Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 ivan: Hi Greg. Of course Dan can speak for himself, and admirably well i agree. He even sang some old Beattles song through the net .....something like "...dis is lis, das is lat...obla di obla da..." <;;;;> But that doesn't mean we can't talk of this matter also. All we see, hear, smell, touch, taste and even think, comes to us through the senses....right? Our manifested world is sensorial. Senses are our windows and doors to humanity. So one may say... ...look, that stone is just in your mind, because it's materiality comes through the senses to the brain. So there is a real stone out there, and the senses transmit some input to the brain that interprets it as solidity. Isn't this what you are saying/implying? Let's forget Dan here. Yes, we sure can talk about this matter of what the senses and materiality are. The story about the world coming through the senses is familiar, it's the normal, everyday view of the world. This story serves our everyday purposes quite well. We can have families, raise children, pay bills, go to the doctor, read books, and enjoy life. Only philosophers, psychologists and spiritual aspirants question this view. The more we think about this view, the less it makes sense upon close analysis. There are two problems. This common-sense view, (S) The material world is known through the senses has two problems. 1. (S) depends on an unsupportable distinction between subject and object. For example, the senses themselves eyes, ears, nose etc., there are two possibilities -- are they senses subject or object? (i) The senses are part of the material world that is sensed (the objects) or (ii) The senses are part of the sensing faculty (the subject)? If (i) is true, then it is obvious that information about these objects is not coming through the senses, so (S) is false. If (ii) is true, then this leads to the un-intuitive conclusion that the nose and eyes are not material, even though flowers and trucks are material. If both (i) and (ii) are true, then we have both problems, plus the additional problem that we'd have to say the nose smells itself, the eye sees itself. 2. The claim (S) has a worse problem, for purposes of non-dual understanding. That is, (S) is just not our experience! Our experience is that arisings happen arise all together, inseparable. There is no experience of the flower, independent of the smell or sight (etc.) of the flower. To defend (S), you would have to point to the flower AND THEN SHOW how our senses perceive it. No one has ever shown this. This is Berkeley's point in THREE DIALOGUES BETWEEN HYLAS AND PHILONOUS. For purposes of non-dualism, we can speak in terms of (S) in everyday terms, but we don't have to believe it. ivan: That's right! I don't see how any sensorial organ/aparatus could be outside of the objects field. Obviously they are also objects, either plain sense objects or thought objects. So where do we land? Everything is object in this whole wild universe. But object of what? Objects demand a subject! It is facing this paradox that man invented the mind. So they say....."all in this universe is object of an universal (and probably very divine) mind". But this universal and divine mind becomes imediatly object as soon as it is identified as "anything". So what is the purpose of this argumentation? Is it a kind of a game where in the end one "proofs" that indeed there is no mind? Or it has some deeper and more significant implications? The moment i conceive an universal mind "thinking" the univese up as it's content, i manage to exclude something excencial and unspeakable from that source.....do you see this? Then i go on saying that i am divine! Sorry! Is just that when i see people confronted with this, and they say....."...yeah...yeah... i know...there is no awareness separate from content..." with a kind of indiferent mood, i keep thinking with mind old buttons: "...does he...really?" If there is not mind thinking This up....what is happening?..oh well...i must try to remain popular... ....even ever-loving Mira doesn't love me anymore.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 At 12:35 PM 9/28/99 , Ivan wrote: So what is the purpose of this argumentation? >Is it a kind of a game where in the end one "proofs" that indeed there is >no mind? >Or it has some deeper and more significant implications? >The moment i conceive an universal mind "thinking" the univese up as it's >content, i manage to exclude something excencial and unspeakable from >that source.....do you see this? Then i go on saying that i am >divine! Sorry! >Is just that when i see people confronted with this, and they >say....."...yeah...yeah... >i know...there is no awareness separate from content..." with a kind of >indiferent >mood, i keep thinking with mind old buttons: "...does he...really?" If >there is not >mind thinking This up....what is happening?..oh well...i must try to >remain popular... >...even ever-loving Mira doesn't love me anymore.... I see two possibilities in what you're saying here - one is that you just like to think about the mind, like a hobby, like thinking about football, nothing to do with spirituality. Another possibility is that you still have some important questions about the nature of mind, and hence the old buttons keep getting pushed, the questions arise and seem important - like "is the mind thinking this up?" Even if Mira doesn't love you, I do! Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 At 12:51 PM 9/28/99 , Greg Goode wrote: >>...even ever-loving Mira doesn't love me anymore.... > > >Even if Mira doesn't love you, I do! On second thought, I think she actually does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 At 12:51 PM 9/28/99 , Greg Goode wrote: ...even ever-loving Mira doesn't love me anymore.... Even if Mira doesn't love you, I do! On second thought, I think she actually does! ivan: I am sure she does. My charm is irresistible!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 Ivan:So what is the purpose of this argumentation? Is it a kind of a game where in the end one "proofs" that indeed there is no mind? Or it has some deeper and more significant implications? The moment i conceive an universal mind "thinking" the univese up as it's content, i manage to exclude something excencial and unspeakable from that source.....do you see this? Then i go on saying that i am divine! Sorry! Is just that when i see people confronted with this, and they say....."...yeah...yeah... i know...there is no awareness separate from content..." with a kind of indiferent mood, i keep thinking with mind old buttons: "...does he...really?" If there is not mind thinking This up....what is happening?..oh well...i must try to remain popular... ....even ever-loving Mira doesn't love me anymore.... Greg:I see two possibilities in what you're saying here - one is that you just like to think about the mind, like a hobby, like thinking about football, nothing to do with spirituality. ivan: What shell i say? I will make a confession to you... "i hate thinking about this matters......it's a genuine aversion that makes me sick...just the thought of thinking about philosophy makes me vomit....the keyboard is all messed up awlready" I hope is not some meal-time over there.... :^) So you may disregard the first possibility without worrying about a mistake...But i have nothing to do with spirituality either.....it would be depreciative to something so unfathomable..... Greg: Another possibility is that you still have some important questions about the nature of mind, and hence the old buttons keep getting pushed, the questions arise and seem important - like "is the mind thinking this up?" ivan: By "is the mind thinking it up", you mean thinking up the universe, or some ideia of mine? Anyway.....none. We said that all this what is, here.....has nothing more to it. So all there is, here, share the origins of the universe in time, out of time, in space and spaced-out... Even if Mira doesn't love you, I do! Love, --Greg ivan: It is always a good feeling to know that!! i love you too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 G: I see two possibilities in what you're saying here - one is that you just like to think about the mind, like a hobby, like thinking about football, nothing to do with spirituality. D: These conversations have a humorous aspect to me. They go round and round through clarifying definitions, asserting points, refuting the "other's" logic, and end up where? -- with something that can't be defined, can't be asserted, and which doesn't depend on logic for its being... Meanwhile, these very intensely thought-out and presented arguments and counterarguments can go on indefinitely. I'm having fun with it. All of the things being debated intersect at a point - perception, awareness, "mind," materiality, sense... If you are at that point - then what do the definitions matter? - you are then in "the Middle Way." If one side is defined a certain way, then the other side will be defined relative to that. Meanwhile, ob la di ob la da - dis is dat and dat is dat - and... God bless John Lennon -- my bird can sing - baby, you can drive my car... and oh yes... "love, love, love --- love is all you need" Love, Dan Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1999 Report Share Posted September 28, 1999 At 03:04 PM 9/28/99 , Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >D: These conversations have a humorous aspect to me. They go round and round >through clarifying definitions, asserting points, refuting the "other's" >logic, >and end up where? -- with something that can't be defined, can't be asserted, >and which doesn't depend on logic for its being... Meanwhile, these very >intensely thought-out and presented arguments and counterarguments can go on >indefinitely. I'm having fun with it. Maybe I'm responsible for some of this clutter, as I happen to have fun with these arguments. But do I believe any of it? Absitively/posolutely not, it is just alphabet soup. So I apologize if it clutters up anyone's mailbox, I'll tone it down. >All of the things being debated >intersect at a point - perception, awareness, "mind," materiality, sense... >If you are at that point - then what do the definitions matter? - you >are then in "the Middle Way." Never out of it! >If one side