Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Edg: Pray tell: what are your definitions of awareness, > consciousness, and the Absolute -- please show that > " dark unknown that stirs " points to something other > than one of them? Truly, I am confused about your stance > > P: I consider what I'm about to write an exercise in > futility, but I like to indulge in idle philosophical > musings. So here it goes: > > To me C & A are the same mental faculty by different > names. Some languages do not have an equivalent word > for awareness. German and Spanish do not. I think > Niz's translators used awareness as an alternative > word for Absolute. That, in my opinion, was a bad choice, > since Niz often said: " The Absolute is not aware of > itself. " So, I dismiss that term as a poor substitute > for Absolute. So let's dwell only on the definitions of > consciousness and absolute: > > > " Consciousness is often used colloquially to describe > being awake and aware — responsive to the environment, > in contrast to being asleep or in a coma. In > philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the > term is restricted to the specific way in which humans > are mentally aware in such a way that they distinguish > clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and > all other things and events. A characteristic of > consciousness is that it is reflective, an " awareness > of being aware " . This " self-awareness " may involve > thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, > and dreams. " From Wiki. > > To me consciousness is seeing light in the wavelength > range of roughly 625–740 nm as red. In other words > consciousness is the giver of qualia (sensory qualities > such as red or hot.) If a tree falls and there is no one > to hear it... frequencies between about 12 Hz and 20,000 > Hz (20 kHz) happen, but the qualia of a crashing sound > is not there because qualia happens only to a conscious > brain. No one can define red in a comprehensible way > to a blind man. > > " The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality > which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. > It is often used as an alternate term for " God " or " the > Divine " , especially, but by no means exclusively, by those > who feel that the term " God " lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute > may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) > possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a > personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the > source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with > finite things, considered individually, and known > collectively as the relative. " From Wiki. > > > Obviously, the above statement is a concept with > no objective referent such as light in the wavelength > range of roughly 625–740 nm, and no qualia such as red. > > On the other hand, the " source " of all qualia and > knowledge is an unknown darkness. Dark in the sense of > total absence of qualia. > > Let's do a neti, neti of all qualia. Subtract all > sensory perception, including bodily sensations. > Subtract all thoughts, emotions, memories, mental > imagines, and fantasies. Only absence remains: > absence of all the above, and any conscious input, > or content. Can that total absence be perceived? > When that total abscence stirs, qualia emerges, > revealing the dark unknown as its source. > > That is the best I can do with words. Thou are that. > Hope this resonates. > > Pete > Pete, Yep, yep, yep, I agree. I do think there is still the possibility of the word " awareness " having a specificity instead of overlapping and sometimes sounding absolutish and sometimes relativish. It has to do with my concept Cosmic Ego. I think the universe is conscious of consciousness by dint of, ready?, modern scientific findings in quantum physics. Not solely, but in particular I would point to the concept " quantum entanglement. " To me that's how God's awareness works -- instantly across time and space and with lock-step precision. To me, this is direct proof of " everything affects everything, " and if that's not awareness that transcends boundaries like quantum entanglement transcends the definition of space/time, I don't know what I could be talked into otherwise. To me, becoming Cosmic means refining one's organism to the point where individual quanta are " lived. " How so? Consider the human eye. It can/does/will register even one photon of light impacting the retina. Get that? A photon is one of the basic quarks -- the tiniest of the tiniest example of " thing " -- and yet, the eye HANDLES IT MINDFULLY. How do we know this? We send a photon into an eye, and the person who owns the eye " sees nothing. " But hit that rod/cone of the retina five more times, and the sixth photon is the final straw, and the retina THEN AND ONLY THEN sends a signal to the occipital lobe, and THEN the person sees. The retina " knows " that rods and cones sometimes give a false positive -- that is, they signal that they've been hit by a photon when in fact they have not been hit. So, the retina doesn't believe its own reportage until others hits come