhaps) So I have arrived at a "level of education", but like the universe, again, not determined, and not able to reference by any standards."

I barely got out of high school. My sister and me were two of five that made it out... and I am the not so bright one in the family. However, I make it up with perseverance :-)

John: "Regarding the contemplation of a better linguistic system for communication or the Fibonacci sequence during organism is another "experience" that does not require words and is beyond any words."

Our experiences, are processed into communication form... we do the best we can, to reconstruct another persons' experience in our own minds... it's the best we can do.

John: "As with experiences in mysticism, the experience of orgasism needs no words to understand and appreciate. You can talk about all like, but you will really never appreciate it until you have experienced for yourself."

Agreed.

John: "In the interest of keeping these responses as brief as possible, I suggest that we agree that our view of "what there is" and the "nature of knowledge" is different. This difference has been addressed in a better manner that i could possibly provide in an article regarding "Mysticism" at "wikipedia.org". There is a direct link to the article a "mysticshaven.com" on the "Links" page. If you have a moment to look, you can scroll down to the section titled: "Ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology.'"

I'll take a look.

John: "I found this article helpful in better understanding your point of view. So I will consider, at this point, that this article can stand as a bridge between our points of view, and will stand as a comment relating to this discussion."

Okay, will comment on it when we get to points that seem fuzzy.

John: "There is also another fundamental issue to be considered. To effect our communication we have only "words"."

A limiting factor... but words can allow us to seek other words, and see patterns, or to reach back in our experiential intelligence and validate a claim based on the self.

John: "In the context of these considerations, "words", perhaps can be given no validity. Certainly words are very limited at best. The nearest "Webster" i have handy says this about the meaning of "word": "A speech sound, or series of them, serving to communicate meaning and consisting of at least one base morpheme with or without prefixes or suffixes; unit of language between the morpheme and the sentence."

Form: Assign a word to a form or substance, and I have opportunity, as I can seek out a replica of what you are suggesting...

Substance: Assign a word to a conceptualized ideal, and I have opportunity to follow the building of your mental projection, but may fall short, as my pieces of information in my mental-box may be different than yours, but it's conceptualization anyway... all I have to do, I suppose would be to wait for the conceptualized form to manifest itself into a physical shape that can be observed...

Aesthetics: Assign a word to an emotion, and I have opportunity to come close to many universal emotion types, but alas, I'll never know to what degree an emotional event has effected you, and thus, there is a loss in communication at that point, unless you can describe to me the physical effects in terms I can mentally conceptualize... still, my pieces of information I use to build an emotional state may not be the same pieces of information you use to build yours...

John: "First, if the universe is without meaning, then words must be meaningless."

Thus, if the universe is with meaning, "all" words are meaningful... to include the following words; "the universe is meaningless"

John: "Second, words are constructed of sounds that indicate (reference) something not inherent in the sound."

Sound is something not inherent in word forms. True. Word forms are written, sound is spatial-vibration...

John: "Therefore a mutual reference must be achieved with varied receptors (people) based on an utterance, or in this case of writing, an assemblage of symbols indicating a sound, that indicates "something" that may or may not be recognized in a similar manner by all."

Actually, John... if you are going to go this route with annihilating language... it's more efficient to suggest you and I are not currently located in the same point or reference in space... you are there, I am here, and therefore, we aren't receiving the same environmental influence as each other...

Further, since we have been separate our entire lives, we have never "shared" a "mutual" reference point - ever. Thus, our databanks are likely storing unique information to our own personal experiences, which are based on unique biological factors. Since, we are biologically different, a sound to you, is not necessarily the same sound to me... I may be color blind, and you may not... You may have tactile receptors that are more sensitive to the touch than mine... thus, your biological databank holds information in varying degrees than mine. So, when we make reference, we are seeking to find the "degree" of "likeness" between your databank and mine.

Likely, we may be bridging the disparity by conceptualizing...

John: "And third, most words and concepts are constructed by metaphor."

Or, other literary device using "general" terms.

John: "One metaphor is built on another..."

Which presents a plethora of possibilities of understanding, because everyone perceives according to their own little databank, and unique biological intelligences.

John: "...until we have a "house of metaphors" forming a thought or concept. Like a "house of cards", everything falls down when we find that the founding metaphor is an assumption."

It appears, you have started the language discussion by suggesting that to talk in the particular/specific is erroneous, because there will become a time when we pull back internally to our unique experience and we'll lose each other in transition.

And now, you suggest that we speak in the "general" using metaphor, etc., but a limiting factor with "general" literary devices, such as "metaphor" is that they inherit assumptions. Okay, but at some point, the test of an assumption will require an "individual" test, and that is in the particular. Such a crazy Universe we live in, we bounce out and hover and inspect... then we dive in and hover, and inspect, then we bounce back out... and repeat as necessary...

John: "We give it a name and suddenly we understand it and have dominion over it, so to speak."

To have a symbol(s), doesn't mean one has dominion, per se... It likely means, one has a relational understanding between that particular individual's experience and what has been experienced in the general...

John: "I think how well we comprehend and understand the "big bang". Heck, I've read all about it! (One thing that was hanging me up regarding vernacular was our use of the word "singularity" in prior postings. Understanding somewhat how Stephens Hawkins had hung a concept on the word, I was having trouble filtering out that reference as we were communicating.")"

Well, dual meanings, they can be tricky.

John: "Since, everything has to be based on assumptions; associated words, metaphors, and concepts are, therefore, baseless."

Individual assumptions are likely more acceptable; I mean, you assume you exist, right. I suppose if you don't trust yourself, or you feel you have been duped into existence, than... you have successfully obliterated all meaning in the Universe, to include yourself (nihilism).

If you accept that you are actually living, and you "exist", then likely, you would validate your ability to communicate that thought. You have thus, created an anchor by which all validation is made - your... self.

However, to communicate to another person, does create the potential for everything to be baseless... I suppose, whatever is communicated must be validated in some manner by each individual, so that they can carefully decide what information they are willing to accept and what they aren't.

I'm not a nihilist myself, I do tend to believe I exist... and I do tend to believe I can validate information pretty efficiently... and so, engaging in communication with others only provides opportunity.

John: "This begs the question, "why spend the time and make the effort?"
I will admit, however, that sitting here in the midst of this ineffable abyss, using words to describe and discuss the tangibility of abstract concepts seems logical and has some appeal to me. So to continue..."

Whew, that was close - nihilism button aborted :-)

John: "Regarding the use of the word “Deity”:
When I use that little word "Deity", the concept ends there. I simply, at times, accept that "something" exists that is "other" and "different" than the universe and the universe's components."

Okay, fair enough, you placed the disclaimer stating that there may be de-coherence in our discussion. I respect your views.

However, using your nihilism illustration, and meaning... if I have to validate my "self", through some form of "self-validation" means, then I become the origin of my Universe... all "life" leads away from me, in all directions, with a flaming sword, per se. To suggest otherwise, so that other universes and extra-universe material exists, requires me to suggest I am not the center of my Universe conceptually.

Again, this would get tricky, and I'm not sure you want to go there, but... you mentioned astral projection. What does "I" encompass to you, what is it that makes you... you. Do you perceive yourself as mentally "drawing" in your reality, or projecting your reality, or somewhere in between... please explain your view. Just trying to make sense of your statement.

John: " I have read about concepts of deity ranging from the Babylonian "Enuma Elish', which describes the beginning as "the gods emerged two by two from the formless, watery waste" -- a substance which was itself considered divine; to theories regarding ancestral worship being the initial cause of the "God" concept."

Water was an element in pre-CE that appeared to be Universal throughout... makes one suspect that such a people would have had plenty of water around them to make such a Universal observation - an island perhaps.

John: "So with this reference I could think of the divine as a "watery waste" from which the gods emerged (in this case two by two, male and female...not just guy gods), or perhaps a dead tribal hero that haunts us even now from the grave. I really like rabbi David A. Cooper's concept described in his book, "God is a Verb". While this is a book regarding the Kabbalah and mystical Judaism, it focuses on an important aspect for the understanding of the knowledge within the Kabbalah. Here rabbi Cooper likens, what we refer to as God, as flowing energy. (Sorry, rabbi, for the over simplification.)"

To make a correlation, a verb may well be a process, whereas a noun is likely an object... Western philosophy dotes on nouns, especially for their gods. Do you think it odd that a Rabbi might worship a verb, indicative of processual terms; existence, action, occurrence. How very different than the Christian God, who is a noun; male, etc.

John: "However to speculate, I reason that something that would be total and complete might want to experience something different."

Wouldn't it have to know of that something different, first. Not begging the question here, but one must know they are in fact total and complete, but yet... not complete enough.

John: "I've read some mystics who suggest that "God wants to contemplate Itself" and creates separate vessels and an arena for that to occur. I certainty do not know. In fact, this is a good point to note that I do not so much actually believe in anything as much as I speculate and conjecture. I am accumulating, discarding, and modifying my paradigm in a constant process. One reason I hesitate to write some of this is because i might speculate and conjecture differently tomorrow and consider what I am writing now a "prior version".

Aren't we all :-) Regarding the Rabbi and his "verb" :-) Well, he is referring to a process, not necessarily just flowing... And... regarding, that "something" experiencing itself... Alfred North Whitehead, and later Hegel, suggested; "God is self-experiential, i.e. it is the nature of the Universe to experience itself." It appears the Rabbi and Whitehead would likely have a common understanding on a few things.

John: "Regarding Christianity, i can say only one thing for Christianity, "it recognizes something rather than nothing"."

Generally speaking, "All" is something, who would disagree with their existence... but, to suggest there is something "more" than "All", well... many would likely suggest that the statement hold "nothing" of value, until one can show that there is in fact the possibility to have more than "All"... Perhaps, there is value in begging the question; Socrates would agree with the premise... however, he would likely not provide the answer that a god does in fact exist, outside of Existence.

John: "A person who is faced with the obvious indication that there is nothing but what we see and experience can discover an alternative concept in Christianity and religions. This is why I endorse religions, but fear them as well. I would liken it to, you go the church to discover you have a soul, and then have to run like hell with it to escape the controls the church wants to attach. Some of us do escape with our souls, so I accept that Christianity and religions serve a good potential. I think of Christianity as a necessary e--l."

Why wouldn't you endorse the concept of extra-self discovery, without tying it to religion? I mean, what is it that a religion has that anyone with a creative mind can't make up for themselves. A religion promotes an object, not a process... if you suggest the process of discovery has merit, then why not promote that... nouns would go away, and most religions would as well.

John: "Regarding the non-blind and vision impaired watchmaker, I do not want to use reiteration to support a point of view, or be intellectually redundant, however, my experience and reason is that a "controlling force, helping first this one, and then tripping up the other" is not valid. For a number of reasons that would still qualify as conjectures, I believe the "other" or "God" is "passive" and "neutral" and that what we refer to as divine power is within us as individuals."

So, we are soul mates :-)

John: "When we get together we magnify that power."

Synergistic soul mates at that.

John: "Should/When we all get together as kindred humans on earth, we would reflect the totality of that power on earth. We get to direct it, it does not direct us in my opinion."

Thus, you suggest we, as humans, have this synergistic soul-mate concept, and it allows us to have "dominion" over... what, per se.

John: "This is at the very foundation of the "hidden truth"...we have the power, if any exists in the universe. And, excuse me if I offend more of the human race, but in my opinion, God’s not going to come help us pay our bills and fix our problems, or even save our earth. God gave us the "power" to look after those things for ourselves...freewill and all. I read that God did this, and God does that, always running around effecting things. Just a simple persons suggestion, "don't count on it". Instead, take charge, take mental control, make effective action, and hold reasonable expectations."

Well, the values of extra-self discovery (not that I endorse this precept), appreciation for aesthetics, and personal responsibility, seem to be your vision.

John, I have to go for now, I will respond to the remainder of your comments, promise. It's been fun, if you have time, astral in, I have drinks and food in the fridge :-)

.:webmaster:. said...

John said, "(Note to Webmaster) Is there any way i can go back and add missing words and correct some of the worst typos?}"

All you can do is repost your comment in corrected form and delete your old comment, not necessarily in that order.

As to using my brief comment as a sort of backhand salute of support for the dreamworld you're promoting, please refer to Dave8's comprehensive response. He has, perhaps unintentionally, expressed my thinking in the matter, though more completely and better than I.

john said...

Thank you webmaster, as with life, we can not go back and effect changes.

You hit the nail on the head, I do speak of a "dreamworld". It began for me way back there with the song, "row, row, row, your boat gentely down the stream, for merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream." You've got me pegged!

Regarding my "promoting" a viewpoint, it appears I have stumbled into a blog not often frequented by people of my particular slant, but a wise individual should examine as many concepts as possible before the riga mortas of certanity sets in.

Didn't mean to use your comment as a backhand salute of support, no offence, but I do not need your or anyone's support, people like me have been making it on our own for some time.

Glad Dave8 is able to articulate your point of view.

john said...

Not only is this dialogue getting deep...it is also getting extremely vast. At the same time I am developing a special affection for Dave8 in recognition of our mutual desire to dig for something that would resemble reliable information regarding existence.

I'm not sure how best to organize and referece all this intellectual gush, however, it appears Dave8 has offered a solution in the most recent post were he suggested the following:

Dave8: Form: Assign a word to a form or substance, and I can seek out a replica of what you are suggesting. "Substance" and "Aesthetics" would also be examined in a similar manner. So I will do this at the end of this post.

For this posting,however, I had already prepared a response regarding Dave8’s prior posting on Feb 22nd. His post began with a quote from Forest Grump so I will reference this response specific to that posting as the "Grump Statement" I am taking two of Dave8’s initiating sentences to deconstruct. (I’m a new student to this process having learned of it from Dave8) Rather than deconstruct the entirety of Dave8's "Grump Statement" as I was considering, I will stop with these sentences and, instead,
propose a word for a substance, assign a conceptualized ideal to it, and then assign that word to an emotion. I will end this posting with this these words for Dave8's consideration.

At times I might return to the “Grump Statement” in reference to another response using the deconstruction method.

Herewith then is a deconstruction of two sentences from the "Grump Statement" posting.

Dave8:
“I typically talk process, and deconstruct what is produced as knowledge into information, stopping along the way to observe broken links, etc..., When I do construct for coherence, the intent is to show contrast as a secondary method to bring about the attention of the individual who stubbornly believes they live in a one dimensional reality.

Webster’s (college dictionary fourth edition) definition of keywords for reference:

Process: “1. the course of being done, chiefly in “in process”. 3. a continuing development involving many changes (the process of digestion)…”

Deconstruct: “1.a method of literary analysis originated in France in the mid-20th century and based on a theory that by the very nature of language and usage, no text can have a fixed, coherent meaning…”

Knowledge: “1. the act, fact, or state of knowing; specif., af acquaintance or, familiarity (with a fact, place, etc.) b) awareness c) understanding…”

Information: “1, an informing or being informed; esp., a telling or being told of something. 2. something told; news, intelligence; word…”

(Ever notice how the definition of words often rely on the word itself somehow? ...an example of zen!)


My Initial observation:

The sentence is multifaceted (i write a number of these myself) with what my intellect found to be vague connotations with a serious bias and restrictive point of view. Because of the complexity of the sentence I will reference my reply to parts of the statement in brackets.

Dave8: I typically talk process [I'll take it that Dave means something like doing something in steps] and deconstruct [Sort of like we are doing here] what is produced as knowledge [Although some aspects of these "definitions" appear a bit mystical to me, i'll take it Dave means what is held as "fact"] into information [According to Webster I'll just have to process this as "something told"], stopping along the way to observe the broken links, etc...[Like we are doing now], When I do construct for coherence [my understanding: "When I put the concept back together so others can consider my thesis"], the intent is to show contrast as a secondary method [ my mind keeps blinking "inappropriate connotation" as i process in these words in search for the meaning. If i just filter out 'as a secondary method'’, I can process simply as "the intent is to show contrast"] to bring about the attention of the individual [Dave8 certainly has my attention] who stubbornly believes [ Dave8, this is an example why I used the expression "scientists insist". I hold that to believe differently than another person (as long as they at least adhere to the general paradigm of the community, i.e. they will not harm themselves and others) does not mean a person is "stubborn", "ignorant", or "stupid" if they do not believe as you or i. So i'm going to exclude the word “stubborn” on an assumption that you might edit it out yourself on second consideration... i'm reducing it to "believes"] they live in a one dimensional reality [Ok we have not found a common element for the structure of the universe yet. This search for this single basic "particle", that is the smallest possible unit that the universe is build with is, perhaps, the holy grail for the physical science branch of academia today. Likely you know how close we actually are, even at this moment, to making this discovery. Science is debating really little bitty pieces at this point and we might agree that they (science people) are somewhat bewildered as the deeper they look into microscopic space...the larger it gets! Yea, as you know, there is the infinitely large, and there is also the infinitely small! Infinity goes in all known directions along with another I’ll just call have to call “within” (Lets all contemplate the infinitely small for a moment).

This is why I have no problem with the concept of the tiny particle (big bang) coming from an infinitely small space. To me simply, the Infinitely Large came from the Infinitely Small. It is just that i postulate that the Infinitely Small is populated. "I keep hearing this old mystic expression ringing in my head..."as in the infinitely large, so in the infinitely small"...of course this is a somewhat updated version.]

To reconstruct this sentence to accommodate my mind:

John’s version of Dave8's sentence:

"Dave8 typically communicates by doing something in steps and takes apart what is produced as fact, reducing it into something that has been said, not verified, and stopping along the way to observe the incoherence of the statement. When Dave8 does put the concept back together so I can then consider his point of view, his intent is to show a contrast to bring about my attention to the absolute fact that neither of us live in a one dimensional reality."

My first interpretation: Dave8 wants to approach our communication by examining each unit of the communication by reducing what we might hold as fact to simply unsubstantiated information. We should stop along the way to observe the incoherence of our communication (That is why I have to take this in bits...the first time I tried to take all in one gulp it belched back as incoherent...my fault for trying to digest it all too quickly). So to approach the “Grump Statement” with the consideration and respect it deserves, I continue:) When we restate the concept, it is Dave8,s intent to show a contrast (dialectic) to bring my attention to the fact that there is more than a one dimension reality."

Right from the start we would disagree on point. I do not absolutely exclude the possibility of a one-dimensional reality.

Just like physical science, mystics like myself seek a unifying factor that brings everything together. That is why we wait "breathing deeply" for science to find what I will call the "Enigma Point", where we see the integrated "unity" of it all expressed in physical science.

I refer to this "Enigma Point" as the environment where the ultimate tiny particle is discovered by science, the very threshold where the Infinite Universe ends and the Finite Universe begins.

“Stirrings” beyond this "Enigma Point" may bewilder science someday, i postulate. To the mystic this “Enigma Point” is perhaps the "point of union" experienced in meditation and contemplation.

Some among us seek to live in a reality that allows the mystic view as a background for all other realities. That is not to deny the validity of anything, but to put everything into the context of a universal view of the whole.
So I cannot agree that there is "no single dimension" to reality for the individual...but passing on, I do agree that there is also multiple dimensional reality as well.

Reason sentences were considered multifaceted: a number of points were made with multiple meanings in very complex phrases.. (again, i do the same, not a criticism, just deconstruction)

Reason sentences were considered vague: A very intelligent individual was communicating to a person not with the same intellectual associations.

Reason 1 why sentences were considered bias. Ok, Dave8, let's examine and deconstruct the use of the word "stubborn" in the context of this sentence, not to beat it to death, but a word speaks a thousand images.

Reason 2 why sentences were considered bias: I do not believe Dave8 can support the statement that "one dimension reality" does not exist. At the least it can be debated. It is not an absolute statement off fact.

Reason why sentences were considered restrictive: Dave8 requires I accept the impossibility of a one-dimensional reality in order to move the discussion forward.

Ok...I actually think I get Dave8’s point…postulating a “single dimension reality" excludes going forward with multi dimension reality as a possibility, were postulating a multi dimension reality does not necessary exclude the discovery of a single dimension in the process.

So, I feel Dave8 and I are together as we move forward:

It is my understand that, going forward, we are going to accept the concept of a multi dimensional reality, and, when we make a statement about that Reality, we will then pick it to pieces and digest it before regurgitating something that can stand for a general consensus…if one can be found in the remnants of the object of our dissection and digestion.

Sounds delicious…yummy.

(I will refer to the above as “Grump Statement” reply 1, in the event anyone wants to comment about this specific posting.)

Now for an attempt to more sharply focus and contain our discussion, I put forth the following words for specific discussion:

Form: Water:

Substance: Water is a prerequisite for life in the universe and water pervades the entire universe.

Aesthetics: Water throughout the universe indicates a universal manifest destiny for human kind.

(Understand this does not exactly fit the proposed model, however, it allows me to postulate one of my particular bias.)

Dave8, speaking for myself, I ‘m not sure I can maintain this day by day response, even though, I must admit I have been interested and pleased each day to see a reply. I may miss a day or two, however, until you or someone fails to reply, or until the webmaster says we are using up too much server space, I’ll hang in here with you as best I can.

Therefore I suggest we can use a discussion about the word “water” and it’s concept as a way to process and deconstruct something in a simpler manner.

So I say: “Water” conceptualized as above.

John.

boomSLANG said...

Boy Wonder: "Holy convoluted, Batman!!!!"

-----------------------------------

Okay, a lot of talk, all centered around "truth".... and now, um, "water"? Good grief!

Let's back up: Does any human being currently "know" the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being?

Absolute answer: "NO"

Thus, NOBODY knows..no scientist; no religionist; no "mystic".

Now: .. a wise individual should examine as many concepts as possible before the riga mortas of certanity sets in.

Firstly....who, exactly, has claimed "certainty"?..and what is it that he or she has allegedly claimed "certainty" about? If we are talking about the existance of a non-personal(non-biblical) "creator", or "first cause"..e.g..a non-personal "God" concept-- well, no one can be certain that such an entity does not exist. Likewise, there is, to date, no objective empirical evidence for the existance of such an "entity", either. Thus, neutrality becomes the default position, as well as the most honest position.

No worries of neutrality becoming "riga mortas". Bottom line: The current arbitrary, ambiguous, and generic word "God" answers nothing, except to the the "individual"...i.e..subjective.

In this case i suggest that the portal to discover the universal truth is only through the individual experience of the subjective truth.

That would be great, if there were one person living in the universe. lol

dano said...

