I’m pretty sure David Bohm would’ve understood what I’ve been saying.
He would’ve also understood what you are doing when you claim I am assigning “mystical properties” to some object.
@lausten, @mriana
Watch the language.
Usually, when someone compares us to other forums, and I go looking for them, I see the exact kinds of conversations on those other forums.
[quote=“brmckay, post:417, topic:2865”] that
You’re the guy who hasn’t accepted my relying of Reality’s undivided context (the Whole, or Entirety) being apriori. Right?
[/quote]
First, no one is required to accept your premise, or are requesting that conditionally?
Second, my definition of a priori is that they are tataulogies. Like; all bachelors are single. It’s just by definition. That’s how I see “reality as it is is the undivided whole”. I know I misquoted you, but pick any of your quotes, they’re all like that too me.
Not sure how I’ve been dishonest. People keep asking you to clarify and not understand why you say the things you say.
OK then what politics is it? Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist, Working Party, Communist, Green Party, or some other political affiliation? There is no politics in this thread. It’s religion that diverted from the original title of the thread.
You keep saying @lausten and @write4u as though you are also talking to them too, so it would seem you acknowledge the others in this thread don’t understand you either.
BTW. you are assigning mystical properties to the universe.
I found this on quora, about the named thing giving rise to the ten thousand things. What a great answer
"It means that all phenomena come from the act of naming, because naming is the process of discriminating and assigning some spatio-temporally extended duration of existence to discriminated elements.
The root of naming is the first (naive) error; the discrimination of self from other. Once there is identification with only a part of reality (such as a body) a perspective is created. From this perspective the formless Self, misidentified as just the bodily self, is given a location in space and time and all outside this location are perceived as not-self."
3 Likes
Whatever changes when we realize the actual nature of Nature, has been there all along. I’m not advocating anyone “assign” mystical properties to the Universe.
See lausten’s post #424 for some help getting out of the box of relativity-think.
I capitalized Universe because there is only one by my reckoning and it equates to Reality-as-it-actually-is.
What are you doing?
We are trying to figure out what you mean with that word-salad.
What is the “actual nature of Nature” and what is “Reality as it actually is” ?
Don’t you see that those are meaningless individually subjective terms ?
Everyone has a different idea of what the “actual nature of the Nature of Reality as it actually is”.
We don’t even see colors the same or hear sounds with the same acuity. To a colorblind person reality is a drab “monotone” world. To a deaf person the reality of nature is silence.
Ever watched a colorblind person discovering the experience of what “colors look like”? They cry from the overwhelming mental experience of a colored world.
Or a deaf person for the first time experiencing the words “I love you” from their spouse. Try to place yourself in their shoes . Empathy.
The concept of “relativity” goes much deeper than purely physical phenomena. It affects the “relative conscious experiencing of reality” as well.
A mosquito can detect a change in atmospheric pressure long before the rain arrives. Do they experience the nature of nature more acutely than humans?
Glad you liked that. You leave another clue with this “box of relativity-think”. Also, I mentioned the capitalization thing a while back, saying it implies you are assigning to meaning to words, beyond their dictionary definition. You seemed to kind of understand that, but also sort of deflected it. A comment like this, “I capitalize it because…” is much more helpful.
The word “universe” is much more troublesome than you acknowledge here, and that’s why we’re having so much trouble communicating. Sure, we can only observe this one physical one, but we know our limits. First of time, we can only see the light that has had time to reach us. Second of dimension, when we work backwards to a millionth of second at the beginning of time, the laws of nature break down, and we no longer know what’s going on. At that point, what is a universe, and where do they come from?
So, whatever you say about Reality-as-it-is, or whatever you equate it to, other people, some who study the universe and others who philosophize about reality every day of their life, are going to have something else to say about it. When you’re talking to me, I don’t expect you to accept what I’m saying as “right” or as any form of a “final answer”. Someone somewhere is working on a paper now that will change my perspective tomorrow. To me, that’s what “getting out of the box of relativity-think” means.
I’ll let you respond, but so far, my understanding of you is, there is some “undivided Whole” that needs to be accepted as existing before we can get started in an understanding of ourselves. I prefer starting with a few premises like; the laws of nature are consistent throughout time and space and, we can test our understanding of those laws. We move toward greater certainty but may never reach 100%.
The ideas though would not be the thing. Which in no way removes the actuality from consideration. Right?
The actuality accommodates the infinitude of the continuum that you just described. Right? We are talking about the nature of Nature, which is not in Truth partitioned into your and my version of it.
Our “relative conscious experience” is as much an expression of relativity as the space/time continuum. To no greater or lesser a degree. Any humancentric spin, or conceptions of “purely physical phenomena” included.
And, “relativity” is an expression of the non-relative potentiality of Reality’s infinitde. Right?
There is only Nature experiencing Nature. All humancentric spin included.
Let me sum up my impression of your entire philosophy; “It is what it is”
Right?
