Oh, man, did my philosophical heart flutter when I looked at the cover of the most recent New Scientist magazine and read:
WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS REALLY MADE OF: strip away human notions of reality and one thing remains
I feverishly turned to page 38. Finally, I'd know What It is All About. I had a suspicion. Which was confirmed when I saw the heading, "Reality by numbers."
Yes, it isn't wildly surprising that a science magazine would contain an article by a physicist, Max Tegmark, who believes that the essence of the universe is mathematical.
Surprising or not, the notion makes a lot of sense. For if you want to get beyond an anthropomorphic conception of reality, what's better to take you there than a pure abstract number? Tegmark talks about the search for a theory of everything, a complete description of reality:
My personal quest for this theory begins with an extreme argument about what it is allowed to look like. If we assume that reality exists independently of humans, then for a description to be complete, it must also be well-defined according to non-human entities – aliens or supercomputers, say – that lack any understanding of human concepts.
Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human baggage like "particle," "observation" or other English words.
In contrast, all physical theories that I have been taught have two components: mathematical equations, and words that explain how the equations are connected to what we observe and intuitively understand. When we derive the consequences of a theory we introduce concepts – protons, stars, molecules – because they are convenient.
However, it is we humans who create these concepts. In principle, everything could be calculated without this baggage: a sufficiently powerful supercomputer could calculate how the state of the universe evolves over time without interpreting it in human terms.
All of this raises the question: is it possible to find a description of external reality that involves no baggage? If so, such a description of objects in this reality and the relations between them would have to be completely abstract, forcing any words or symbols to be mere labels with no preconceived meanings whatsoever. Instead, the only properties of these entities would be those embodied by the relations between them.
Well, if you're only somewhat confused by this overview of Tegmark's outlook on reality, read his core paper "The Mathematical Universe" to dive into much deeper thought-waters.
I swam back to the surface of my usual mundane ideas after just a few pages. But while there I saw that Tegmark helpfully boils down his perspective to a couple of hypotheses: (1) There exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans, and (2) Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.
He admits that more than a few physicists (and lots of metaphysicians) disagree that reality exists without observation. Yet if the ERH (External Reality Hypothesis) is correct, it does make sense that the universe wouldn't be founded on human concepts.
After all, the cosmos preceded us by over thirteen billion years. Why would the root of existence be capable of being captured in a word like "God," "quantum," "vacuum energy," or "Buddha nature"?
So I like Tegmark's emphasis on shedding language-baggage. That's what most deep mystical philosophies do. He takes the same concept-less route in pursuing a scientific, rather than spiritual, approach to grasping the nature of reality.
Without words, what would religions rest on? Take them away and you're left with an appealing voidness, empty of dogmatism fueled by a belief that this description of the ultimate is how things really are.
Admittedly, there's more than a little feeling of vertigo – ooh, I'm spinning with no thought place to stand on! – if you embrace Tegmark's hypothesis. It takes some getting used to.
Ultimately, why should we believe the mathematical universe hypothesis? Perhaps the most compelling objection is that it feels counter-intuitive and disturbing. I personally dismiss this as a failure to appreciate Darwinian evolution.
Evolution endowed us with intuition only for those aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, such as the parabolic trajectories of flying rocks. Darwin's theory thus makes the testable prediction that whenever we look beyond the human scale, our evolved intuition should break down.
I keep coming back to "don't know" as the wisest idea we could ever have about ultimate reality.
“Tegmark has also formulated the "Ultimate ensemble theory of everything", whose only postulate is that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically".”
Taking bets that this guy loves mathematics. His god is mathematics. Materialists will go to extremes to shy away from what many call the “hard problem” and that hard problem being able to explain consciousness.
From my point of view the advaita teachings have dived the deepest into this hard problem with their teachings on the relationship of awareness and consciousness. Awareness is primary and absolute whereas consciousness is secondary and ever changing.
Consciousness is the vehicle that gives lots of drama. Consciousness has variation, pure awareness is infinite and without variation. The more variation in our consciousness the more ignorance.
