Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Why does Reality Exist? * 2
    #28514047 - 10/22/23 11:35 AM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Hey, I've been working on a book that chronicles my experiences and revelations on psychedelics, as well as spiritual awakening and tips for people going through spiritual awakening. I'm excited to share it with you all in the coming weeks. It should be released in mid-November.

I'll give a little teaser in advance, but I hope it resonates with others and encourages others to share their visions and revelations on this miraculous thing we call "life", "Reality", and "existence".

Before I release the teaser, I wanted to ask others for their thoughts:

Why do you think Reality exists? Can we know? What happens to us when we die?
:mushroom2:

Book: Why does Reality Exist?


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/28/23 11:32 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAspectOfTheCreator
Mastering the Art of Success
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/07/22
Posts: 1,263
Last seen: 40 minutes, 20 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 2
    #28514083 - 10/22/23 11:59 AM (3 months, 4 days ago)

The "creator" is bored and alone. And so it creates reality to put itself into. So it can forget its bored and alone.

Its all just a game for an infinitely intelligent energy. When we die we wake up and remember this fact. We're all like drops of water in an ocean of eternal energy we call "god".


...or maybe I was just tripping. Guess ill find out when the day comes.


Edited by AspectOfTheCreator (10/22/23 12:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: AspectOfTheCreator] * 2
    #28514173 - 10/22/23 01:23 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

5 thousand years ago we floated thru space and realized that inhabiting animal forms allows for a deeper experience so we got rid of the dinosaurs and began to revel in the amusement of being human.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleconnectedcosmos
Neti Neti
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: AspectOfTheCreator] * 2
    #28514176 - 10/22/23 01:26 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Perhaps think of the state of deep sleep

Experience of nothing - now imagine that for eternity , variety is the spice of life

So we have existence why so? Because there would be nothing like the state of deep sleep

Existence is a dream within a dream

A flow in and of itself with no specific rhyme or reason indulging in a beautiful purposelessness

And now I will take another toke... :happyweed::potleaf::stoned2:


--------------------


54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #28514334 - 10/22/23 02:59 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

A lot of physicists say that "everything is explained by some universal laws of physics". But "where" did the universal "laws of physics" come from? How and why did they come to exist?

A lot of theologians says that "everything is explained by some universal Supreme being". But "where" did that universal "Supreme being" come from? How and why did it come to exist?

And then, if we had explanations to either or both of those two questions, how/why did that principal come to exist?

It is my view that psychedelics provide another window into Reality, a way to appreciate the universe "come alive". They open the mind to answering questions in newfound ways that couldn't have been appreciated before. Only through perception of the "ineffable" can we get access to some of the questions we seek.

In other words, if you want the direct answer to my book, Why does Reality Exist?, you can just take a bunch of shrooms and find out for yourself!

:awecid:

In all seriousness, my own five second take is that I think Reality is like a collection of living stories, told by an infinite and eternal Story teller. Mind is a creation of those stories being told, and matter is simply the representative objects of mind that can be confirmed by two or more "points of existence" (or by only one point in the case of non-veridical dreams and visions). That still doesn't explain though where that Story teller came from, which is the real mystery... it just explains how/why we are God's own eyes onto the world, experiencing itself through different perspectives. Also explains away death, which is another nice little bonus :mushroom2:


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28514362 - 10/22/23 03:23 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Why do you think Reality exists?
I am not sure I do think it exists, but neither do I believe it doesn't.

Can we know?
Can we know why?
I suspect not.
We might be able to learn more about how, but the why is kinda, well, silly to me at least.

What happens to us when we die?
If I put this another way, what happens to my self, when I die, I can say I expect that nothing happens, so far as I can tell, self is a construct.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28514366 - 10/22/23 03:28 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
A lot of physicists say that "everything is explained by some universal laws of physics". But "where" did the universal "laws of physics" come from? How and why did they come to exist?

A lot of theologians says that "everything is explained by some universal Supreme being". But "where" did that universal "Supreme being" come from? How and why did it come to exist?

And then, if we had explanations to either or both of those two questions, how/why did that principal come to exist?




Aren't those issues of origin artifacts arising from the perception of time in a linear fashion, when in fact time is a relative property and cannot be linear in origination.

All linear origin arguments lead to ontological paradoxes, don't they?
What if there literally is no origin, that rather things are originating, but not in a linear temporal fashion?
But then this introduces Relativity to a question of spirituality and many might find that problematic.

Good questions.
I hope you get some answers.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28514489 - 10/22/23 05:30 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Alright, drum roll... here is the teaser to my book: Why Does Reality Exist?

It took several doses of mystical medicine (cannabis, shrooms, and ketamine) to get "there". But "here" we are now in existence "experiencing" Reality "come alive". Love & light..!!

:awecid:


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/22/23 06:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28514509 - 10/22/23 05:56 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

the material world (including this book) emanates from the genuine source, as coded, allegorical language for the actual message.




So your position is that the properties of matter arise as a manifestation of a code from a source?

Am I correct in this?


Edited by Nillion (10/22/23 05:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28514549 - 10/22/23 06:30 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
Quote:

the material world (including this book) emanates from the genuine source, as coded, allegorical language for the actual message.




So your position is that the properties of matter arise as a manifestation of a code from a source?

Am I correct in this?




Somewhat. I'd say its emanating from a higher source, yes, but it's also equivalent to the source itself at the same time. The Author breathes through his own books and comes alive through his own books.

It's much like a dream. When you dream, you see objects in front of you. Those are productions of the mind. The same happens in the waking state, we just have other beings here who corroborate the objects that we see, so we can say we live in one world together. The fact that we are able to see the same Reality indicates that our consciousness and material world blend together as one. So, Creator is connected with its creation, and we are able to get access to the Creator, through reading the "code", as unraveled in transcendent experiences by psychedelics, NDEs, religious ecstasy, UFO experiences, and so forth. (In my opinion... could be wrong). This is why the experience is "ineffable" to us when we "return" and only can be understood through "intuition" in the trance state.

Life can be likened to an allegory that has "come alive". One of the defining features of pure allegory, according to Angus Fletcher in Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode, is that its formal, or literal, surface level does not explicitly demand to be interpreted for hidden meanings, for it often makes 'good enough' sense by itself. "But somehow this literal surface suggests a peculiar doubleness of intention, and while it can, as it were, get along without interpretation, it becomes much richer and more interesting if given interpretation".

Life is much the same way. We are all acting out a pattern that can be seen "from above" as the pattern of all patterns. To us, from the linear perspective, we build certain narratives in our mind; but, those narratives can be re-created in other tales... new stories drafted... to connect us to a "higher reality". The question is, can we ever step outside the book to see the producer behind the code? Like, my original post, the question is still begged: where do the laws of physics come from? Where does the Supreme Being come from?

Caution though: Bear in mind, all of these thoughts are products of a tripping mind; I am almost certainly wrong, at least to some degree, with my perception of it. I'm simply entertaining ideas more than insisting upon one interpretation. The major point though is this: As I try to articulate throughout the book, there is no uninteresting answer to the question "Why does Reality Exist?" The decision tree only has very interesting answers... life is truly incredible, so no need to cling to my interpretations or anyone else's.


What do you think?


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28514565 - 10/22/23 06:54 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Interesting.

It is certainly something to ponder.
Thank you for the writing and ideas!

Edited to answer the last question of your post.
What do I think?
I'm not sure yet, I think I need to think some more.


Edited by Nillion (10/22/23 06:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28514578 - 10/22/23 07:02 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
Aren't those issues of origin artifacts arising from the perception of time in a linear fashion, when in fact time is a relative property and cannot be linear in origination.

All linear origin arguments lead to ontological paradoxes, don't they?
What if there literally is no origin, that rather things are originating, but not in a linear temporal fashion?
But then this introduces Relativity to a question of spirituality and many might find that problematic.
.




I like how you urge us to consider things from a standpoint that appreciates how we think about time & space, which I think is key to approaching "Why does Reality Exist"?

For instance, we can't say "what happened before the Big Bang?", because there was no "before" the Big Bang. Rather, the Big Bang was the very expansion of spacetime itself. This is why everything is necessarily interconnected: there is no "out there". "In here" is equivalent to "out there". Hence, the theory of relativity... there is no objective way to say something is to the "left" or "right" of something, or "before" or "after". Time and space are relative. Matter and mind are ultimately thus one.

