« Science is open to the supernatural | Main | If I'm a guru, where are my devotees? »

June 14, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeah it's a difficult one, the universe seems more indifferent than accidental. Modern science of the last 350 years or so is based on finding causal explanations or the root cause for phenmena, but we are still discovering new elementary particles, we still don't understand gravity and we still don't understand what caused life or indeed the universe. More importantly, science does not know how far off these fundamentals we are or even if they exist.

Only in the last 50 years or so has science proposed acausual theories, but that in itself seems to go against the sciences causal nature.

Also science is about finding the patterns in nature, but what about the possibe chaotic or random element? Is randomness rather than order a fundamental property of the universe where as you say quantum theory describes partivles and antiparticles coming into and the dissapearing from existence in the quantum foam. Is randomness part of life itself which produce the mutations necessary for diversity? Is this randomness merely not yet explaianble or will it never be explainable.

Blogger B. said: "After all, that longing for the One takes place in the psyche of beings who are, obviously, separate entities -- since we don't yearn for something that we already possess, or are."

--By now this is getting to be a non-dual cliche', so this doesn't really help, but I'll say it anyway. The irony is that we ARE yearning for "something that we already possess, or are."

I think the matter really is like the analogy Blogger B. gave recently regarding the picture that alternately can be seen as a vase or an old lady depending on your perception or focus. Most of us see either the old lady or the vase, but are perfectly capable of seeing the other. This is our conditioning, seeing one or the other. The trick is seeing both at once because phenomena and noumenon exist simultaneously in such a way that neither is absolutely the case independent of the other. Phenomenon is noumenon, noumenon is phenomenon.

What is noumenon?, some may ask.

Noumenon is the subjective aspect of phenomenon which is the objective aspect of noumenon. Phenomena can have no apparent existence apart from noumenon whose objectivization it is AS appearance. Noumenon has no existence, apparent or non-apparent, other than as a concept.

Therefore, having neither being nor non-being, noumenon represents the total absence of both as objects in the thought process. It is merely a symbol that represents the source of conceptuality which is inconceivable because conception cannot conceive itself in the same way an eye cannot see itself. In short, noumenon is the non-objective source of all conception which is all the universe is...a product of conception in mind.

Nothing really exists. Things appear to exist, but so does a dream which appears very real. However, is there a creation in a dream? Is there an end? Everything just begins when the dream begins (no egg or chicken first) and ends when you wake up.

At that point what exists? One may say 'I' exist, but when you follow it through... where is this 'I'? What composes it? What circumscribes it? You then see that 'I' does not exist escept as an idea. Even our arms and legs are ideas in mind.

So, what is left? We can't find our 'I' except as its objectivization as all that appears...arms, legs, others, mountains and stars. We are everything and nothing at the same time!

Some call this Oneness, but it is not even that. There is no-one at all. Who would it be and where?

So, when Blogger B. says: "What if we Homo sapiens are the only self-aware conscious beings in the galaxy, or even the universe?

--There are none. Not even us.


As usual, very good comment. I liked,

"Some call this Oneness, but it is not even that. There is no-one at all. Who would it be and where?"


tucson, I always enjoy your comments, even when i don't grasp them completely. Of course, the notions you express are ungraspable, so that isn't surprising.

Each of us sees things -- or non-things -- in a different fashion. Myself, I keep coming back to the "strange loop" idea, which seems to be similar to what you're saying.

Things, and us, are what they are. But we humans have a special ability to self-reference, to observe ourselves observing, to ponder ourselves pondering, and such.

This creates a human reality that is peculiarly (a good word) our own. Like you said, it objectivizes us to ourselves, and makes the world outside appear to be very much different from the world inside of us. Whereas, I'm an object to other people, so go figure. (Which, we can't.)

The Universe creates Galaxies that beget Stars that form Planets that host Life Forms. More Planets are constantly being discovered-If life was created than planets, stars, galaxies all were also made either by design or accident.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.