Many call this awareness nothingness but this is misleading. Awareness is all and all. It appears that the best two descriptions of awareness are love and intelligence but not intellect. Intellect is of consciousness not awareness.
Most people believe consciousness is ultimate reality whereas I lean in the direction that pure awareness is ultimate reality. Can we comprehend this pure awareness with our human level of consciousness? The mystics may get a glimpse of it. And what they tell us it is profound bliss.
“I keep coming back to "don't know" as the wisest idea we could ever have about ultimate reality.”
Many state that the beginning of wisdom is our admitting to our ignorance. The ego despises the word ignorance. We humans are so low on the scale of understanding the mysteries of the universe I suspect on a scale of 1 to 100 we may rate a 2 or maybe even a 5. Who knows not I.
The ego would rather be called sinful and maybe even evil; then admit to its ignorance. Several things the ego really believes in and protects at all costs: free will, individualism, and its scores on an IQ test as an indicator of intelligence. Oh one more thing graduating from an elitist university appears to be a big “ego thing”.
One must keep in mind that George jr has a degree from an elitist university.
Posted by: william | September 22, 2007 at 12:05 AM
If you are attracted to mathmatics and the esoteric might enjoy "The Beginners Guide to Constructing the Universe" by Michael Schneider. At the least, it may open up a new way of seeing things when you are out hiking in nature.
Posted by: Garden philosopher | September 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
William,
FIRST you said:
" Awareness is primary and absolute whereas consciousness is secondary and ever changing."
"Consciousness is the vehicle that gives lots of drama. Consciousness has variation, pure awareness is infinite and without variation. The more variation in our consciousness the more ignorance."
"Many call this awareness nothingness but this is misleading. Awareness is all and all. It appears that the best two descriptions of awareness are love and intelligence but not intellect. Intellect is of consciousness not awareness."
THEN you said the following:
“I keep coming back to "don't know" as the wisest idea we could ever have about ultimate reality.”
"Many state that the beginning of wisdom is our admitting to our ignorance."
"Who knows not I."
If the latter are true, how can you say the former?
Posted by: Tucson Bob | September 22, 2007 at 05:42 PM
"If the latter are true, how can you say the former?"
Why not you take me serious. All attempts in words to describe truths become paradoxical. Need to pay attention to the part where I state we humans know about 2 to 4% of reality.
Tell it as I see it today knowing that tomorrow might bring something different.
If you actually believe you are god then how about a planet or heck while you are at it create or manifest a universe. Or is that phenomenal universe doing these dynamic changes all on its own?
To try and convince anyone that you have reached a level of pure awareness which appears to have the traits or characteristics of absolute love and divide intelligence is delusional at best.
Consciousness is phenomena; awareness is realty. If anyone thinks they have reached a level of pure awareness as a human, oh my! That is the ultimate in delusional thinking
Surely one can see the very way you and Tao have responded to my posts suggest other wise. Why are my posts so upsetting? Who cares what I think or believe? If we are comfortable with our beliefs we care not, but if we are insecure in our beliefs than the attacks begin.
We are gods in the making as our consciousness moves from ignorance to awareness it becomes more awaken until we “find” our true potential, which was always there like a spark in the wind but will someday be a raging fire of creativity and love and divine intelligence.
I am amazed with all the evidence for reincarnation and entities coming through mediums one does not even question their existing atheist beliefs or the folks with the we merge into the universal consciousness belief? Are advaita types blind or does this reality interfere with their existing truths.
Atheist have the same problem not one paranormal phenomenon can be accepted or their whole system of beliefs comes tumbling down. Fear of the slippery slope I suspect and as the slope begins to slide here comes the mental pain. Few make the breakthru.
Whether it is the minister that thinks his black book is truth or the person that thinks he is god they both have one thing in common. Their beliefs are thee beliefs. And any beliefs or for that matter even any evidence that does not conform to either the minister or the “I am god” beliefs; the attacks begin.
The ego cannot stand to look beyond its beliefs. Something must come into ones life to shatter the ego for it to be able to even consider something outside its beliefs. This is the focus of the koan.