I also like when you say that "Self is a construct". Yep, I feel similarly that it's a hallucination. I think we live in the hallucination of our minds, and the "Self as construct" is one of these "creations" of the mind.

Fascinating stuff.

I like science, but I don't think it captures all that we can know. In particular, I don't think the buck stops at the Theory of Relativity, or maybe some theory on gravity, or M-theory to suit our epistemological wishes. If all of the laws of physics are logical principals and can exist outside time & space to create spacetime in the Big Bang (as I believe they do), where did logic itself come from?

Without an explanation to that, no explanation is provided to "Why Does Reality Exist?"


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/22/23 07:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,793
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 2
    #28514632 - 10/22/23 07:51 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Reality is the dream of The One  :bigbang:


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28514635 - 10/22/23 07:53 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

I like the idea of thinking of time as a facet of timespace in a relative way, as in the Big Bang is in our relative past, but all  energy in the universe exists as non-relative boson state as the singularity and unity of all energy, which composes the single entity at the core of the theory of the bang so to speak. It is the point at which all matter and energy are one and not differentiated into timespace.

That point of singularity is not in our relative past, because it is the non-linear aspect of the energy that constitutes timespace after it experiences heat expansion. However once that differentiation of energy occurs, aka the bang, then timespace becomes relative and our position is downstream so to speak, from the bang, but not the singularity!

I think of it all in terms of thermodynamics and heat and quarks, it is rather boring I think, compared to the idea that the origin of reality is akin to the dream of a sleeping God, to borrow and adapt some of your symbolism.  Certainly my own, theoretical, explanation of how the universe exists is not profound, but to me it is coherent. Still, that is neither here nor there.

I wonder, sometimes, if we project aspects of personality into explanation, because as people, we relate to the material better if we think of the universe in terms of our interaction with it. Like, the universe feels like it makes more sense if it is akin to a pet rock, but infinitely more expansive and powerful. Either way the result is that the rock, er, universe, matters to us and we to it, in this type of exercise. Perhaps we find the anthropomorphization of the universe psychologically necessary? After all, if we see the universe in ourselves, is it not natural to see ourselves in the universe? I think psychedelics lend themselves to this and maybe even predispose us towards it. If we see ourselves as loving the universe doesn't it makes sense that we want to see the universe as loving us? Nobody likes a one sided relationship, right?

Do we search for truth, meaning or justification?


Are they different words for the same thing to some of us and yet incompatible concepts for others?

I confess, even the concept of the question why? seems strange to me. I kinda don't care that much to ask why this or why that, but have often found great benefit in exploring the idea of how. The question of how a plant grows is of special interest to me as a gardener, but why a plant grows doesn't interest me much at all.

Maybe I am being naive and am just misunderstanding what the question why means?

It almost seems like asking, what is the motive of the universe for existing? Instead I find myself more comfortable with pondering the question of how the universe exists. It occurs to me that I am unlikely to arrive at either answer though, and even if I did, I might not even be able to recognize it. They say that searching for truth is the easy part, but accepting it is difficult. Perhaps that is also true for recognizing it? I don't know... maybe?

Perhaps it is as you say, I actually have no idea. I know what I find to be tenable at present, but that could easily change tomorrow. Certainly I can appreciate, love and participate in the endeavor of pondering the universe through a psychedelic filter.

In the end, perhaps what I think doesn't really matter, nothing about the universe has changed in my life, despite my having had many different opinions about the universe along the way... still it is fun to share thoughts and ideas with other people. Maybe that is enough for me to enjoy reality, even if I can't fully understand it?

I sure hope so!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28514676 - 10/22/23 08:21 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
I wonder, sometimes, if we project aspects of personality into explanation, because as people, we relate to the material better if we think of the universe in terms of our interaction with it. Like, the universe feels like it makes more sense if it is akin to a pet rock, but infinitely more expansive and powerful. Either way the result is that the rock, er, universe, matters to us and we to it, in this type of exercise. Perhaps we find the anthropomorphization of the universe psychologically necessary? ...

I confess, even the concept of the question why? seems strange to me. I kinda don't care that much to ask why this or why that, but have often found great benefit in exploring the idea of how. The question of how a plant grows is of special interest to me as a gardener, but why a plant grows doesn't interest me much at all.

Maybe I am being naive and am just misunderstanding what the question why means?

It almost seems like asking, what is the motive of the universe for existing? Instead I find myself more comfortable with pondering the question of how the universe exists. It occurs to me that I am unlikely to arrive at either answer though, and even if I did, I might not even be able to recognize it. They say that searching for truth is the easy part, but accepting it is difficult. Perhaps that is also true for recognizing it? I don't know... maybe?

Perhaps it is as you say, I actually have no idea. I know what I find to be tenable at present, but that could easily change tomorrow. Certainly I can appreciate, love and participate in the endeavor of pondering the universe through a psychedelic filter.

In the end, perhaps what I think doesn't really matter, nothing about the universe has changed in my life, despite my having had many different opinions about the universe along the way... still it is fun to share thoughts and ideas with other people. Maybe that is enough for me to enjoy reality, even if I can't fully understand it?

I sure hope so!




I think the anthropomorphizing is really just symbolic dressing, vocabulary used to try to articulate the "ineffable". When I say that I think, as Asante summed up, that "Reality is the dream of The One", it doesn't mean its a human-like dreamer in the sky at all. It means Reality is equivalent to a mental-material world of unity that comes to know itself through conscious agents, or "points of experience" who believe themselves to be separate: me, you, I, anyone that has ever existed.

I also think it's easy to confuse "why" questions with a question seeking "purpose". Why questions are about ultimate explanation, not something as silly as "the universe exists, because we need to feel good about it". In my view, this is the realm of philosophy & mysticism, because we get answers that are unfalsifiable. That doesn't make it, as you seem to point out, good for science and practical answers. But just because they are unfalsifiable and not practical, doesn't mean that they don't impart meaning to them or that the answers don't exist in some "real sense".

The good news though is that universe / Reality existing is something magically good we can all marvel in wonder at... regardless of what persuasion we are, skeptic or mystic. It truly is a great gift to be alive!


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Asante]
    #28514677 - 10/22/23 08:23 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Reality is the dream of The One  :bigbang:




How awe-inspiring the dream is! To actually exist and be "alive"!


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28514701 - 10/22/23 08:50 PM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

Why questions are about ultimate explanation




I wonder if that is a truth I am unable to recognize or perhaps unwilling to accept?

Doesn't it require a foundational belief that the universe has an ultimate purpose?
Isn't that idea of purpose invariably interpreted as relating specifically to our species by our species?
Might we even find individuals who extend this to believe that the purpose of the universe relates to them specifically?
Are we not always trying to find new ways to putting ourselves at the center of the universe and the meaning of existence?

Why is the idea of an ultimate explanation something we seek?
If you found it, like right now, once and for all, no question about it, would you then cease to wonder?

Is there really a final why which cannot have another why added to it in an infinite progression? Or having found an ultimate explanation of why, can we not then seek the ultimate explanation for it? Where does it all end?

Is it our fate to be born and wonder: Why was I born?
To live and wonder: Why am I alive?
To face death and wonder: Why am I must I die?

Is there truly any answer that will satisfy us?
Ti estin aletheia?

Of what use is truth?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleconnectedcosmos
Neti Neti
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28514956 - 10/23/23 03:50 AM (3 months, 4 days ago)

It is rather interesting

If one asks why does water freeze?

And the answer has something to do with temperature, molecular processes etc

That simply does not ever answer, why does water freeze , that answers how water freezes

So why is a very tricky question when asking the extremely big questions

Sometimes I feel like some of those questions are ones only you yourself can answer


Reminds me of Søren;
Quote:

life is not a puzzle to be solved but a reality to be experienced








--------------------


54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 222
Last seen: 5 hours, 19 minutes
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: connectedcosmos]
    #28514978 - 10/23/23 05:21 AM (3 months, 4 days ago)

I find it highly unlikely the stars and planets are orbiting each other for no reason.

No not gravity...

Something more like as a representation of polarity, or something like this. It has to mean something.


--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'

Your life, your call.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: connectedcosmos]
    #28515009 - 10/23/23 06:41 AM (3 months, 4 days ago)

Quote:

connectedcosmos said:
It is rather interesting

If one asks why does water freeze?