Thanks Boomer,
I was beginning to think that my "mystic gland" wasn't as big as the other guys!
dano (The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.  ~Thomas Jefferson)

Dave8 said...

John: "Not only is this dialogue getting deep...it is also getting extremely vast. At the same time I am developing a special affection for Dave8 in recognition of our mutual desire to dig for something that would resemble reliable information regarding existence."

:-) I find it great to ponder the moments of our lives as well. And, as you stated it appears we are trading information, that has to be validated by the individual on their terms in order to find meaning... even when pondering ontology and existence. Thus, weighing the reliability of information becomes the individual's responsibility, and meaning is typically associated in my understanding to be an aesthetic statement.

Therefore, meaning is subjective, at the level/plane/form/position of existence we are currently communication on. Certainty, at our current mode of communication would be a foolish statement to make, as it removes humanity from the picture in a nihilistic fashion, in order to suggest that there is only "one" human "subject" worthy of making value statements, whoever that "one" person would be.

As well, Universal expands beyond humanity and encompasses the other dimensions (for better or worse) used to describe our reality, that would be time and space. Thus, one would have to assert that they are the only "valuable" human alive that can give guidance and make Certain value statements, while being infused at some level of "interaction" with the entirety of the Universe, of course with the ability to communicate all of this to another person... or more interestingly, not communicate at all linguistically.

We do, in fact take two dimensional words, and create them multi-dimensionally in our minds, those "other" dimensions are not necessarily the correct "fillers", to use, in order to replicate another persons' ideas, and thus, we have a best guess many times. We are left to "fill in the blanks", per se, on many fields of thought, thus, we become human, but we surely "lack" in the area of multi-dimensional communication when engaging the rest of our species.

John: "Thank you webmaster, as with life, we can not go back and effect changes."

There are so many ways to interpret our reality that we don't perceive... but yet, do. Like your statement, seems to be intuitively true, because humans tend to think they are talking in the present when they make statements...

But, is that a truth, or is it an illusion. I don't particularly, like two dimensional thought, but it works well, for religious debate, because many aren't literate enough to communicate on a simple level, and if you get one who can, they will likely stick to a two dimensional playing field... where contrasts are plentiful, offering many other options to any given statement.

And, again, that is an observation... not an insult. I will add, that there are many people that do not think and talk abstractly, simple communication is enough... but again, it lacks the complexity of the reality we inherently simplify. Simplification, of our environment is quite necessary to survive, we are mentally geared to some degree to form neural short-cuts, etc, in an effort to bridge the gap that exists between our experience and our ability to communicate linguistically, etc., etc.

For instance, you suggest that we can not go back and effect changes, a two dimensional thought, involving "time" as the variant... but how about, space as a second variant, or the process that mixes all of this up, or not, depending on how one wants to perceive their reality... I suppose.

If we assign experience as a primary factor, to receive information, via our senses, then, it could be stated that we are never really communicating in the :Exact: moment of experience... we are "always" delayed to some degree, as this "communication process" requires a delay, from the slightest of moments, millionths of a second, to much greater moments of delay, those instances where someone reads something, and they ponder for a while before making a statement (communication).

Now, you brought up sound, and then words, and then linguistic structure. The closest form of communication to an experienced event, is sound as it does not need to be neurally formed, it is the physical (but still with a delay) response... not a literary response however. Not a higher abstract form of communication, but just a sound. This is more akin to a cause-effect scenario, with a slight delay.

However, to "communicate" with whole words, and with neural processing, well… that takes much longer, as the complexity of the process has increased.

The point, is that when we are engaged in thoughtful discourse, we are always reflecting on the "past" to some degree. So, when you say "...we can not go back and effect changes." We do in fact, reflect back, and not necessarily "change" the True experience, but change that True experience into a subjectively biased "truth" statement when communicating. The further implication; is that we are reaching back in the past, "and" effecting the mental picture of another person based on our biased and limited ability to communicate linguistically.

So, we are going back, and we are effecting changes... We always seem to have one foot in the past (True Experience), and the other in the future (projecting subjective communication)... One could also argue, each of our abilities to truly be able to sense the True Existence, based on limited biological facets... humans do not hear above a certain sound range, but animals do, is there a part of Existence we are not capable of experiencing without the aid of technological assistance?

Perhaps, the purest truth is to live in the moment, meditate, and absorb as much based on what Nature has provided... as Nature has a tendency to remove those things that overwhelm our senses, too much information and we neurologically shut down, freeze up, and thus lose the subtleties of experience that make us uniquely human.

Still, there is this constant... the "self", for all the discussion we are engaging in, we have to accept that we are valid, even if we are currently in dimensional disarray, based on our humanity.

We inherently experience Existence with limited human capability in the True present, we reflect on those "experiences" in the past-tense and create information/knowledge (but this is illusory as we believe we are living in the moment during thought), and we take the totality (for some people) of that information/knowledge base and seek patterns that allow us to predict future events, and inspire us to make positive influences or circumstances that benefit us.

There is a point in such a process that creates much contrast with religion... For instance, if we in fact, must reflect back in our past in order to have a conscious moral foundation, then we in our infancy don't have a moral conscience. In short, we are at the greatest point, living in an instinctive and closest mode to True Existence, but conscious morality is not a factor... In short, we have no conscience about what we do for a time in our life...

The term "soul"... what does that really mean... I ponder... if we have no moral conscience, as an infant... then where does this "soul" thing fit in... Do we require the ability to have a moral conscience prior to receiving one of those, or do children run around without souls until the have a moral conscience... how could anyone tell the difference between the two?

Of course, if we are thinking about the question, we are reflecting back to the past, is that where Truth resides, or our subjective view of the truth? What knowledge in the past would have revealed such a notion as "soul"?

John: "I'm not sure how best to organize and referece all this intellectual gush, however, it appears Dave8 has offered a solution in the most recent post were he suggested the following:"

Well... wouldn't go that far, I have truly stayed out of the area of presenting a best processual method for information manipulation, and a follow up taxonomy for derived knowledge.

John: "I am taking two of Dave8’s initiating sentences to deconstruct. (I’m a new student to this process having learned of it from Dave8) Rather than deconstruct the entirety of Dave8's "Grump Statement" as I was considering, I will stop with these sentences and, instead, propose a word for a substance, assign a conceptualized ideal to it, and then assign that word to an emotion. I will end this posting with this these words for Dave8's consideration."

Word = Substance (Atomist definition, or... define substance), mentally create the ideal form of it (Platonic Form), and then assign an emotion to the idealized word (aesthetic philosophy).

John: "At times I might return to the “Grump Statement” in reference to another response using the deconstruction method."

Well, this sounds fun, a two dimensional discussion, wonder if there will truly be a contrast that can be made...

John: "Webster’s (college dictionary fourth edition) definition of keywords for reference:

Process: “1. the course of being done, chiefly in “in process”. 3. a continuing development involving many changes (the process of digestion)…”

Deconstruct: “1.a method of literary analysis originated in France in the mid-20th century and based on a theory that by the very nature of language and usage, no text can have a fixed, coherent meaning…”

Knowledge: “1. the act, fact, or state of knowing; specif., af acquaintance or, familiarity (with a fact, place, etc.) b) awareness c) understanding…”

Information: “1, an informing or being informed; esp., a telling or being told of something. 2. something told; news, intelligence; word…”

(Ever notice how the definition of words often rely on the word itself somehow? ...an example of zen!)

Circular... but that makes other words capable of contrasting, where neither word holds dominance. Thus, the test for me is to associate the word to something tangible, that I can experience...

John: "My Initial observation: The sentence is multifaceted (i write a number of these myself) with what my intellect found to be vague connotations with a serious bias and restrictive point of view. Because of the complexity of the sentence I will reference my reply to parts of the statement in brackets."

Okay...

John: "Dave8: I typically talk process [I'll take it that Dave means something like doing something in steps]"

Do you mind if I say I don't necessarily do all things in steps... I don't envision my reality in that manner, when I am open to experience, brainstorming, conceptualizing, etc., I am not going down some "specific" step by step process, I am engaging in what is likely considered more an art than a science...

There of course, must be a mix between the two, free process and structure, I mean... it's sort of like moving from the general to the particular... in the general, one could processually talk for days on one word, correlating it to anything and everything with a litany of literary devices... But, if they intend to "make a statement" to others, to show how they did something, then of course, there would require some form & structure. Good thing we don't necessarily have to tell others anything :-)

John: Dave8 "...and deconstruct [Sort of like we are doing here] what is produced as knowledge [Although some aspects of these "definitions" appear a bit mystical to me, i'll take it Dave means what is held as "fact"]"

We have "fact", which could be a subjective truth... and then there is a "fact" that can be corroborated by others, which makes it less subjective, but still based on the physical limitations of human experience... and then there is "Fact", which is Universal, and True, which humanity isn't capable of attaining without overcoming their biological limitations to experience "All" at one time, while further communicating in the "Exact" moment as they "Experience"... Don't know how that is mystical, but it is interesting...

John: Dave8 "...into information [According to Webster I'll just have to process this as "something told"],"

Information becomes the basic data elements of our subjective experience, which is used to build subjective knowledge/facts/truths, after being processed and synthesized neurally. Knowledge, once accepted, because a secondary chunk of "information" used to create higher, more complex forms of "subjective" knowledge... and so the process goes. Did I say process, or "steps", so hard to tell :-)

John: Dave8 "...stopping along the way to observe the broken links, etc...[Like we are doing now],"

Okay.

John: Dave8 "...When I do construct for coherence [my understanding: "When I put the concept back together so others can consider my thesis"],"

Okay. But again, I rarely if ever make the attempt, its why my little disclaimer suggests that we each validate what is presented according to a persons' subjective method of inquiry. When constructing something for someone else to consider, I'd have to take into account their factors... and in some form, meet the demands of their inquiry expectations and mine. In short, there would likely require compromise. I find in many instances, I need not bother myself with compromise, I reserve the right to know my reality for better or worse, and without having to conform to someone else’s' biasness or hopeful expectations.

John: Dave8 "...the intent is to show contrast as a secondary method [ my mind keeps blinking "inappropriate connotation" as i process in these words in search for the meaning. If i just filter out 'as a secondary method'’, I can process simply as "the intent is to show contrast"]"

My personal form of understanding my reality, with coherence for personal use... is not the same as engaging someone in dialectic. Perhaps, there should have been a line drawn between personal form of understanding, and the engagement of dialectic between two people. Dialectic, can bring about the understanding that there is an equally valid contrast to any argument, its really a two dimensional discussion, but can be used to build multi-dimension if both parties are able to build in the same way.

That being said, I am fine with just pointing out contrast to suggest there is another valid view. I don't engage in dialectic to "render" my model for reality, or my understanding of Existence... Likely, what I say at times, has no reflection of what I really accept as valid... I provide information to inspect. Although, I do in fact, have my own method and base of belief. I'm the guy in the back pew asking questions, like... why not? Or, how about this or that?

If religions or the religious were able to accept other points of view as valid, then I'd suggest I have achieved my goal, and every little part I assist in, gives me satisfaction.

John: Dave8 "...to bring about the attention of the individual [Dave8 certainly has my attention] who stubbornly believes [ Dave8, this is an example why I used the expression "scientists insist"."

I don't insist or prescribe a specific belief, or set of beliefs, or systematic method for discourse, or "language" per se... want to talk in a certain language, I can accommodate, etc., the point is to engage in dialectic and provide other valid and equally valuable points of view. Even yours, in a subjective sense. I did not "insist", that you engage in dialectic... it was a mutual agreement in a non-formal, and non-systematic way... kind of like "art", and not a strict regimen.

John: Dave8 "I hold that to believe differently than another person (as long as they at least adhere to the general paradigm of the community, i.e. they will not harm themselves and others) does not mean a person is "stubborn", "ignorant", or "stupid" if they do not believe as you or i. So i'm going to exclude the word “stubborn” on an assumption that you might edit it out yourself on second consideration... i'm reducing it to "believes"]"

Really... I'd have changed the word from stubborn to passionate, because its more neutral, one doesn't have to believe to be passionate... One could be passionate about non-belief, etc. I leave the door open for all. However, I would like to protect my own interests - me... and it’s likely a good thing, to ensure there aren't people roaming about with unbridled passion without an education - and a dialectic can facilitate an education quite well.

John: Dave8 "...they live in a one dimensional reality"

The hallmark of someone who seems to have missed one too many dialectics with people who can actually demonstrate if only in a two dimensional platform. If a person is capable of conceptualizing in three dimension, or multiple dimension the richer the minds eye can create a concept. Those who are passionate and living according to their single dimension, (and here, I'm specifically alluding to the egocentric individual as the only factor they can focus on in life,) do so at the expense of others.

John: "[Ok we have not found a common element for the structure of the universe yet. This search for this single basic "particle", that is the smallest possible unit that the universe is build with is, perhaps, the holy grail for the physical science branch of academia today."

Depends on which branch of science, and their particular heuristic for research. Surely there is value in digging into the fabric of the cosmos, but, after all of that is done, and states, modes, particles, etc., are given their toe tags for history (unless you are poor Pluto and get demoted), something has to give it meaning, from their own general perspective.

John: "Likely you know how close we actually are, even at this moment, to making this discovery. Science is debating really little bitty pieces at this point and we might agree that they (science people) are somewhat bewildered as the deeper they look into microscopic space...the larger it gets!"

:-) Okay, are we going there, I thought this was a discourse about mysticism... When you are standing away from a mirror, is your reflection small or large? When you walk up to it, does the reflection get smaller or larger? In either case, does the mirror get bigger or smaller, or is it perhaps, your "perspective", as limited as it may be biologically, that describes it as such.

I'll leave it there, but... while we are at mirrors and such, reflexive particles, and the like, and... lets say communication theory... because, it may be important at this point, to suggest that "all" communication isn't part of the "higher" abstract type...

"A mirror neuron is a neuron which fires both when an animal performs an action and when the animal observes the same action performed by another (especially conspecific) animal. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of another animal, as though the observer were himself performing the action. These neurons have been observed in primates, in some birds, and in humans. In humans, they have been found in Broca's area and the inferior parietal cortex of the brain. Some scientists consider mirror neurons one of the most important findings of neuroscience in the last decade. See for example this[1] essay by Ramachandran on their potential importance in imitation and language."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

Something to think about, I suppose, as we begin talking about communication and what it really means. It appears likely, that we can be so attached/linked (empathetically, etc.) via our experiential nexus and how we mentally model our reality, that we can literally experience a reflexive moment, at some molecular level... I suppose we as humans are linked in a variety of ways,... I wonder if those links are considered communication links... There does seem to be a varied number of ways we communicate, wonder which ones are more "valuable" than others... I digress...

John: "Yea, as you know, there is the infinitely large, and there is also the infinitely small! Infinity goes in all known directions along with another I’ll just call have to call “within” (Lets all contemplate the infinitely small for a moment)."

Or, perhaps we are just living inside a mirror... or something like that. Speaking in the general of course. There is the changing, inside of a reflective cosmos, giving the appearance/illusion of infinitely large, and infinitely small..., or perhaps, pick a myriad of other explanations - superstring theory, theory of super symmetry, etc.


John: "This is why I have no problem with the concept of the tiny particle (big bang) coming from an infinitely small space."

That's interesting.

John: "To me simply, the Infinitely Large came from the Infinitely Small. It is just that i postulate that the Infinitely Small is populated. "I keep hearing this old mystic expression ringing in my head..."as in the infinitely large, so in the infinitely small"...of course this is a somewhat updated version.]"

But, if we are living within and part of a morphing mirror, then all bets are off, as... obviously the Universe isn't engaging in either activity of expanding or contracting... Its possible that the matter and fabric involved may be acting according to Natural forces, stretching & appearing larger, combining & contracting and appearing smaller, etc. Thus, there really is no "infinitely large", or "infinitely small" in this scenario..., just showing a possibility.

John: "To reconstruct this sentence to accommodate my mind: John’s version of Dave8's sentence:

"Dave8 typically communicates by doing something in steps and takes apart what is produced as fact, reducing it into something that has been said, not verified, and stopping along the way to observe the incoherence of the statement. When Dave8 does put the concept back together so I can then consider his point of view, his intent is to show a contrast to bring about my attention to the absolute fact that neither of us live in a one dimensional reality."

Wow, that's pretty solid, I suppose I could polish that up a little, but good enough.

John: "My first interpretation: Dave8 wants to approach our communication by examining each unit of the communication by reducing what we might hold as fact to simply unsubstantiated information. We should stop along the way to observe the incoherence of our communication (That is why I have to take this in bits...the first time I tried to take all in one gulp it belched back as incoherent...my fault for trying to digest it all too quickly). So to approach the “Grump Statement” with the consideration and respect it deserves, I continue:) When we restate the concept, it is Dave8,s intent to show a contrast (dialectic) to bring my attention to the fact that there is more than a one dimension reality."

Okay, still looks good to me :-)

John: "Right from the start we would disagree on point. I do not absolutely exclude the possibility of a one-dimensional reality."

Thus, you absolutely "include" the possibility of a one-dimensional reality? :-) Wouldn't you use, the same reasoning to exclude as you would to include. And, as stated earlier, as long as that is your subjective truth, then that is fine... but, you can not counter the point in a Universal sense, because I obviously don't agree... I believe there is more than one dimension to reality, absolutely as a personal truth...

I call that one-dimensional thing, the "seeing from only one perspective," or "using any one given variable" to measure reality, and claiming to have a Universal Absolute Truth. I think "change" is a constant, and I use it as such, but do I know for 100% sure that there isn't some point that "change" doesn't exist... no, but I am not claiming to know a Universal Absolute Truth...

However, if someone challenges the view, they had better have an example handy that contradicts the observation, that has stood the time of thousands of years of observation and study, up to the modern era, where leading edge technology has yet to "stifle" change... We've learned to accelerate and decelerate, and even create and separate, but Nature doesn't allow change to falter for any great length of time, even in a vacuum.

John: "Just like physical science, mystics like myself seek a unifying factor that brings everything together. That is why we wait "breathing deeply" for science to find what I will call the "Enigma Point", where we see the integrated "unity" of it all expressed in physical science."

But, even if you had the Knowledge, of an Absolute Underlying Truth of the cosmos, does it make your life meaningful? In short, what is your gain with such information...

John: "I refer to this "Enigma Point" as the environment where the ultimate tiny particle is discovered by science, the very threshold where the Infinite Universe ends and the Finite Universe begins."

Like there is a unity of disunity, where there are lines between big and small, etc... Like pieces of a puzzle, that seem to meet, but the seams are still faintly visible - interesting.

John: "“Stirrings” beyond this "Enigma Point" may bewilder science someday, i postulate. To the mystic this “Enigma Point” is perhaps the "point of union" experienced in meditation and contemplation."

Interesting.

John: "Some among us seek to live in a reality that allows the mystic view as a background for all other realities. That is not to deny the validity of anything, but to put everything into the context of a universal view of the whole."

Well, that would be looking from "one" perspective, I suppose, and that would surely be the goal of one trying to assimilate humanity to one view... a "one-dimensional" purpose... for the sake of Universal Unity... religion seems to be doing a lot of that as well.

John: "So I cannot agree that there is "no single dimension" to reality for the individual...but passing on, I do agree that there is also multiple dimensional reality as well."

So, as an individual truth, you accept that there are valid one-dimensional perspective that are inclusive of one's reality, okay... I don't buy it, but... that's your vote. And, as far as passing on, and there being more than one-dimension at that point, I would accept that, and pull it back into our current state of existence... I am well, capable of understanding, perceiving, and living in a multi-dimensional reality, why would I wait to die to acknowledge that fact... and, multi-dimensional again, is inclusive of a large variety of ways to perceive things, from time, spatial, form, etc. The closest I would touch a one-dimensional reality, would be in the "context" of substance theory. However, a unity of substance doesn't remove the human element as another more "complex" dimension...

John: "Reason 1 why sentences were considered bias. Ok, Dave8, let's examine and deconstruct the use of the word "stubborn" in the context of this sentence, not to beat it to death, but a word speaks a thousand images."

Okay, where is it.

John: "Reason 2 why sentences were considered bias: I do not believe Dave8 can support the statement that "one dimension reality" does not exist. At the least it can be debated. It is not an absolute statement off fact."

Lets see, I'm pretty simple minded... but, I don't agree with you... You see... I am seeing what you just wrote as my perspective, and from a single/multiple dimension view... And, you have already asserted you don't agree with me... therefore, its absolutely clear, we have two differing views, and thus, multi-dimensional perspectives, coming from "two" people... imagine if we rolled up all of humanity, and attempted to get a debate going, on existence, meaning of life, deontology, etc., I'd suggest we'd have billions upon billions of perspectives with their own dimensional views...

John: "Reason why sentences were considered restrictive: Dave8 requires I accept the impossibility of a one-dimensional reality in order to move the discussion forward."

Well, not really... I continue to assert you have all the right in the world to have your subjective perspective, and from your single dimensional view, even if you're using one variable, your single-self...

If you want to suggest that there is in fact, a Universal One-Dimensional view of Existence... then, make a case, but you need to annihilate me in the process and all other humanity, who have an equal vote in the process... However, lets suppose we remove humanity, and left you alone to make assertions about existence, without the environmental factors of the rest of humanity, then you are speaking from a platform that isn't really honest, as although we may want to speculate what it would be like without humanity, there are in fact, effects being given between people through interaction (neurologically, physically, etc) that make a huge difference in the bigger picture.

I don't see how we can rule out humanity as a whole, with diverse perspectives, that give us information from other dimensional views... we can not be everywhere at once, and so, we have become each other's eyes and ears, and even brains for one another in many regards for mutual benefit. It is the very information we are given by all of those other people at times, that gives us that richer understanding of our existence within Existence. And, although I use a little "e" to express the single individual perspective, the more "e"s involved the bigger the "e" becomes, (as long as we are validating in philosophical areas such as form, substance, etc., but not necessarily in areas such as aesthetics, etc) it may not become "E", unless we limit Existence to only the human condition...

John: "Ok...I actually think I get Dave8’s point…postulating a “single dimension reality" excludes going forward with multi dimension reality as a possibility, were postulating a multi dimension reality does not necessary exclude the discovery of a single dimension in the process."

Agreed, all perspectives are important. I only hold, that I do not write off a single dimensional perspective as a subjective truth, I write it off when someone asserts it as a Universal Truth, because then I need some information and understanding on how they cam to that conclusion - and, I'd expect no different asked of me.