Look around the world people are killing one another over beliefs. Beliefs blind us to reality. It has to be that way or else no conscious world, as we know it. Now really insult my intellect and tell me that the “I am god” folks don’t have beliefs. The atheists tell me the same thing.
“The ways are but two: love and the want of love”. Duncan Blewett
We humans are still in the want of love category that is why we defend our beliefs to the bitter end. (Please note I said we humans and not you humans)
As always thanks for the comments.
Posted by: william | September 23, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Dear William,
do you realize sometimes what you are writing?
For instance,
"Need to pay attention to the part where I state we humans know about 2 to 4% of reality"
The number 1 is a number that becomes the fraction 0.02 if divided by 50 - which corresponds to 2 percent - or 0.05 if divided by 20. In any case, in order to form a percentage you need a denominator. It entails that you implicitly have a sense of what knowing 100% of reality would mean. Or, you mean something but write something else without realizing that what you write is simply not what you mean.
Unfortunately, your comments are often filled with that kind of flaky thinking. It has nothing to do with the content of your beliefs. It is simply the way they are expressed and connected sometimes leads to contradictions that you don't seem to realize. And these contradictions ARE NOT simple reflections of the ambiguites of reality. Yes, life is ambiguity and ambiguity is life but using it as an excuse may only serve someone's self-deception.
On a different topic,
"I am amazed with all the evidence for reincarnation and entities coming through mediums one does not even question their existing atheist beliefs or the folks with the we merge into the universal consciousness belief?"
How many memories of yourself (sic) being someone in previuos lifes do you have personally? How many ghosts are beer buddies or acquaintance?
May be the reason why so many people simply disregard those things is that it is irrelevant from the point of view of (deluded if you prefer) daily life. How many ghosts I meet when I go to work? as far as I know, zero. How many times do I get screwed big time by a ghost in a week? As far as I know, zero. May be they do from some astral realms without my knowing but so far have been able to handle their messes ...
or may be I got some help from some 'good' ghosts also ...
The point is that, unless you rely solely on your imagination, there is no point to make sense of all these stories ...
And it is operationaly irrelevant ...
All the knowledge we got from mediums is nothing that mankind did not already know or conceived by itself . Ghost are somehow the least creative and original creatures ever seen ... I really cannot explain myself why ! :)
You may say that my irreverance and refusal to let my imagination wanders on these issues will lend me to be reincarnated as pig or mouse or whatever ... then so be it! (see below)
As opposed to what you have implied sometimes, these comments mean no ill to you. I do not suffer from your comments. I am not upset or ticked by them. I simply find them funny. Because, ultimately you are the one that first and foremost has to suffer for holding wrong beliefs (if it is the case). And same thing for anyone on this board. If Tao is wrong - then have him suffering long enough from behaving according to his beliefs - reality will eventually break them up. There is no need to use the ego to the right and to the left as an excuse all the time ...
Posted by: the elephant | September 23, 2007 at 04:15 AM
"Unfortunately, your comments are often filled with that kind of flaky thinking"
One person's flaky thinking is another’s grand discovery. When I look at history it is full of people that have been accused of "flaky thinking". The names are too many to list but you may want to seek them out as it may alter your opinions of flaky thinkers. Without realizing it you have given me a grand compliment.
When a person’s views are outside the existing paradigm they are almost always accused of flaky thinking by those whose views are within the existing paradigm. We will defend our existing paradigms to the bitter end. The Catholic Church just admitted that Galileo was correct in his flaky thinking. May want to watch the video “the business of paradigms” to further your views on flaky thinking.
“I do not suffer from your comments. I am not upset or ticked by them. I simply find them funny.”
If you find my comments funny then that is my gift to you. Glad you enjoy them. There is a new form of yoga sweeping across America and India and it is called “laughing yoga” and they are finding that laughter is good for the soul. So if you find them funny enough to laugh out loud go for it, as it is good for the soul and the body.
"Ghost are somehow the least creative and original creatures ever seen ... I really cannot explain myself why ! :)"
This depends on how we define ghosts. Several entities that have come through mediums are profound in their teachings (the open door) most are not. When we cross over to a different plane of existence we gain no great insights other than we know we survived death. Ghosts appear to not have this insight and continue to wander around in the physical plane. Hence we get a glimpse of them from time to time.
