Re: nothing but God

[Guest guest]

Greg, all,

Mysticism is, to me, in its inward mode, an entirely empirical embodiment

of the quest turned toward the matter of consciousness. Buddhism, as a

'yoga' of self-realization is both empirical and per force psychological

and paradoxically psychologically unitary.

***

I'm always curious whether a believer or seeker is inclined to the 'chain

of being' spiritual aesthetic or is inclined toward the 'it's all

consciousness' spiritual aesthetic. I'm just curious -- I have no idea

whether either broad brush category is closest, or both are, or neither.

But, as all the vets here know I'm a fence sitter in any case.

" God " is often thought to be a separate being located in a chain-of-being

and located somewhere other than this world. Following from this, it is

possible to believe in 'a world behind the world'. Etc. " God " in these

respects is, transcendent.

(Or, as I like to waggishly throw in, " whatever " .)

Then there's the idea that mysticism is immediate apprehension *beynd the

sense capabilities* of the transcendent/immanent reality/truth/whatever!

***

Alternately, God is the term for what we project our God ideas onto.

....seems vaguely Jungian. <|:-)

***

***

I've never gone over a satisfactory (to me) physics-based leap over the

explanatory gap from quantum-mechanical styled prediction to necessarily

instrumental and structural biological features. A scientific proof of God

entirely concretizes the conception of God because God then is made into

something naturalistic and...

AMIT GOSWAMI: The current worldview has it that everything is made of

matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of

matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises

from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary

particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules,

molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate

cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is

the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we

call " upward causation. "

Greg, this is nonsense. It's called a straw man. But, anyway, upward

causation, downward causation...the paradoxes of physics once unlocked

result in no more paradoxes. I'm sentimental: hope the physicicts leave

God or whatever alone.

***

The funny thing is this: a naturalistric account of self-realization would

tend to overturn all the magical and magically thoughtful spiritual

'systems'. Intelligent design, by definition, is wholly in the chain of

being camp; it's God designs stuff.

regards,

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>But, as all the vets here know I'm a fence sitter in any case.

Yes, I'm certainly a vet here and I agree that you love to rise to these

philosophical challenges like few others. But what if God (however one wishes

to define or subscribe) is beyond all definitions and human ability to

express...as is undoubtedly the case. What if we are, indeed, like the monkey

trying to read the encyclodedia? The problem I have always had, and perhaps you

too , is apprehending God only with the cerebral cortex, a place where

logic and understandable form rules, and indeed which makes thinking

(dualistically) both possible and necessary. But it seems that God is very

important to our species (without the concept, what would the atheist say at the

point of orgasm, afterall). We keep trying to figure out who/what/where

he/she/it is. The problems we seem to get in, over and over ad nauseum, is what

the term means. And the definitions are as ubiquitous as the human family is

diverse. We all fail, in the end, because our language is woefully

inadequate for the task, even if our minds could fathom the reality to speak of

it. But our inability of speech does not preclude the possibility of its

reality. The great mystics, indeed, say that its reality is closer than our own

brains. It is spread out upon the earth, yet men do not see it (the Kingdom).

But what I found of greatest interest in this article was that point at which

the author awakened to the possibility that " nothing is not God. " That is a

pretty big idea, even for a scientist! It is not dualistic. And it is that idea

that changed his whole perspective and opened up the answers to many of life's

scientific enigmas for him. I found that very interesting. The implications,

of course, are huge - and heterodox to the core.

>Greg, this is nonsense. It's called a straw man. But, anyway, >upward

causation, downward causation...the paradoxes of physics once >unlocked result

in no more paradoxes. I'm sentimental: hope the >physicicts leave God or

whatever alone.

Well to me its refreshing that a man of science is open to the possibilities,

straw man of no. And this is certainly not the main crux of his article is it?

Einstein was perhaps the greatest scientific mind of the last century....and a

deeply spiritual mystic, without apparent contradiction. The mental

requirements of his craft and trade never prevented him from experiencing the

ecstatic wonder and mystery of the universe around him, which he sought all his

life to explain and interpret. I give the mystical scientists a lot of credit

for going where others fear to tread, for risk of universal condemnation by

their more scientifically orthodox brethern. They break new ground for us. And

it is their openness and vulnerability about the most fundamental questions that

make their search...and conclusions...so compelling in the end.

>The funny thing is this: a naturalistric account of self-realization >would

tend to overturn all the magical and magically thoughtful >spiritual 'systems'. 

perhaps they're two sides of the same coin. They are different expressions of

the same inexplicable reality....wave and particle, yin and yang, both. Life

remains a mystery. Thank God! Woe to us when we finally get all the pieces to

fit perfectly into a " system " that eliminates the magical and mystical. Life

would be such a bore. Yet the solution is likely simple, even amidst the amazing

and beautiful complexity of Life. It is a wonder isn't it!

