T
tonyrey
Guest
The following statement implies that you know what your mind is and I don’t:
On what do you base that conclusion?
- Status
G
Gaber
Guest
By having experienced a state that is not the mind. It is not all that uncommon.
W
WillP
Guest
One must first of all agree with what reality is before he can say what best addresses it. If one believes that natural phenomena is not reality, then, a career in science may not be the thing for such a person.I’m sorry, but I do not think so.
Science’s domain concerns explaining the world of nature and its phenomena.
It is PHILOSOPHY (and Religion) that explain Reality, not science.
Anybody who thinks Science=Reality is under the spell of Scientism, and that is faith-based.
And true science is NOT faith-based in any way. It concerns studying and explaining (defined) natural phenomena. NOT reality.
Got this explanation from a response in another forum. Parapharsed this somewhat and added “religion” to it. Made by a scientist, as a matter fact.
Thought it wa a cool response to a question asked there.
Anybody agree/disagree with it?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
When matter is created, an equal amount of antimatter is, too.
Does “reality” include the elusive world of antimatter?
Does “reality” include the elusive world of antimatter?
T
tonyrey
Guest
If one believes reality is not composed** solely** of natural phenomena there is no reason whatsoever why a career in science is inadvisable…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Regardless of its frequency a private state of mind is an insufficient basis for a scientific or philosophical conclusion.
G
Gaber
Guest
Yes, that is an easy way to dismiss what is foundational to either of those. That way premises generated from sense preception, including religion, can be concocted and adhered to while making arbitrary divisions between scientism, religion, and atheism, each of which is, until the discursive mind has been bypassed, founded on soley intellectual and therefore incomplete data.
And there* is *no other than a private state of mind. Show me yours. I can only surmise that you have one, and never know what it is, however well you describei. The very diescription changes it!. No one has ever met anyone, Tonyrey, only their impressions of someone.
So yes, there is commonality and agreement regarding obsrvations of form, function, and relativty, and even laws that describe those. Yet all of it is privately esperienced. I do not have your expereiince even of gravity. And yet we say that gravity is, and effects all equally. And yet we have Saints who levitate and people wh can bend a light beam. Just because we all agree that if you step off a building and you fall, and in the inconceivably large proportion of cases where that happens, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a way it won’t. We just haven’t learned it yet, being so taken with the gross physicality of things which only a very feww of us can yet consciously penetrate.
The “world” is a consensus reality effected even by such a simple thing as grammar, that assuming that there are certain kinds of relationships in 4D. In my birth language there is no pronoun distinguishing gender. In another there are no nouns as you and I understand them. Etc, etc. Each one describes the worlds differently. As does math. Math is the strictest and most useful for predicting the behavior of inanimate objects within certain scales of perception. And yet there is no Unified Field Theory avilable in even that language. Msic is perhaps the loosest while bein the most universal. And yet “The ones who were dancing were thought to be mad by the onesl who couldn’t hear the music.”
So while the insistance on low order logics and rationalizations is fun for entetainment and fot teleology, they do not in any way adequately describe or treat Reality. The word “explain” itseflf implies a duality and more. There is assumed to be an object of explanation, an explainer, and an explanation reflexive to the explianer and or another mind to explain to. That is all descriptively so of our limited sense engagement with 4D. It is utilitarian and functional to an extent within the sense world.
But who is it that expereinces the sense world? I challenge you to tell me that you are not aware, or do not have a sense of “I.” Since you have those, awareness ans a sense of “I,” you necessarily have a modality of interfacing with the world you claim as not self. Even Helen Keller, despite severe limitations of interface modalities, acheived phenomenal things in the realm of her awareness. But the thing you use to interface with the things that aren’t “you” is still part of that stuff that is “out there” save that you call it “me” by association. Somehow this particular chunk of “out there” stuff is now “me” because I associate my sense of “I” with it and what happens to it and what I can do with it.