John: "So, I feel Dave8 and I are together as we move forward: It is my understand that, going forward, we are going to accept the concept of a multi dimensional reality, and, when we make a statement about that Reality, we will then pick it to pieces and digest it before regurgitating something that can stand for a general consensus…if one can be found in the remnants of the object of our dissection and digestion. Sounds delicious…yummy."

:-)

John: "Now for an attempt to more sharply focus and contain our discussion, I put forth the following words for specific discussion: Form: Water:"

Okay.

John: "Substance: Water is a prerequisite for life in the universe and water pervades the entire universe."

At what point does humanity not become life, or does the Natural Universe become life, or are they of "One" substance at the most fundamental of levels... Why not suggest that oxygen and hydrogen are the fundamental elements of life?

John: "Aesthetics: Water throughout the universe indicates a universal manifest destiny for human kind."

So, where we would find Oxygen and Hydrogen molecules, we'd likely find humanity in the Universe?

John: "Dave8, speaking for myself, I ‘m not sure I can maintain this day by day response, even though, I must admit I have been interested and pleased each day to see a reply. I may miss a day or two, however, until you or someone fails to reply, or until the webmaster says we are using up too much server space, I’ll hang in here with you as best I can."

Agree, I'll check in from time to time, to see if there is anything posted...

John: "Therefore I suggest we can use a discussion about the word “water” and it’s concept as a way to process and deconstruct something in a simpler manner. So I say: “Water” conceptualized as above."

Form: H20, two oxygen atoms attached or bonded to one hydrogen atom making a molecule. It takes many of these like molecules to build "water"...

Substance: Atomic level attraction, but of course, made up of the "same stuff" as everything else the deeper we go, monism seems to be a prevailing thought so far. Neither of us have disagreed about the "stuff" that seems to pervade throughout the universe below a fundamental level. However, I would suggest that the stuff at these lower levels, is spatially gathered in some places and less frequent in others.

Aesthetics: I have no emotion or significant association to anchor this word, in my emotional databank. Although water seems elegant, and a sustainer of life, if you used "water" I would not use an emotion to describe it to me, as I would lose context...

Therefore, it appears that we may accept water in form, and likely substance to communicate, but not in an aesthetic sense.

Well, here's another one, it appears we can talk about water now, and conceptually build that structure in our minds, so that we can compare it to other assertions made about it :-) Ever feel like you are building the universe from scratch? :-) Have a great one.

john said...

BoomSLANG, I studied and contemplated the substance we call "water" for over three years before I actually realized how little i really know about the stuff.

I absolutely agree with you that "neutrality" is the way to go. We are in complete agreement on that from an objective viewpoint. From a subjective viewpoint it is not for me to say for anyone but myself.

BoomSLANG: Let's back up: Does any human being currently "know" the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being?

I would say that Charles Seife who wrote "Alpha & Omega, The search for the beginning and end of the universe" would say that a lot is currently known. Quote from chapter 8:

"For a few microseconds after the birth of the universe, quarks and gluons roamed free in a blazing hot jumble of matter; a quark-plasma. But the plasma quickly cooled, and the quarks and gluons formed some familiar particles, like protons and neutrons. The quark-gluon plasma condensed and disappeared. The universe was simply too cool for the quark-gluon plasma, just as the surface of the earth is too cool for a puddle of molten iron.
"Scientists have now brought us back almost to the moment of the big bang. Huge colliders have begun to re-create the conditions of the first few microseconds of the universe. By accelerating heavy nuclei to 99.99 percent of the speed of light and slamming them together, physicists pour so much energy into so tiny a space that they are creating tiny big bangs. There are already hints that they have made quark-gluon plasma. Fourteen billion years after the plasma ceased to exist, a labatory on Long Island, New York, has revisited the first few microseconds after the birth of the universe.

"Though a handful of protesters tried to stop the experiment, fearing that the tiny explosions would destroy the universe, the scientists forged on, in hopes of seeing the first moments of creation and revealing the origin and nature of matter."

(Now this is talking, "get down to it fundemental Reality".)

Scientifically we may not yet know the "absolute truth" as to how the universe came into being...but we are only "moments" away.

Now when anyone starts speaking in absolutes, I become concerned. You may have a vast knowledge of the universe to the extent of the infinitely large expanse to the infinitely small expanse, and you may have a degree in absolutes from some university, but unless you are claiming an omnipotent perspective on everything you should avoid stating absolutes like:

"Absolute answer, 'No'

I agree that "neutrality becomes the default position, as well as the most honest positon". It is also the only position a person should take in relation to another persons "subjective" point of view regarding themselves and their existence.

By your post, I agree that you have no "mystical" inclinations and I would not recommend that you even bother to look further into the matter. For you I can agree that "no human being currently "knows" the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being." I passively accept that this is an "absolute truth" for you. I would stand with you to fight for your right to feel and say this to anyone. I, personally, am very comfortable with your position, and would probable agree with you having had your exact experience.

For me, since very young, I have been ridiculed and ostracized for my "feelings" and "evolving beliefs". Should I sit in an open discussion with a room full of people ranging from thiest to atheist, it would not be long before each of them, regardless of their faith or position, would be upset with my point of view. I am accustomed to this and have learned to remain silent and never reveal my feelings except in writing. For this reason, I am not surprised at the tone of your posting. I must seem ridiculously superstitious to you and would apologize except that I support my right to "believe" just as I support yours and everyone else’s. Perhaps, however, this is not the appropriate forum for views like mine and I will give this some consideration.

But for you to decide for me that the "Absolute answer is 'No", is also ridiculous. Do you have absolute Knowledge of the Universe? Do you know the latest discoveries in physical science? Have you tested every experience and certified the lack of validity for each? Explain to me how you can speak for anyone but your self?

Actually, you might be surprised that the "mystical experience" is recognized as an empirical experience that reaches back over a long history of similar experiences. There is also a long history of intolerance for this endeavor.

Should a person tell me they had an experience that gave them a vision of creation, and you told me that this is impossible for you, I would believe you both. I'm neutral that way.

BoomSLANG: Firstly, who exactly, has claimed "certainty"

I point to your "Absolute answer, 'No'" statement. Sounds certain to me.

BoomSLANG: And what is it that he or she has claimed "certainly about"?

I point to your statement: "Does any human being currently "know" the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being?, Absolute answer: "No".

John: In this case i suggest that the portal to discover the universal truth is only through the individual experience of the subjective truth.

BoomSLANG: That would be great, if there were one person living in the universe.

Human experience is by necessarily subjective. Human senses are necessarily subjective. A dozen people can experience the same event and come away with twelve different experiences. If there is an "absolute truth" here, it is that no two of the twelve will have had the exactly same experience from the event. Does this mean the event did not occur as one single truth?

We seem to be expecting a group orgasm when an orgasm, even between two people in a coordinated orgasm, is by necessity individual experiences...each experience is difference and distinct unto itself.

Can we feel anyone else's experience and can anyone feel ours?

john

dano said...

John,
Do you mystics ever give your opinions about current events? For instance:

What do you think we should do to extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq?

Or to put it another way. How can America deconstruct the mess we are in the middle east and rest of the world?

You may even throw in a bonus suggestion, like a solution to roadside bombings.

What the hell, "George" could use any help he can get. Maybe the mystic society is the ticket.

Dan (Thanking you in advance)

john said...

While I feast and savor the insights, clarity, and intriguing complexities of Dave8's most recent posting, I will take a moment to respond to dano.

I believe dano is one of those delightful people who keep us from taking ourselves too seriously. Dano seems to know just when to interject a comment to focus on the "actual" in our abstract verbalizations. He gets to the point directly and tersely makes a strong case for pure rationality.

And rightly so, even as we speak of such lofty things, humans are maiming and killing each other in the name of Allah and God. This murderous division in human kind holds seeds for our very destruction as a species on earth, never mind what our potential destiny "might" be in the greater universe.

Frankly, if these things did not concern me personally, I would submerge my self into the ecstasy of my living and avoid completely the distractions of the mundane world.

My real joy is to be deep in the forest alone with my passionate mother earth and "heavenly" father. My greatest joy is to be completely alone with my thoughs and contemplations. When I look into the "world" i feel such pain and anguish that I continuisly weep inside and grow deeply sad and forlorn. This is the reason I withdraw so often to my garden and my inner being to contemplate my "cabbages" and "feel" my being.

If I were to say directly to my human brothers and sisters, "We are on a course toward the total destruction of civilization as we know it today. We have very little time left", then I would have failed in my desired communication.

First, I would simply be rediculed. This would accomplish nothing. Worst, I might actually contribute to humankind’s acceptance of such a catastrophe and help put the thought even deeper into our "imaginings".

A large number of human kind is at this moment "conjuring" as my wicca friends would say, "Imagining" as I would say, or "creating" as some other might say the very destruction of our "world". Do they have the motive? Yes. Do they have the weapons? Yes. Do they intend to accomplish the destruction? Yes. Will they succeed...

So I do not postulate that we are on the threshold of destruction. I postulate that we are on the threshold of an awakening. I force my self to believe this even as a tremble and cower in concern.

There is such a gulf between us all. I feel if we each could somehow look down on our lovely "blue" planet and seen the absolute singularity of our being on earth, we could accept that we are all in this "thing" together.

I hope, pray, dream, contemplate, meditate, and imagine human kind awakening to a mutual consideration.

If there is no God and if the Universe is void of all life and intellect except on our tiny planet, then this is even more reason for us to "stick together". It might be "just us" against the cold vast universe. We may be just a sprig of life that has just happened in the lifeless universe. It might be that we could begin to seed life on our moon, then mars, then perhaps even the stars if we survive.

Even if there is no god, what I suggest may be the only answer. I feel it is important that you recognize that I am somehow "involved" with your being and you are somehow "involved" with mine. That way, when we look at each other, it will be more "subjective" than "objective". This is good.

I am still over whelmed with joy when I remember looking to the eyes of Pir Valient, before he died last year, knowing that he recognized our mutual being and that he made no distinction between his being and my being.

It was as if I was looking into the universe and it was looking back in recognition. A silly experience, perhaps, but, for me, so comforting and assuring.

I am not so sure that it is good to look at others, the earth, the universe, or potential deity in anything by a "subjective" perspective.

Now, I doubt that my "mystic brothers and sisters" would accept me as their spokesman. In fact they would likely insist on speaking, each, for themselves, if they would bother to "speak" at all. I may not be "typical" of a "mystic" in that most consider the "world" an illusion anyway and would have little to do with it.
Other “mystics” would consider me fool hardy to discuss these things to those not inclined to hear.

Just as many who contribute to this blog site, mystics have a tendency to view others, “the uninitiated”, as "sleeping and unaware of reality". Mystics often find it difficult, frustrating, and without purpose to discuss the "mystical way" with anyone unless they make strong inquiry. Most mystics believe that the few who might want to take the "mystic path" will be "inspired" from within, and any "outside" encouragement would be useless and wrong. I actually feel the same way.

I understand that “George” does belong to a "mystic society" since his university days, but, I feel sure, he has not forsaken the "world" for the "mastic path". He seems quite grounded in the turmoil’s of the "world".

In closing, I doubt that you, anyone who might read this, or George Bush will take heed from me. I'm not sure how long even I will make these whispers into the wind. If I could dream a destiny for humankind, it would be heaven on earth as we populate the universe with life. Yes, I would be please to have other's dream this dream and conjure peace and love for all human kind with me. Not for any kind of affirmation of my beliefs, or intellectual satisfaction, but for our mutual well being.

Brothers and sisters, i am a little scared for us all. I do not know how to communicate this other than from the sincerity of my heart. At each moment I hesitate to speak and desire to withdraw, rather than stand against the ridicule that is logical to expect. Hopefully, soon, this inclination to bother you with my prose will subside for me, and I can go back to my silent being, and you can have your "world" as you imagine it.

(By the way, Webmaster, Dave8 often speaks my point of view as well, most often, however, only after I have deeply considered his point of view. Thanks, Dave8, for your gentle but hard logic.)

john

john said...

After some consideration, I do not feel that anyone "beckoned" for me to visit this website, and I do not think I stumbled on this blog site for any intention but confused reason.

I reasoned that an x-Christian blog might be interested in an exchange of viewpoints with someone of my nature while I would have the opportunity to enjoy and learn from the people who turn in to the blogs.

This has been exceedingly true on my end, and I have gained much "learning" which I will use and benefit from for as long as I breath the sweat air of my beloved earth. It will remain a mental "highlight" for me to remember when i am far off yonder away from the maddening crowd.

Now, I realize that my reason was more curiosity.

I feel now a bit embarrassed, like someone who has burst in from the street and rudely interrupted the community exchange.

So, If you will allow me to briefly complete my exchange about the mundane substance "water" with Dave8 (assuming he continues), I will still away with a very new understanding of how to examine language and communication, and you will be rid of the "far out guy" calling him self a "mystic".

(Note to dano, I'm sure the size of your "mystic organ" is fine. It is not the size of the organ-boat but the motion of the mystic-ocean that really makes the difference. The "mystic vulva" when properly aroused is quite accommodating even to the smallest "mystic organ".

john

dano said...

John,
I commend you for making a fairly accurate assessment of my talent and intention. I do love it when I can get right to the point, tersely, and even more when humor is effective.

I agree with you about Dave 8. I love it when he brings down the pastors and youth leaders a notch or two when they come here, thinking they are going to use the same old apologetics, circular reasoning, and psydoscience that has been so successful, on their young naive Christian followers at home.

I type with two fingers, and without "Spell Check," couldn't even write on the sophomoric level that I do, so, the dogged devotion that Dave8 has for articulating rebuttals, and supplying supporting research would be impossible for me.

Please don't get your feelings hurt by the inevitable reaction to your preferred "Dream State," and your three year obsession with "Water" You seem to be able to come back to earth "at will", and Webmaster is generally, fairly tolerant, even with people who talk about organs and vulvas all the time, as long as they keep it in the context of a debate about mysticism.
Dan (Don't let dreams be your master.)

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

John: BoomSLANG, I studied and contemplated the substance we call "water" for over three years before I actually realized how little i really know about the stuff.

Fine. So thus, you are not "omniscient" when it comes to the substance known as "water". Nonetheless, your premise draws an irrelevant conclusion on at least three counts. Here we go:

1) Your premise seems to be that we shouldn't have "convictions" when it comes to "knowledge" about "things"....in particular, your "analogy" about the material "substance" known as H2O..e.g.."water". Agreed.

Okay, to back up again, to the best of my knowledge, no one here has claimed "omniscience" on any given subject. Furthermore, we've already agreed that when something isn't "known" for certain, then "neutrality" is the "default" position.(unless you have since changed your position)

2) Hypothetically, even if John or any other self-professed "mystic" knew everything there was to know about "water", then that would still be irrelevant/inconclusive regarding absolute knowledge of the universe, including the singularity...i.e.."first cause".

3) Hypothesizing further from "2"---even IF there exists this knowledge of the singularity, but mankind just hasn't aquired it ***yet, that doesn't necessarily make said explanation "Divine"..or "meta-physical" in nature. There could be a perfectly natural explanation, just as there is for how "rainbows" come into "existance". Now, if you'd like to call "nature" your "God", that's a different discussion---notwithstanding, I think we can safely conclude that "nature" isn't "personal" in it's attributes.

BoomSLANG: "Firstly, who exactly, has claimed 'certainty'?"

John answered: I point to your "Absolute answer, 'No'" statement. Sounds certain to me.

Um, context? Here is the orginal question to which I answered "no":

BoomSLANG: "Does any human being CURRENTLY 'know' the absolute 'truth' as to how the universe came into being?"

[bold and capitalization were added]

Original and "pending" answer: "NO".

Now, if you feel it unreasonable and/or a violation to call this "no" answer an "absolute"?...then I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. If you can provide a peer-review widely excepted scientific explanation for how the universe came into existance...that is, one that is beyond hypothesis?..then please.... do so at this time.

In regards to the same above question, you answered:

John: I would say that Charles Seife who wrote "Alpha & Omega, The search for the beginning and end of the universe" would say that a lot is currently known. Quote from chapter 8:

[actual quote omitted because it is not applicable, considering the definition of an "absolute truth"]

Okay..."a lot is currently known"; "we are only 'moments' away"; "Scientists have almost..."... yada, yada.

You are equivocating. I know you see the obvious problem.

John: Now when anyone starts speaking in absolutes, I become concerned. You may have a vast knowledge of the universe to the extent of the infinitely large expanse to the infinitely small expanse, and you may have a degree in absolutes from some university, but unless you are claiming an omnipotent perspective on everything you should avoid stating absolutes like:

"Absolute answer, 'No'


Good grief!...'still harping on this, are we? Okay, for argument's sake, I hereby retract my former answer as an absolute "no". Yet, interestingly, we both agree that, currently, NO ONE KNOWS for certain how the universe came into existance. Once and for all...are we in agreement?.."yes"?..or "no"? If "yes", then your "God did it" hypothesis is just that...a hypothesis. If "no", then I want to see the generally accepted scientific theory for "creation".

And I might add, that saddly, even if the scientific community one day determines the cause of the universe, and it turns out to be in line with naturalism, there will STILL be religionists and "mystics" saying "God" is responsible, the same way they say "God gave us a much needed rain yesterday. Thank you Lord".

John: By your post, I agree that you have no "mystical" inclinations and I would not recommend that you even bother to look further into the matter.

Whaaa? WTF are "mystical inclinations"?

Inclination: n b: a particular disposition of mind or character; esp: LIKING.(Webster's)

I'm neutral, remember? If I'm "inclined" to something, I lose my objectivity. I'm waiting on the evidence. Simple.

John: For you I can agree that "no human being currently "knows" the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being." I passively accept that this is an "absolute truth" for you.

Beggin' your pardon, but if you can agree that it's an absolute truth that no one knows the origins of the universe, then why is it only a "truth" for me, and not you? Please explain it, preferably, so it doesn't contradict.

John: I, personally, am very comfortable with your position, and would probable agree with you having had your exact experience.

Hey, thanks. But please, before we leave this subject, by all means, tell us what you have "experienced" that gives you the title "mystic", and what this "6th sense" is that you have by which you have used to detect a "meta-physical" realm, along with the "ruler" of this realm, i.e.."God". I know I'm not alone in being anxious to hear this disclosure.

John: For me, since very young, I have been ridiculed and ostracized for my "feelings" and "evolving beliefs". Should I sit in an open discussion with a room full of people ranging from thiest to atheist, it would not be long before each of them, regardless of their faith or position, would be upset with my point of view.

No one's upset....it's just that if you are going to make out-of-the-ordinary claims, then as a rational skeptic--and rightfully so---all I ask is for some out-of-the-ordinary evidence. Personal experiences, as a whole, aren't really "out-of-the-ordinary" these days, are they? Hell, there are people who are convinced that community gorillas are treking 'round their back yards. All I'm saying is SHOW me one, and I'll subscribe to National Bigfoot Tracker. lol

John: I must seem ridiculously superstitious to you and would apologize except that I support my right to "believe" just as I support yours and everyone else’s.

And I, too, support yours, and everyone else's right to believe whatever the hell they want to believe....that is, UNTIL there are implications and conditions attached. Implications like, how being skeptical is to be "deficient" and/or "close-minded". Implications that there is some "higher" truth that only certain people are privy to.

Jonh: But for you to decide for me that the "Absolute answer is 'No", is also ridiculous.

Back to this? Arrrg! You've already conceded that you in fact DON'T have absolute knowledge as to how the universe came into being. Let's review:

John: For you I can agree that "no human being currently 'knows' the absolute "truth" as to how the universe came into being."

Hopefully 3 times is a charm..or was it 4 times, now?

John: Human senses are necessarily subjective. A dozen people can experience the same event and come away with twelve different experiences. If there is an "absolute truth" here, it is that no two of the twelve will have had the exactly same experience from the event. Does this mean the event did not occur as one single truth?

Calls for speculation. If I line 12 people up and tell them that on the count of 3 that they will ALL have the ability to fly, and then I tell them to go jump off a 12 story building---logic tells me, and everyone who thinks logically, that they will ALL plunge to the ground, whether 1, 2, 3... or all 12 of them "experience" landing on concrete the same, or not.

In other words, gravity is an ,objective truth. It's effects are the same on every individual, regardless of what they "believe" about it. Additionally, gravity is both theory AND fact. "Creation" is neither. And BTW, I take it you're a proponent of "creation", if you believe in a "creator", right?(Rhetorical)

Good day.

john said...

Dave8: Form: H20, two oxygen atoms attached or bonded to one hydrogen atom making a molecule. It takes many of these like molecules to build "water"..

Question: Is water ice, and what is the difference between water and ice?

Dave8: Substance: Atomic level attraction, but of course, made up of the "same stuff" as everything else the deeper we go, monism seems to be a prevailing thought so far. Neither of us have disagreed about the "stuff" that seems to pervade throughout the universe below a fundamental level. However, I would suggest that the stuff at these lower levels, is spatially gathered in some places and less frequent in others.

Without the uneven distribution of matter/energy there would be no us. Once more from Seife's "Alpha & Omega"

"The (next) quark-gluon plasma discovery will probably win a Nobel Prize for the discoveries. Much more important, it might shed light on one of the enduring puzzles about baryonic matter: why is there any matter at all? In fact, at first glance, matter should not exist.

"This might seem like a rather stupid statement; there's so much matter in the universe -- countless stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters -- that it sounds foolish to say that it shouldn't be there in the first place. But if you look at the state of the universe shortly after the big bang, quarks and gluons were born out of the intense energy of the cataclysm. For every quark, there is an equal and opposite antiquark, so when three quarks gather together to form a baryon, in all probability, somewhere else in the universe, three antiquarks are condensing to make an antibaryon.

"When the universe was very young, there should have been roughly the same amount of matter and antimatter in the universe. Matter and antimatter annihilate each other, so equal parts of matter and antimatter should have compeletely wiped each other out, anihilating each other particle by particle. There should be nothing left." (Man I love this stuff!)

So, some how things got "uneven" and strangely distributed in order to allow our little hearts to beat in the universe. Therefore the inconsistency of the universe is essential for us to be.

(I guess, if I’m inconsistent, I get it from the universe that put me together.)

Can we, then, agree that monism seems to pervades the universe below the fundamental level?

(Thanks Dave8, never used that word in this context before but it fits wonderfully into my particular vernacular..."the monism of the universe"...Dave8, I think I will use this one a lot from now on...do I own you anything for it?)