>Intelligent design, by definition, is wholly in the chain of

>being camp; it's God designs stuff.

Well, perhaps you are right there. And perhaps it is the rigidity of that

definition that forms its fatal limitation. If, as goswomy suggests, nothing

exists outside of God, surely then God DOES design stuff....all stuff! He is the

designer and the designed. But one is so accustomed to being anthromorphic

about that notion of God, which is likely the problem, being " out there. " It is

not God that is inadequate, in that case, but only the insufficiency of our

minds to comprehend the implications of that possible reality. Perhaps we're

not ready to do that.

As the old fool we all revere liked to say, " the longest and most difficult

journey is the eighteen inches between the head and the heart " ....and I don't

take that literally! Perhaps he was a woolly-headed mystic like some say. I

guess I'm one too.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg, at 01:59 AM 3/1/2006, you wrote:

>I read with interest this morning an article about the existence of God

>(from a scientific POV). In it the idea of the mystic is given some new

>credence given the advent of quantum physics theory. Jung is labeled by

>some of being a " mystic, " a disparaging accusation for one who always to

>claimed, at base, to be an empiricist. Perhaps that isn't so bad,

>afterall. Some of you may be interested to read and discuss this article

>here around the fire.:

>

>http://www.wie.org/j20/goswami.asp?page=1

To quote:

" It was my good fortune to recognize that all the paradoxes of quantum

physics can be solved if we accept consciousness as the ground of being. "

Now, I wonder who might have said that before? And a long time ago.

To quote:

" Planck's constant defines for us the smallest area over which a time/space

phenomenon can be realised. Beneath this level only an infinitely variable

range of contingent possibilities exist for us. Consider the possibility

that this is in fact the case, that at any given instant there is

energetic, multi-dimensional freedom, because all possible energy

conditions co-exist.

Freedom of action now becomes a possibility within the limit set by the

resolution of awareness. Across a space defined by the extension of this

resolution we are able to select from an finite number of pre-existent

spatial variables. Only consciousness has the freedom to " access " movement,

whether the act was predetermined by external factors or not. Although such

freedom is invisible in the " deterministic reality " , it has everything to

do with our interpretation of particle physics and is the mediating factor

in all visible non-local effects. For example: any experiment designed to

investigate the behaviour of particles, will, within the limit of their

Quantum behaviour, produce all possible results the experiment is designed

to exhibit. This is not because particles exhibit non-local behaviour, but

because all possible results of an experiment exist within a time/space

limit set by the extension of the observing consciousness.

Thus, through the mediant of what we might call the " gap " of awareness,

whose extension in space/time sets the values of resolution - eg, the

conserved value of h - the perceived universe is defined to a specific grid

of interrelated energy conditions allowed by that value. These conditions

ultimately define the specific states of matter that can be perceived, and

the set of physical laws that will pertain to these states.

We might now further extend relativity by stating that: " the laws of

physics retain their form in any frame of reference because they are

independent of all frames of reference, being constituted alone by the

nature of the awareness perceiving them. "

Such an extension implies a much greater (and far more subtle) shift in our

perceived relationship to the cosmos than would at first appear. First of

all it implies that awareness is primal. It also implies that the world of

energetic spatial relationships in which it finds itself must have a

relevance beyond their seemingly arbitrary, deterministic nature - that is:

that the universe in which we find ourselves is essentially a reflection of

one possible way of " being " , an archetypal reality, and that our

perceptions of motion, force and spatial relativity within this reality are

simply artefacts of our living involvement. "

G. Heyward 1997

[Guest guest]

Greg, Sam et al,

Today I found myself with an extended awareness that leaves me with an intrigue, that I have seen that which dose not belong here on Earth when I say the Tibetan Monk setting himself afire and rocking as he burned to death- a rocking that was not of the Ego. Withing the motion was the eternal in those last moments of life.

And now I find a wonderment indeed- a what if... and an OfCourse!!!

So, here we go... What if through movement (like the eg above) there is an impression that lingers (in my case 50 odd years) and what if... through other movement a message is carried - like that girl who smiled at me somewhereorother, and I still remember her smile- Just passed her out in the street somewhere I did...

And what if... in the glance of an eye between two people there travels a love that can prolonge a life time- how ridiculous- one might say or rather So What!

And so within the movement - within the glance of an eye- (and lets push it!!) Within the tone of voice- or a yelp of an animal a language is transmitted to the hearer- an impression- a knowing as it were.

Now lets go further still- into atmosphere- the bustle of a market place- the energy of a gang on the rampage- Mmmmm.. The play of children- the singing of birds- and down to the subtle of subtle- the cry of a child- the sob of aloneness- and on to the message in light!!!