Your whole paragraph is an example of why I make the distinction between “the Universe” and “a universe”.
I explained to miriana that:
And somewhere I also explained that “Universe” as I use the word includes any aspect of multiverse (and cyclicity) there may be. Because it equates to Reality-as-it-actually-is.
Is the problem really mine? Considering how many times I’ve referenced the undivided Whole as existence, and the potential to exist.
All your concerns are relevant as subsets and emergent characteristics, but it should be obvious that the unexamined gestalt of the absolute context hasn’t just gone away because we can’t get our heads around it.
This is where I usually point out that “reason and intuition” are not actually two things. They are the right and left hand of cognition, a monad, though still a subset of the ultimate Monad. (thanks, that was the first time I used the term and even Google has a capitalized reference)
Don’t forget to emphasize “-actually-is”. Since we are inevitably stuck with abstractions, we should do our best to “point our fingers directly at the Moon”.
And in the end we will reconcile ourselves with the essential immeasurability of Reality.
Back to first post
For me, Mikeyohe is making a big mistake in logis.
God is someone/something religious people believe in. there are thousands of gods, each one different, and very few if any common traits, except as an object of faith
An atheist does not believe that theses gods exist or any other one.
It means that an atheist does not believe that any being worth of faith exists, independently from his definition. He does not need to define it.
1 Like
But this is where I believe you are missing the point.
What does it mean ; “Nature experiencing Nature” ?
What exactly does Nature experience and how does it experience what it experiences?
There is Newton’s Third Law
Formally stated, Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
Is this what you mean by “experiencing” or does the Universe experience emotions like “happiness” or “sadness”.
The Universe is an Implacable Thing. It is not experience conscious emotions but functions in a quasi-intelligent manner, afforded by its mathematical underpinnings.
What you just said is not what it said. It said when we name it is misnamed. You name it, it isn’t what it really is. Obviously, you do not understand the Tao nor did you read what Lausten’s link said. You understand neither the Tao or Buddhism. You cannot name it and expect it to be that, because it’s not. The Tao that can be named is not the Tao. So what are you doing?
Correct, the idea is not the thing. But we are talking about a very big thing, that we don’t have a complete idea of, and definitely not a complete physical description. That doesn’t remove it from consideration, but it leaves us humble to the notion that we don’t know. That has been the missing piece for me in this discussion. You keep saying things like the “actual nature of the Nature” or pointing out how important it is that I include the words “actually-is” as if that somehow completes a definition of “everything”. It’s such an odd thing to claim that I keep thinking I must not be understanding you.
I looked up this “pointing at the moon” thing and hit on this. If this is what you meant, I’d say it’s you who has mistaken the finger for the Moon. Keep in mind, the Buddha was alive long before we traveled to the moon, before Calculus, before telescopes.
Big?..compared to what?
Before and after what? Inside and outside of what?
Humanist much? Let me remind you about CRISPR and Nuclear arsenals. As we make it about us. In orbit around appetites, attachments, and fear.
The Buddha’s insight was timeless and complete. Nothing to do measuring things.
According to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
“Space,” it says, “is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
You responded to the least important parts of my post. I don’t feel like we’re getting anywhere
I’m not so sure it is unimportant. The bigger it is, the less possibility for it to be conscious.
How can an unimaginable vastness of empty space be conscious, when a simple cloud in earth’s atmosphere is not conscious?
The assumption of consciousness automatically reduces the size of the Universe including the assumption of a 6-day creation some 6000 years ago.
Regardless of the name or shape of the wholeness, there is only one name that adequately describes the Universe.
The Wholeness, no more , no less.
Wholeness
the state of forming a complete and harmonious whole; unity.
“the work lacked a sense of wholeness and meaning”
The bigness is important, but so far, he has not responded to the “pointing at the Moon” comment or the thought about being humble to our inability to know our universe.
He used “infinitude” from the start and included the multiverse, so I didn’t think I needed to repeat that we are discussing the whole, everything-there-is. Infinity is the thing without limit, which leaves nothing to compare it to, so the question he asks doesn’t make sense. Is he being funny? Insulting? Rhetorical?
It would be great if we did have another universe to look at from the outside, to test, to experiment with, or if we could just create a little one in a lab somewhere. We don’t, and that’s the basis for the big questions of why are we here and how did we get here, and how this all got started.
I was keeping the progress we had made on the table in terms of “the box of relativity think”.
But you are right it wasn’t going to work.
I don’t particularly like where I went with it after that, and don’t think I can make the central point any clearer than I already have. To go further with it is up to you on your own or not.
You are still miles from understanding what the Whole being referenced means. Think in terms of singularity. Relativity, dimensionality, cause and effect, sentience, etc. are ALL emergent effects. They are the experiential aspect. (the self referential nature of existence).
The nature of the Whole being non-finite to the Nth degree. Everything and nothing, no distinction.
As for “conciousness” first step (as always) is to watch out for anthropomorphic projections.