Dave8: Aesthetics: I have no emotion or significant association to anchor this word, in my emotional databank. Although water seems elegant, and a sustainer of life, if you used "water" I would not use an emotion to describe it to me, as I would lose context...

Rain nourishes life on earth as the mother's milk suckles the newborn. I suggest here that the word "rain" is an emotional component of the word "water". Rain implies nurturing and refreshing life. Water is the form, rain is the implied emotion. (ok, i'm stretching very hard here Dave8)

Dave8: Therefore, it appears that we may accept water in form, and likely substance to communicate, but not in an aesthetic sense.

Yes, I love being in agreement!. We are in agreement, except, just for the sake of continuing this litany a little bit further, for this:

"An extremely thirsty person loves and desires water when it is not available. The person will desire, long for, and feel they cannot do without water at these times. Actually they are correct. In a time of great thrust for water, a person will put aside their desire and love for most any other thing they love to satisfy their desire for the water. It is in the inherent nature of the human to have an emotional attachment to water that has been expressed in poetry, art, and music over the ages. To be on the banks of Nigeria Falls near the gushing water, is more an emotional experience than any thing else.

Ok, Dave8, this should not take long to wrap up, but I will admit I am most curious how this might develop.

Thanks for taking the time to play with me.
john

Dave8 said...

John: "I have been ridiculed and ostracized for my "feelings" and "evolving beliefs". Should I sit in an open discussion with a room full of people ranging from thiest to atheist, it would not be long before each of them, regardless of their faith or position, would be upset with my point of view."

John... as well, I have beliefs that are surely not mainstream when taken into a system of thought... And, I believe many here would understand and even empathize to a great extent, when it comes to being the object of ridicule... Atheism, Agnosticism, Wiccan, Pagan, etc., are "not" words that the majority of U.S. citizens, would emotionally associate with warmth and peace...

I have been a guest on this site, for a few years now... The WM and others, know to a great degree my style of thinking, and typically the products of that style are acceptable by many... I do have my off color days, but if my thoughts and comments become non-representative or supportive of the mission of this site, I expect to be reigned in... So, we are given a length of rope by the WM, and he is very gracious for that... I try to pull back, when I feel the rope tighten, per se :-) I appreciate, that we have thus far have had a pleasant conversation... and I will continue to post at interval... take care.

john said...

BoomSLANG, I appreciate that you took the time and made the effort to communicate with me through this exciting new media. It is allowing me to meet (in a manner) other humans in an exciting new way for me.

I am willing to communicate these days only if my solitude remains undisturbed. Up to this point, I would only communicate in written form, often cloaking my actual identity to keep my privacy.

I was excited at the prospect of having an exchange of ideas and experience in written form. My error was that I had not considered that some do not want to hear the point of view I have regarding things like god and reality. I sort of "broke the rules" and began to talk about "mystic things" without being asked.

Fundamental rule and fundamental error. I understand now why it is fine to put my comments in a document that people have to make an effort to obtain, but a mistake, perhaps, to put my comments in a public forum when I might offend, challenge, or insult someone.

As I mentioned, I came to this forum uninvited and with incorrect assumptions. I understand now that it might be far more appropriate for me to remain the "far out guy" and keep this "mystic thing" to myself when I go "blogging".

You questioned when, where, and by what authority I obtained this "mystic" moniker. There's likely a definition in the dictionary, and there is information about people who were called "mystics", however, I was using the term to describe how I view things. It was meant to be a "short cut" to explain myself quickly to any one who might be familiar with the concept associated with the term "mystic". I have not been ordained a "mystic" and there is no one to say you are a "mystic" or say you are not a "mystic". Just walk like a mystic, talk like a mystic, and act like a “mystic” and you are a “mystic”.

I did come from what is called a "Native American" family with rather ancient "roots" in a form of "mysticism" and "shamanism," and my dad and mother were very "spiritual" people, but this only had an initiating effect, so to speak. Actually, at one point I was "so far out there" that I scared myself and put on the term "mystic" like a necked man puts on a rag to at least look "clothed" in public.

Chances are, if I went to a meeting of "mystics" they would cast me out before the meeting was over. (But then, that's the way I like it, un huh, un huh!)

So you rightly question my self proclamation. Consider it a rash statement, ill thought through, and inappropriate for this forum. I have no defense, you may disregard that description as withdrawn.

BoomSLANG, should you ask me any question under the appropriate conditions, I would answer you as honestly and as completely as possible from my heart. There is nothing I know, or think I know, that I would withhold from you should you ask me with a truly inquisitive spirit.

However, as I read over your post, I detect that you are not asking to understand my words, but to prove my words false. This is as it should be and I might find this very interesting, if I have the time.

I try to take great care to express my deepest feelings in words that might convey at least some of what I am trying to communicate. I know it is impossible to put what I am trying to say in words, and I am so frustrated that words are all I have to communicate such ephemeral concepts, but words must do. You must know me and judge me by these words alone.

But, In this case, I do not feel you are attempting to grasp and understand what I am attempting to put in words for you. This is not a criticism. You have every right to put forth your point of view in dialectic with mine.

Even if I am willing to make the effort to communicate and, even if you are truly willing to make the effort to understand what I am communicating, the process is difficult enough to effect when we are working together. When we are in an opposition, naturally, the effort is far too difficult.

You have every right to consider me foolish and ill informed regarding what is "real" to you. You would be dishonest to yourself if you did not stand guard against false gods and such.

However, I am not interested in battling words and concepts. I find it tiring to struggle against each other. Your post has caused me to accept the fallibility of my point of view and I see no reason for us to continue our discussion further. You appear to me to be very concrete in your position and firmly founded on significant knowledge.

As I mentioned in a prior post, I have a garden to attend to and I feel spring deep in my being and my mother (earth) calls to me with a primal urge to commune with the soil and dance with the waxing moon. I look forward to completing my little exchange with Dave8 and withdrawing to my garden.

I have enjoyed passing in the night. Farewell.

john

john said...

Dave8:I have been a guest on this site, for a few years now... The WM and others, know to a great degree my style of thinking, and typically the products of that style are acceptable by many... I do have my off color days, but if my thoughts and comments become non-representative or supportive of the mission of this site, I expect to be reigned in... So, we are given a length of rope by the WM, and he is very gracious for that... I try to pull back, when I feel the rope tighten, per se :-) I appreciate, that we have thus far have had a pleasant conversation... and I will continue to post at interval... take care.

Point understood, Dave8, i'll stay on color as we finish this.

I'll look for your next post, on occasion and, if it relates to our "water" dialogue, I'll post back.

I feel I understand, somewhat, your pocesss and method of deconstruction, and appreciate the insight you have provided me.

john

Dave8 said...

John: "Question: Is water ice..."

I don't like the space between water and ice, are you asking... "Is water... also ice", or are you asking... "Is there such a thing as water ice..."

I'll follow "Is there such a thing as water ice..."

Yes, based on your word structure and thousands of years of Chinese history :Wink:

John: "...and what is the difference between water and ice?"

-A human's perception.
-Temperature.
-Structure.
-Density.

I can say there "is" a difference, but I can't honestly say with Certainty that there "Is" a difference.

Can we see what we have learned by this exercise, John. Before, moving on... Have a great one.

john said...

I was asking if Water and Ice are the same form. But if we agree with the fundemendal structure of form, the rest is moot.

Dave, as with brother turtle, I feel increasing compelled to withdraw.

I'm sure curiosity would not allow me to not check in on this blog occasionally and hope I get to enjoy your strong intellect again should i venture in.

Continued exchange, however, i feel, would be, no doubt, interesting and informative to me; however, it would likely bear no real fruit.

Discovering you in "the world" has made this walk here worthwhile and somewhat pleasant. Of all the good people I have met through this blog, you are the one I would most like to have looked in the eye.

(Note to the Webmaster: Thank you for your tolerance)

It appears to me that most all participating in this blog are well founded in reality.

I depart leaving you with a question [rhetorical], and give you a quote:

The question:

Can the same single particle appear at the same time in two very distant and different places?

The quote:

"A coup or palace takeover may be planned, but a revolution -- never.

"Its outbreak, the hour of that outbreak, takes everyone, even those who have been striving
for it, unawares.

"They stand amazed
at the spontaneity that appears suddenly and destroys everything in its path.

"It demolishes so ruthlessly
that in the end it may annihilate
the ideals that called it into being."

--Ryszard Kapuscinski, "Shah of Shahs"


john
(the far out guy)

so mote it be

boomSLANG said...

John: BoomSLANG, I appreciate that you took the time and made the effort to communicate with me through this exciting new media. It is allowing me to meet (in a manner) other humans in an exciting new way for me.

Fair enough. I appreciate that you haven't overtly taken the "one size fits all" fundamentalist mentality. However, IMO, I think that your opinion that there is something "extra" or something beyond this reality, is much more solidified than you allude to.....even enough to call it a conviction, perhaps.

John: I am willing to communicate these days only if my solitude remains undisturbed.

I don't want to read into this comment too much, but my initial feeling is that if one has a "belief" and they are secure in that belief, then one's solitude wouldn't be too easliy "disturbed" if said belief is challenged. If I've misunderstood, feel free to correct me.

John: Up to this point, I would only communicate in written form, often cloaking my actual identity to keep my privacy.

Again, my initial feeling is "why"? After all, a belief in "Gods" is way more widespread and commonly accepted than non-belief..or, Eeeek, "Atheism". BTW, I use the plural, "Gods", because there are literally THOUSANDS of gods to choose from, all of whose respective adherents cling to their particular "God concept" as the "One Truth™"---this, while being skeptical of all others. And I'm sorry, but I'll have to include you in this criterion. After all, you believe in a "creator god", but you don't believe in Allah, right?

Furthermore, I'll wager that you have no belief in Re-Atum, Mithra, Chiconahuiehecatl, Great Spirit, Daksha, and thousands more "creator" gods, all of which god's respective adherents might use/might've used "water" analogies as a basis for their particular "creator" beliefs.

And BTW, I agree that Dave8 is very well-spoken, yet, maybe he likes the thrill of the chase = ) I, on the other hand, like the "catch". So?..where is it? What evidence, if any, does your obscured conclusion about "water", or "water and ice", draw?(if you don't mind sharing, of course)

Moreover, if my hunch is correct about this "water" thing, then.... well, you seem to be dabbling in Anthropic Principle. If so, then I ask---if "water" is this essential "building block" that was "Divinely" used to create a habitat(125 billion known gallaxies) specifically centered around humankind(like you imply), then why in the hell aren't we amphibious, since the earth was presumably "created" mostly covered by "water"? Further, if, hypothetically, the polar ice-caps shift and the earth floods completely, why will most of mankind perish, and yet, frogs---tiny little animals with brains the size of pea---thrive?

What I'm getting at(if for some reason you don't follow) is that even IF it can be known that an intelligent, self-existing, disembodied "thought" exists, you then have the enormous burden of showing that this "thought" is a personal "being"..or "thing".

John: However, as I read over your post, I detect that you are not asking to understand my words, but to prove my words false.

Firstly, and to the best of my understanding, you have been challenging what "words" and "sentences" even mean in these discussions, have you not? I'm just taking what you say at face-value. I have zero interest in, nor am I fascinated by, the "spatial-vibrations" we make when we talk. lol

John: I do not feel you are attempting to grasp and understand what I am attempting to put in words for you. This is not a criticism. You have every right to put forth your point of view in dialectic with mine.

So, by implication, you seem to being saying that because I don't agree with your "point of view", that I'm not trying, and/or, that I don't "want" to understand it. However, a viable possibility that I see is that maybe you can't(or won't) put your "point of view" into plain concise unambiguous language, because then, it might just be too vulnerable to challenge..i.e..too easy of a target, from a logical/empiricist POV. 'Just a theory of mine.

Peace.

Dave8 said...

John: "Discovering you in "the world" has made this walk here worthwhile and somewhat pleasant. Of all the good people I have met through this blog, you are the one I would most like to have looked in the eye."

The walk has been pleasant, there is so much around us that is illusory, and to have someone care about humanity in a tolerant and respectful manner can only be appreciated by me.

I'm amazed and awed by the magical moments of life... In magic, there are typically three stages; the pledge, the turn, and the Prestige... These were discussed in a recent movie called "The Prestige".

Nature as the Performer:
"The Pledge"; The magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn"; The magician makes his ordinary some thing do something extraordinary. Now if you're looking for the secret... you won't find it, that's why there's a third act called, "The Prestige"; this is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before."

There is an underlying social value theme as well: Appearances (the magic performance itself) mean everything, truth means nothing.

The key word, in that last sentence, is "meaning". Isn't it all-human centric, to find "meaning"... in our lives, and in existence. No matter how great the magic trick, in the end, we get the opportunity to assign meaning. And, Nature is the master magician... What is it to "mean" something...

On this question, there are many ways to answer the question, but as some of the greatest philosophers have noted throughout history, the pinnacle of philosophical achievement is arrived upon, once one finds meaning...

Some would suggest that the institution of academics is in fact, responsible for providing a student with the opportunity in an intellectually free environment to find meaning… Professors, are to profess knowledge and validate its authenticity using years of research/life experience, and impart to a student the methods and information of their journey… This gives a student, the leverage of thousands of years of knowledge to consider as they build their mental universe, and derive a richer meaning…

(Note: Education is the process, training and instruction are methodologies that support such a process.)

But again, what is meaning, obviously we are learning, but has it given us any real meaning, or has that not been the goal of discussion... per se.

I would ask you the question, as to what is the meaning of substance, as I answer your next question.

John: "Can the same single particle appear at the same time in two very distant and different places?"

Yes. Quite a magic trick. But, I now ask you... what does that mean, per se.

As BoomSLANG has noted; I do have an affinity to stretch the legs and take a walk in the forest. Guilty, as charged. About a year ago, as I made an effort to unravel myself of the chains that suffocated me mentally..., I likely would have deconstructed your water ice question in about a million ways to show the obvious contradictions of thought. This of course, to validate and support my belief that we can equally hold valuable beliefs, none no more important that the other's. As its all in the context of individual meaning. Of course, there is the consideration regarding how 'meaning' influences a persons' behaviors, and the consequences for those who are lost in a world without meaning, or with meaning that seems to conflict with the moral values of a society.

After reaching a point where I could easily deconstruct, and show multiple answers to a similar question, problem, inclination, notion, etc., I was satisfied.

But, being satisfied with an accomplishment didn't hold a richer sense of meaning for me.

I needed more contexts, as deconstruction doesn't show one an orientation, if done thorough enough, it removes all guide posts in the forest - it’s a solvent. And, so, I began, as you have alluded to gather those pieces together, for thousands of years to create a more complete belief system that enriches my "meaning" in life.

What I did for need by deconstruction a while back, I now do for entertainment... I reflect back much earlier to my disposition, and your current question on the difference between water and ice... and would have likely replied...

Differences:
1-Two characters
2-A space interrupted by the word "and" followed by another space.
3-Physical Conditions.
4-The circumstance of the forms.
5-I don't know, I'm not biased.
6-Wasn't aware they were arguing, ask them.

Etc.

And so, without any path, I chose one that seemed to be rational and based on logic. It does tend to take much more time and effort to build a personal belief system. And, thus, taking walks is a break for me. As well, it allows me to inspect and/or evaluate another perspective.

Reflecting, back onto your water and ice question... I think you are trying to build a case to suggest that although water and ice can linguistically be shown to have differences that the two same forms can in fact be "together", as "water ice" or, equally as valid "separately", as "water and ice".

This aligns with your follow up question regarding...

John: "Can the same single particle appear at the same time in two very distant and different places?"

If one finds meaning, in quantum theory - yes. And, if the linear combination of two or more eigenstates results in quantum superposition of two or more values of a quantum scale quantity.

However, water and ice are more complex compositions, than that of the atomic level or below, and thus, they do not exhibit the testable phenomenon of wave-particle duality. They each, are by their complex natures, distinct based on the factors used to delineate between water and ice, to include density, temperature, etc.

I suppose there is a point that shows the contrast between classical Newtonian object behavior and the behavior of quantum superposition and theory...

"In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger devised a well-known thought experiment, now known as Schrödinger's cat, which highlighted the dissonance between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics."

Like magic, I suppose there are those little sparkles in the universe.

Again, what does this "mean" to you?

Dave8 said...

Some people determine the meaning of particular truths in life...

Then, they create a single word, a single sentence, a single paragraph, and even a single story to represent these truths...

These truths, could be in the form of theme, or mode... for instance, the word love could be understood literally, or mystically, depending on the intent of the author... in the common vernacular, this layering of meaning is often considered "loaded" words... Recently, the word theist/atheist was discuss, a truly "loaded" word, requiring the one who created or utilized the word to bring out its meaning in a personal sense...

To attempt to derive the personal or cultural meaning from a single word, is likely impossible, unless a person is capable of understanding the modes of interpretation, and the manner in which meaning was transferred to a symbollic syntax... That would require a lot of understanding, on belief of the person writing a word, and the manner in which they layered the words...

There are likely other methods of interpretation for the Jewish Tanakh, but...

"Nicholas de Lyra who died in 1340 accepted four modes of interpretation; literal, allegoric, moral, and anagogic or mystical."
http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_introkabbalahwestcott7.htm

Obviously, the modes of interpretation are the keys to unlock the safe... but, still... one has to pull out the manuscript and read it in the sense that it was meant to be read... in order to gain full appreciation for what was being presented...

The Christian orthodoxy is conflicted because they refuse to associate mythology with the text they refer to as their bible... They accept a literal understanding of the word, only accept the parts that "seem" morally correct based on their uneducated belief and opinion.

The Christian, typically, utterly denies the existence of divine allegoric and mystical reference to God's word, because that is akin to suggesting lore and mythology was used to pass meaning... Of course, that is exactly what the Jews used to pass meaning, because it was their culture and belief... Many Christians believe God himself wrote the bible, literally, with no need to convey meaning... In short, they can't believe the Jews actually wrote the bible, based on "their" personal beliefs, instead of receiving the "word" directly from the Christian God...

The Christian who refuses to understand the bible, in the manner in which it was written, is condemned to have to de-conflict the most conflicted book, based on literal meaning, I have ever personally read, and that, is a lot of reading...

When I was in my undergrad, at a Christian university, I knew a girl, ironically named after a mythological figure, who refused to take the mythology course in English, because it presented much of the ancient symbolism that is found in the bible... She was given amnesty, and allowed to take an alternative course...

Anyway, I don't mind reading the book in the manner in which it was created, it makes much more sense, but of course, it is laced with a lot of mysticism that many would refuse to read or accept... I read to understand, not to blindly accept... there are truths that can be found, and many parallels, especially in the sciences with what was promoted back in the day as mystical... Something is a mystery/mystical when it is not understood, and the Jews believed in Natural mysticism, not SuperNatural... They believed they could derive divine (not the Christian divine) knowledge from reading Nature...

It took the Christians to create SuperNatural mysticism... Suggesting they knew the mind of God, which of course, was... akin to making themselves gods of equal stature to the "One"... Paul, basically stated suck it up, and accept it, because God said it... of course, Paul said a lot of things, based on what Paul believed...

I dare say, John, you are more the former mystic, and in that... I could see your admiration for physics, etc., and how you build a cosmology based on information you obtain, I myself, am considered a little disobedient to my order... but they are loving people, and tend to let me have my space... We have conversed before, but it was at least in excess to a year ago, I believe, using your last signature of "far out"... I noticed ;-)

You do goad others, by using the word mystic though, because of its dualistic meaning, and with all the loaded potential that comes along with that... I'd like to suggest that anyone who claims to be "x", have some manner of conveying what "x" really means, it keeps the dust from rising... but, I would be a hypocrite, if I didn't suggest that I have made some loaded remarks, in my life...

I suppose there is merit, in suggesting we should say what we mean, and mean what we say...

I'll add some thought to this thread... since the surrounding symbols appear to be part of the Tree of Knowledge discussion... Regarding, evil though... Christians would choke if they knew truly understood the implications of their Holy book...

To the ancients (slightly prior to CE), the four corners of the world referred to the celestial kingdom. To this day, there are sects/orders who still believe this...

The NSEW directions weren't literal positions... they represented the four divisions of the Celestial Kingdom... The Cherubim, with their pointing arrow... represented flows of energy (ancient physics)...

The God, who embodies all, and when I mean all, that includes Evil... is "firm" and holds the Cherubim on its axis; and of course, the fifth parameter is that of "motion", as represented through a Cherubim which "rotated"... So goes, that particular symbolic meaning for the Cherubim... it really does get interesting, if not taken literally...

Genesis 22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

We... are gods. Wonder how many Christians believe we are gods... Hmmmm, one can only ponder the number of belief systems that portray people as becoming godlike...

The tree represented the plan to receive godlike status; it of course, was the tree of everlasting life... The Messiah (Christ unfortunately to the Christian, but not the Jews, as they had Yahovah elohim) and Satan were involved in the "fall", pre-ordination... And, because it apparent that God (The One) tested them both and they failed... they were given responsibility for taking the creation through to the end. How nice, Satan and the Christ, because the Christians claim him as Yahova elohim, are to be judged on how they lead humanity through to the end... and they will both have to experience the creation in the same manner we as humanity are being tested, treated, and exposed.

Wow, what conflict, Yahova trying to get things right, and Satan, obviously having to think twice about screwing things up too bad, because he'll have to reap what he sews as well... Anyway, this is nice and all, and actually pretty interesting... especially, seeing as how it makes sense, before the story gets corrupted later on by militant clergy, who move away from natural mysticism towards a warped sense of theology... But, we do get hints along the way in history, on how some do understand the True nature of The One...

The Lord's Prayer...

"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil."

Apparently, between Yahova Elohim and Satan... a question arises... who tempted humanity in the garden... most Christians understand it to have been Satan... And if Satan is in fact the choice one would accept... then Satan is the Lord of temptation... and the Lord's Prayer becomes somewhat interesting... Since... Christians are praying to the one who tempts...

There is so much about cosmography, cosmology, ancient symbolism, modern physics, etc., that could be associated with this entire discussion, that the books would fill entire rooms... hence, the reason the Jews used loaded words, which could be used to derive many modal meanings, from a particular word, sentence, paragraph, etc...

This thread, is seeking to understand the "one" metaphorical meaning for a single symbol within an entire story... this single symbol has to be placed in context with the hundreds of contexts, in which it is related... and of course, this single story, becomes the key by which to unlock the remaining books that follow... there is a reason the first "five" books are the perfect number by which to understand the The One, or Universe...