And the answer has something to do with temperature, molecular processes etc

That simply does not ever answer, why does water freeze , that answers how water freezes

So why is a very tricky question when asking the extremely big questions

Sometimes I feel like some of those questions are ones only you yourself can answer


Reminds me of Søren;
Quote:

life is not a puzzle to be solved but a reality to be experienced











Couldn't agree more. I've always been very unsatisfied with answers that kick the can down the road but act as if they've fully solved the question. There is always another "why" question tucked behind what we think is the last turtle (as they say, "it's turtles all the way down").

I think there's another way to word "why" questions into a how questions: "how is it these set of circumstances instead of some other set of circumstances".

So, "how is it the circumstance that Reality exists as opposed to not exist"?
"How is it the circumstance that the laws of physics exist to create the universe as opposed to not exist?"
"How is it the circumstance that the Supreme Being exists to create the universe as opposed to not exist?"

It comes down to selection: how is it this selection as opposed to some other selection? And, we know, it was a selection, because we can imagine the other selection being possible (Or is it?) This is where one can get into the multiverse or many-worlds theories, where all worldlines that are possible exist in some sense in Reality, but it still then begs the question... where did this multiverse come from?

My hunch is that "why" questions can't work with the scientific method, but it's better "answered" for something known as "intuition". Some things we can't know for sure empirically, but, as you put it, "some of those questions are ones only you yourself can answer".


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleconnectedcosmos
Neti Neti
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: lostintimenspc]
    #28515350 - 10/23/23 02:19 PM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

lostintimenspc said:
I find it highly unlikely the stars and planets are orbiting each other for no reason.

No not gravity...

Something more like as a representation of polarity, or something like this. It has to mean something.





See that is another fine example

Why does the moon orbit the earth?

Of course it's not gravity ! That's how it orbits the earth :lol:


--------------------


54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Mage
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 86,793
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: connectedcosmos]
    #28515504 - 10/23/23 04:48 PM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

connectedcosmos said:

Why does the moon orbit the earth?

Of course it's not gravity ! That's how it orbits the earth :lol:





reading that i had a funny, the moon as an Annoying Orange groupie harrassing planet Earth from all sides :grin:


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAyla
The Jaded Candy Raver
Female


Registered: 03/24/05
Posts: 156
Loc: in a little room far away Flag
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28515981 - 10/23/23 09:54 PM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
I like the idea of thinking of time as a facet of timespace in a relative way, as in the Big Bang is in our relative past, but all  energy in the universe exists as non-relative boson state as the singularity and unity of all energy, which composes the single entity at the core of the theory of the bang so to speak. It is the point at which all matter and energy are one and not differentiated into timespace.

That point of singularity is not in our relative past, because it is the non-linear aspect of the energy that constitutes timespace after it experiences heat expansion. However once that differentiation of energy occurs, aka the bang, then timespace becomes relative and our position is downstream so to speak, from the bang, but not the singularity!

I think of it all in terms of thermodynamics and heat and quarks, it is rather boring I think, compared to the idea that the origin of reality is akin to the dream of a sleeping God, to borrow and adapt some of your symbolism.  Certainly my own, theoretical, explanation of how the universe exists is not profound, but to me it is coherent. Still, that is neither here nor there.

I wonder, sometimes, if we project aspects of personality into explanation, because as people, we relate to the material better if we think of the universe in terms of our interaction with it. Like, the universe feels like it makes more sense if it is akin to a pet rock, but infinitely more expansive and powerful. Either way the result is that the rock, er, universe, matters to us and we to it, in this type of exercise. Perhaps we find the anthropomorphization of the universe psychologically necessary? After all, if we see the universe in ourselves, is it not natural to see ourselves in the universe? I think psychedelics lend themselves to this and maybe even predispose us towards it. If we see ourselves as loving the universe doesn't it makes sense that we want to see the universe as loving us? Nobody likes a one sided relationship, right?

Do we search for truth, meaning or justification?


Are they different words for the same thing to some of us and yet incompatible concepts for others?

I confess, even the concept of the question why? seems strange to me. I kinda don't care that much to ask why this or why that, but have often found great benefit in exploring the idea of how. The question of how a plant grows is of special interest to me as a gardener, but why a plant grows doesn't interest me much at all.

Maybe I am being naive and am just misunderstanding what the question why means?

It almost seems like asking, what is the motive of the universe for existing? Instead I find myself more comfortable with pondering the question of how the universe exists. It occurs to me that I am unlikely to arrive at either answer though, and even if I did, I might not even be able to recognize it. They say that searching for truth is the easy part, but accepting it is difficult. Perhaps that is also true for recognizing it? I don't know... maybe?

Perhaps it is as you say, I actually have no idea. I know what I find to be tenable at present, but that could easily change tomorrow. Certainly I can appreciate, love and participate in the endeavor of pondering the universe through a psychedelic filter.

In the end, perhaps what I think doesn't really matter, nothing about the universe has changed in my life, despite my having had many different opinions about the universe along the way... still it is fun to share thoughts and ideas with other people. Maybe that is enough for me to enjoy reality, even if I can't fully understand it?

I sure hope so!




I haven't posted here in over a decade.

Hello, everyone.

I certainly feel this is the certainly the most cohesive idea of the nature of existence. People quickly fail to remember that time is relative and only seems to proceed in one direction for us. All of time is already there. It's there and done.

What I find to be more fascinating is that the universe's growing complexity. The fundamental building blocks become larger ones become atoms, become more complex atoms, become compounds, become more complex compounds, become amino acids, become proteins, become single celled life, become multi-celled life, become "sentient" life, etc. I believe that it will continue even further beyond where we're at as well.

So what I'm curious about is what the growing complexity is for? Is it simply like a fractal set? Just reiterations of the same theme? Or is there something else behind it?

This is something that has been on my mind lately. Nillion, I would be particularly interested in your take on this since I enjoyed your take on the nature of existence, but I would absolutely love to hear the thoughts of others, of course~!

~ayla


--------------------
Legalize Marijuana -- Your PC is now Stoned!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenooneman
Male

Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,555
Loc: Utah
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28516005 - 10/23/23 10:19 PM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
Why do you think Reality exist?



Why not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Ayla]
    #28516034 - 10/23/23 11:19 PM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

Ayla said:
I haven't posted here in over a decade.




I feel intimidated.

Quote:

Ayla said:

What I find to be more fascinating is that the universe's growing complexity. The fundamental building blocks become larger ones become atoms, become more complex atoms, become compounds, become more complex compounds, become amino acids, become proteins, become single celled life, become multi-celled life, become "sentient" life, etc. I believe that it will continue even further beyond where we're at as well.




One might infer that forms of life won't just potentially come to exist which can transcend the laws of timespace, they will inevitably come to exist and consequentially result in closed time-like curves.

Quote:

Ayla said:
So what I'm curious about is what the growing complexity is for? Is it simply like a fractal set? Just reiterations of the same theme? Or is there something else behind it?




In the first iteration, the organization is not influenced by the aforementioned inevitable life, in this thought experiment, as it were. However, after life arises, which through technology and evolutionary development, can overcome the limitations of timespace, then the closed time-like curves scenarios begin and the universe functionally revises its origins towards temporal stability.

But, as that the expansion of timespace is an aspect of motion, which is heat, mind you, molecular, atomic and quark spin etc, all motion is heat, then as matter becomes cooler over time it moves more slowly and density changes in a relative manner. Matter cannot, however, reach zero degrees kelvin, because the motion that differentiates the energy, heat, dissipates and the energy ceases to be differentiated into timespace and matter and then returns to the boson state of the singularity, transcending timespace and dimension, but it cannot be created nor destroyed.

This return balances the expansion, like a standing wave. The universe is not expanding and slowing and moving towards some entropic death, rather once matter cools to the point that motion is lost entirely, and I mean in terms of the angles of spin relative to the geometry of the quark components of the chromodynamic set, dark matter and all, then energy is no longer positional. The expansion and the return in this fashion is also a manifestation of polarity, and I add another thermodynamic law, of polarity, to the others already existing. I use that law a lot actually, but don't like sharing it with others.

Consider that particles do not actually exist. They are akin to packets of quantized energy that cannot reconcile or join because of their angles of motion. That is to say that they are a conceptual criteria we use to consider energy sets as discrete entities.

I want to stop here. I normally do not discuss this online and it takes dry erase board and a couple of hours just to cover the foundations required to explain and explore this topic, a theory of everything that I have, let's not call it mine though.

But let us go to another aspect and cover that.