is defined a certain way, then >the other side will be defined relative to that. Lots of stuff is just like that, and that's the Middle Way as well. Love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 1999 Report Share Posted September 29, 1999 Dear Ivan, Greg, Dan & Others: I have made brief comments as I was able, during my recovery from foot surgery, and so have been swamped with email, but I have attempted to fathom this on going dialogue and understand why there seems to be any polarities about it at all. Most of the statements made are either A) clearly based on working objective definitions B) abstract metaphors for meta existence (that's fine!) C) extensions of absolute statements not supported by either A or B in a logically positive manner. So, when folk cannot agree on semantics, it is clear that disputes or misunderstandings will arise. This can be fun, or futile. Bear with me a moment and I will present an ANALOGY. I shout that part, so that everyone who cares to respond will not make the assumption that I suggest that it is ACTUAL reality, but this works amazingly well as a Model. Without resorting to the frail faculties of the human mind, let us proceed with this thought experiment, as conducted by very advanced, large scale computer systems. First, imagine the computer to be quite vast, though of course, finite at some point in terms of its calculating capacity. This computer can be likened, of course to the brain. Connected to the computer are sensors and transducers, various equipment that can sense the environment that it is in as well as make changes in the environment. These sensors and transducers can be likened to our senses and our bodies. Now, the first program that autoruns on this computer, is to sense and measure the world around it. It does so by a vast number of detailed sensors, measuring things visually, sonically, pressure, temperature, humidity, pressure, density, electromagnetically, chemically, chromatographically, etc. The next program suggests that the computer choose an item in the environment at random...it chooses a squirrel. It captures the squirrel, measures it even more thoroughly, maps it's DNA, translates all of this information into series of 1's and 0's, and digitizes the Squirrel. Now the squirrel exists both outside the computer and also inside the computer...in a representative form of information. I will now demonstrate that information is exactly equal to material existence...given enough power to do full Fourier transforms of data into energy...into matter. The next program the computer runs asks for it to prepare the nutrients and chemicals needed to host a living creature. The information on file on the squirrel is now transformed into a gene sequencing machine that begins to turn the data into organized actual DNA. This is then attached to the nutrient bath and basic cell culture (they could be from yeast or mold) and then the squirrel is grown "in a test tube" carefully monitored and fed, and finally "born" at the full term and it runs around and is a squirrel [+1]. To the most clever observer, there is no measurable difference between the first squirrel (squirrel Prime) and Squirrel [+1]. Thought has been converted into material existence with the application of enough energy and raw materials. The purpose of this entire thought experiment is to show that if there is a large enough universal computer, and the information contained therein can be converted into energy and particles, simply abstract data with specific frequencies, then any number of elements, wave forms, life forms and material universes can be supported...ad infinitum, given the full capacity to contain "enough" bits of data. The universe and all in it are all pure information. The sense of existence and sensory reality are bits of information dealing with other bits of information. There is duality and there is non-duality. It's a matter of compartment size. If we limit the view to ourselves, then we are separate from the squirrel or the computer or the universe. But all things owe their existence to information being maintained in correct ordered groups. If we juggle the information about just a few cells in a human, they cease to function. Since everyone is composed of elements and the elements are composed of atoms, and the atoms are composed of subatomic particles and these are composed of quanta of essentially massless "particles" dancing in a wild waltz of frequency, then everything in the universe is reduced to "essentially massless" bits of information...not gross material things at all. For the purposes of having life experience, all of these dancing bits assume the role of Form and we then experience the life of Forms. And forms perceive their world through the senses and also the immeasurable gift of thought, which is closest to the primary reality of organized information and waltzing subatomic particles. We are all creatures of light. We are all creatures of Form. There is the duality...but it is only a matter of semantics... not reality. I convey my love and mind via electrons to all! Blessings Love, Zenbob 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.