“And it is operationaly irrelevant ...”
Not sure what you mean is operationally irrelevant but if you mean life after death research or any research irrelevant that deals with the paranormal than you may want to do some research on neurotic behaviors. Many believe that much if not most neurotic behavior is caused by the fear of death. Sounds to me like more research is needed not less.
The amount of human suffering from grief alone is almost overwhelming to even think about unless of course you are in the camp of the “I am god” folks and they state there is no one there to suffer. Tell a mother that has just lost a child there is no one there to suffer. Yea that is compassionate.
“And same thing for anyone on this board. If Tao is wrong - then have him suffering long enough from behaving according to his beliefs - reality will eventually break them up.”
From my point of view this is a correct statement. This is the law or principle of karma without it I am not sure that anyone would advance in his or her consciousness.
Suffering according to the Buddha comes from a not knowing or unaware status. Not knowing and unawareness are synonyms for ignorance. Now if suffering is the result of our ignorance then it is paramount to discover the root cause or reason for or the origin of that ignorance.
The conscious mind will not be quelled until it arrives at the gate and indeed awakens to its true realty and with all the love, vitality, and intelligence (i.e. creative ability) of the absolute. What the “I am god now” folks have yet to attain is this love, vitality, and intelligence of the absolute.
This is the journey, the drama, the play, the twoness, indeed life itself, as we know it. God expresses itself though the journey and without ignorance there would be no entities that perceive themselves as separate entities. Hence; no manifestation of perceived entities.
“If there is no struggle there is no progress” Frederick Douglass.
Great comments thanks for the feedback.
Posted by: william | September 23, 2007 at 01:20 PM
WILLIAM said: "If you actually believe you are god then how about a planet or heck while you are at it create or manifest a universe."--
Where do you get that I believe I am God? How could "I" be anything of the sort? Perhaps the creation is just lived but no 'one' doing it.
WILLIAM: "We are gods in the making as our consciousness moves from ignorance to awareness it becomes more awaken until we “find” our true potential, which was always there like a spark in the wind but will someday be a raging fire of creativity and love and divine intelligence."--
If we get to the point where we think we are gods raging in a fire of creativity, love, and divine intelligence, maybe we aren't. Maybe we would just be raging egotists?
WILLIAM: "I am amazed with all the evidence for reincarnation and entities coming through mediums one does not even question their existing atheist beliefs or the folks with the we merge into the universal consciousness belief? Are advaita types blind or does this reality interfere with their existing truths."--
You need to work on your sentence structure. Mediums, psychics and their channeled entities are as lost as the people seeking their guidance, in my opinion. I don't know if 'advaita types' are blind or not, or if what you are saying is a reality they can be blind to.
WILLIAM: "The ego cannot stand to look beyond its beliefs. Something must come into ones life to shatter the ego for it to be able to even consider something outside its beliefs. This is the focus of the koan."--
Here's one, sort of:
We are conditioned to suppose that what we are is the presence of what is present, which is the absence of what is absent.
But when we apperceive what we are, we find that what we are is the absence of what is present and the presence of what is absent.
Posted by: Tucson Bob | September 23, 2007 at 02:24 PM
" Several entities that have come through mediums are profound in their teachings "
By ghosts, I simply meant all kinds of entities we can ever imagine beyond what I should call (with a big SIC!) our normal realm of reality. Your charaterization precisely points to an ambiguity associated with that kind of stuff. "profound" is always very subjective and arbitrary. Many followers have found BaBa ji a very "profound" man. Lets ask the same question to these poor kids, whom he allegedly abused, in what sense do they find him "profound".
Profound may just not cut it!
What about some information regarding cures for diseases, or technologies. You know something concrete that can become public and available knowledge, and thus operationaly revelant.
By that expression I simply meant that an information is operationaly revelant when it becomes useful. For instance, CPR. That knowledge can become quite handy if ever put in a certain situation ... it then becomes relevant and operational ...