I have a category called Autoid, Auto-oid, a categorical (hence -oid) automatic or self sustaining reaction (hence Auto-). What we call life is a type of this, but there are many other things in the universe that fit into this category which are not actually considered life.
We are such a reaction, however, and all life is.

The self sustaining reaction does not need to be made of carbon and oxygen etc, and such things can occur in many substrates, at many pressures and temperatures. This categorical entity of autonomous reaction also applies to the motion of the universe as mentioned above. It is a lot like life, but not like us, so to speak. It is also coherent and stable, structurally, like a standing wave, but it is hyperdimensional. The motion of this autoidal entity we call the universe has to it a level of organization that is profound, this aspect of structure was recognized by Einstein who related it to the beliefs of Spinoza as well. One may think of it as the living universe.

The ancient name for this intelligence-like aspect was LOGOS and even in the first book the New Testament, the meaning of the in the beginning stuff, the term is not word, it is not a case of in the beginning was the word, rather it is more like; in the beginning was the motion of the universe, which gave rise to order and influenced itself into the form it takes now. I'm stepping on some religious toes right now and probably seem insane to many who read this, so don't want to spend too much time on that topic or provide my private translations of ancient scripture, but it is the same as I mention previously with regard to the inevitability of life which can, via evolution and technology, come to influence it's own origin, via closed time-like curves. So we have the motion of the universe structure as logos, giving rise to autoidal entities, including life, which then become capable of influencing the order of the universe on increasing levels. And what is a concept of God but that of a form of life able to transcend the limitations of timespace? Indeed I am not talking about magic or supernatural anything.

That is not to say that the living universe is personally invested in the existence of any one thing, person, planet etc. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't have a plan.  Einstein wrote of it to some degree, to him there was no discrepancy between the higher power, so to speak, and the operation, as it were, of the universe, they are the same. It is not actually a mystical concept.

There is so much, however, to cover in this that I am not going to do it justice here. Electrons as harmonic charge structures with a focal point that can be considered positional and thus interpreted as a particle, yet are not when examined differently. A quantum conflation occurs here where it is thought that an electron is a particle and then we look for location and find that it both has and lacks a location. Without a dry erase board to cover aspects of atomic and hadron structure and other facets that are essentially prerequisites this is a prohibitively difficult topic to address. To someone without the foundational knowledge of aspects like general relativity and the structure of matter, this is certain to sound like BS or woo.

The topic also contains, what I feel to be, dangerous information that I'd rather not just put out into the world. I have burned notebooks for this very reason. I also enjoy being a nobody and this type of discussion draws too much attention for me to remain comfortable. I am not the kind of person who can type or open their mouth and remain unnoticed as your return here after a decade seems to indicate.

I also admit I hate repeating myself and have lectured on this topic privately a few times in the last few years, as dumb as that sounds. I'm a high functioning autistic person, which is pretty obvious if you know what to look for, so I spend considerable time on this privately because I want to understand how the universe comes to exist, as a process of self discovery and exploration. However, let us just say that I am wrong and likely insane and dismiss what I write here, that seems far more comfortable to me than sharing what I know, what I think and what I believe about the universe.

There is a reason I listed my profession on my profile as NPC. It helps keep me underestimated and overlooked.


Quote:

Ayla said:
This is something that has been on my mind lately. Nillion, I would be particularly interested in your take on this





The thing is, there is the idea that there is some sort of purpose, like an end goal and end result, that the universe is working towards... but what then? It is the linear paradox again. We know, already on so many levels, that it isn't about an end goal or a destination. It is about the journey. Take us, for example, what is the purpose of breathing?
Is it to get us to death?
Is it not to sustain us?

Is this not the reason that the universe exists and the purpose the structure serves? To sustain its operation, not to reach a goal, which in terms of the universe is an artifact like concept related to the linearity of human mortality and temporal perception.

Maybe?

I feel like a jerk now and have also humiliated myself by sharing far more about this and myself than I told myself I would when I first responded to this thread.

To answer your question of what the growing complexity is for:
I have no idea.

What would you use it for, if it was up to you?
If it were up to me it would just be kind of like a garden.
One that gives rise to plants whose seeds are planted in their past and create a stability ensuring that they, the plants, exist.

Sounds boring compared to the idea that there is a plan involving humans having special powers and purposes and divinity and stuff.

But honestly, we didn't always exist and we eventually won't.
We need to stop thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe if we ever want to see it for what and how it is, which we cannot actually do, ever, but we can observe and describe it in approximate terms well enough to use them to create technology and manipulate matter itself, so our inability to know it for what and how it is does not stop our ability to understand it in a pragmatic or useful way. Not all of that understanding is ideal for our species.

After all... Prometheus got burned pretty bad in the end!

Assume I am wrong about all of it and we're good!


Edited by Nillion (10/23/23 11:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28516078 - 10/24/23 12:58 AM (3 months, 3 days ago)

The first thing was a posit..  a thought..

Because nothing is nothing..

But something IS necessarily. Something is something.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Ayla]
    #28516185 - 10/24/23 05:18 AM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

Ayla said:
People quickly fail to remember that time is relative and only seems to proceed in one direction for us. All of time is already there. It's there and done.




Curious to me that a lot of NDEs (and psychedelic experiences) report "time as a panorama"... the sample to my book specifically explores time here: https://whydoesrealityexist.com/the-book/

One NDE:
My entire existence… seemed to be placed in front of me in a…
panoramic, three-dimensional flashback… I cannot say how long
this life review [lasted];… it may have been long…, yet concurrently
it seemed just a fraction of a second, as I observed everything at once


Maria Sabina on mushrooms:
There is a world beyond ours, a world that is far away, nearby, and
invisible. And [that] is where God lives, where the dead live, the spirits
and the saints, a world where everything has already happened and
everything is known.


This idea of the past, present, and future all coexisting at once "out there" was already intuitive to the mystics well before Einstein and other's popularized it in the block universe theory of spacetime. In the past, these mystical ideas were considered "woo woo". Now, they're mainstream science.

With that said, there's still so much mystics and physicists don't know about time. We don't know, for instance, why it exists and why it flows in one direction when the laws of physics operate in both directions.


Quote:

Ayla said:
So what I'm curious about is what the growing complexity is for? Is it simply like a fractal set? Just reiterations of the same theme? Or is there something else behind it?




But what even are atoms? Werner Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum theory put it:
“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of
Plato. In fact, the smallest units of matter are not physical objects
in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed
unambiguously only in mathematical language.”


In summary, I go back to what Albert Einstein rightly said about Reality and our connection to it:
A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness.


Reality / the Universe / the Divine / God is conscious, because we are. We are not separate from Reality, we are Reality "come alive". Reality is living and breathing through you. How miraculous it is to exist!


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: nooneman]
    #28516195 - 10/24/23 05:32 AM (3 months, 3 days ago)

Quote:

nooneman said:
Quote:

solarshroomster said:
Why do you think Reality exist?



Why not.




Because I'm left wondering how we happened to find ourselves in the circumstance where a universe / multiverse exists vs. didn't exist?

To be clear, the answer could be that there is no ultimate explanation at all for why Reality exists, and that would be... pretty magical. It would be like pulling a bunny out of hat, and everything that came out of that hat, Reality, including us and the experience of you reading this text right now -- all of that would have no ultimate cause.

That's possibly true, but I don't believe it is true. It is my own intuition that leads to me believe that everything has an explanation; it's just some of it is not going to be amenable for human terms. I suspect the ultimate answer is unintelligible to humans. It's just that we don't have a way to understand it through our normal modes of reason.

In my book, I propose that mystical experiences -- whether achieved through psychedelics, UFO encounters, or NDEs -- provide us a window into the "ineffable" where we can appreciate these concepts in a new light: https://whydoesrealityexist.com/the-book/

But, the short answer is, I don't think we know the answer to "Why does Reality exist?" in the here and now, but the point of my book is that, whatever way we go, there's no uninteresting answer to this question. You could say, that there's no ultimate explanation -- that's still magical. You could say that there is... also magical! Our lives are subsumed in magic.

Magic mushrooms :mushroom2: are magic, because they remind us that Reality, through us, is magic.