But every seven years even that is something else. There is not an atom of you that was present when you were an infant. Not one. Yet the idea of “I” persists. So there is an element of constancy connected with what changes as a body and changes as a person. Thar “I” am “I” doesn’t change. So “me” changes while “I:” don’t. How is that accounted for?
In the deterioration of Teaching that constitutes religion, exactly because the subjective was not adequatley understood, the idea of what “I” am is is both bifurcated and partially yet significantly extenalized. It is objectified as one Man. And in our religion, the very thing that is the crux of what is essential about “salvation” is historicized and relegated to that condition of one of the Gnani’s who attempted to show His followers the Nature of the Kingdome in which He consciously lived, and everyone around Him sleepwalked in. And the inheritance of the misunderstanding of His meaning is now rampant as “the Truth” Well it is the truth, if you can get past he adamantine dogmatization of it to what it actually points to.
As far as I know, there is only one cntemporary Roman Catholic who incisively, brilliantly, perspicaciously, and exquisity deliniates how that is. Her books of course are not popular amongst Catholics. Go figure. But hey, we crucified Jesus, why not someone who repeats what He meant? It is the natural order of things, He was a pink monkey amongst the brown furry ones and never got a dye job. Too honest and loving. But that is the price of confronting sleep.
So while it is fun to construct hypothetical scenarios, as we all invariably do, it is good to remember that they are hypothetical. And it is also useful, in terms of organizing heirarchically how things work, to do some lab as well as attend lectures of your own making. The lab work consists of finding the off swithch to your discursive mind. And that is not my idea, as much as you try to privatize it on to me. Go ask the Carmalites. Or the Zenners. Or anyone who shuts up their intenal dialogue long enough to understand and know what “Be still and know that I AM God” means beyond a personal invention. Put it off on me as much as you like for the ease of dismissal, but as I say, your refusal does not constitute either privacy nor Reality. God IS, and is ALL. Know that and find peace from your incessant arguing with others and your self. Maybe then you will find what was “designed.”
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Or ask anyone who does Lectio Divina or other contemplative prayer forms. What you say sounds weird to those who haven’t yet seen, but then so does turning the other cheek. As long as you insist on everything being explained by, and filtered through, a literal “logic” filter, you will never catch onto this. And by consequence they don’t even have a clue what we’re talking about our false notion of identity that our upbringing gives us and how that factors in. You might as well just sing a happy tune.
Two things. One, I believe people derive a kind of peace from incessant arguing. Their dualistic identity is bound to it, so they are fulfilling their lives’ purposes by doing so. To others, this is just how they relate. Like bear cubs fighting to toughen each other, or guys who slap each other around. Who knows a person best than a keen adversary? This dawned on me when I was going off about posters who seemed to be attacking and I called them on it. One said, “This is how some of us communicate.” I was like, “oh.”
Also, did you get a chance to watch that video yet? It says that a brain, like a cell, operates on a dualistic scale somewhere between growth mode and protection mode. Those who are fighting and defending their positions, through fear or pride or whatever, are operating in protection mode where the brain defends its contents by shutting off access by new ideas. It isn’t so much they refuse to understand; their very biology prevents them from being able to.
I guess that explains why people tell me if I keep my mind too open my brains will fall out. Well, that’s the idea – get these out of the way so I can receive an upgrade. Belief systems, including fear, keep the brain in protection mode because they stake out boundaries and plateaus beyond which the brain consciously instructs itself not to progress.
Alan
A
atheistgirl
Guest
That’s very interesting.
I might go back into my ignore list and review the contents, in the light of that new understanding
Sarah x
T
tonyrey
Guest
Some one who is incessantly arguing with others on this forum seems to have been left out of the picture!
What is certain is that reasoning is being used to “prove” that reasoning is unnecessary and should be abandoned - for good.
G
Gaber
Guest
That’s very interesting.