John, it appears you are still searching... and that is fine... The Order that pays me visits on occasion, suggests that we are all on a progression scale, per se... and although, they feel I am not progressing fast enough... I am happy with me...

So, let me end with this, all answers exist, and it is the answers which force the questions, when we are primed to become... We can attempt to force our position, but... apparently; there is "something" that may indeed restrict us along the way... call it what you will... and ponder upon that… enjoy your progression… Dave8

john said...

Hope all found balance and harmony over the vernal equinox and take refreshment in this first full moon of spring.

Dave8, while i find the internet public blog forum a wonderful expression of our freedom of speech, I do find myself overwhelmed by the multifaceted and expansive nature of this written exchange.

I make my way in the world primarily by writing, so spending time with additional writing offers no diversion or refreshment from my labor. Me thinks this is better conversation stuff where issues can be probed and resolved in rapid process…like chiseling away the supercilious stone quickly to get to the hidden image within the piece of rock.

As much as I enjoy and am fascinated by this blog exchange, there has already accumulated so many “dead ends”, unexplored, and unresolved issues, going back to John’s original posting, that I feel we are actually piling on stones rather than chiseling away to reveal some sense of image or meaning. It, to me, is like a bewildering process of building words into phrases into concepts into abstracts until a mountain of rubble verifies the futility of it all.

Not that I would have it any other way, freedom requires deferral unto others and loose restriction upon all. I feel sure “blogging” will ultimately bring us all closer together with improved understanding and tolerance.

I was hoping, however, on my return to this blog, to see some others having waded in so I would have the enjoyment of watching the “thread” develop without having to "write more stuff". As mentioned in prior postings, I feel, in retrospect, that it was inappropriate for me to have interrupted this blog with my point of view in the first place.

But, then, perhaps brother Dave8, only you, the Webmaster, and me are left in this particular meandering, ever deepening, stream in search of explanations.

As much as I would rather refrain from any further written participation, brother Dave8’s most recent comments struck cords within myself that “goads” me to respond further. I must also admit to “other intentions” which I have realized and will mention further on.

As members of Dave8’s order may consider him “disobedient”, i associate myself with a circle of friends who look upon my comments and participation in this blog with disdain and admonition.

This group feels it is better to work within our selves and our circle of friends to do our spiritual “work”. Reassembling the sparks in solitude so to speak.

Appropriate to some of Dave8’s comments regarding the tolerance of established religions, my friends point to Meister Eckhart, a 14th century Christian mystic, who was brought before the inquisition because his interpretation of Christ's teachings were considered dangerous to laymen.

As usual for myself, and perhaps for Dave8 as well, I find myself not in full rhythm with my circle.
We (my circle of friends) generally agree that there is a natural and observable evolution of human kind toward the full recognition and realization of our “divine” nature.

We (again, my circle of friends) believe that what is now referred to as “unknowable knowledge” is even now in the process of being known and realized by human kind on earth. We believe that there is full potential for man to know and understand deity and the universe, and our participation within the mix.

I predict that Science will ultimately discover the “Truth” and it will be of a spiritual, intellectual and abstract nature not within our current religious or spiritual considerations.

My friends fill certain that, while we are the instruments of providence, the evolution toward total human enlightenment and “heaven” on earth is now in the ordered process of occurring and cannot be averted.

They believe all the “forces” necessary on earth are in place and functioning and that the “enlightenment” will continue to unfold over time. Einstein would fit in well with my friends in that they would agree that “god” does not throw dice with the Universe”.

They also believe that few people have a “mystic” nature and that the few who do have such a nature will be guided by the “teacher within” to seek the appropriate information and experience necessary to develop their “mystic” nature without overt action from the world.

I, on the other hand, find myself with different “feelings”. While I agree with my friends that “Life is a Game Divinity plays with Itself”, I do not agree that the “Game” has a certain outcome.

I feel that “Humanity in totality” can fulfill the “potential” and cause heaven on earth or not fulfill the “potential” and cause their own destruction. I believe the “Divine” game of “Life & Humanity” has an element of “chance” to make the game interesting to the participants on a divine dimension and level.

I also feel that everyone, not the few, has a “mystic” nature. I find myself turning away from the exclusive toward the inclusive. I have turned from the understanding of “I Am” to the understanding that “We Are”.

I have come to feel that the only thing that can cure the sickness of religion in our world is for as many as possible, within as many religions as possible, to seek a mystical understanding and experience with the message and messenger at the core of their religion. I feel the “Spiritual delusion and sickness” that causes humankind to kill one another can only be cured by individual enlightenment within the religions.

I feel we will either “cure” this spiritual sickness or be destroyed because of it.

My friends say that we must wait until there is a “knock” on door before it can be opened and the knowledge provided. While they would agree that the door should be opened readily and wide in accommodation to anyone who inquires, they would insist on the “knock” first.

I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion, most recently, that too few even have acquaintance with the mystic approach to religion and spirituality, and can hardly make even a rational consideration without some reference to the concept.

To those who would remind me that the mystic inspiration, instruction, and external acquisition of information is directed from a source within the individual being, I would remind them that the individual today is bombarded by over 5000 advertising messages each day along with a torrent of media stimulation that easily drowns out the wee voice of the divine spirit.

While completing my spring planting in my garden, and deeply considering the possible cause and personal motivation for so blatantly posting my views on this website prior, I have decided that this was a verbal explosion from the pent up concern I have been developing over some time.

While I understand that my “power” to do anything is within my own being, not without, I am more and more compelled to promote the “mystic” tradition in the world. This, then, is somewhat like my coming out announcement.

So my new public message to the world is: “Consider the mystic approach within your own religion or spirituality. Should you have no “beliefs”, give the mystic approach some consideration.”

How will this “mystic awakening” help in today’s world? More and more will know and teach our singularity and mutual being. More will come to experience the mutual love and pain or our world and help bring about the heaven on earth and the universe dreamed of by the gods.

So what is the “knowledge” alluded to?

What is it that is given after the knock at the door and the inquiry made?

What is it that is concealed within the inner sanctum?

What does the knowledge of the kabbalah and cabala really tell us?

Oh well, Dave8 has already revealed it in his prior posting. It’s like a super secret hidden in full view and told over and over again out loud to everyone. We just do not “hear” it or process it, or maybe even accept it. We certainly fail to appreciate the implications:

Dave8: “We... are gods. Wonder how many Christians believe we are gods... Hmmmm, one can only ponder the number of belief systems that portray people as becoming godlike...”

Da..da..tha..tha..that…that’s it folks!...we are godlings...little divine creatures...children of god…male and female, we were created in the image of the creator(s)...the creator(s)is invested in the creation(s)...I like to think of us as demigods.

We are the surrogates for deity on earth. What this actually means is not truly revealed in this statement, but it means things like “any thing we imagine, we can ultimately do…we can transform dirt and stuff into spaceships”.

It means we have to look to ourselves...and perhaps pray to ourselves... to bring peace and maybe even survival to humankind and life as we know it.

Plotinus perhaps spoke to our time in saying: "We here, for our part, must put aside all else and be set on This alone, become This alone, stripping off all our encumbrances; we must make haste to escape from here, that there may be no part of us that does not cling to God. There we may see God and ourself as by law revealed; ourself in splendor, filled with the light of Intellect, or rather, light itself, pure, buoyant, aerial, become - in truth, being - a god."

And the 82nd Psalms, vrs 6,7 echos the message: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High, but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

Religions just cannot get around to making this point in an emphatic manner to us laymen. So here it is, thanks to Dave8”:

“You are a god or goddess...so go deal with it”.

And, oh yea, don’t forget, so is every body else and we need each other to do the really “big” stuff.

Also remember, as with any child, we can commune with our god parent(s). Is it difficult? No, just be as quiet and mindless as possible - and be patient. If anything is there, it will let you know.

john



ps to Dave8, you are correct. Everything I write is “loaded”. Some read the words and pass own; perhaps some receive a glimpse of what I am alluding to, and some might even feel the kinship of spirit.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

An afterthought from my prior posting #56:

A lot of what we ponder, question, and even debate about religion is regarding the slough and artifacts resulting from the evolution of human kind over time toward “divine awakening” on earth.

From the early cave drawings and continuing through the ages, we continue to evolve like the as with the serpent – leaving one spiritual skin after the other behind as an image of what we were at the time. We spend too much time worshiping and contemplating the skins not realizing the actual progression.

We see the debris of the process building up over the ages and ponder the remnants without realizing or understanding the direction and destination of the process.

Look to what we were way back (as far as you would like to go). Then look at how far we have evolved in intellect and divine realization since then.

Consider where we are now, and contemplate were it appears we are going. Look forwards, not backwards. We should not be distracted by the clutter of the process.

Dave8 said...

John, I'll posit some thought to your previous post and respond accordingly... in time.

Before going further however, what is evil, or what does that term mean, if anything... You suggested going as far back as possible to find answers, through pattern recognition, or thematic discovery... And, although this could go back much further... lets see the thoughts of some 5K years ago...

"As above, so below... As within, so without..." The Emerald Tablet ca 3K BCE.

If within, so without... whence come evil... One obviously needs to know what they are looking for, in order to understand the context of words being used... I don't believe I have read anything to bring unity in my mind to that term... perhaps, you could proffer a suggestion/definition?

john said...

Regarding: "As above, so below... As within, so without..."

I would like to use the words Macrocosm and Microcosm. I use the word “Microcosm” in the sense of ”little world” meaning infinitely small in relationship with the “Macrocosm” as the infinitely large. No end to the Microcosm and no end to the Microcosm.

Immediately we might have an agreement in the abstract:
“Infinity has no boundaries or ending in the microcosm and/or in the microcosm.”

For all we know, the Microcosm may not just interface with the Macrocosm at the point where the infinitely large begins to become the infinitely small, but may, interface in the other direction at a point as well. Sheer speculation of course.

One interesting aspect of the Microcosm and the Macrocosm is the juncture point can be about anywhere you might consider.

For example you could begin with yourself in a libratory with a high powered telescope and a high powered microscope.

You can use the telescope to look out from your eye to the abyss of the infinite Universe. Peering into endless space.

You could then use the high-powered microscope using you eye to peer into anything about you. Let’s say your hand.

You could then use the microscope to being looking into the infinite abyss within the microcosm accessed through the portal of a cell or molecule in your finger.

You could look as deeply into the infinitely small world as your instrument would allow. Peering into endless space.

(Unless they meet again at a second or "other" points, of course, as postulated prior.)

So yes…”As below, so below.”

There is much more I could say about this and some of the implications of this statement, but I feel the point is more the subject of "evil".

The manifestations and personifications of evil over the ages in the world is a fascinating and sometimes horrifying reality.

I feel that “evil” is seldom done for the purpose of doing evil, but for selfish and well-justified reasons by the "evil doer".

The myths of the titans and gods exiled to earth, and the fallen angle “licififer” still reaking havoc today is, along with all the other personifications, are real to the degree we give them energy and recognition today.

Evil is one of those “loaded” words that can be as valid or as invalid as a point of view.

However, to give you a quick response, Dave8, I am going to use an essay entitled “Good and Evil”.


GOOD & EVIL

Good is the result of closeness to the Divine*.

Evil is the result of distance from the Divine.

Closeness is the realization of union with the Divine,
and distance is the realization of separation from the Divine.

A metaphor would be:
A single Divine Light radiates in the midst of Darkness.

The single Light is the "Source of All Light" and the Rays of Light are the living emanations from the light.

When the Rays are near the Light and realize the total unity of the Light, the Rays realize their intimate relationship with the Divine Light and all that emanates from the Divine Source.

When the Rays are distant from the Light and fail to realize their unity with the Source Light, they are blind to their relationship with the Divine.

Q.
When near the Light what do we see?

A.
We see that we are each part of the single Light.

Q.
When we are in darkness what do we see?

A.
We see the Divine Source as a distant Light and we feel we are separate from the Light
and all that emanates from the Light.

When we are near the Light we recognize our kinship with all and feel the joy of union with everything in the Light.

When in darkness, we envy, hate, injure, and even kill
thinking we are doing harm to an "other".

We do not see or feel our intimate relationship with everything.

In darkness we are blind to the fact that all the pain and distress we inflict on "others" is actually inflicted on our True Being.

Q.
Will there always be darkness?

A. For there to be darkness, the Divine Source must withdraw
Its Light and allow a boundary of darkness to emerge from Itself to allow an "other" to exist.

This begins a cycle.

The darkness then begins slowly to fill back with the Light.

Eventually, in timeless patience,
all the darkness is filled again with the single Light.

This completes the cycle.

Q
Using the metaphor of Light as the Divine Source, Cause, or Creating Deity, does the Light know there is darkness beyond the Light?

A.
The Divine Source or Light knows the darkness as we know
of our existence in a dream. It is still the Divine Source that
is within the dream and the Divine Source is generating
the dream, but in darkness, as in a dream, the Divine Source
is blind to it's totality and is fragmented into single identities.

Q.
If darkness is a state of evil, then it is the Divine Source,
the Light, that created darkness by separating Itself into
Light and darkness. Did the Divine Source create evil?

A.
Absolutely, yes. To create an "Other" the Divine Source must
create a boundary state of being that is within the Divine Source
and without the Divine Source.

Any creation from the Totality of
the Divine Source is a creation of an "other".

In creating an "other" the Divine Source must allow the "other" separate existence as in the case of God creating Adam and allowing "free will".

Nothing more existed after God's creation of Adam than existed before God created Adam.

God created Adam by separating Its total being.

Adam was the first shadow of darkness as God allowed a separate being whereby God could view
Its creation out side of It's totality.

God could view It's own Being and converse with Adam as an "other"
in a forgetting of It's totality.

Adam then is the first level of separation.

Adam is a level of Intellect and Consciousness separate from the Total Consciousness and Intellect of the Divine Source.

In allowing the separation, God allowed the allusion of a boundary and separation to exist. In this way God created what is termed evil.

Q
So it is God, the Divine Source, that actually causes the cruelty and havoc that punishes the world of humankind?

A.
Yes, the good and the bad. The Divine Source does not see Its totality because of the darkness.

The Divine Source views within the darkness through the individual identities that populate the creation.

Keep in mind that it is actually the Divine Source that is blinded by the darkness and feels the separation.

Interpreted as "free will" the Divine Source has allowed a part of It's being to interact without knowledge of the actual totality.

To use the Bible explanation from Genesis:

The first level of Divine Consciousness, at the level of totality, is called God, etc.

The second level of Divine Consciousness, and the first level of separation, is called Adam.

The third level of Divine consciousness, and the second level of separation, is called Eve.

It was while lost in the second and third levels of Divine consciousness that Adam and Eve, together in the allusion of separation, created what is then the forth level of Divine Consciousness, and
the third level of separation, which is called Man or Humankind.

It was the second and third level of Divine Consciousness together, without the knowledge and consent of the first level of Divine Consciousness, that created the third level of separation which is human kind.

It was evil that caused Adam and Eve to create Man.

Adam and Eve brought humankind into the world in a total allusion of separation from God.

It is important to note here that at all times there is no thing but the Divine Source, or in another metaphor, there is never anything but the Light and that which radiates from the Light which are only Light Rays separated
temporally from Divine Light Source.

Note also that this is the circumstance at this moment
and all moments in the eternal.

Q.
Does this mean that we can know something that God does not know?

A.
We can know something that God knows only by human experience.

Ultimately, however, all that emanates from the Divine Source returns to the Divine Source.

Our memory allows us to understand how something that "happens" in time and space can linger in our memory with a reality of its own.

We can use human memory as a
metaphor for Divine memory since memory on the human level is a reflection of memory on the Divine level and is a human intellectual phenomena that exists as an image
of the Divine.

The Divine learns and knows what happens in the darkness of creation and yet remains set apart.

What the Divine harvests from the darkness is the experience of the living emanations in the form of Divine Memory.

The Divine Memory is of having been each individual soul and every living entity that emanated from the Divine Source.

There is no thing, thought, or experience that happens that
is not ultimately within the intellect of the Divine Source.

Q.
Using the term "God" for the term "Divine Source", why did God
create "evil" and is evil equal in being as God?

A.
Remember that "evil" is also a term. It was in God separating
into the level of "Eve" that God actually allowed or created
evil in the Bible.

To use a metaphor of the Divine Source being a single tone or vibration, the Divine Source in Its singular state would be as a single tone, unheard, in singular contemplation.

In the singular Divine state there would be absolute stillness. There would be no movement, sound, or activity beyond the Totality.

It is when the single tone fragments into other vibrations
and pitches that the living symphony occurs.

This could be viewed as a disruption from the absolute
pure single tone that encompasses all tones within its unity.

The term "evil" represents the movement, sound, and activity
of the Divine in a divine process, a process of being single and then divided. This is a Divine process
for Divine purposes.

Q.
What is the purpose of the Divine process?

A.
To separate into an altered state of being to experience that state of being without actually being involved in the actuality.

The process is experienced on a magnificent and spectacular
level that could only be played in the Divine theatre of infinity.

Using the metaphor of a game, the process is a game on a Divine scale and dimension that could be described as the "Game of all Games" or the "Mother of all Games".

Life then is a "Game the Divine plays with Itself". The Divine Player sets the activity in motion and withdraws as the game unfolds.

The Divine Player forgets It's Totality and begins the process of remembering Itself in the Game.

The Divine Source is born into
the fragmentation of the Game without any rational memory or knowledge of the Divine.

The Divine, however, in constructing the intellectual plane
or "board" for the game to be played upon,built in the continuing emergence of the Divine Message.

That message is that humans are creations of the Divine
as "children" in a special relationship with the Divine.

The message encourages us to commune personally
with the Divine and to consider ourselves "inhabited"
by the Divine. The message advises us that we ultimately
return to the Divine Source.

In this game, the real Divine Player becomes the individual
illusionary players in the game on the board of life.

An individual player can make a connection with the real Player, however, the real Player must be motivated and reminded of Its ability to effect the game
because of the separation of darkness that effects both.

For this reason most prayers and religious rituals are devised to awaken Deity to its omnipotence and
Its ability to effect what is occurring at the human
level of being.

You would thing God or Allah would already know these things, but at some level it is known that we must "help create our god".

Often the beginning of prayers remind Deity of its kindness, generosity, and ability to effect reality.

Even then there is a limited effect the Divine Source
can have on the Game without ending the Game and processing the Divine Memory of the activity,
which some refer to as "the end of time" and "going to Heaven".

This is not to say that the "Divine Source" cannot,
at any time, have a major altering effect in the Game.

It takes only a change of the Divine Mind in the Game
to change the momentum of former cause and alter the effect for the individual or community.

Q.
What about Hell?

A.
Hell is the term for the state of being where there is no understanding or realization of the Divine process we are involved in.

Many at this moment on Earth are in Hell. This Hell is caused by individuals, and groups, and even religions that do not recognize that they, and all others, are part of the Divine Whole even when it appears that everything is separate.

Many are in Hell on Earth, not because of their own cause,
but because the knowledge and understanding of our Divine kinship on Earth has not yet come to full radiance.

Heaven will be at hand for the Children of the Divine when
the Light of individual and personal Divinity begins
to radiate brighter and brighter from each individual into the darkness or this world.

Already the Light is bright from human kindness and love on earth. Often the Light shinning from an individual is not realized
in the spiritual or Divine sense, yet each single light adds to the growing Divine radiance now on the Earth.

In an inexorable progression of interplay between the Light
and darkness, the knowing and the not knowing, the Game
will unfold to ultimately full realization of the Divine Light on Earth.

This will be the beginning of Heaven on Earth and the unfolding of Universal Love and the total realization of our Divinity and Unity.

Q.
Then is there any chance that Evil will win over Good?

A.
Because from the Human perspective, evil is associated
with such horrendous crimes and harm to humanity Evil appears to have a "power" over us as humans.

From the perspective of the human, a person on a hike who has been pinned under a bolder on the trail and has to cut off his arm in order to escape and live is a horrendous event.

Particularly if some fiend actually pushed the bolder on the individual and hide at a distance to watch the horror.

The hiker could be said to be innocent and heroic and the person
who pushed the rock and watched as the hiker was forced to cut off his own arm could be described as
evil.

However, from the perspective of Deity, the experience of
both individuals are part of the process. This, perhaps, is the lesson given humans in Job.

Evil is only a term for the process of separation and the
effects of separation from the human perspective. Life lives by eating and destroying other life.

This illusionary cause and effect,
freewheeling, random unfolding of activity was allowed by the Divine Source for Its own purposes which are beyond the grasp of the illusion.

The reflection of cycles in so many aspects of our reality is from the Divine Reality of cycling from Total to separate on the Divine scale of eternity.

Q.
How do you know these things?

A.
Because I know and understand that I am a child of the Divine.

Because my forbears have left the markers, messages, and the freedom that allowed me the mind to consider all. Because ultimately the Light can not be extinguished or hidden.

Because I wander the beach where the Divine Intellect washes constantly upon the shore.

Because I know to be silent in the gentle breeze of the Divine whispers.

Because I am dissolved in the One and the moment eternal.

My mind has surrendered to the
silent knowing. The vision of self has vanished to encompass all that are known and met and all that exists.

For me, time before, now, and the future are held in the single moment that is offered as a memory
to the Divine.

My tiny universe of particles bound by the Divine Intellect into the form I know as me and my body has been recognized, by myself, as a temple where the realization
and the Light of Divinity resides.

I, my self as identified since birth, have felt myself to have become a caretaker of the temple.

More and more I have come to identify with the Divine within.

In realizing the Divine within my self, I have come to realize the Divine in all others, and all existence.

I deny all boundaries and seek to ever remind the Divine that this is a Game of solitary, and the purpose of the Game can easily
be at hand, and the Universal Light
can radiate in full splendor and joy on Earth.

I make no distinction between your self and my self other than I have my temple to keep and you have yours.

In the presence of any or all, it is my reality that we are part of the one and same Divinity..

So when I write these things it is the same Divine Intellect that shows through all who speak
to the brothers and sisters about our Divinity.

Still, however, I only allude to something. I can only indicate a personal experience and describe something that is external to the individual reading this essay.

The first test is does it ring true to you?

If no, then I will not be speaking "the truth" to you.

If yes, then it is time for you to contemplate these things
and take to the Mystic path.



*Divine: Using this word is an attempt to include all terms,
utterances, and words used to indicate something that
transcends this reality and is the cause of existence as we know it to be.