in, and only then does it bother to send the message to the brain. But miss not the hugely important concept: the human organism deals with quanta directly and is as sensitive to the universe as it can be -- in fact, theoretically, there is no way to be MORE sensitive to quanta than the eye is. So? Well, if a yogi sits in a cave and basically shuts down all the inputs in his control, and then he closes his eyes, and then he, by mantra or breath control or whatever, quiets the mind, guess what? He's gradually approaching being mindful of the least impacts upon his mind. And then what? Well, what you see is where your identity flows. I'm that red car in the race -- oooo, look I'm ahead! Like that does identity effortlessly embrace all objects of consciousness as much as it does that processing of the brain called " ego. " If you dent my car, I may not feel actual pain, but I will emotionally react as I would if you dented my human body -- why? -- cuz I've DECIDED that my body doesn't end at " skin " but extends to anything I put my attention on. That nozzle of the enema tube inserted in your ass -- that's as much you as your dead fingernails, right? If not, then we have a debate to process. Just so does the yogi find, after decades, that he is living all the time at that quantum level -- it is the " buzz of OM " that he hears. Now, here's the payoff: at that level one discovers that indeed the butterfly flappings are all accounted for just as the photons coming into the eye are exactly counted and databased. That yogi discovers that he is indeed as in touch with everything by virtue of quantum entanglement as the ordinary person is in touch with the tip of a finger. Touch my finger, and I'm there in the tip feeling it. To the yogi of the refinement I'm talking about, touch a single quark inside the most distant star, and his quarks zing in resonance like a flock of birds turning instantly in unison in mid-flight. To me, it is simple to see that that yogi has the opportunity to slip from having Identity solely residing within a skin-box to residing within a box-full-of-universe, and voila, he realizes the Cosmic Ego status he's always had, everyone has, but is largely ignored by almost all folks. Now, here's the bonus: immortality. How so? Well, consult Richard Feynman. He showed that sub-atomic particles are not time bound. Sometimes the only way to grok certain observations is to say a particle has gone backward in time. In other words, if the human eye can deal with a single photon (quark,) then the yogi can honestly say, " I am beyond time in that I control where I'm " at " within it. " If that's so, then what? Well, it means that the yogi has eternity as a toy. It means that in a human moment, that yogi can life -- honest now -- a trillion+ lifetimes. It means that the yogi can be everywhere at once. It means that the yogi knows everything. It means that the yogi knows intimately that everything he does is a localized summation of ALL THIS. It means that a yogi can laugh off the dying of the body/mind, because it will be no more of an event than losing another hair in the shower. That yogi will know that the universe processes every single quanta and will do so until the last sigh of the universe as it undergoes " heat death. " The last two quanta will be in lock step even billions of light years apart. When they stop their scintillations, only then does Shiva's dance end. And yet, we have the dreamless sleep state to remind us that even when the brain is not being aware of something, it still is aware of the dreamlessness " thing " with perfect unblinking continuity -- even if the waking mind is fraught with almost instant forgetfulness and will be found to deny that consciousness was operative during deep sleep, yet does continuity of awareness prevail. So, when the ordinary person's body dies, what then of awareness? Unlike the yogi, he's not living at the ritam level. How can God be said to be all loving and yet, seemingly, the yogi gets a far better life? Truth be told, we're all perfect yogis -- only the ordinary person has decided to be ordinary -- that is ignoring the fine points -- but doing so with a yogic master's delicacy. Buddha in everyone. There is no death for anyone, and all dogs, rocks and quarks go to heaven -- the ending of any of those processes doesn't affect that which was aware of them or, get this, their echoes throughout creation. In every moment, a yogi with refined awareness can confidently say, " Yes, Hitler, and Jesus, and Buddha and butterflies from 200,000,000 years ago helped construct this mind experience. " There's your immortality. Everything your ego ever thought it ever did is still affecting how everything is bouncing around the billiard table. Not a drop of will is wasted. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, awareness -- hmmm, have I written enough for you to be jiggy with what I'm calling Cosmic Ego? Edg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Nisargadatta , " duveyoung " <edg wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Edg: Pray tell: what are your definitions of awareness, > > consciousness, and the Absolute -- please show that > > " dark unknown that stirs " points to something other > > than one of them? Truly, I am confused about your stance > > > > P: I consider what I'm about to write an exercise in > > futility, but I like to indulge in idle philosophical > > musings. So here it goes: > > > > To me C & A are the same mental faculty by different > > names. Some languages do not have an equivalent word > > for awareness. German and Spanish do not. I think > > Niz's translators used awareness as an alternative > > word for Absolute. That, in my opinion, was a bad choice, > > since Niz often said: " The Absolute is not aware of > > itself. " So, I dismiss that term as a poor substitute > > for Absolute. So let's dwell only on the definitions of > > consciousness and absolute: > > > > > > " Consciousness is often used colloquially to describe > > being awake and aware — responsive to the environment, > > in contrast to being asleep or in a coma. In > > philosophical and scientific discussion, however, the > > term is restricted to the specific way in which humans > > are mentally aware in such a way that they distinguish > > clearly between themselves (the thing being aware) and > > all other things and events. A characteristic of > > consciousness is that it is reflective, an " awareness > > of being aware " . This " self-awareness " may involve > > thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, > > and dreams. " From Wiki. > > > > To me consciousness is seeing light in the wavelength > > range of roughly 625–740 nm as red. In other words > > consciousness is the giver of qualia (sensory qualities > > such as red or hot.) If a tree falls and there is no one > > to hear it... frequencies between about 12 Hz and 20,000 > > Hz (20 kHz) happen, but the qualia of a crashing sound > > is not there because qualia happens only to a conscious > > brain. No one can define red in a comprehensible way > > to a blind man. > > > > " The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality > > which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. > > It is often used as an alternate term for " God " or " the > > Divine " , especially, but by no means exclusively, by those > > who feel that the term " God " lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute > > may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) > > possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a > > personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the > > source through which all being emanates. It contrasts with > > finite things, considered individually, and known > > collectively as the relative. " From Wiki. > > > > > > Obviously, the above statement is a concept with > > no objective referent such as light in the wavelength > > range of roughly 625–740 nm, and no qualia such as red. > > > > On the other hand, the " source " of all qualia and > > knowledge is an unknown darkness. Dark in the sense of > > total absence of qualia. > > > > Let's do a neti, neti of all qualia. Subtract all > > sensory perception, including bodily sensations. > > Subtract all thoughts, emotions, memories, mental > > imagines, and fantasies. Only absence remains: > > absence of all the above, and any conscious input, > > or content. Can that total absence be perceived? > > When that total abscence stirs, qualia emerges, > > revealing the dark unknown as its source. > > > > That is the best I can do with words. Thou are that. > > Hope this resonates. > > > > Pete > > > > Pete, > > Yep, yep, yep, I agree. > Consider the human eye. It can/does/will register even one photon of light impacting the retina. Get that? A photon is one of the basic quarks . > > Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, awareness -- hmmm, have I written enough for you to be jiggy with what I'm calling Cosmic Ego? > > Edg P: Sorry, Edg, what you wrote reads to me like a very confused melange of misunderstood science and imagination. To begin with a photon is not a quark. No one has ever proved that quarks are real particles, they just exists as requirements of quantum calculations and to make sense of certain experiments. Secondly, what seems true for quantum mechanics is not true in the world of special relativity ( our macro world) only quacks reason that because a particle can be at two places at the same time, a watermelon can too. Read more about about quantum mechanics before using it as a magic rug. You can start below. > Quarks Quarks are fundamental matter particles that are constituents of neutrons and protons and other hadrons. There are six different types of quarks. Each quark type is called a flavor. Flavor Mass (GeV/c2) Electric Charge (e) u up 0.004 +2/3 d down 0.008 -1/3 c charm 1.5 +2/3 s strange 0.15 -1/3 t top 176 +2/3 b bottom 4.7 -1/3 Quark Masses Quarks only exist inside hadrons because they are confined by the strong (or color charge) force fields. A question you might well ask! If we cannot separate them out, how do we know they are there? The answer is simply that all our calculations depend on their existence and give the right answers for the experiments. http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.