To be told by some lady that I am love and angels are this or that is rarely useful - unless the imagination is involved ...
btw, I understand (but not experience) your frustation - if it is the case as I perceive it (I may be mistaken) -regarding what I call the 'Neo-adventists', or what you call rightfully "I am god only" bunch - I like the expression. For most, they are simply imagining "the point of view of God". Unfortunately, the internet has made it much easier for any lunatic to start a satsang business ... But please, consider (only that) that you may be mistaken when you place Niz in that category. It is true that most of the "I am god only" group leans on him as an authority or often refers to his wisdom but, to put simply, he is surely not one of them.
Posted by: the elephant | September 23, 2007 at 03:11 PM
Dear William,
WILLIAM:"Without realizing it you have given me a grand compliment.
When a person’s views are outside the existing paradigm they are almost always accused of flaky thinking by those whose views are within the existing paradigm. We will defend our existing paradigms to the bitter end. The Catholic Church just admitted that Galileo was correct in his flaky thinking. May want to watch the video “the business of paradigms” to further your views on flaky thinking. "
Have you ever read the book "Stumbling on happiness" by Daniel gilbert. It is about imagination and happiness. He is a psychologist and prof at Harvard. According to him, an important dimension that is coextensive to our capacity to imagine is that "we fail to consider how much imagination fills in, but we also fail to consider how much it leaves out." p112
Your comment leaves out the fact that, statistically speaking, the Galileos of this world have been the very rare exception. History is mostly full of wackos and bozos, but mostly and simply normal individuals with a big imagination, who have challendged all forms of authorities and were proven, in the same sense as Galileo was validated, wrong.
So the fact that I suggest that you may be, in some cases, a flaky thinker does not imply, but only in your imagination, that you are a Galileo of this world. May be you are may be not ...
A problem though is that I stated it was not about the content but the form of your thinking - in which case Galileo's example is a very bad one for you to imply anything.
Posted by: the elephant | September 23, 2007 at 03:25 PM
William wrote:
"pay attention to the part where I state we humans know about 2 to 4% of reality."
-- Again, some questions: How do you know that? What is the other 96 to 98 percent of this "reality"? And what actually is your definition of this "reality" that you speak of?
Please answer, otherwise no one will take anything you say seriously anymore.
"If you actually believe you are god then how about a planet"
Who said that they believed that they "are god"?
"Or is that phenomenal universe doing these dynamic changes all on its own?"
Well that's what the physicists and astrophysicists and astronomers and geologists and biologists etc etc all concur.
"try and convince anyone that you have reached a level of pure awareness which appears to have the traits or characteristics of absolute love and divide intelligence"
Pure awareness is the fundamental nature, not something which has yet to be attained. Your concept of awareness is indicative of duality. You clearly have not yet awakend to/as Self-knowledge.
"Consciousness is phenomena; awareness is realty."
Incorrect. Consciousness is conscious-ness. Awareness is aware-ness. But phenomena is simply only phenomena.
"If anyone thinks they have reached a level of pure awareness as a human, oh my! That is the ultimate in delusional thinking"
Again, pure awareness is one's fundamental/essential/primordial nature. It is not something which has yet to be attained. Your problem is either you are not rigorous with your terms and definitions, or you do not understand what "pure awareness" actually means.
"Why are my posts so upsetting?"
-- You are the only one who is saying that over and over again. So you must be the one who is upset. Because no one else here has indicated any such "upset".
"Who cares what I think or believe?"
-- Well obviously you do. I don't think anyone else "cares" much about what your beliefs are, especially when your rhetoric is so presumptious and flaky.
"If we are comfortable with our beliefs we care not, but if we are insecure in our beliefs..."
-- Well if that was true then you must be rather insecure in your beliefs because you keep asserting them here.
"our consciousness moves from ignorance to awareness it becomes more awaken until we “find” our true potential"
-- That is fundamentally incorrect. Awareness does not "awaken". Awakening is simply the realization that awareness is primordial. Your conept is only indicative of a search within duality, which has no end. Realization/awakening itself is never progressive.