:trippinbawelz:


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28516260 - 10/24/23 07:35 AM (3 months, 3 days ago)

There has been recent work done showing intense brain activity in those who experience near-death states, this was not known before. Many in the scientific community believe it relates to NDEs.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-patients-who-died-but-survived-report-lucid-near-death-experiences-a-new-study-shows/

I employ a theory of consciousness that relates to the theory of structure and function relationships of psychedelic molecules and the transmission of electrochemical energy from cells. It is an aspect of cellular function and control, in this theory, and all cells have a form of this consciousness, limited as it is, which relates specifically to the nucleotides and genes themselves. This relates to the function of a nucleus as a control unit. I largely developed this theory to account for meristem function in terms of the control of an entire cactus via a small group of specialized cells, which is a known thing.

Note that single celled organisms appear to exhibit types of learning and awareness, as do organisms which lack the organ we call a brain.

In this there is also a relationship to the concept of transferring the consciousness of an organism to a technological media. It is my assertion that if we cannot do so with the limited consciousness of a single celled organism, akin to one of our ancient ancestors, then we will not be able to do it with multicellular organisms like those which developed from those ancestors.

This relates to the function of the mind as an operation of the organ known as the brain. From a religious point of view it can be observed that according to Ecclesiastes, at least, people are animals, literally. It says there, essentially, that if we have souls, then so do all other animals, which for me includes Bacteria and Archaea, which we are an evolved form of:
https://cns.utexas.edu/news/research/were-all-asgardians-new-clues-about-origin-complex-life

The Einstein quote:
Quote:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.





Einstein might not saying here that the universe is conscious. He appears to be saying that consciousness is a delusion. I believe he is referring to the idea of self and how it is an functional mental artifact that does not actually exist.

In this view there is no self only the universe entire which we and all other organisms are a part of. However, since we can only experience via sensory perception, we are unable to, ordinarily, perceive that there is no actual self. I cannot under ordinary circumstances, from the isolated window of my perception, perceive that the line between me and the universe does not exist.

In that line of thinking self is a projection of the isolation of perception and doesn't actually exit, it is illusory and a type of delusion, as Einstein observed. This teaching can also be found at the heart of Buddhism as well, where the understanding of the nature of self as a type of delusion is called enlightenment. In that teaching, self arises as a function of mind. Thus each time it arises it is as a new thing ergo a new incarnation. When it is not present as a function it does not exist. This is supported by blacking out. It is a condition where the body is still operating but there is no conscious perception. When we approach this type of state where self as a function ceases to exist and we are aware of it we call that ego death, including in relation to psychedelic experience. Not too much further past this point, typically, is blackout where the person is awake and experiencing but the self is not operating and memories are not being created. As profound as this is perhaps it is not a sign of a mystical property but is a sign of the nature of self being an artifact of the function of the organ known as the brain? I believe so.

In the Buddhist sense each day one wakes is a new incarnation. Each self state that arises is new, each time it arises.  This has later become modified into a concept of where people believe that each self is a distinct incarnation of a self from past lives involving the transfer of self across time and space and through substance to create literal repeated incarnations after death. However, that is entirely contrary to the notion that there is no self. Over time we find divergent sects of Buddhist thought and some have become loaded with dogma and claims about incarnations and past lives, but that stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Buddha in sutras like the Diamond Sutra, one of my favorites, where it is clearly and plainly taught that there is no self.

I believe that Einsteins observation is correct, as is the original content regarding this in Buddhism. That self and consciousness are illusory. I cannot convert them however, into claims of the universe being conscious itself.

I can affirm that the same electrochemical charges that involve the operation of awareness on and in every level of life are the same as that are found in all matter. But, in this, there is no self nor an operation of awareness inherent to said matter because it lacks the organizational parts required for the operation. A rock has no genes to hold information, modify it and pass it along, but it has the quanta inherent to the hadron material it is composed of, just as do nucleotides. It's all related to quanta, or energy states of molecules, as well, at least in the theory of the function of mind and consciousness that I employ. I may write about that later in much greater detail, but am reluctant to do so.

In this, though, one can think of consciousness as the operation of cells, which in our species are numerous and are connected by axons. When those axons transmit an ion carrying charged quanta, sent and received from those cells then it creates measurable field activity. The action of the cells together with the neural axons can be measured thus as brain wave activity but this is like observing the transmission of a telephone call. The electrical transmission of the information is not the soul or the self, which is found in the callers which are, in our case, cells. We can maintain considerable brain function with surprisingly few cells, but not without them. We can use the field activity of neural axons to study brain function but it represents signals and not the source of that communication. This field is not the self, nor the soul, but is rather the activity of cellular signals... pun intended.

We can also take a cell, one that is not differentiated, like a stem cell, from an organism and clone it and grow it into a complete being. This is the making of an artificial twin. What of the soul of such a being? The illusion of self would still be experienced, such a person would not lack what we consider a soul or a self, because those are terms we use to refer to a type of function, not a type of thing that can be separated from our biology, hence it is the illusion as Einstein asserted.

Or so I think.

I could easily be wrong.


Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 07:48 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28516300 - 10/24/23 08:19 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

The Einstein quote:
Quote:

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.





Quote:

Nillion said: Einstein might not saying here that the universe is conscious. He appears to be saying that consciousness is a delusion. I believe he is referring to the idea of self and how it is an functional mental artifact that does not actually exist.




It's interesting I don't agree with your interpretation on what Einstein says here, though I agree with your conclusions that follow. Einstein is saying exactly what he is saying when he says: "He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness". He's not saying that consciousness is a delusion; he's saying that the perception by consciousness that we are separate from the universe is what is the delusion, hence his use of the possessive word "his", ie. "separate[ness]" is a delusion of his consciousness and not consciousness is a delusion. A little technical here, but, the em-dash "--" makes it apparent that the characterized "delusion" is the first part of what comes prior to the em-dash, ie. the perception that we are "something separate from the rest". If Einstein was talking about consciousness itself being the delusion, he would have needed to word himself differently.

Further, when he says that this is "the one issue of true religion", he's being sympathetic to the religious feeling (which he often was), that the goal of religion is to remind us that we are all interconnected and not separate from the Universe.

However, with that said, even though I disagree with your premise on Einstein's opinion, I really like and really agree with your conclusion (humorously enough)

Quote:


In this view there is no self only the universe entire which we and all other organisms are a part of. However, since we can only experience via sensory perception, we are unable to, ordinarily, perceive that there is no actual self. I cannot under ordinary circumstances, from the isolated window of my perception, perceive that the line between me and the universe does not exist.

In that line of thinking self is a projection of the isolation of perception and doesn't actually exit, it is illusory and a type of delusion, as Einstein observed. This teaching can also be found at the heart of Buddhism as well, where the understanding of the nature of self as a type of delusion is called enlightenment. In that teaching, self arises as a function of mind.




Right on!


Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 08:26 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28516336 - 10/24/23 09:02 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
Quote:


In this view there is no self only the universe entire which we and all other organisms are a part of. However, since we can only experience via sensory perception, we are unable to, ordinarily, perceive that there is no actual self. I cannot under ordinary circumstances, from the isolated window of my perception, perceive that the line between me and the universe does not exist.

In that line of thinking self is a projection of the isolation of perception and doesn't actually exit, it is illusory and a type of delusion, as Einstein observed. This teaching can also be found at the heart of Buddhism as well, where the understanding of the nature of self as a type of delusion is called enlightenment. In that teaching, self arises as a function of mind.




Right on!




This brings the question: If it is merely an illusion/delusion to experience individual perceptions, then what individual could possibly realize this? Any individual realization would then necessarily be a an illusion/delusion, no? Viewing this line of thinking as some sort of escape from delusion is perhaps reason for a re-view. Unless I'm missing something... :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28516372 - 10/24/23 09:53 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

He's not saying that consciousness is a delusion; he's saying that the perception by consciousness that we are separate from the universe is what is the delusion



I believe he is saying both.

In this it is my belief that consciousness cannot entail this delusion without itself being illusory in nature. Hence not only is there no self; self perception cannot be separated from consciousness. One cannot have one without the other.

Quote:

Further, when he says that this is "the one issue of true religion", he's being sympathetic to the religious feeling (which he often was), that the goal of religion is to remind us that we are all interconnected and not separate from the Universe.





I disagree, as you know, and offer here another one of his quotes:

Quote:

True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness -Albert Einstein




In this perhaps the goal is not to overcome the delusion of self in a manner of recognizing we are part of the universe but rather it is about right action? Could it be about treating the world and others in it as we do ourselves? I think so.  This is also the epitome of the second of the two commandments provided by Jesus Christ, Love thy neighbor as thy self.