Some of the words would be God, al-Lah, Ra, Ahura Mazta, Brahman, Mitra, El, YHVH, Jehovah, Ekam
Akal Purakh, Aten, Xwede, Astare, Deus, Great Spirit, Drishna, Maat, and Oden to list a few.

An example would be the many names in the Bible given God such as Elohim, Yahweh, and Jehovah. In some cases the Deity was altered by reduction. Where there
was once al-Lah (the-God) and al-Lat (the-Goddess), there
is now only Allah. The Goddess has been denied and forgotten and the "the" capitalized (Thegod)..

End of the essay.

john

john said...

…two more perspectives on evil:

(1) The perversion of a good person:

"A good person
swayed unknowingly by
a bad cause
may become the enemy
of another good person.

"In this manner
one good aspect of human divinity
can be cast against
another.

"The same good intentions
prevail with both people.

"The same divine attribute is expressed by each person in loyalty to the cause.

"In this case the divine aspect is not lost in selfish ego desires but has likewise been perverted.

"This perversion still denies
the divine union of all being.

"It is only when both people awaken
to the realization of their divine union, that love of the divine self can transcend the conflict of the cause and bring peace and harmony."

(2)Good and the existence of evil:

"The potential
within the creative emanation
from the Divine Source
is thought by many religious traditions to be neither good nor evil.

"Evil seems to develop at the human level in how people realize their relationship with divinity
and how they treat others."


Both these pieces came from a work entitled “Notes from a mystic awakening”. The full text
can be viewed at MysticsHaven.com.

This website, until recently, was developed as an outpost on the Internet for the occasional
solitary seeker who might stumble in from the dark night of the soul to find some comfort and assistance if requested.

I have some association and influence with this website and
caused recent changes that more reflect the new mission of the site.

The site has opened itself to the promotion of the mystic approach within all religions, spiritualities and such in order that the individuals might drawer closer to the original messenger and message that sparked the religion or (non)belief in the first place.

The final catalyst for this change in the attitude of the website
occurred here within this blog.

An odd place for such as this to occur for sure).


However, to insert a final note about “Truth”.

My “truth” does not invalidate any other person’s “truth”. When
one person’s “truth” rings true with another person’s “truth” then
together they know “Truth”.

The more the “truth” is felt in unison, the more “Truth” will be
known on earth.

The “Truth” will have a tone of “truth” to all, even those who
reject it.

The “Truth” will resonate within the being for a short time of even the most skeptical before being stifled.

The "Truth", like the remnant sounds from the “big bang (or splat)” is always in the background, an undertone that finds a unison of harmony when “Truth” is spoken.

The "Truth" is becoming known by
humankind.

(And finally, I am unable to edit warm text I have written. My mind
simply reads it like I think it is written. It is only later that I can realize the typos and such.

I understand it is difficult enough
to read my cryptic prose without the confusion of the typos,
but, after all, this is just jabber and “off the cuff” remarks in a transitory media soon to pass away into cyber land.

We are just sending signals not unlike it is said some of my forebearers did...smoke signals in the wind.

john

.:webmaster:. said...

To clarify, when John says "this website," he is referring to http://MysticsHaven.com.

Note: John's comments are his own and do not necessarily reflect the intent or purpose of http://exchristian.net.

Dave8 said...

John, I have pondered for a while on the current information... What is being discussed can indeed go down roads that I do not wish to tread...

The evil you have presented metaphorically and the events such as abuse you have labeled evil are peripheral to the center/core of what I would consider a source of evil... I use the word, loosely, because the term itself is often convoluted, twisted, manipulated, and used for political/personal purposes...

I will say that evil is not supernatural, nor transcendent... just as energy isn't supernatural nor transcendent.

Regarding the site MysticsHaven, I read the mission statement...

"To encourage the individual human being to make personal, direct, and intimate communion with the Deity of their religion or faith."

Until, evil is understood, the term Deity has the potential to be the exact definition of evil... as well, the MysticsHaven site reinforces a persons faith and religion... no matter what the terms of Deity are... they could just be evil itself...

Let me end with... Much of religion, argues for irrational belief, and invests much time in the doctrinal spitting on creation. Many seminaries teach students how to create invalid/irrational arguments, so that the irrational answers spawn more irrational questions... perpetual confusion.

The only way to lead another person spiritually is to know the destination and path of the Truth... And even then, a person must find that spirituality (not supernatural, nor transcendent, or some irrationally perverted form of the term) from personal revelation, based on tangible and rational understanding...

I believe there is surely something akin to evil (non-supernatural or transcendent)... but only because I have reached that understanding through personal research, meditation and rational cross-reference of everything I have access to... and it is nothing like what has been discussed up to this point.

I wish you luck if your intention is for good, and hope you take care of yourself, but I must gently bow out of this conversation at this point.

john said...

Awe...the quagmire of evil.

(“Please, please” said bro rabit, “don’t thrown me in that evil quagmire”. And the farmer, he smiled, and thru him in. I forgets what bro rabit said after that.)

As with Dave8, I am reluctant to delve deeply into the subject of evil, and would not spend time writing much about it.

I was raised in a home where spirits are welcome and their presence cultivated. My dad taught me to think of my mother earth as a living thing in the living organism of the universe. I first loved my mother earth with all my heart, and for a while, with all my soul. I still dance with love in my heart for the earth spirits when the full moon calls me out. My earth mother’s love makes me a brother to all she spawns and nurtures.

So one person’s “evil” might well be a family or clan’s “energy” just doing a little work for the group.

As much as I admire the wisdom and craft of wicca, I find too much “venting”, and while maybe not evil by ancient ways, certainly not “harm not, do as you will” or “do unto other as you would have others do unto you” kind of stuff.

There are a number of people, over the ages, who feel deeply that “too many people are of an evil nature”, to have a bunch of self-aware demigods running around missunderstanding their divine powers. God forbid, the really understand “reincarnation”!

For some reason “Aleister Crowley” and the magician wars comes to mind as a example of how the “Knowledge” can get out of hand and do harm.

However, “keep it hidden” has never been the message. “Hold the keys for the initiate” was never given to one over the other. The message of divinity has always been for all, not just for the select, or priesthood, or “chosen”.

Yet, I understand the reluctance to tell people about their divinity and shared that reluctance for many years.

My younger brother is paranoid schizophrenic. One reason for stressing the “silent voice” and the “silent knowing” is to help distinguish between other “voices” in the head.

The word “demon” comes from the word “daemon” which can mean an inspiring or inner spirit. Having dealt closely with schizophrenia, it is hard not to believe in daemon possession after talking to one of my brother’s “other personalities”.

Is concern that the “knowledge” will be misused by an “evil” person good reason to discriminate?

I admit, I feel it is best to work through some process and assistance in the realization of this information to a person.

I also feel it is like “teaching a person to fish”. “Teach a person to communicate within themselves with deity and they can learn to fish, perhaps, with intuition”.

To encourage a person to “believe” in themselves, to feel to be an integrated part of the universe, and to seek communion with that universe within themselves is not a radical suggestion.

Then to have them then validate the experience for themselves alone to their own personal satisfaction does not enroll them into any organization or particular “believe” system.

The message is “ you have a teacher within”.

Some might follow with: “beware you are not listening to a voice from your reptilian mind with a desire to eat someone’s cat”.

And a bit about the history to complete this addendum regarding evil:

The first recorded information I can find regarding the “origination” of evil, as a concept on earth, was about 5000 B.C.E. where the first civilization formed along the Trigris and Euphrates Rivers in Mesopotamia.

"The people were known as Sumerians. According to the Oracle Institute they “developed the oldest recorded creation myth.

I"n their art, they depict multiple gods and goddesses and 12 planets in our solar system.

“They believed the Earth was formed from a great collision in space and that the gods and goddesses came from another planet.

"They also believe that two of their gods, “Enlil” and “Enki”, vied for control of Earth, that Enki created humans from clay, and that Enlil tried to kill us in a great flood."

“Enlil” is the first personification of “evil” I can find in history.

My favorite reference to evil, however, occured about 5K years ago with my beloved mystic brother “Zarathustra” the founder of the “Zoroastrian religion”. I have kept his sacred flame burning in my home for many, many years now.

It was Zarathustra who gave us the concept of the “one benevolent God” and , of course, the dark force that is today personified as satan and the revolting forces in heaven.

Much of the concept of “evil” today can be traced back to the teaching of Zarathustra.

That is all I have to write, or give mind to, about evil.

Noting that Dave8 is “bowing out” of the conversation at this point, I will respond accordingly. Curiosity will not allow me not to visit the site occasionally, but it is time for others to chime in or let this exchange stand as is in cyber space.

(To Dave8: hope your progress meets your satisfaction and contentment.)

john

john said...

ps...three quotes to show how in agreement I am with much on this website:

"The great enemy of the Truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest; but the myth - presistent, persuasive, and unrealistic." -- John F. Kennedy

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question; and by seeking we may come upon the Truth." -- Pierre Abelard

"It is good to be an "ex" as long as it does not become an appendage physically or psychologically. It is even better, however, to simply be...and be that with satisfaction and contentment.” -- john

Dave8 said...

John: "The message is “you have a teacher within”."

I'll tip-toe, since I find a few moments to ponder. You mention intuition, is that pre-cognition/post-cognition, where in the process of cognition do you believe intuition resides?

Sorry to hear about your younger brother, and his suffering, I hope he finds peace.

Regarding an inner-voice. Socrates had a sense of mysticism, or at least that was the charge against him. Socrates often referred to a daemonion or a mystical inner voice which always guided his actions. Socrates' accusers viewed his daemonion as an attempt to introduce new deities. It was one of the charges he faced at his infamous trial.

You suggested we are creation beings, one could easily see I am creating a post... but am I creating or manipulating? What is the difference, if any?

Since this thread has been on Torah, I'll quote a Rabbi, on the reasons I believe one should not engage in teaching without knowing the details of what they teach. No, John, I believe you are attempting to bring out humanity's potential, in your own way. But, you suggested much earlier, that people must reach this state, in order to accomplish the really big things. And, what would that be?

You summarized a Rabbi earlier, and so, I'll use Rabbi Simcha Wasserman's explanation of unrestricted knowledge.

"Every person has two levels of intelligence. There are things he can find out and solve on his own, and there are things which he cannot find out on his own; but if someone comes and gives him the answer, he will understand it. All the areas where a person can find out things himself may be called level A. The level where he can understand the answer, if given to him, may be called level B. Not everybody has the same level of intelligence."

And, thus, not everyone knows how to use knowledge when given them. Perhaps, even the Rabbi doesn't know as much as others, but he is very eloquent in his explanations. All can't be initiates, as per your term, and the limits of human intelligence. I'd suggest we should only be as knowledgeable as our ability to control that knowledge.

"TRANSMISSION AND THE CONVEYER BELT"

"It is important to understand the mechanism with which we explain things to each other. What we are doing at those times is transferring ideas from mind to mind. A conveyer belt is needed to accomplish this. That conveyer belt is language. If a person never saw a table in his life, I might want to give him an idea of what a table is. First, I myself have to understand that the table is a complex of elements. Does the other person know elements? Does he know shapes? Shape is also an element of a table. Does he know color? Can he figure out how to put things together? Then I tell him, ''Listen, this is of a hard material. The shape is like a rectangular board. But I want the board to be at the level where it is easy for me to use, so I take something and I support it. Then I raise it, and I have it at the level where I can do something with it."

This is the process of translating ideas. You take apart the concept that you have to explain and bring it down to its elements. You give him the elements and you also tell him how to construct it. Therefore, if I explain something to you, there are preconditions that you, as a listener, must possess. You have to be familiar with all the elements that I am discussing, and you have to be able to follow instructions in order to construct something from what I tell you. If my listener is missing one element, he will get a picture, but not a true picture of the table. If he has all the elements but he cannot follow instructions on how to construct it, then he will have the legs of the table on top of it.

Therefore, every teacher must be very careful that the students get the right ideas. Otherwise, the teacher may say something and the student will understand something else. Every teacher has had that experience."

John, hope you can explain in great detail the elements to guide a person spiritually... intuition, etc., seem to be pretty soft topics to convey through spoken & restrictive language.

"There is a story about two Sages in the Talmud. Each was particularly expert in a different part of Kabbalah--one was a master of maaseh merkavah (the wisdom of the holy Chariot) and the other was a master of maaseh Bereishis (the Creation wisdom). They said, "Let us teach each other. You teach me your wisdom and I'll teach you mine."

The first one taught the other one maaseh Bereishis. Then he said, ''Now it's your turn to teach me." The other answered him by saying, "I cannot teach you. While you were teaching me, I saw your level, and you are not ready for it."

This means that what I can understand, I understand. What I cannot understand, I am better off not touching, because I will only misunderstand it. Misunderstanding is not just a zero. It is a minus."
http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=82

John, we are on different levels of knowledge. The manner, in which you want to help others, seems noble, as I stated earlier.

Of the orders/societies you suggested, I am of no affiliation. I hold nothing from one over the other, as you stated it's all in front of us... but we bloom at our own pace. There is no need to over water a flower, in order to make it bloom faster, likely over watering will just speed the flower’s demise. Take care.

Anonymous said...

See:

http://www.churchoffreethought.org/cgi-bin/contray/contray.cgi?ID=000011010&GROUP=005

john said...

It is good on return to this blog to fine it still alive!

Dave8 in responding to my statement “the message is ‘you have a teacher within’, noted and questioned:

Dave8: “I'll tip-toe, since I find a few moments to ponder. You mention intuition, is that pre-cognition/post-cognition, where in the process of cognition do you believe intuition resides?”

We each have a higher level of consciousness that attends to such things as breathing, organ functions, cell maintenance and such. We do not have consciousness access to this hidden higher lever of intellect within our individual being; however, this level of intellect actually keeps us “living” and has the ability to override even our “aware” level of consciousness if necessary. At our “aware” level of consciousness we refer to this higher hidden intellect as “automatic” as if it is subordinate.

It is within this higher level or consciousness that “memory” and most “knowledge” resides to be provided at need to the “aware” level of consciousness. This perhaps is the domain of the “muse”. Often, personally, concepts and understandings come to me from this source that seem “beyond” my intellect.

It is this hidden level of intellect that allows a creature to hatch from an abandoned egg, never seeing or learning anything, pre-cognitive or post-cognitive, from it’s parent, yet it begins to live and feed in it’s environment with a certainly of experience and knowledge.

So, I would say that “intuition” resides in the higher level of intellect within the individual.

The question would then be “ Is the individual intellect isolated or part of a larger intellectual plane?” Is “intellect” limited to humankind in the universe?

I feel science is just now peering at the “indications” of a vast “intellectual” plane that supports what we refer to as “the universe” and “reality”. It is an exciting time for us who consider “potentials” and “dreams” as indications of our destiny as human beings.

Was Socrates’ mystical inner voice limited to his intellectual realm of pre-cognitive/post-cognitive knowledge or did he draw somehow from “beyond” his individual self? Considering the mysterious Universe, this is a minor mystery but fundamental to determining the relationship of humankind to the realm beyond.

As complex as this consideration is, it appears that it can be refined down to: Either there is, or there is not.

Is
Is not.

As simple as that.

It is easy to accept either answer and then rationalize assurance. As an indication of potential however, we should note that we are drawing ever closer to the understanding of the “stuff” that constitutes reality which, I predict, may reveal the “intellectual” realm within which we exist. …a thought contemplating a thought contemplating a thought.

In what realm does “thought” reside?

What is the substance of a thought?

Is “thought” faster than light?
Is there any “reality” in a thought?

…oh how the question flow…

Dave8: “You suggested we are creation beings, one could easily see I am creating a post... but am I creating or manipulating? What is the difference, if any?”

Humans transform stuff. We create the process of transformation within our intellect as a thought or concept and then manipulate the dirt and stuff to affect the results of our transformation. NASA is organized creation and transformation similar, perhaps, to the builders of the Tower of Babel.

Perhaps a dream is more pure “creation”, and, of course fiction, and some journalism, but the ability to “create” through imagination and then transform matter into that which is imagined is the amazing capability that sets humans apart from all other life forms we are aware of.

Imagination then is “intellectual creation” and “manipulation” is the physical transformation of matter to effect or “realize” the imagined creation. It has been warned, “anything we imagine, we can create”.

This ability has lead to the creation of thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Even at this moment humans are concocting weapons of mass destruction for only one purpose: to murder mass numbers of their fellow humans whom they do not even know.

Likewise, we could imagine, transform, and manipulate our world into a paradise, a heaven and haven for human life in the universe - a spawning ground. Perhaps we might one day find that the “ancients or ancients” our pagan forbearers told of were actually space beings that seeded our species with a special attribute which now causes us to urn for the stars.

Whatever the cause, however, we are certainly creative, manipulative, imaginative, and wondrous beings that give fascinating indications of the true reality of the universe.

Dave8: “Since this thread has been on Torah, I'll quote a Rabbi, on the reasons I believe one should not engage in teaching without knowing the details of what they teach. No, John, I believe you are attempting to bring out humanity's potential, in your own way. But, you suggested much earlier, that people must reach this state, in order to accomplish the really big things. And, what would that be?”

One person attempting to build a spacecraft can accomplish much. However, compared to what can be accomplished by like-minded individuals in an organization of the ability such as NASA, the individual ability is naturally minor.

In the current divisive circumstance where large groups are working together to inflict mass destruction on other large groups, the ability to accomplish such destruction is exists.

The “state” I speak of that people must reach to accomplish the really big things, is simple mutual belief and effort. Likely the large group that wants to eventually blow up a large portion of the other group will succeed. They are capable and will likely achieve the “really big thing” they all desire as a group.

Since there are several large groups of humans who are now contemplating the destruction of other large groups, it is likely that this will for destruction will be achieved.

I suggest that the combined contemplation for a really big “destructive thing” will be answered by a “really big threat to all the large groups” on earth. The really big thingy might be a large lump of cold iron that just ‘happens” to be headed our way.
We imagine, contemplate, and create the potential for mass destruction, and mass destruction may be what we get…together in “our free will” so to speak.

The “state” I imagine and cultivate is a view of our selves as one large group. The big things we could accomplish in this state: about any damn thing we could imagine for our mutual benefit.

Dave8: “You summarized a Rabbi earlier, and so, I'll use Rabbi Simcha Wasserman's explanation of unrestricted knowledge.

"Every person has two levels of intelligence. There are things he can find out and solve on his own, and there are things which he cannot find out on his own; but if someone comes and gives him the answer, he will understand it. All the areas where a person can find out things himself may be called level A. The level where he can understand the answer, if given to him, may be called level B. Not everybody has the same level of intelligence."

And, thus, not everyone knows how to use knowledge when given them. Perhaps, even the Rabbi doesn't know as much as others, but he is very eloquent in his explanations. All can't be initiates, as per your term, and the limits of human intelligence. I'd suggest we should only be as knowledgeable as our ability to control that knowledge.”

It is my experience and belief that each person has the ability to understand and appreciate our mutual being. The teaching that we are all brothers and sisters is reasonable and easy to believe. No one teaches that we are cousins or distant relatives.

Most teach that we are all “children” of a single creating god.

In an ideal world this would be the fundamental teaching of all religions and we would now be in the mutual realization of our single being.

It is also my experience, that for those who are compelled, and have the circumstance to seek a closer relationship with the “creating source” of being, that an individual has the capacity to establish an intellectual connection that can be expressed as an “inner teacher”.

Having said that, however, I must admit that responses such as Dave8’s regarding such information give me pause to reconsider my current point of view. As Dave8 points out in his comments under “Transmission and the Conveyer Belt” in his prior post, “every teacher must be very careful that the students get the right idea”.

I do not consider myself a teacher. The teacher I speak of can only be sought by the individual within their own intellect. I am only a brother who cares about my brothers and sisters.

One group of friends personify me as the ninth card of the Tarot, the hermit, because I am so insistent on the individual seeking the connection directly.

I must say, however, that my casual discussion of what I feel is our “divine connection” has caused some disturbance within a group of my dear friends. While I intended to only stand in the doorway or the inner sanctum and allude to an environment inside that one might explore for themselves alone, I have caused a disagreement within my circle that leaves me uncertain how to articulate further regarding the issue.

Much of what I read in Dave8’s most resent post seems to indicate the same point made by my group of friends: A forum of this nature is not the place or manner to deal with such subjects as our personal divinity and the implications of that divinity.

The tradition of the knock on the door first, then individual guidance, has served well in practice over the ages, and has demonstrated increasing enlightenment within humankind over the years.

So I defer to the wisdom of my good counsel and will join Dave8 as I tip-toe henceforth with posting of this nature.

john

Dave8 said...

John, it may take some time to respond, but at least I haven't had to answer the door very often as of late.

john said...

While awaiting Dave8’s response, I would like to interject an addendum that will, hopefully, help begin to focus this dialogue to a point or two.

We each form within a female human and are cut from her body.

We arrive into “existence” with a history that extends back, at least, to the beginning of time; and are composed literally of “star dust” in our material form.

Yet our initial awareness is almost blank.

With our sensory organs we begin to “sense” what is out there in the external environment.

With our limited senses of sight, smell, touch, hearing, and tasting; we begin to build a rationalization within our mind and intellect regarding what is actually “out there”.

At the sensory or aware level of consciousness we begin to construct what I will call a “Model” of what is “real”.

With living experience, language, and education we begin to enhance our “Model” and come to rely on it more and more to provide us with knowledge regarding what is still actually “out there”.

When confronted with our mortality and the cruelties of life, we often add a spiritual or religious component to our “Model”. Some are raised with the spiritual or religious component already fully integrated into their “Model” and simply take comfort in the established assurances.

Typically most “Models” follow the general paradigm of the social and cultural groups within which the individual human is born. The “Model” held in 800 BCE, however, would not be an acceptable “Model” today.

The general paradigm for humankind is always in a state of change.

Often an individual will appear and become a catalyst for a paradigm change. As in many human endeavors, the individual leads and the group follows.

Individuals are then energized within the group to become leaders themselves of other followers.

Unfortunately, humans most often forget that they only have a mental “Model” of something. They begin to feel that their “Model” is real and should be imposed on others.

My personal “Model” recognizes all other “Models” as real. In my “Model” all humans could be described as individual “worlds” within the universe of earth.

Where most attempt to maintain a relatively static “Model”, I do not.