"all the evidence for reincarnation and entities coming through mediums"
-- And just where & what is this hard "evidence" that you speak of? ( mediumistic baloney is not scientifically acceptable)
"...atheist beliefs or the folks with the we merge into the universal consciousness belief?"
-- And just who are these "we merge into the universal consciousness" folks that you speak of? I would like to know.
"Are advaita types blind or does this reality interfere with their existing truths."
-- What "advaita types" are they? What "existing truths" are you referring to?
"Atheist have the same problem not one paranormal phenomenon can be accepted or their whole system of beliefs comes tumbling down."
-- Paranormal believers have the problem that their whole system of beliefs is built upon abstract ideas, perceptions, and illusions... which all comes tumbling down when real Self-knowledge dawns.
"The ego cannot stand to look beyond its beliefs"
-- Do you not yet understand that the "ego" is a fiction? And "beliefs" are merely abstract thoughts.
"Something must come ... to shatter the ego for it to be able to even consider something outside its beliefs."
-- How could something that is fundamentally a fiction, be "shattered"? It appears that you do not have any comprehension of what you are talking about.
"around the world people are killing one another over beliefs. Beliefs blind us to reality. It has to be that way or else no conscious world,"
-- "It HAS to be that way"? ... "no conscious world"? Are you kidding? Amazing. You are sooo sooo sooo lost brother. Talk about flaky pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo... this kind of nonsense is the epitome.
"insult my intellect and tell me that the “I am god” folks don’t have beliefs."
No one is insulting your intellect, but you are insulting mine. Furthermore, who exactly are these "I am god folks" that you are referring to? I would really like to know who it is that you are talking about.
"that is why we defend our beliefs to the bitter end. (Please note I said we humans and not you humans)"
-- Speak for yourself, not for others.
"One person's flaky thinking is another’s grand discovery."
What "discovery"? Flaky thinking is simply flaky thinking.
"When a person’s views are outside the existing paradigm"
-- What "existing paradigm" is that?
"if suffering is the result of our ignorance then it is paramount to discover the root cause or reason for or the origin of that ignorance."
That question is the same exact question as is: "What is the root cause, or reason for, or the origin of Maya." The answer is, there is NO ORIGIN. Just as is: "What is the origin of darkness?"
"What the “I am god now” folks have yet to attain is this love, vitality, and intelligence of the absolute."
-- Who are the "I am god now folks"? Also, "love, vitality, and intelligence" is one's own innate true nature. Thsese are not something lacking that must be gained anew.
"God expresses itself though the journey and without ignorance there would be no entities that perceive themselves as separate entities. Hence; no manifestation of perceived entities."
-- The "journey" is a fiction. And separate bodies and so-called "entities" exist with or without ignorance. Mere perception is not true Knowledge.
“If there is no struggle there is no progress”
-- "Struggle" is due only to ignorance. Knowledge is progress. Ignorance is not progress. So struggle born of ignorance is not progress. Knowledge, not struggle, means progress.
And in conclusion, as Elephant has noted:
Elephant said (quote): "Unfortunately, your comments are often filled with that kind of flaky thinking." --and-- "...nothing to do with the content of your beliefs. It is simply the way they are expressed and connected sometimes leads to contradictions that you don't seem to realize. I do not suffer from your comments. I am not upset or ticked by them. I simply find them funny."
Ditto.
Posted by: tao | September 23, 2007 at 04:17 PM
William wrote (in quotations):
"pay attention to the part where I state we humans know about 2 to 4% of reality."
-- Again, some questions: How do you know that? What is the other 96 to 98 percent of this "reality"? And what actually is your definition of this "reality" that you speak of?
-- Please answer, otherwise no one will take anything you say seriously anymore.
"If you actually believe you are god then how about a planet"
-- Who said that they believed that they "are god"?
"Or is that phenomenal universe doing these dynamic changes all on its own?"
-- Well that's what most of the physicists and astrophysicists and astronomers and geologists and biologists etc etc etc concur.
"try and convince anyone that you have reached a level of pure awareness which appears to have the traits or characteristics of absolute love and divide intelligence"
-- Pure awareness is the fundamental nature, not something which has yet to be attained. Your concept of awareness is indicative of duality. You clearly have not yet awakened to/as Self-knowledge.