Let me add more of Einstein quotes lest we somehow create the impression that he believed in a classical religious concept of the soul:

Quote:

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning. -Albert Einstein





And:

Quote:

I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate thing -Albert Einstein




And:

Quote:

Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing. Similarly, physics and psychology are only different attempts to link our experiences together by way of systematic thought. -Albert Einstein





And:

Quote:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. -Albert Einstein




The concept of Near Death Experiences (NDE), which is the notion of a soul experiencing a post death state, as well as related the notion of the reincarnation of that soul, is not something he was a proponent of. Those two notions are, however, the foundation upon which the argument, or position, in your book is built.

I also agree with his more aggressive assertion about this:

Quote:

Although I cannot believe that the individual survives the death of his body, feeble souls harbor such thought through fear or ridiculous egotism -Albert Einstein




I am unable to place faith in the ideas that he was saying that the goal of True Religion is to realize that we are a part of the universe and or that he also meant that the universe is conscious as we are.

I believe he was saying that the goal of True Religion is something akin to the concept of Do No Harm in Buddhist teachings.

You may be correct and I could easily be mistaken about what I believe.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Kickle]
    #28516404 - 10/24/23 10:23 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
This brings the question: If it is merely an illusion/delusion to experience individual perceptions, then what individual could possibly realize this?



It is not an illusion or delusion to experience perceptions in this line of thinking. The idea of the self as a separate and distinct entity from the body is illusory as is the idea that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe. Rather it, consciousness, like self, is the result of the operation of our biology.

It is not an invocation of the philosophy thought experiment paradox of the subjective perception of objective reality, where it is often supposed that the nature of perception, being subjective, undermines the ability to perceive objective reality. That particular thought experiment refutes itself, for if we subjectively perceive that we perceive subjectively then we cannot assert that we are unable to subjectively perceive objective reality. When combined with the actions of reference, measurement and experimentation then we arrive at objective truths, such as the objective knowledge that affords the ability to construct the computer I am typing upon.

While it is true that the filter of subjectivity prevents us from seeing and knowing the universe as it is, it does not prevent us from learning objective facts about it that can be of tremendous utility. Ergo perception though subjective is demonstrably capable of providing objective information, which can be and is employed in a consistently objective manner.

Related to this is the idea that our perception creates our reality, which it does not. A change of opinion can change our perception in a subjective manner but this changes nothing real. As an example say that someone is a certain weight. Regardless of if one subjectively perceives this weight to be too heavy or too light or just right, the objective perception of the actual amount of weight does not change. Our subjective opinion is not a real thing. The value of the weight is.

One of the notions said to defend the position of the thought experiment is the idea that how we measure things affects them, but this is based on concepts of quantum mechanics that suppose that particles exist as things independent from other things. Rather they are forms of energy having a form, hence the notion of particle is very much like the notion of a wave being a distinct thing from an ocean. If we identify where a wave is, we must conceptually separate it from the ocean using a criteria of differentiation. But if we look for aspects of the wave in other locations, we find it because it is not actually separate from the ocean. The same thing applies to quantum physics and is part of the wave/particle duality. It does not have the philosophical relevance as it is often interpreted as having in philosophic circles.


Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 10:27 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28516417 - 10/24/23 10:30 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Nillion, one can pick apart all the quotes that Einstein has said, he said a lot, but he was certainly not an atheist (not sure if you're saying this, but your post makes it seem that way). He was more of an open-minded thinker that said he did "not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

Quote:

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."





Quote:

I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. ~ Albert Einstein




We could go on back and forth on Einstein's thoughts forever, but the point is that that quote points out that (a) he did believe the universe was conscious through us and that (b) we are all interconnected.

As for your own quotes, Einstein is essentially elaborating on the principal of monism, that body and matter are one: "Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing." On this part we agree.

Where we disagree is your insistence that the death of the personal ego is equivalent to the death of mind and consciousness itself. There's no evidence of that ever having been the case, nor that Einstein thought it. It's possible, and likely, that he never even considered that topic, as his colleague Erwin Schrodinger did in much detail in My View of the World when he wrote that:

Quote:

“What is it that has called you so suddenly out of nothingness to enjoy for a brief while a spectacle which remains quite indifferent to you? The conditions for your existence are almost as old as the rocks. For thousands of years men have striven and suffered and begotten and women have brought forth in pain. A hundred years ago, perhaps, another man sat on this spot; like you he gazed with awe and yearning in his heart at the dying light of the glaciers. Like you he was begotten of man and born of woman. He felt pain and brief joy as you do. Was he someone else? Was it not you yourself? What is this Self of yours? What was the necessary condition for making the thing conceived this time into you, just you and not someone else? What clearly intelligible scientific meaning can this 'someone else' really have? If she who is now your mother had cohabited with someone else and had a son by him, and your father had done likewise, would you have come to be? Or were you living in them, and in your father's father... thousands of years ago? And even if this is so, why are you not your brother, why is your brother not you, why are you not one of your distant cousins? What justifies you in obstinately discovering this difference - the difference between you and someone else - when objectively what is there is the same?”





As for this quote here by Einstein: "Although I cannot believe that the individual survives the death of his body, feeble souls harbor such thought through fear or ridiculous egotism".

I agree, but note the key operative word here "individual". In other words, Einstein is not saying anything about consciousness itself (as a broader phenomena of the universe), but rather the egoic impression that consolidates an understanding of the Self, as a continuity of memories -- that goes at death. We both agree that that goes in death. That's what we get when we say "ego death". But, as for consciousness itself, I'm with Schrodinger on his thoughts.

**

Most important point: You seem to be over-generalizing my thoughts to believing in a conventional afterlife or believing in a personal God who "rewards good or bad behavior", or traditional reincarnation of a soul. (Much less that that is the "foundation" of my book; it isn't, and I don't subscribe to such views as of now... though, that's subject to change as I learn more over time). You need to distinguish between the "God is a man in the sky" religious thinker and those with a more nuanced spiritual bent.

As Einstein and Schrodinger rightly cautioned, don't throw out the spiritual baby with the bathwater. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". There's magic in both.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 10:42 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28516433 - 10/24/23 10:47 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

I did read your book and it is largely concerned with ideas of NDE and reincarnation. It proposes essentially that the human soul is something separate from the human body, does it not?


Quote:

We could go on back and forth on Einstein's thoughts forever, but the point is that that quote points out that (a) he did believe the universe was conscious through us and that (b) we are all interconnected.




I agree with that!

Stating that we as part of the universe and having consciousness means that the universe is conscious in and of itself is not something I believe in. We can be and often are the universe pondering itself, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe. What it means is that it is an aspect of biology, no more and no less.

You appear to be under the impression that I am an atheist.

I am not.


Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 10:48 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28516449 - 10/24/23 11:02 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
I did read your book and it is largely concerned with ideas of NDE and reincarnation. It proposes essentially that the human soul is something separate from the human body, does it not?




No, it proposes that the "body" is a constructed avatar or mental representation of consciousness, that the Self is an imaginary construction, and that matter and mind are aspects of one ultimate Reality. A theory on monism basically. Ironically, a lot of what you have written resonates very strongly with me, and I like them a lot.

There's death to the individual ego, but no ultimate cessation to the Author behind consciousness, who I tend to believe is everyone as Reality itself.

But, that's just my view, and am probably wrong in some sense I can't appreciate. The universe has ways of throwing in surprises, and I believe that it exceeds my simple understanding.

A lot of people say that the "universe is consciousness", that "consciousness is the ultimate reality". I don't know if I would go that far, but I think it's certainly possible for a lot of different reasons. It's more that I think the "universe is conscious, because we are". Not all aspects of the universe are necessarily conscious, though. A chair that sits in the room alone without a conscious agent doesn't "look" like a chair (it doesn't "look" like anything at all), however I believe it exists in some "real" sense. I just don't know what that sense is, nor do I think I can ever know. I live in my own Mind, all the time 24/7/365.


Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 11:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28516508 - 10/24/23 11:50 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Quote:

No, it proposes that the "body" is a constructed avatar or mental representation of consciousness




I apologize.
Please forgive my ignorance about your position on this.

Does that not inherently mean that the body is a separate thing from what constructed it and if that thing is consciousness, which proceeds the body which represents it, is that not a concept of a soul, as a distinct non-biological thing?

How can we have past lives and an afterlife, which is the concept behind NDE without a soul as a thing, distinct from the body?

