Niz, C, A, and the Absolute

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

> Edg: You missed the metaphor. I was using the word " photon " as " what we

> know to be is one of the smallest conceptual entities in physical

> reality that the human body (in this case, it is the eye) has no trouble

> discerning and thusly proves that the body can be that sensitive to the

> universe's infinite correlativity being seamlessly interconnected via

> quantum entanglement. "

 

P: Edg, you are the writer, I'm the reader. You

write for me, you want 'me'(your public at large)

to understand and like what you write, and maybe,

hopefully, profit by it. As a writer, I understand

that it's a rare blessing when a reader takes the

time to the tell a writer how to improve what he

wrote.

 

I'm addressing you as a fellow writer and reader

engaged in criticizing your work, not you. No

ad hominem is intended. I think you are an asset

to this list and I wish you had the time to post more.

Please, feel free to edit my posts and offer your

help. I do welcome that.

 

As a lifelong addict to metaphors, I tell you that

scientific terms are not good material for metaphors.

It creates untold confusion when precise, quantifiable

terms are used as metaphors. A quark is a quark and

not a photon. Again above, you refer to photons as the

smallest of particles. Size is not used to quantify

photons. Maybe you're using size as metaphor for

mass, but that is a mistake. A photon has no mass,

and has no other size than the expandable expanse

of a wave.

 

I know you are trying to support your " Cosmic Ego "

thingy with the latest physics theories, but no

me, as a reader, it's a very weak, confused

platform. Renaming God as cosmic ego, in my

opinion, detracts rather than add to

an already bankrupt concept. Ego has a negative

connotation in popular culture. Does changing

names change a concept? how do you think the

concept of a cosmic ego is going to help

someone to be free from the hypnotic grip of

concepts. Concepts hide what you seek, do you

see that?

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , "cerosoul" <pedsie6 wrote:>> > > 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.> > > > Edg: You missed the metaphor. I was using the word "photon" as "what we> > know to be is one of the smallest conceptual entities in physical> > reality that the human body (in this case, it is the eye) has no trouble> > discerning and thusly proves that the body can be that sensitive to the> > universe's infinite correlativity being seamlessly interconnected via> > quantum entanglement."> > P: Edg, you are the writer, I'm the reader. You> write for me, you want 'me'(your public at large)> to understand and like what you write, and maybe,> hopefully, profit by it. As a writer, I understand> that it's a rare blessing when a reader takes the> time to the tell a writer how to improve what he> wrote.> > I'm addressing you as a fellow writer and reader> engaged in criticizing your work, not you. No > ad hominem is intended. I think you are an asset> to this list and I wish you had the time to post more.> Please, feel free to edit my posts and offer your> help. I do welcome that. > > As a lifelong addict to metaphors, I tell you that> scientific terms are not good material for metaphors.Edg: Truth be told, now I'm wanting to back off of calling a photon a metaphor. I'm content to merely use science as a verification of there being a mechanical explanation for God to exist....and He to have an ego. I'd like you to weigh in on quantum entanglement as "how God's nervous system works."> It creates untold confusion when precise, quantifiable> terms are used as metaphors. A quark is a quark and> not a photon. Again above, you refer to photons as the> smallest of particles. Size is not used to quantify> photons. Maybe you're using size as metaphor for> mass, but that is a mistake. A photon has no mass, Edg: I think you'd better google that -- a photon is affected by gravity because it has a very slight mass.> and has no other size than the expandable expanse> of a wave.Edg: Photons were discovered as discrete quanta from the black box radiation experiments of the early 20th century. Thus their "size" in mathematical terms is at least fuzzily measurable despite Heisenberg uncertainty. I would like you to comment on the concept of the sensitivity of the retina and how this shows that the human body is able to interact with one of the most ephemeral of entities -- the photon. To me it is a huge concept that we are godly to that extent. Throw in quantum entanglement, and you've got the skeleton for fleshing out an understanding of celestial perception in a human nervous system.> > I know you are trying to support your "Cosmic Ego"> thingy with the latest physics theories, but no> me, as a reader, it's a very weak, confused> platform. Renaming God as cosmic ego, in my> opinion, detracts rather than add to> an already bankrupt concept. Edg: I'm not exactly renaming God as Cosmic Ego if one is thinking of the limitations of the individual human ego. The physics I point to show that the Cosmic Ego should be omniscient, omnipresent and by the manipulation of merely butterfly flappings, omnipotent. That's some egoic power and God can be said to wield it with an emergent mind born of His body: the matrix called universe. Yes, I'm trying to make a case that physics has discovered the mechanics of the astral and causal worlds.Ego has a negative> connotation in popular culture. Does changing> names change a concept? how do you think the> concept of a cosmic ego is going to help> someone to be free from the hypnotic grip of> concepts. Edg: I think it is rare that anyone writes about God as having an ego. You see the will of God endlessly written about, but seldom does one consider what would be the nature of the clockworks of God's mind. Given that, I believe a 3D explanation for why God could exist could prove pivotal for those sold out to science such that they've become atheists. Might get them to reconsider their axioms -- you might do that also -- who knows?I believe that if attachment to a concept is found to be as if hypnotic, then we've found a powerful tool for exploring spirituality's venue. Asking, "How is it that my intellect or my heart is so swayed by a concept?" is only possible if one first recognizes that power. You're herein claiming that concepts have power of some sort of reality, right? So, why not use that for spirituality instead of throwing out "exploration of the gift of this illusion from God" as the proverbial baby in the bathwater? Bottom line: although nothing is real, something that's unreal has to unreally handle unreality in order to neti-ize the mind's attachment addictions. A thorn to remove a thorn is a valid concept. Concepts hide what you seek, do you> see that?Edg: Nope, you'd be wrongobongo. I've entertained a million concepts, and none of them have had much more power over me than a Chinese meal has over my hunger. I'd have to be quite foolish to keep hoping "if I can only just get my intellect satisfied" that my desire for freedom would be fulfilled. As if.I can and have been deeply indulgent in certain concepts, and will be in the future, but without that process, I wouldn't have accumulated the taste for the infinite that now can only be gotten from a healthy bite of juicy Absolute.It is one thing to be free, it is another thing to be conceptually capable of describing one's freedom. To do that requires experience and practice -- usually after enlightenment for most folks.I think it's quite possible for an enlightened person to be uneducated and even left-hand bell-curved stupid at the moment of freedom, but the hunger for conceptual knowledge about one's freedom will lead that "enlightened newbie" to ever deeper appreciation of the magnificence of enlightenment. The heart of an enlightened newbie will find itself seeking still for ever more refined emotional resonance with entirety. Thus, the enlightened newbie will continue to evolve to gain the ability to reside at the finest levels of creation -- that is the ritam level where heart and mind merge into one and finally the newbie is in a position to declare unity -- that is: the relative is the Absolute -- and then ENTER THAT and become the embodiment of Unity. The enlightened newbie is sinless and a perfect tool for creation's unfolding, but residing in that status cultures the newbie nervous system even further until Unity is mindfully lived and appreciated -- it happens when the intellect and heart are also finally realized to be freed from the limitations of individuality by refinements after freedom is gained.I might possibly become enlightened tomorrow, but I wouldn't be seeing angels or have any especial siddhi powers; however, in a few years -- THEN take an inventory of my how manifest are my potentials. Now there's an enlightenment worth the name -- two fullnesses: Absolute and Relative -- now glorified with a cosmic ken and a cosmic love.Those who would toss the relative and laugh at anyone "still dealing with manifestation as reality," are going to have to eat some very foul fowl -- roadkilled crow.Edg