My model is not “material” or “form” based. When someone describes their “Model”, they are describing a “real” world to me. I can only seek to envision their “Model” and perhaps emit indications of my model over the illusionary infinity that separates us.

My personal “Model” includes everything from quantum physics to spirits.

When I was a small child, by dad sat me beneath an oak tree and handed me a small acorn that had fallen from the giant tree.

He asked me, “Do you know what is inside this acorn?”

“It’s like a seed,” I responded, “ and deer eat them and we can too it we really have to”.

He smiled because I had answered correctly.

“Yes”, he said, “but there is something even more amazing in this acorn.”

I became excited because I realized he was going to tell me more about our “Indian” ways.

“Within this tiny acorn, son, is all the knowledge necessary to produce another oak tree like the one we are resting against. In fact, there may be many oak trees and thousands of acorns within this very acorn at this moment if it finds a good place to grow.”

He handed me the acorn and I seemed to see it for the first time there in the palm of my hand.

“Son, the great spirit of the Oak is within every acorn you see before you now. The great spirit of the Oak is in the tree we are resting on. The great spirit of the Oak is in all Oak trees. It is the great spirit of the Oak that gives the knowledge to this acorn to produce a tree.”

“Is the great spirit of the Oak, God or with God, like moma says,” I asked, always a bit confused regarding how reality could be so different between my mom’s and dad’s family.

“You can think of it like God gives each creation a “spirit” that holds that form together.” He explained.

Of course I worried my Dad further for understanding, but the point is that during that discussion my Day advised me that I could stand with my back against the oak tree and in contemplation of the energy running through the tree, and the great spirit of the Oak, that I could draw on that energy if necessary when weak or tired.

So in my “Model” there is the great spirit of the Oak and I have experienced the reality of the Oak energy myself. I would not expect this to be valid within other "Models" necessarily, but in my “world” this is real.

So what I am getting at is that we are trying to compare “Models” and validate or invalidate each other’s “Model”.

Hey, they are only models. The “Models” are absolutely NOT what is really out there! No way, shape, or form.

Likely, what is actually out there would simply blow most minds and "Models" to abstract bits.

As I seek to understand your “Model”, Dave8”, it appears that you have disassembled it into bits and pieces, which you examine in detail for “actuality” through a process termed “deconstruction”.

Dave8, would you provide some description of your “Model” as a means for us to better understand your “world”? It is very difficult to determine what is real to you from what I read in our dialogue.

I have come to respect and appreciate your intellect and am intrigued to know more about how you have rationalized existence.

John

john said...

In looking back over my most recent post, I noticed that one paragraph needed clarification. I will submit the following for that purpose:

Unfortunately, humans most often forget that they only have a mental “Model” of something. They begin to feel that their “Model” is what is actually out there in the external environment. They even begin to consider their “Model”, and “Models” like there’s, as sacred or special. Some even want to impose their “Model” on others.

While each individual “Model” is real and valid from the viewpoint of the individual, it is only one “reality” in a universe of “realities” - a functioning “Model” within a universe of functioning “Models”.

Mental models are necessary for the human being to interface with the physical and social environment. Agreement on certain fundamental aspects of the “Model” is necessary for civilization.

We should remember, however, that our impression of the earth, universe, god and such are only within our minds and intellect. We have reduced the environment beyond our body to a very limited mental impression gained through our sensory preception alone.

Unless, of course, some aspect of intellect is universal, or the universe is interconnected, or something like that.

john

Dave8 said...

Hello John, I liked your story of the "acorn" very much, thank you for that. It's always good to see people thinking...

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I will delve into the topic(s) you are providing, I've been more busy than expected as of late... you suggested your circle of friends see you as a Hermit... translated as one rounding the bend, at the point of; endings, vision, tolerance, transformation, spiritual consciousness, global awareness, and perfection.

Let's see, your circle would suggest I was at the point of; building, formation, hard work, endurance, seriousness, and practicality. So, shall I use my position to suggest I really can't answer your question(s) regarding what I believe... as "I" am in a period of... building and formation :-) Well, I wouldn’t… I’m not of that general circle, even though I believe there is “some” merit to what they may correlate to you, or me.

John: "When confronted with our mortality and the cruelties of life, we often add a spiritual or religious component to our “Model”. Some are raised with the spiritual or religious component already fully integrated into their “Model” and simply take comfort in the established assurances."

I am not sure I can understand that statement... are you suggesting we are born with fear of death, what Freud would consider a topic of thanatology?

Perhaps, we are naturally enabled to cognitively handle the circumstances we find ourselves in, based on neural hard-wiring, and other physiological considerations.

The term spirituality, to "me", is the perfect harmony/balance of mind... the mind being the interface to our intrinsic & extrinsic reality - I believe you used the word "portal".

That perfect balance occurs when one's mental reality mirrors our external reality, like a perfect reflection... the unity of mind to reality, removes conflicts.

At the root of all we are, and our Universe, is the combination of energy, understood in many different contexts; frequency, vibration, rhythm, etc., and it is that which presents the observed phenomena of attraction.

An acorn is what it is; because it holds potential, planted there before it existed, and its potential can either be released or withheld if there isn't the proper frequency, vibration, rhythm, etc. Isn't it understood that if a person talks to a plant, the stimuli itself makes the plant healthier... wonder what that's all about. Is there an exchange of energy, is that creation or manipulation, or... I believe you suggested transformation.

Can one form become another, based on those same traits? Yes, such is the awe of Nature. Locked in that acorn is a potential tree, based on an internal process waiting to be primed through cyclic nurturing.

The acorn is not "only" an object, its also a "process", waiting for the empty gaps to be filled so that it may be called into being/existence. I suppose if one were able to understand dormant objects with "process" capabilities, and they filled the gaps... all kinds of things could be brought into existence, but... that is really far out theoretic.

Well, I'll try and respond to the rest this week, take care.

john said...

I will take this opportunity, in the lull awaiting Dave8’s response, to communicate something to the originator of this particular dialogue, John Blatt. Hopefully, he still follows the ramification of his initiation.

Brother Blatt, when I first read your post I realized that you are a thoughtful and articulate individual who puts reality before myth. I recognized, in you, my own propensity to examine subjects in detailed written analysis, foremost for my own thinking.

Most of all I recognized your sincere desire for what we will just have to refer to, for now, as the truth".

I had stumbled on this website and associated blogs in an effort to better "educate" myself regarding the technical and functional aspects of "bloging". Being somewhat "far out" myself, naturally I ended up on a spiritual / anti-spiritual website. It was actually a google search misdirection in that I was looking for a more philosophical, new age type blog to review and perhaps participate in.

However, your headline caught my eye as I perused various blogs on the site. Even though I like to get paid for writing, I soon found myself giving too much free time responding to your blog and realized quickly how these things can draw a person in. As with most of the Internet, I am fascinated with the contribution the Internet is making toward the communalization of our little blue planet.

This blog experience has also allowed me to profit from an interchange in a fairly obscure circumstance that will help me, in the future, to better structure my efforts in presenting my vision and concerns.

In the beginning, however, it was a desire to respond to you personally that made me willing to spend the time and effort necessary to give you a considered response.

Having used language somewhat successfully myself as a craft, I am very impressed with your analytical style and effective organization of the subject. I also appreciate how much effort and heart you have put into your developing book. It would have been easier to pass on by
without comment and not pile all these words and concepts on your work in progress, if I had not had a strong intuitive feeling that I should involve myself.

Feeling that you might be somewhat like myself, I felt that ultimately you world rather really examine and understand the subject in a learning exchange rather than become an authority based on, perhaps, limited knowledge.

When my good brother Dave8 began to contribute to the dialogue, I felt that we would present a good dialectic and examination of the subject. In the process, I feel that I have made my first "blog friend". (Another intriguing aspect of the “blog world” – acquaintances and friends behind a cyber veil.)

And, of course, John Blatt, you may have lost interest and moved on. I sincerely hope not and look forward to your reaction to all this at some point if you feel the interest.

It seems to me that one primary aspect of your thesis concerns “Knowledge”…the hidden thereof.

The concern appears to be that some “Knowledge” was denied to us by God, or by controlling humans seeking to mentally enslave us by the denial.

I would say that there is “knowledge” not generally known or understood that is held by groups and passed on, or is lost, within that group as it evolves with membership over time.

A simple, and easy to understand, example would be the “knowledge” of the “eye”. I may have referred to this prior in this dialogue, however, I will reiterate appropriate to this example.

Most humans, including likely yourself, have the capacity to look at someone in a group of people across a space and have the distant individual person “feel” the look and react by looking at the person initiating the look.

There is “knowledge” how to intensify this ability and is held by some groups.

(Pause and consider a moment how his phenomena might work if you have experienced it yourself. If not try “the eye” for yourself and see if it works for you.)

What this means is that a person with this "knowledge" might see a person about to step into oncoming traffic and cause that person to pause, step back from the curve and respond to the feeling that they are being "looked" at.

It is actually, at one level, an "automatic response" and might not even be realized by the person receiving the “eye” as an external effect.

Likewise, a person with this "knowledge", who becomes angry with another person, might in a moment of weakness cause that person to stumble while taking a step on the stairs. Again the person in the stumble might not even be aware of the faithful distraction.

Over time this “knowledge” has come to be known as the “evil eye” because of associated “knowledge” used to intensify the “effect” of the craft. Perhaps gypsy and wicca folk use this “knowledge” most in the reality of their world, but it is a typical example of “hidden knowledge”.

Another example is the Qabala. This is the name of a “model” that hides/teaches “hidden knowledge held by groups.

In this case even the name is confusing and somewhat “hidden”.

The word “Qabala” comes from the Hebrew word QBL (Qoph Beth Lamed), “to receive”. The name has been confused by various spellings such as today’s favorite “Kabbalah”. Many use “Cabala” in reference to the “Knowledge”.

The Qabala (my preference) is a model regarding how universal "creative" energies can be identified, enhanced and manipulated to effect material and physical manifestation on the earth level/plane. In it's kindergarten sense, it is like a tree that takes the energy of sunlight in its leaves and brings that energy to its roots, which then manifests the life and visual expression of the tree.

Some feel that they are "masters" or "priest" to the “hidden knowledge” and have good reasons to keep the information out of the mainstream paradigm. These are “self appointed” positions.

I can tell you, however, brother Blatt, that all the “hidden knowledge”; past, present, and future can be explained in one simple basic “truth” or “fact”. Let’s cut to the bottom line…

At the fundamental base of what “knowledge” is hidden is the capability (power) of the mind/intellect of each and every human being. This is really what all this “hidden knowledge” is about.

Inherent in this fundamental “hidden knowledge” is the ability of the internal to effect the external.

“Cause and effect” manipulation, and understanding the “patterns of cycles” imposed on all things, are kindergarten examples of this “knowledge”.

God, or the source of the universe, however, is not keeping this or any knowledge "hidden" from you or anyone.

Certainly some of your brothers and sisters are keeping “knowledge” to themselves, but likely, only because you have made no real effort to obtain this knowledge.

Many of the secret writing hidden on the inner walls of ancient Greek and Roman temples are now lying in the ruins open for all to see in the sunlight of today.

I suggest that you are basing your thesis on something that does not exist.

The element of "mind control", which you so articulately described in your originating post, is that something was "once" known long ago and now is not known in some way.

I would suggest to you that there is a lot known now that was not known back 2000 years ago, but not the other way around.

I further suggest that it is more like someone made up something long ago that we now take "it" as original fact.

The conclusion that something in the past “restricts” our knowledge today is false and misleading.

I would suggest to you, John Blatt, that we are not moving away from something, but rather that we are actually moving toward something.

Nothing in the past has been lost. The past is a record of our evolution toward something we are moving toward.

The fallacy is in giving credibility to the past other than in a developmental sense.

Rather consider the indications that have evolved from the past.

· How are we now different from our still primitive primate cousins who have remained in the trees all this time?

· What can we determine and conjecture from the different evolutionary path we have taken as human kind?

· What are we currently determining and discovering at our highest intellectual level, i.e. scientific, social, and spiritual?

· If we look at where we came from as the human species on earth physically and intellectually, and were we are now as a species on earth physically and intellectually, where might we be a millennium from now as a species if we survive?

· Why has the universe caused humankind to develop? If not caused, “potentialized”?


Your initiating essay assumes that there is some validity to the "myths" of the past. I suggest there is none.

Consider this with me.

As human kind has progressed from primitive primate to human, we have continually rationalized our evolution. Since we come into being as children, we believe what we are taught.

We always assume that those who preceded us had some "knowledge" that would help us better understand our individual and collective circumstance. In most cases this is true, i.e. civilization per se.

So people assume that there is some validity to the "spiritual" myths of the past. Actually they are only "developmental" aspects of our evolution.

From when our ancient ancestors continued to hear the "voice" of a tribal leader after their death in their head and constructed a mound to house his "memory", to the great pyramids and cathedrals around the world, ancestral worship has evolved into the “great father”, and sometimes still “great mother”, god of today.

A strange old man once told me that “God” was the first human to die. Seems we never really got over the passing.

The concept of “spirituality” and “religion” is necessary, however, for us as humans to evolve beyond the limited world of our internal perception. It nourishes our evolution and inspires our realization of the external environment.

I feel I should also point out that we have been evolving more "intellectually" than "physically". We are a lot further down the evolutionary path intellectually than physically from our primate cousins we now peer at in zoos.

So I suggest that we "forget" the past other than to consider the "indications" of how we are progressing and in what directions.

This is not to say that our evolving "spiritual" paradigm has no ultimate realization ahead. I feel our past spiritualization is preparing us for the future…likely not to be what we now think or expect.

We can only speculate…not like competing factions, but like children looking up at the night sky with wonder and anticipation.

I speculate that what we call the universe is unified and interconnected.

I feel we are a nano part of that interconnection…kind of like the Internet…or better the World Wide Web.

I feel the universe is not like a huge living organism, as my father felt, but is a Totality. -totalities, within totalities, within totalities…etc. and so on.

I question whether there is an ultimately Totality or ultimate Totalities.

Perhaps a totality within a community or environment of Totalities…but more of the substance of pure intellect rather than physical form.

Physical form, I feel, is the result of something I refer to as “Intellect” or “Cause”.

I speculate that there is a dimension that is undetectable physically and can only be interfaced “intellectually”…in our case, with our “mind” alone.

I speculate that the universe originated from "something" and originated into a "preexisting environment of potential that is of “intellectual” substance not material.

I believe an intellectual plane defines existence of the universe and uses a random process of potential fulfillment to stimulate and “educate” the intellectual plane with “experience”.

I suggest that there is one intellectual pane in a process of fragmentation that is the cause of our universe. I speculate that there is more that one universe and, therefore, more than one “Intellect” that constitutes the initial “Cause” or “Actuality”.

I feel our universe is within a larger environment.

I suggest that human kind is on a journey of discovery, not on a journey of lost recall.

I suggest:

There was no "fall".

There was never more "known" in the past there is known now.

No "knowledge" is hidden by some "omnipotent" being that is toying with us.

God, Adam, Eve, Moses, etc are "Myths" that express our evolutionary process and progress.

The spiritual "messengers" over the ages are simply "markers" indicating our evolution toward more understanding of our being and the universe.

Nothing in the past is holding you or any of us back.

Yet as you indicated in your essay, imbedded in our mass mind is this "assurance" that something in the past "trumps" everything that is happening now and somehow has authority - imposing some obligation or punishment on us as humans today.

There is no "original" sin. The myths about gods, heaven, hell, etc are just myths only. The children have taken the belief of the forbearers, who took the beliefs of their forbears, etc.

Yet, I want to emphasis that something "extraordinary" is going on with human kind in the universe, and we do have great influence on our "destiny" and future as beings in the universe.

Perhaps we are "important" in the universe, or perhaps we are “insignificant” and only a potential that will be either realized or forgotten. I feel this is for humankind to determine either together or in conflict.

I feel that all we have to do is look around at humankind today in order to realize that the universe has something "special" in “mind” for us.

Briefly regarding the history of Christianity:

When the extraordinary man we call Jesus was killed so abruptly, his brief few years of spreading his message had spawned a number of different spiritual movements in his time.

Jesus, however, taught only to his Jewish brothers and sisters.

Jesus was circumcised and held to the Convent of Abraham and the Law of Moses. I feel he would have felt it necessary to either be a Jew or convert to Judaism in order to be his follower.

When he died, the brother of Jesus, James became the head of the movement and is now referred to as the first “Bishop of Jerusalem” It is my understanding that James and the other brother(s) of Jesus sought to continue what Jesus had started.

James’ version of the teachings of Jesus were very different than what we are asked to believe today. When we look at the recently discovered “Gnostic” writings, we can more accurately determine what James “believed” about Jesus and what was written about Jesus just after his death.

One thing is certain. Many follows at the time, perhaps even Jesus himself, believed that Jesus was the anticipated Jewish Messiah. They validated that belief by stating that Jesus was born from the “House of David”. They claimed that linage through his father Joseph.

Only if Jesus was born from the “seed” of Joseph could he claim linage to the House of David.

James fundamentally knew and understood that Jesus was a man.

And there was a salesman in those day…as the history goes.

A man, who actually never met Jesus, Paul wanted to spread the word about Jesus.

His message was that “Jesus would return as the Messiah.” He also assured them that Jesus would be returning very soon…within his and their lifetime.

Being a salesman, he needed that touch of immediancy.

As long as Paul was selling other Jewish people, he was rather successful. I understand that most Jewish people in the area at the time felt it was time for a Messiah to get them out of the mess they were in.

However, when Paul went to non-Jewish communities, he ran into real trouble.

It was difficult enough to suggest that people had to learn and follow the “laws” of Moses to be a follower of Jesus and enjoy the benefits of his soon to be return.

But when Paul mentioned that each male would have to “take” and physically accept the “Covent of Abraham” as a part of the bargain, he met major and sometimes threating resistance.

It is one thing to have a wee child submit to the circumcism, and then another thing to ask a grown man to have his wee-wee tip clipped off.

Paul nearly lost his life at times when he finally had to acknowledge this little essential requirement to his recent "gentile" converts.

It is written that Paul and James had serious disagreements over the necessity of following the law of Moses and the Covenant clip job requirement in order to be a benefactor of the Messianic return of Jesus.

Paul wanted no restrictions associated with he sell.

Paul finally said, “go clip yourself” and began to ignore all Jewish disclaimers. Ultimately he sold his story to the Romans…and of course died before he could be proven wrong about Jesus returning in “his lifetime”.

James held out for the first 30 years, but in 48 c.e. the early Christians convened the Council of Jerusalem to resolve the issue of Christian Covenants and Laws. Paul’s faction won and the “non-Jewish pagans”…henceforth to be called “gentiles” were reluctantly admitted. The “Gentile/Roman” history of Christianity goes on from there.

It is written that Jesus’s brother James died in Jerusalem in 62 c.e. still a Jew.

Over time there was increasing efforts to destroy all vestiges the “Gnostic” traditions taught by James and those who actually knew Jesus and remained true to his teaching.

Fortunately, for us, the discovery of the ancient Gnostic documents from the period of James is allowing us new insight into what actually was being conceptualized by Jesus and his early followers.

Known as the Nag Hammadi documents, these writings come to us directly without revision over time. While they are enlightening and bewildering to study, we can see entirely different interpretations of what Jesus said from these, now published, documents.

To really understand what Jesus was talking about, it is necessary to ignore the traditional established documents, and read through how his words and concepts were interpreted in his on time without holy roman edits and king james’ versions.

The study of Christianity as Paul sold it, and Rome usurped it, is fruitless other than to for political study.

So, John Blatt, while I look forward to Dave8s comments, and, hopefully yours, I hope you understand that I was not seeking to diminish or discredit your work. The skills you have for analysis and writing will serve you well, I’m sure, in accomplishing much of what you desire from the craft.

john

Dave8 said...

John: "We each have a higher level of consciousness that attends to such things as breathing, organ functions, cell maintenance and such. We do not have consciousness access to this hidden higher lever of intellect within our individual being;"

It's part of the bio-autonomic process.

John: "...however, this level of intellect actually keeps us “living” and has the ability to override even our “aware” level of consciousness if necessary."

Especially in situations where our survival triggers are pulled, we enter into an "automatic", fight or flight state of being.

John: "...At our “aware” level of consciousness we refer to this higher hidden intellect as “automatic” as if it is subordinate."

I wouldn't suggest it were subordinate, it is the foundation that our higher intellect is built upon.

John: "...It is within this higher level or consciousness that “memory” and most “knowledge” resides to be provided at need to the “aware” level of consciousness. This perhaps is the domain of the “muse”. Often, personally, concepts and understandings come to me from this source that seem “beyond” my intellect."

We have a subconscious, where memories reside from the earliest years of our life. Our memories are recorded with values assigned, the greater the impact of an event the easier it is to recall, especially for unique moments in our lives. When we attempt to remember what we ate a few weeks ago for lunch, it is much harder because it is a regularly occurring event in our lives, unless there was a particular lunch that had greater impact than others.

I'm not sure if you are using the word "muse" as a guiding spirit, or the act of deep meditation.

John: "It is this hidden level of intellect that allows a creature to hatch from an abandoned egg, never seeing or learning anything, pre-cognitive or post-cognitive, from it’s parent, yet it begins to live and feed in it’s environment with a certainly of experience and knowledge."

We instinctively do operate, and what is it that drives instinct, is it biological only, or... an interesting topic.

John: "So, I would say that “intuition” resides in the higher level of intellect within the individual."

Maybe it manifests itself in thought, at the higher level, but is functioning as a whole at a much lower level... I don't know, seems possible, I suppose.

John: "The question would then be “ Is the individual intellect isolated or part of a larger intellectual plane?” Is “intellect” limited to humankind in the universe?"

Ancient Chinese philosophers suggest that wisdom, begins by getting things by their right names. I'm not sure we are at the exact definition of "intellect"... I'm sensitive to ensuring the compatibility of things to words.

I'm not sure we have found the "thing" we are trying to describe by the word "intelligent", or "intellect".

John: "I feel science is just now peering at the “indications” of a vast “intellectual” plane that supports what we refer to as “the universe” and “reality”. It is an exciting time for us who consider “potentials” and “dreams” as indications of our destiny as human beings."

Are our dreams and potentials the reflection of the past, put into a cognitively perceived context of the future, or... our dreams are what we can bring into being.

John: "Was Socrates’ mystical inner voice limited to his intellectual realm of pre-cognitive/post-cognitive knowledge or did he draw somehow from “beyond” his individual self?"