Is every bacteria, virus, rock, star and proton also a type of avatar in this sense? I don't believe that there is a code or language behind the scenes that results in the emergent and coherent properties of the physical universe and maybe that is the issue? I believe that the properties arise because of the forms energy takes, but that there is no code that can be altered that changes the form. Rather I believe the leverage point for the alteration of matter is found in its structure. It is a very chemistry oriented point of view, but I do rely on chemistry and physics as explanatory methods for how I understand the world and that may be limiting.

Can we explain the universe without a source code?

Is there a need to invoke such a source that arises due to a lack of a satisfactory explanation in terms of the scientific process? I've largely found tenable answers to the questions I have proposed and explored in relation to the universe, answers which satisfy me. I believe I can explain consciousness, timespace, biology and more, but I do so largely from a scientific foundation that I do not feel has any conflict with those beliefs of mine which might be considered religious in a certain light, as it were. I dislike sharing my theories with others because I formed them for myself and I believe it is better to withhold many of them and then see if others out there in the world, who observe the same things I did, come to the same conclusions. So far, I am not aware of many that have, in regard to many of my positions on the matters we are discussing and that may be a sign that I am entirely wrong and ignorant about the matters, which I feel that I can explain to my own satisfaction. I admit I am not overtly concerned with offering explanation to others and I actively try to avoid just that.

However I admire what you are doing, writing, thinking, learning, having conversation and more. I think it is a noble thing to work towards and I envy you to some degree that you have such a compulsion.
I am fighting all of my instincts, which tell me to keep to myself, just by being here at this forum and discussing things. Clearly I have a fair amount of bias that may cloud my ability to appreciate this material properly.


Quote:

The universe has ways of throwing in surprises, and I believe that it exceeds my simple understanding.



We agree very much on that point!

I mean that it also exceeds my understanding, which is also quite simplistic. I also agree that it throws surprises that are of particular interest and can have potent special meaning to those who experience them. I have experienced a few that I keep to myself. I honestly don't know what to make of them, or what to not make of them.

I wonder if we largely agree and I just fail to understand and appreciate your position properly because of my preexisting bias regarding the topic? That is quite possible.

I struggle in regard to the question of why reality exists as mentioned before, but we agree on many points and details, certainly.


Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 11:53 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 2
    #28516524 - 10/24/23 12:10 PM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Thanks Nillion. Yeah, I've wondered the same thing from my perspective as well: "I wonder if we largely agree and... just fail to understand and appreciate [the other's] position properly because of [our] preexisting bias regarding the topic?" Because a lot of what you write resonates very strongly with me.

I also share your preference to listen rather than to share, because at the end, I'm not here to convince anyone. I think it's counter to the psychedelic mindset to be like "I know everything, and that's it!" I also don't like locking myself into any one worldview, as it tends to, over time, become ideological and doesn't age well... I've done that in the past and, suffice to say, lessons learned.

The real magic is how incredible the universe / Reality is and how much is out there that we couldn't possibly understand. Again, no matter which way you go with this -- scientifically-minded, skeptically-minded, mystically-minded, it's all very awesome!

(The only reason I wrote a book is, I hit a limit, and at some point the thoughts caused by my spiritual awakening boiled over, and I needed to get it "out there". I need to have an outlet to exchange ideas and begin a discussion.)


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28517181 - 10/24/23 09:52 PM (3 months, 2 days ago)

I haven't read the book yet to which I look forward. To mention in the discussion of basing conclusions in the objective world, correct me if I'm wrong about science, but as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information, and in mystical subjects we talk about here this parallels that everything is an idea. An atom is but vibratory information. Some say that there is no material creation. To me it would depend on perceptual medium.

We perceive a physical body in a physical world. In altered, meditative or dream states, and with perhaps kinds of scientific instrumentation, these are perceived differently if at all. In this view a soul or subtle bodies and material are not (as) problematic including with Buddhism mentioned, whether or not there is an ongoing "self", karmas, aggregates etc carrying consistencies transmigrate, in some schools anyway.

Concerning the statement that everything is an idea, speaking to myself as well, test the proclamation of the sage Vasistha, the world appearance rises with movement of thought, and together they cease.


Quote:

solarshroomster said:
not something as ... "the universe exists, because we need to feel good about it".





Bliss can be a reason or purpose - it is foundational essence, inevitable as being.

Asking all as much as saying, true or false?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] * 1
    #28517334 - 10/25/23 03:19 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

"Some say that there is no material creation."

I think this would be supported or implied across various scripture, if entertained by the perspective, Vasistha again particularly I was thinking of said along these lines - the Creator is purely spiritual and could not create otherwise, and what we have here is spiritual intelligence alone.

Shankara I think would support it in obscuration being none other than Brahman. Course in Miracles is much about (unloving) makings in separation as nothing where there is unity. Even traditional Buddhism I assume, concerning phenomenal attributes without self, you decide. Is the Dao material or is it mind?

Can we find it in the Bible?

Material creation has also been called a memory.

How about Omnicyclion, Et Al?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] * 1
    #28517344 - 10/25/23 03:44 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

Yet material creation has laws - as we need money or sustenance of the physical body in some way which requires attention, in above as below, the ineffable requires attention. Perhaps they are exclusive as they say, Get!

There was an argument with the ex around this, the teacher influence, some, giving urgency to "know thyself", however said. She was saying it is not as up to us as I consider. The surrender is good, but do we surrender? What is effort but to do that? Why are there teachings? Even the Zen people hit you with a stick for no reason.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28517419 - 10/25/23 07:15 AM (3 months, 2 days ago)

The simplest answer may be that matter (reality) is created thru interactions of light:



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] * 1
    #28517494 - 10/25/23 08:34 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

syncro said:
as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information



That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. 
However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.

Rather matter is energy taking a specific form.
To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.

We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.

In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.

Quote:

syncro said:
Is the Dao material or is it mind?



It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things.
In this it is not either and it is both.

I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way.
The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.


Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 08:36 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28517619 - 10/25/23 11:04 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God.




If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. :thumbup: If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.


Edited by syncro (10/25/23 11:21 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28517665 - 10/25/23 11:51 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

syncro said:
If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. :thumbup: If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.




That is certainly an interesting point of view.
I can respect it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28517717 - 10/25/23 01:02 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

I don't hold the belief that we are entities, other than in a sense of physics which means something extant having a form, or a body, of some type. Even if the existence is like a numerical value, so the body needs not be physical.

I do maintain that entity is a word or term that has use.

I likewise do not maintain or entertain the belief that all is consciousness, or that conscious creatures came from consciousness, but I believe I covered my beliefs regarding that in previous replies I made in this thread.

I do think, though, that the idea of all arising from consciousness is worth exploring, but like all linear origination concepts that it suffers from the paradox of ultimate origins. As in; what comes before? Much like the issue with the question "why?" one can keep adding "and before that?" to infinity. The linear temporal model of the big bang theory suffers from this paradox no less than any model of origination that can be found in organized religion. Before the big bang was what? Before God was what? Before consciousness was what? etc. Naturally this paradox is an artifact of the linear temporal model but people like to use it to attempt to refute the theories of origination. One model of origination actually has a timeless aspect to it but that is found in general relativity and not in any of the mystical explanations of organized religions. In this there was no origination in a linear sense. My beliefs about this are very close to that found in Dao but are also strongly related to physics, relativity and chemistry as well. They do not entail a claim of origination from consciousness. They do include consciousness originating, but, as a property of cellular biology alone.

God is an interesting term or word as well. It is difficult to discuss because of how versatile it is. If you find 20 people who believe in God you are likely to find 200 definitions of God being used by them, or so it seems. For the sake of conversation it becomes very difficult to discuss because of how fluid and ever-changing the word is in its common use. I am not an atheist but I do believe in any supernatural deities. I am fond of the use of anthropomorphization as a mechanism to convey knowledge through allegory in the scribal and oral traditions of our species.


Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 01:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 2
    #28517902 - 10/25/23 03:39 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Vol. VI, pp. 134–35;
Quote:

Is God to be found by seeking him out? Can you search after the unknowable? To find, you must know what you are seeking. If you seek to find, what you find will be a self-projection; it will be what you desire, and the creation of desire is not truth. To seek truth is to deny it. Truth has no fixed abode; there is no path, no guide to it, and the word is not truth. Is truth to be found in a particular setting, in a special climate, among certain people? Is it here and not there? Is that one the guide to truth, and not another? Is there a guide at all? When truth is sought, what is found can only come out of ignorance, for the search itself is born of ignorance. You cannot search out reality; you must cease for reality to be.