The human mind is designed to make itself right. It takes enorous work and self inquiry to overcome some of the tendencies that are not even visible to us because we think that is what we are. Perception, any perception, is mistaken by most to have a 1/1 correspondence to Reality while the dynamic range of human sense and therefore of reasoning about whole systems is miniscule compared to the entirety of the EM spectrum and whatever else there might be.I might go back into my ignore list and review the contents, in the light of that new understanding
So Alan has a good point. We are wired as animals while we have the capability of transcendence. Or at least altered stated that can be informative, or not. But we really dont make a systematic inventory of what is actually available to us and think that our thought process is optimal, even like Einsteins, where in fact we are muddling with a few bits of questionable impression.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Thank you for the RAH quote. It is absolutely fascinating, and actually puts a few things together for me.
Alan
W
WillP
Guest
However, if one holds the belief that reality is comprised of something other than obsevable phenomena, then I would have to ask by what criteria he finds such a proposition worthy of belief. In the absence of norms by which beliefs are justified, one is at the mercy of fantasy and imagination.
There certainly are unknowns in the cosmos, but, the absence of evience is not evidence of whatever one wishes to imagine.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
It’s wonderful, this tool that connects us. Even though it’s just a keyboard, screen, and mouse, it is a living laboratory with unlimited controls. It is complete, all stocked with human brains connected to similar controls. You get to inject any signal in the form of typed characters, links and emoticons. You can even fabricate “Freudian slips” such as by misspelling a word, and see what sort of feedback you get on the screen. Or you can state something you know might be misunderstood to see if it is (at least if anyone admits it).I might go back into my ignore list and review the contents, in the light of that new understanding
Personally I never tried the ignore list, but I see how it make a thread kind of like a jigsaw puzzle – take out a few “key pieces” and see how it changes the picture. I just don’t know if I have it in me to use it because I get so darn curious I want to see what everybody says even if they wish to smear me. When they smear me, it’s like I get to do verbal Kung Fu with options to turn the other cheek, apologize, reassert, defend, whatever.
Alan
G
Gaber
Guest
Yes, I constantly appear to be arguijg with the likes of you bercause you mis-read, mis-interpret, and stuff words inot people’s mouths that never came from them. I appear very disagreable to you because you disagree with reason from a different standpoiunt and refus take it on to test even its validity. So people, not just me, are always spelling out to you what your mistakes are in reasoning but you persist in your rationalization. I get along perfectly well on here with many Catholics and other faithers and some atheists, and certaily with those with a non dualist stance, or Zen, or Buddhist, but especially with those who see what any religion of any brand is ultimatly founded on.
I think that at least some on here will agree that if anything I promote critical thinking and use reason reasonably well,if from a different premiose thatn division. Division is of the mind; unity is the sign of Love. Where the conjectured and contoprted need for “proving” design onto the world as it is without it seems to be more of a sign of emotional need than of reason. Unlike someone sitting in meditation you cannot seem to suspend beleif loong enough to view the believer. So what you object to and many here seem to find objectionable is that you and yours do not admit of anything past your limited sight and claim that the word outside the fickering of your campfire doesn’t exist.
So I am sorry that you and yours don’t wish to come out to play. that is your problem, and our loss in that you are a very sharp individual, only taken too much with identifying with a limit. I can do nothing about that but wish you well.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
G
Gaber
Guest
And I yours. You’ve got some dinkum thinkum! Thanks for being here. :tiphat:I’ve enjoyed all your posts to date :tiphat:
Sarah x
I
inocente
Guest
Nearest I’ve been to Cleveland are jokes like “no one lives in Cleveland, they merely exist” and “I went to Cleveland once but it was closed”.I’ve been in Cleveland - many times. Never seen Elvis there!
I
inocente
Guest
Dear Pope,
I wish to make you aware that a worldwide conspiracy of neuroscientists, including Catholic neuroscientists, is constructing a weapon of awesome magnitude that will eliminate God from the face of Creation.They call this weapon Knowledge.
I strongly recommend you disband all universities and burn all libraries forthwith. That should spoil their dastardly plot.
Yours etc.
PS: They may try to tell you that Knowledge will only destroy false gods, but beware, that’s how they get to you, with their dark powers of enlightened reason and logic.
S
Sair
Guest
- Status