The individual self, is a cognitive artifact as we become "self-aware", and evidenced and validated via an increasingly complex consciousness.

John: "Considering the mysterious Universe, this is a minor mystery but fundamental to determining the relationship of humankind to the realm beyond."

The realm beyond the veil of death/consciousness (cognitive self-awareness)?

John: "As complex as this consideration is, it appears that it can be refined down to: Either there is, or there is not. Is Is not. As simple as that."

Again, I am not sure we have defined "things" such as "realm beyond", and so I would not venture to suggest a response as it would possibly be erroneous in the context of our discussion.

John: "It is easy to accept either answer and then rationalize assurance."

However, there is also the possibility to have assurance, and then attempt to perceive a rational answer...

John: "As an indication of potential however, we should note that we are drawing ever closer to the understanding of the “stuff” that constitutes reality which, I predict, may reveal the “intellectual” realm within which we exist. …a thought contemplating a thought contemplating a thought."

I accept that we live in a process form, and not a static pattern, which is best described by some languages than others.

John: "In what realm does “thought” reside?"

Natural.

John: "What is the substance of a thought?"

What is "not" the substance of "thought"?

John: "Is “thought” faster than light?"

What is light?

John: "Is there any “reality” in a thought?"

If you suggest the contemplation of a thought, of a thought, of a thought, then it would follow per your logic that the "reality" of a "thought" is a "reality" within a "reality", and possibly within a lower level "reality", or something like that... All working processually under "One" Universal "reality".

John: "…oh how the question flow…"

Well, perhaps your answers are piquing your mental curiosity to the point of reflection on moments of your being/state of experience, which are voiced in the structure of questions... :-)

John: "Humans transform stuff. We create the process of transformation within our intellect as a thought or concept and then manipulate the dirt and stuff to affect the results of our transformation. NASA is organized creation and transformation similar, perhaps, to the builders of the Tower of Babel."

Do we create the process, or does the process create us to imagine, transform, etc...

John: "Perhaps a dream is more pure “creation”, and, of course fiction, and some journalism, but the ability to “create” through imagination and then transform matter into that which is imagined is the amazing capability that sets humans apart from all other life forms we are aware of."

A dream is the recalling of multiple-threads of information held in a cognitive buffer that has not been properly incorporated into a mental framework, and in-turn, we attempt to place our raw information into the "proper" context... but within competing contexts.

John: "Imagination then is “intellectual creation” and “manipulation” is the physical transformation of matter to effect or “realize” the imagined creation. It has been warned, “anything we imagine, we can create”."

I agree. But, we are limited individually by what we can imagine, because it is based on experience and ability to cogitate on ever more complex combinations of potential outcomes. Therefore, some have greater potential to create than others. There are those who have a greater propensity to create, or transform "R"eality, by bringing forth change from an internal reality to an external realization.

I've heard it said, that too many people of "transformation" without taking into account the "validity" and "consequences" of such changes.

Where is that "perfect" end-state that humanity or even the individual should focus their transformation energy...

John: "This ability has lead to the creation of thousands of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Even at this moment humans are concocting weapons of mass destruction for only one purpose: to murder mass numbers of their fellow humans whom they do not even know."

Perhaps, based on an ideology of mutual destruction, in order to keep balance... It may be construed as a fallacious strategy however, as it takes into consideration that "all" people value "life" above "all" else, and that is not necessarily so.

There are those in the world who are "irrational", and who imagine a better existence in an "afterlife", or in another realm... Mutual destruction an deterrence is "not" a good strategy in these terms; one could suggest that bringing people to become more rational, and to value life is likely a much better way ahead for humanity.

John: "Likewise, we could imagine, transform, and manipulate our world into a paradise, a heaven and haven for human life in the universe - a spawning ground. Perhaps we might one day find that the “ancients or ancients” our pagan forbearers told of were actually space beings that seeded our species with a special attribute which now causes us to urn for the stars."

We are primarily "curious" creatures, we yearn for anything that we can mentally conceive, the stars are but one aspect of our yearning...

John: "Whatever the cause, however, we are certainly creative, manipulative, imaginative, and wondrous beings that give fascinating indications of the true reality of the universe."

I agree.

John: "One person attempting to build a spacecraft can accomplish much. However, compared to what can be accomplished by like-minded individuals in an organization of the ability such as NASA, the individual ability is naturally minor."

It would appear that there needs to be a common vision, or an ability to envision a common dream, in order to manifest a group that can synergize an effort.

John: "In the current divisive circumstance where large groups are working together to inflict mass destruction on other large groups, the ability to accomplish such destruction is exists."

I agree.

John: "The “state” I speak of that people must reach to accomplish the really big things, is simple mutual belief and effort. Likely the large group that wants to eventually blow up a large portion of the other group will succeed. They are capable and will likely achieve the “really big thing” they all desire as a group."

But, the more important question, is... how are they being influenced.

John: "Since there are several large groups of humans who are now contemplating the destruction of other large groups, it is likely that this will for destruction will be achieved."

Free will is restricted per intellectual limits, a main reason I don't agree with religious or beleif systems that prevent intellectual expansion; it limits free will to act. The greater the free will a person has the greater their ability to "influence" an ever-greater sphere of reality...

Even Nature seems to limit free will; much speculation on where Nature seems to be leading us, I suppose...

John: "I suggest that the combined contemplation for a really big “destructive thing” will be answered by a “really big threat to all the large groups” on earth. The really big thingy might be a large lump of cold iron that just ‘happens” to be headed our way."

Just a thought...

"When the Body Attacks Itself
Autoimmunity: Rates of immune disorders like Crohn’s and MS more than doubled in 40 years

By Anne Underwood
Newsweek
Dec. 8 issue - The immune system is a thing of beauty—subtle enough to distinguish dangerous invaders like viruses from benign interlopers such as food; clever enough to recognize when the body’s supposedly friendly cells turn cancerous and should be eliminated. But the immune system can also go seriously awry. When it begins mauling healthy tissues, the result can be any one of 80 autoimmune diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. “It’s the price we pay for having such a dynamic, finely balanced system,” says immunobiologist Jeffrey Bluestone, director of the Immune Tolerance Network at the University of California, San Francisco."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3606213/

Where does a cell separate itself from another cell; where does a person separate themselves from another person...

Whereas, a cell can be tricked by an invader, so can a human be tricked, just as there are fractures of disease, there are fractures of ideologies that bring a group of cancer to a common function... when people "think" in terms of a particular ideology, their very appearance can change to reflect its bio-effects on the human body.

Even as the problem of autoimmunity can go awry and kill the very host that supports it; so can the autoimmunity of humanity go awry and attack itself.

You suggest humanity can come to a common understanding and will, but that goes against everything we find in Nature, diversity balances through differences and change is an enabler in that process, but along with diversity comes tensions and pendulum swinging, in cyclic motion over thousands of years.

John: "We imagine, contemplate, and create the potential for mass destruction, and mass destruction may be what we get…together in “our free will” so to speak."

However, humanity faces a bigger threat than a single cell, we have the ability to be one cell/human that can actually eliminate an entire planet at will. Thus the dilemma, do we allow free will and intellectual expansion to occur, or... do we protect the planet, and regulate knowledge and free will...

Seems to be a tricky situation, no? One group could argue that they are being kept ignorant, and oppressed by a gov't or other agencies, and their civil rights are being attacked, yet... when that same group opens the gateway to free knowledge, anyone with an IQ over 135 would likely be able to piece together enough information to become globally dangerous.

The only middle ground is to control "freedom" of "action", and reduce the ability of a person to "will" something into being.

Personally, I don't believe people should be allowed to touch any information may allow them to enact consequences beyond their understanding... So, a first grader doesn't get to read about the finer aspects of nuclear fission chains, etc...

As well, I don't think people should vote if they aren't mentally capable of understanding the consequences of their action/vote, and on, and on...

Thus, is my view of life... Somehow, I don't believe in arming cancer, nor do I believe in freely giving resources to cancerous cells/humans...

I disagree that everyone is "equal", they most certainly are not, they have the right and value to be protected and respected as humans, but not the freedom to act beyond their understanding... that doesn't seem to be the case, it's much too easy to exploit the ignorance of a society for political and economic gains, such is life...

John: "The “state” I imagine and cultivate is a view of our selves as one large group. The big things we could accomplish in this state: about any damn thing we could imagine for our mutual benefit."

Right, but arguing from a point of view, what would be that cell of humans that bring an imagined benefit into being, what would be the ultimate focus for such a think-tank? If an asteroid is heading for earth, it would be pretty obvious what the focus of such a group would be, but without a focus and with political, economic agendas, etc., it's a scattered foray of intellect.

John: "It is my experience and belief that each person has the ability to understand and appreciate our mutual being. The teaching that we are all brothers and sisters is reasonable and easy to believe. No one teaches that we are cousins or distant relatives."

I agree.

John: "Most teach that we are all “children” of a single creating god."

Yet, they fail to de-conflict such statements, which transform a child without conflict, into a child with mental conflict, are that "good" or "bad"?

John: "In an ideal world this would be the fundamental teaching of all religions and we would now be in the mutual realization of our single being."

Yet, you speak of a harmony of knowledge, not yet known to a planet, nor how experiences and cultures are able to create god in their "own" way. There are many groups that refuse to accept that we are a single being, but that we only hold similiar attributes, but deep down inside, we are either a chosen for heaven or hell - very divisive.

John: "It is also my experience, that for those who are compelled, and have the circumstance to seek a closer relationship with the “creating source” of being, that an individual has the capacity to establish an intellectual connection that can be expressed as an “inner teacher”."

As you stated, we don't need to be taught that we are like other humans, such is known at some point in our lives... Our inner teacher is inspired by curiosity, and a desire to expand our freedom, until the day we burst from our very shell of a body on death, and expand ever greater, or so I've heard. Sometimes, our freedom of mental experience outpaces our ability to understand and make direct connections through language, etc...

John: "I do not consider myself a teacher. The teacher I speak of can only be sought by the individual within their own intellect. I am only a brother who cares about my brothers and sisters."

Well said. I would suggest that my goal is to attempt to de-conflict or un-teach people so that they can start learning in a proper frame of mind... by doing such, rational decisions can be made. In such a frame of mind, one would likely not even explore the notion of mass murder, but as a consequence of such a goal; religions and other organizations that poison the well of the mind would be challenged and eventually eradicated.

One can not attempt to teach another, per the Rabbi, until there is a level of understanding met... to me, that is a level where all knowledge is in harmony without conflict, and a person is ready to take another dose of information, to increase the breadth of their intellectual freedom and will...

When emotion, conflict, and contradiction over-ride the intellect making one irrational, the greater the potential for grave consequences. Some are just never going to be psychologically capable of being privy to knowledge beyond their capacity to control - at least by me. Albeit, I have no problem, questioning everything in front of me, in order to elicit thought so that an individual can come to enlightenment and growth on their own.

Dave8 said...

John: "Dave8, would you provide some description of your “Model” as a means for us to better understand your “world”? It is very difficult to determine what is real to you from what I read in our dialogue."

John, I am not sure I understand what you mean by what is "real" to me... is that opposed to what is "not" real to me?

Let me just state that I have a philosophy that incorporates all knowledge and information since recorded history, and I hold it without conflict... the key, to any philosophy is to hold it as a whole without conflict.

There are "some" aspects of my philosophy, that I have to work through, but know that I will eventually make sense out of the few unknowns, even if only in a general sense of understanding...

I'll suggest that one has to start their philosophy based on current levels of knowledge, but that is not as important as creating a framework by which to sift knowledge... Nature helps out, we are naturally born with cognitive filters, and potential...

I have always known "unity" of life, and Universe, not based on knowledge, but based on "being" (ontology)... I was never taught that unity existed, I was taught that unity didn't exist (epistemology)...

There are pieces of philosophy I accept from philosophers, but rarely accept "all" of any one philosophers' views, as they are either incomplete or they enter statements in conflict with what I know or have experienced...

Everything means something, it's just a matter of putting it into context with unity, I'm Ionian to the core.

There is one fluid process, by which all is governed based on a finite set of natural laws, etc. The greatest apogee of a common understanding of natural laws, was around the period of enlightenment, but has faltered based on the increasing fragmentation and specialization of knowledge.

All knowledge has "One" root, but we do not "learn" from the "root", in the U.S., we are taught from the leaves, downward to the "root". Many times (and not how the leaf relates to the next piece of the tree), we are erroneously taught the "dead leaves" that are no longer relevant, and thus, are removed from the entirety of the tree itself - how does one find the "root" if they are working from fragmented and dead knowledge? They can't, it's not that difficult to understand, given the proper context.

To me, ridding ourselves of the illusion of conflict and contradiction is the beginning of enlightenment. This thread is interesting to some degree, because it is on the Tree of Knowledge; ironic, because...

Ontologically speaking, when we only hold "being" as a premise, there is no conflict or perceived contradiction in life, and one just moves with Nature, for better or worse.

However, with "knowledge", comes the potential for humans to enter into states of mental conflict and contradiction... but it's an illusory conflict or contradiction, whereby, a person must rise above what they've been taught, in order to remove that which stands in contradiction to the very United reality in which the live; knowledge itself isn't good or evil (however one defines that term), its how one applies the knowledge...

In this modern era, for a person to get past all of the separatist conditioning, and to strive forward to make sense of the very reality in which they live without conflict takes a tremendous amount of effort. And, even when they get there, there are those who will always fight against the Truth (tentatively held), because it challenges the economic systems that promote their livelihood. A livelihood most times, not concerned with linking knowledge to the root(s) of the Tree of Knowledge.

If your goal is to find that root and teach others, then good luck. However, I believe you suggested once before, there is nothing wrong with just "being". Meditation, for some is the removal of all knowledge, to the core of being, where no "conflict" can be experienced - if meditation is done correctly and effectively.

That is, not just trying to ignore reality, but going to the core of reality, and slowly and purposely building it back mentally without conflict... I suppose one would have to know how to do such in order to promote such a method... and, I suppose, if one were able to produce such a method & model they would likely be able to call into being, much...

John, a goal in my life, is to release as many people as possible from mental conflict, based on epistemological untruth, but mental conflict resolution, doesn't require giving another person additional knowledge in volume, just proper context so they are able to organize their thoughts and state of being without conflict...

So, I see my world as "is", and from "being" outward, that is all, nothing complex to my theory of life... knowledge just allows me to have a deeper understanding of my relationship with Nature, and it is in that area I progress... Take care

john said...

Dave8, I had hoped to use this time to respond to your most interesting and “beneficial” post of late. I’ll explain “beneficial” when I respond in my next post. However, I find myself, like you of recent, suddenly very obligated for time.

I thought it appropriate to our dialogue, however, to mention the reason because it has some relationship to this blog.

Recently, I found myself in a dilemma how to deal with a concern I have. I felt helpless, muted, and in a way “defenseless” against my concern. Some of my concern even spilled out in the course of our prior dialogue.

Then two weeks ago a friend phoned me and asked that I take on a task for him and his project. He told me at the time that he had considered every body else he could think of, but that none either could or would accept the responsibility. He said he attempted in every way to avoid having to ask me, but for some reason, he could not get my name off his mind. Finally, he said he had no choice but to ask. He said he felt ok knowing that I would likely refuse the task anyway.
He considers me a good friend to walk a wooded trail with, but somewhat intense to work with.

This friend, David Beaver, is the project director for:
http://worldspacecenter.org

They are involved in promoting space travel simulation and the overview effect. To understand more about this you can check out the link to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The institute published a book by Frank White, “The Overview Effect”. This deals with the impact on the astronauts after they had seen the earth from space. Seems it had a profound effect and is predicted to have a similar effect on human kind in the future as a paradigm shift.

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=526

Turns out I will be working with Frank White on this project.

Only thing was, none of these people really share my concerns, with any immediacy, and have commercial and social agendas. They are very focused on their areas of interest.

Then in this random serendipitous flow of things, Rusty Schweickart, the astronaut, has appeared on the scene from off stage, and I feel certain we will be able to add him to the mix.

Rusty started the B612 project that was recently recognized by the United Nations. He is scared, like me, of a big rock in the sky.
Seems this project will have me working with Rusty.

His website is:
http://www.b612foundation.org/

My immediate pressure is that the World Space Center is having a conference in Washington DC on July 18th. The info is on their website. A lot of space people will be at the conference. They feel they may even Gore attending or showing up on a screen.

Now, to my delight, it appears we will be able to get Rusty Schweickart to appear, at least, virtually at the conference.

I very much would like to see this aspect injected into the theme of the conference, and am working with the conference so I can have some influence regarding issues such as this.

So instead of having the pleasure of answering your response, I am beginning my work to help conjure this project and upcoming conference.

If you do look at the World Space Center website now, give us a few days and it should be far more impressive in look and content.

I very much enjoy the opportunity to have your most thoughtful and thought provoking exchange, and will be back with my response as soon as possible.

john

Dave8 said...

John, I must say, I hope you have fun in your endeavor.

The release of gravity and a captive planet does bring a sense of physical and more importantly a psychological freedom.

I have, and continue to be qualified in a space capacity, but am not qualified as an astronaut.

You are correct in your assessment, that there are more pieces in play, than a mere goal for space exploration within national committees. The operators have no problem executing mission, but that is not possible until the hurdles of politics and economics are overcome.

The project on the website you provided is an effort to bring space to citizens, in a psychological capacity. There are currently space programs that offer space flight to the paying citizen for a price.

I must say, you caught me by surprise though, one minute we are talking of metaphysics and then, we move towards space operations, a place that holds a warm spot for me.

Just remember, that politics flows through everything, and keep on believing in the joy of exploration, and bringing that experience to others. Humanity typically moves with a five meter target in view, rarely, are political matters moved by the visionary in a democracy – well, unless you have a leader like the current administration. The threat has to be real and tangible to move a people to embrace a concept at a personal cost.

Good luck, and enjoy your seminar.

john said...

Even though the thread and life of this blog appears at a dead end, I wonder if Dave8 still checks in occasionally.

Events caused me to miss out on much of the seminar; however, the flowing link gives some flavor of the event: http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/07/ overview

In the meantime, I have danced to the music of the world too much and find myself in a defeated retreat.

I return to my private world a very different person than the person who recently contributed to this blog.

I feel, by the influence of this blog, and more specifically Dave8, that I have completely “deconstructed” my model of ultimate reality. In clearing things out, I discovered, what I felt was a fault in a major basic premise that invalidated my entire “belief” model.

Over the last few weeks I have been attempting to formulate some new sense of ultimate reality.

Having long ago ceased to hold the general paradigm as ultimate reality, and now having discarded everything in my “belief” system, I now need some time alone to reconsider, basically, everything.

I will attempt, in the next few days, to pick up the thread as I begin an attempt to spin, for myself, some new sense of the factual reality hiding within this allusion of human senses.
Dave8, should you wonder by, thanks for challenging conversation.
j.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

My quest for a new reality model was punctuated today by a side bar item I read in the August 2007 edition of SEED Magazine / pg 36. ( www.seedmagazine.com).

The article is by Henry Markram, the founder and director of the Blue Brain Project: and entitled,

“Neuroscience suggests that our senses never evolved to capture a series of exact snapshots of the world.”

“Acting as a camera, our eyes would saturate any memory storage device in seconds. Our senses send only minimal clues to the brain about with is “out there” and with that it builds an immensely rich, 3D model or the world. Our dreams are a nightly testimony to the brain’s ability to construct credible and even incredible universes.

“But Solipists shouldn’t start rejoicing at this apparent victory for the res cogitans. One must answer the fundamental question of why the brain maps our internally constructed model back onto a world from which its clues came from.

“Perhaps the quintessential characteristic of our consciousness is that it can’t be viewed directly by the brain that generated it. We can only infer and imagine the nature of our own consciousness by reflecting it off others, much like light bouncing off a mirror.

“Keeping our experimentally calibrated models sane and stable is what the empiricist in us all relishes, and our brain releases wonderful chemicals to reward and dazzle us into believing we “see” an objective world, rather than construct a version of our own.

“Knowledge provides us with the tools to build and calibrate our internal models of the world to match what we call external reality and simulate into a distant future. But the logician Kurk Godel would have probably argued that we can never fully understand reality because of the endless recursiveness or our models.

“This is also a problem for experiencing what is our there in the world because we drift further away from the source of our original thoughts on it.

“The shocking equation then seems to become that consciousness is inversely proportional to knowledge. Yogis and Buddhists may be dancing at the implications of this possibility, but perhaps models, true or false, merge with and become part of reality.

“The question then is whether our models, once born, are intrinsically conscious, or are merely bubbles spewing from an endless volcano of consciousness”

…needless to say, this provides great inspiration to the person seeking to find and identify ultimate reality.

j.

john said...

I am continuing this tread of thought in a new blog that is considering and envisioning a new "religion" for the Space Age.

Note to Dave8, if you fly over and notice, join in at:
http://religionforthespaceage.blogspot.com/

Dave8 said...

John, sorry I haven't responded, I didn't notice a response for a long while, and thought this thread was dead ;-)

John: "“The question then is whether our models, once born, are intrinsically conscious, or are merely bubbles spewing from an endless volcano of consciousness”"

Both. Just an educated guess, but... our DNA/genetics determine the filtering mesh that surrounds our brain; it's like a two way screen, where we control loop outputs intrinsically.

We pull in, hold in temporary memory storage, predict value, and push back out to measure reliability. Our entire cognitive structure is based on neural feedback looping. Those who have tighter/particular type filters may have better pattern recognition, etc. The test for pattern recognition is equivalent to the IQ test.

John: "…needless to say, this provides great inspiration to the person seeking to find and identify ultimate reality."

If this area of study is appealing to you, there is a plethora of information regarding artificial intelligence, and how it is attempting to model the human intellect. It's truly quite fascinating.

John: "I am continuing this tread of thought in a new blog that is considering and envisioning a new "religion" for the Space Age."

That should be interesting, I may just do that. Thanks for a lively discussion. Take care.

john said...

Dave8, the aforementioned blog is somewhat a personal thing...i'm using it to keep notes on my developing thinking and as a basis for a website to be developed in the future (when up the url will be: SpaceAgeReligion.com}…it is a “notes to myself & friends” sort of thing at this point.

Perhaps a couple of friends might add a bit of dialectic, but do not expect a lot of outside
visitors. Would truly appreciate your comments, however, having very much enjoyed the quality and benefit of the discussion here.

Good fortune,
j.