"Consciousness is phenomena; awareness is realty."
Incorrect. Consciousness is conscious-ness. Awareness is aware-ness. But phenomena is simply only phenomena.
"If anyone thinks they have reached a level of pure awareness as a human, oh my! That is the ultimate in delusional thinking"
Again, pure awareness is one's fundamental/essential/primordial nature. It is not something which has yet to be attained. Your problem is either you are not rigorous with your terms and definitions, or else you do not understand what "pure awareness" actually means.
"Why are my posts so upsetting?"
-- You are the only one here who is saying that over and over again. So you must be the one who is upset... Because no one else here has indicated any such upsetness.
"Who cares what I think or believe?"
-- Well obviously you care. I don't think anyone else "cares" a whole heck of a lot about what your particular beliefs are, and especially when your rhetoric is so presumptious and flaky.
"If we are comfortable with our beliefs we care not, but if we are insecure in our beliefs..."
-- Well if that was true, then you must be rather insecure in your own beliefs because you keep asserting them here as if your beliefs are 'the way it is'.
"our consciousness moves from ignorance to awareness it becomes more awaken until we “find” our true potential"
-- That is fundamentally incorrect. Awareness does not "awaken". Awakening is simply the tacit realization that awareness is primordial. Your concept is only indicative of seeking, of a search within duality, which has really no end. Realization/awakening itself is never progressive.
"all the evidence for reincarnation and entities coming through mediums"
-- And just where & what is this hard "evidence" that you speak of? ( mediumistic and psychic baloney is not scientifically acceptable)
"...atheist beliefs or the folks with the we merge into the universal consciousness belief?"
-- And just who are these "we merge into the universal consciousness" folks that you speak of? Please specify. I would like to know.
"Are advaita types blind or does this reality interfere with their existing truths."
-- "advaita types"? What "advaita types" are these? And what "existing truths" are you referring to?
"Atheist have the same problem not one paranormal phenomenon can be accepted or their whole system of beliefs comes tumbling down."
-- Paranormal believers have the problem that their whole system of beliefs is primarily built upon abstract ideas, sensory perceptions, and illusions... which all comes tumbling down when real Self-knowledge dawns.
"The ego cannot stand to look beyond its beliefs"
-- Do you not yet understand that the "ego" is a fiction? And that "beliefs" are merely abstract thoughts?
"Something must come ... to shatter the ego for it to be able to even consider something outside its beliefs."
-- How could something that is fundamentally a non-esistent fiction, ever be "shattered"? It appears that you do not have any real comprehension of what you are talking about.
"around the world people are killing one another over beliefs. Beliefs blind us to reality. It has to be that way or else no conscious world,"
-- You say: "It HAS to be that way"? ... and "no conscious world"? Are you kidding? Amazing. You are so soo sooo lost brother. Talk about flaky pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo... this kind of nonsense is the epitome.
"insult my intellect and tell me that the “I am god” folks don’t have beliefs."
-- No one is insulting your intellect, but you are insulting mine. Furthermore, who exactly are these "I am god folks" that you are referring to? I would really like to know who it is that you are talking about.
"that is why we defend our beliefs to the bitter end. (Please note I said we humans and not you humans)"
-- Please try to speak for yourself, not for others. I have no such "beliefs" to defend. But I am observing that you have quite a collection of beliefs.
"One person's flaky thinking is another’s grand discovery."
-- What "grand discovery" is that? Flakey thinking is simply flakey thinking. Your posts are generally riddled with flakey thinking.
"When a person’s views are outside the existing paradigm"
-- And what "existing paradigm" is that? Please indicate more specifically.
"if suffering is the result of our ignorance then it is paramount to discover the root cause or reason for or the origin of that ignorance."
-- That question is the same exact question as is: "What is the root cause, or reason for, or the origin of Maya." The answer is, there is NO ORIGIN. Just as in the question: "What is the origin of darkness?"
"What the “I am god now” folks have yet to attain is this love, vitality, and intelligence of the absolute."