What if there is a message in light- a love in light- G-d is love and G-d is light thing!!

And what if .. (going riot in imagination) the G-d sent in the rising sun- the setting sun etc etc etc ..

Then we end up with all is connected and interacting on all kinds of levels - so that a huge offence is felt for generations - or visa versa.

And I am beginning to see that what I do- how I behave affects.effects others yet to come, and seeing there is no time in what we discuss as what is felt defies time... then then then... all can be affected backwards too- to heal after the damage is done- to change like the back in time notion- syncopation- the act of knowing before hand can occur after the event has been and gone...not in the hindsight notion but in the anticipation of effect on the cause and what if the effect is nilled so the cause is no longer valid...

Perhaps it is fearful to realise on the one hand how integral we all are and on the other what profound effect/affect we can have-

But sure! Stay with the mind.. it makes more sense.

F.

> Greg, all,

>

> Mysticism is, to me, in its inward mode, an entirely empirical

> embodiment of the quest turned toward the matter of consciousness.

> Buddhism, as a 'yoga' of self-realization is both empirical and per

> force psychological and paradoxically psychologically unitary.

>

> ***

>

> I'm always curious whether a believer or seeker is inclined to the

> 'chain of being' spiritual aesthetic or is inclined toward the 'it's

> all consciousness' spiritual aesthetic. I'm just curious -- I have no

> idea whether either broad brush category is closest, or both are, or

> neither.

>

> But, as all the vets here know I'm a fence sitter in any case.

> " God " is often thought to be a separate being located in a

> chain-of-being and located somewhere other than this world. Following

> from this, it is possible to believe in 'a world behind the world'.

> Etc. " God " in these respects is, transcendent.

>

> (Or, as I like to waggishly throw in, " whatever " .)

>

> Then there's the idea that mysticism is immediate apprehension *beynd

> the sense capabilities* of the transcendent/immanent

> reality/truth/whatever!

>

> ***

>

> Alternately, God is the term for what we project our God ideas onto.

> ...seems vaguely Jungian. <|:-)

>

> ***

>

> ***

>

> I've never gone over a satisfactory (to me) physics-based leap over

> the explanatory gap from quantum-mechanical styled prediction to

> necessarily instrumental and structural biological features. A

> scientific proof of God entirely concretizes the conception of God

> because God then is made into something naturalistic and...

>

> AMIT GOSWAMI: The current worldview has it that everything is made of

> matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of

> matter, the basic constituentsbuilding blocksof matter. And cause

> arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or

> elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make

> molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the

> way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the

> elementary particles. This is the beliefall cause moves from the

> elementary particles. This is what we call " upward causation. "

>

> Greg, this is nonsense. It's called a straw man. But, anyway, upward

> causation, downward causation...the paradoxes of physics once unlocked

> result in no more paradoxes. I'm sentimental: hope the physicicts

> leave God or whatever alone.

>

> ***

>

> The funny thing is this: a naturalistric account of self-realization

> would tend to overturn all the magical and magically thoughtful

> spiritual 'systems'. Intelligent design, by definition, is wholly in

> the chain of being camp; it's God designs stuff.

>

> regards,

>

>

>

>

>

> " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby

> beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and

> suffering. "

>

> H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

" And I am beginning to see that what I do- how I behave affects.effects others

yet to come, and seeing there is no time in what we discuss as what is felt

defies time... then then then... all can be affected backwards too- to heal

after the damage is done- to change like the back in time notion- syncopation-

the act of

knowing before hand can occur after the event has been and gone...not in the

hindsight notion but in the anticipation of effect on the cause and what if the

effect is nilled so the cause is no longer valid... " As Goethe said, in the

beginning.....was the deed.

That monk's image, having been burned as it was into your (and millions of other

human) psyches was the ultimate sacrificial act of protest, by an obscure monk

in Asia. Yet it was so focused and so powerful, that dozens of years from now,

we shall still remember it. This final act of his young life DID affect us,

powerfully, individually, even if the event which inspired it has long passed.

Nicht wahr? So might be the glance, the tone of voice, the wave of the hand.

Those things are powerful memories, often very subtle. I shall never forget the

smile my wife gave me the first time I ever saw her. She doesn't remember it at

all. But I always shall. And it changed everything! Little things,

insignificant things, forgettable things, mean a lot..... and affect people's

lives, for better or worse, for a lifetime. It is a big responsibility we have

to one another. And we never know how some small gesture can be a big deal to

them.

>But sure! Stay with the mind.. it makes more sense.

Yes....makes more " sense. " But, I have found, sometimes non-sense is far more

profound that the sensible....later. Remember to smile often, and to perform

those trivial acts of kindness to our fellows and our four legged friends too.

These cause ripples, that turn into tidal waves. Like the butterfly wings in

the Amazon that create hurricanes up north.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!