-- Who are these "I am god now folks"? I am not sure that I am familiar with them. Also, "love, vitality, and intelligence" are simply one's own innate true nature. These are not something lacking that must be gained anew as you seem to infer.
"God expresses itself though the journey and without ignorance there would be no entities that perceive themselves as separate entities. Hence; no manifestation of perceived entities."
-- The so-called "journey" is a fiction. And separate bodies and so-called "entities" do exist with or without ignorance. Mere perception is not true Knowledge.
Your quote: “If there is no struggle there is no progress”
-- "Struggle" is due only to ignorance. Knowledge is progress. Ignorance is not progress. So struggle born of ignorance is not progress. Knowledge, not struggle, means progress.
-- And in conclusion, to repeat what Elephant has noted:
Elephant said (quote): "Unfortunately, your comments are often filled with that kind of flaky thinking." --and-- "...nothing to do with the content of your beliefs. It is simply the way they are expressed and connected sometimes leads to contradictions that you don't seem to realize. I do not suffer from your comments. I am not upset or ticked by them. I simply find them funny."
-- Ditto.
Posted by: tao | September 23, 2007 at 04:59 PM
"You need to work on your sentence structure."
Did all that shoveling horse stuff turn you into an English prof? Who cares about sentence structure? I will leave that up to the editor if I ever write a book. Apparently you got the jest of my comments as you wrote something about them.
In the world of metapsychiatry this type of comment is called trespassing. But I forgive you as I do it often. Dr Hora also suggests that one must not share their pearls with those not receptive to them, as they will demean them. Sounds like good advice. Easy to state difficult to do.
These types of comments are excuses to attack or demean another person when that person’s comments challenge one’s cherished beliefs. The worst people on the net to do this are the ultra skeptics that consider themselves debunkers of the paranormal. Wow! those folks know how to attack. These attacks are based in the ego and interesting enough these demeaning remarks are based in fear and doubt, not certainty. This has been my point all along.
“Perhaps the creation is just lived but no 'one' doing it.”
May want to check out your own sentence structure here bob and look at the synonyms for creation. All of them suggest a doer. This sentence appears to me as contradictory but I think I got the jest of what you meant by it. It appears that the closer we get to truths the more paradoxical our words become.
“If we get to the point where we think we are gods raging in a fire of creativity, love, and divine intelligence, maybe we aren't. Maybe we would just be raging egotists?”
Raging egotism is anything but love, creativity or divine intelligence. The reality is that raging egotism is the exact opposite of these characteristics. Wars are fought due to raging egotism and they have nothing to do with love or divine intelligence. Sorry bob you need to go deep into this one and find the difference between intellectual verses intelligence; and love verses selfishness.
Got to go for now but will comment on your sort of koan later. May share it in Zen meditation tomorrow night. Maybe that will be our koan for Monday night. If she uses it will let you know. Thanks.
As always thanks for the comments.
Posted by: william | September 23, 2007 at 05:45 PM
WILLIAM: "Who cares about sentence structure?"
--As a high school drop-out I am no expert on sentence structure, but I do know that something as simple as a missing comma can change the meaning of a sentence and lead to misunderstandings. It's up to all of us to write carefully if we want to be clearly understood, not because of some obsession with grammar.
Take Tao for example. You may not agree with what he says, but there is little ambiguity or lack of clarity in his statements. He writes well.
Posted by: Tucson | September 23, 2007 at 07:10 PM
William,
You wrote: "Raging egotism is anything but love, creativity or divine intelligence. The reality is that raging egotism is the exact opposite of these characteristics." --and-- "...you need to go deep into this one and find the difference between intellectual verses intelligence; and love verses selfishness."
I personally think that you do not have any clue or insight about the subject of ego and selfishness. I think you are just parroting notions that you have acquired elsewhere.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to please go read, study, and contemplate deeply upon the character John Galt's speech that is contained in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". You can read John Galt's speech, as well as listen to it on audio online here:
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm
If you would do this, I think your eyes and mind may be opened to a different perspective, a clearer and much deeper insight and understanding about ego and self.
Posted by: tao | September 23, 2007 at 08:35 PM