Garma C.C. Chang - The Practice of Zen - I. The Nature of Zen - Zen Style and Zen Art;
Quote:

Chao Chou asked Nan Chuan, "What is the Tao?” Nan Chuan answered, “The ordinary mind is Tao.” Chao Chou then asked, “How can one approach it?” Nan Chuan replied, “If you want to approach it, you will certainly miss it.” “If you do not approach it, how do you know it is the Tao?”
“The Tao is not a matter of knowing, nor a matter of not knowing. To know is a delusory way of thinking, and not to know is a matter of insensibility. If one can realize the Tao unmistakably, [his mind will be like] the great space~vast, void, and clear. How, then, can one regard this as right and that as wrong?"




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28517997 - 10/25/23 05:47 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

I like those.
This is from the translation I mention by John C. H. Wu:

Quote:

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.
Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:
As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:
As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

These two flow from the same source, though differently named;
And both are called mysteries.

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.




This is the only English language translation of it that I follow or accept.

I'll give a brief explanation of why.
Here is the second part of chapter 5 of the translation I use:

Quote:

Between Heaven and Earth,
There seems to be a Bellows:
It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible;
The more it works, the more comes out of it.
No amount of words can fathom it:
Better look for it within you.




Here is one from a website that claims to explain Tao:

Quote:

Is not the space between Heaven and Earth like a bellows?
It is empty, but lacks nothing.
The more it moves, the more comes out of it.
A multitude of words is tiresome,
Unlike remaining centered.




Another from a different website:

Quote:

May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a bellows?
‘Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power;
‘Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.




Another:

Quote:

The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows;
it is empty, yet has not lost its power.
The more it is used, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend.
It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.




Another:

Quote:

How the universe is like a bellows!
Empty, yet it gives a supply that never fails;
The more it is worked, the more it brings forth.
By many words is wit exhausted.
Rather, therefore, hold to the core.




I know I should not be sharing this causally but here is the explanation of this using the translation of John C. H. Wu:

Quote:

Between Heaven and Earth,
There seems to be a Bellows:




You are the thing that connects heaven to Earth, a human being, feet on the ground, head in the air and inside you, between the ground and your feet are your lungs.

Quote:

It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible;
The more it works, the more comes out of it.




When you breathe you inhale and exhale using the empty space.
The more you do this the more the air comes out of you.

Quote:

No amount of words can fathom it:
Better look for it within you.





The bellows it is talking about it literally inside you.
We call them lungs.

I won't really discuss the Tao much, nor argue about it or explain the chapters, but it is a way rather than a thing. There are actual applications and meanings of the teachings that are precise and specific but they are written in a special way that both conceals their meaning and contains it for those who know and follow the way.

I follow Tao but I don't really like to discuss it.
It is not really a thing to discuss.

So regarding Tao being ordinary mind I am sure that made sense to the person in the quote and others who read it but it is not the Tao I know and follow. There is a lot that Zen tradition and Tao have in common. Original mind is part of that. I don't disagree there, but that Tao is a mental state is not something I can accept personally.

Though I could be making this all up and be lying or be totally confused about it and not have any truth to share about these things.

Regarding the quote about truth, I agree with it, but see it as about the truth of the ineffable, not the truth of things like how much a person weighs when they step on a scale. I believe there are limitations to what human beings can know and the more we try to understand them then the further from understanding them we get. A single thought or emotion can be a blinding and distracting thing. Original mind lacks those distractions and is required to follow the way. Focusing on breathing is a widely used method in regards to that. As is the training of the mind and body. The bull needs to be tamed, after all.

Please regard anything I write as nothing more than an opinion. I could be wrong, lying, insane or maybe even a bot, you never know.
These are just words on a screen, after all. I share a lot of stuff that I probably shouldn't, for one reason or another. I ask for your forgiveness for this.


Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 05:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28517998 - 10/25/23 05:49 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

I also apologize for taking things so far off topic.
If Solarshroomster desires it I will delete my replies in this thread.


Edited by Nillion (10/25/23 05:52 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: spinvis] * 1
    #28518003 - 10/25/23 05:51 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Nillion - please, you can keep it on here! The process cannot be separated from book cannot be separated from universe.

Yeah, your right spinvis, not knowing may be the "answer". Can you search after the unknowable? Can you know the unknown and ever make it known? What would it be like to perceive the "ineffable"?


Quote:

If there is no entity, then we would be first to go, the human identity. It seems satisfactory. If we hold that we are are that, entity, then I would put a god above it in legitimacy. Just words, just me. :thumbup: If all is consciousness, and from consciousness came conscious creatures, then certainly the gods stand above us, though we only speculate beyond personal experience.





I loved this!


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/25/23 05:52 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28518097 - 10/25/23 06:44 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

I don't think I forgot. When I took ketamine, it felt like I "broke" the rules of the game. That my life was like a jack-in-the-box, that, once opened, flew out a lot of springs that I thought were aspects of my personal identity. The street I knew as a kid. "The United States of America". "Colors". "People". "Family".

And then what was left, was the real core of Reality and existence. The actual nature of Reality. And it was awesome! It was so cool, because it was Reality behind-the-scripts, as scripter.

"Music was read"
"Colors were seen"
"Psychical patterns were telepathically transferred"

It was the "ineffable" being seen, only to then be forgotten. What is spiritual amnesia, and why does it exist. This is the thing I can't figure out with entheogens and the mystical journey?


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28518329 - 10/25/23 10:15 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
Quote:

syncro said:
as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information



That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. 
However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.

Rather matter is energy taking a specific form.
To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.

We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.

In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.

Quote:

syncro said:
Is the Dao material or is it mind?



It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things.
In this it is not either and it is both.

I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way.
The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.




The Dao is the law..

It exists as an abstraction from material existence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: BrendanFlock] * 1
    #28518333 - 10/25/23 10:20 PM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

BrendanFlock said:
Quote:

Nillion said:
Quote:

syncro said:
as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information



That is the premise of the book solarshroomster wrote, I think. 
However I am not aware of it being a scientific principal or an accepted aspect of physics.

Rather matter is energy taking a specific form.
To change this form one must use energy, there is no information that can be changed and then result in a different kind of matter. Particle physics deals with this.

We represent the energy using information, in this case quantum chromodynamics, but quarks are not a language or information or data, nor is there a proposition that I am aware of that claims they are, which, is not a claim rooted in organized religious beliefs about magical deities.

In the Mahabharata there is a section about the meanings of teaching and symbolism, which claims there are layers of understanding. In this there is material about the Trimurti that relates that it is taught as deities, as personas as a device, but that it is not about entities and that there is no Brahama, Shiva or Vishnu, all are different aspects of the same thing, which is not an entity or a God. However it also states that these things are taught in stories of deities for several reasons. Implied is that the ancient work, which was an oral tradition, used story as a mechanism to convey and transmit knowledge about the world across generations. It also says not to worry about explaining this to people because the different levels of understanding are important. Remnants of the Natya Shastra also relate the same basic concepts in regard to the symbolism and levels of understanding dance movements, which I think is interesting. Is it correct? I cannot say. I also, sadly, don't have the section of the Mahabharata memorized where what I mention is discussed so I cannot tell you where to find it. I would suggest reading the whole thing, it is worth it, but that is something else entirely. However it says in the poem/work that it is not literal work but contains the Veda in it. It thus employs numerous literary devices to convey information on several levels. It advised that people understand it largely according to their personalities and knowledge. So it is considered wrong to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong, they are all, allegedly at least, different levels of truth. This segues to other interesting topics, but is also getting off topic so I will stop addressing this aspect for now. At some point it might be worthwhile to start a thread devoted entirely to the topic of scriptural allegory but I am not inclined to do so and may not participate any time soon if one is started.

Quote:

syncro said:
Is the Dao material or is it mind?



It is nameless but can be considered the mother of all things.
In this it is not either and it is both.

I don't use the term Daoist myself, but I follow the way.
The book closest to me right now, in a literal physical sense and in a religious sense as well, is a specific translation of the Dao. It is, generally speaking, not something I tend to speak of, so to speak since I am writing right now.




The Dao is the law..

It exists as an abstraction from material existence.




Really enjoyed this.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28518483 - 10/26/23 03:58 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Original mind is part of that. I don't disagree there, but that Tao is a mental state is not something I can accept personally.



Are you saying that Tao is beyond the qualities, as in Advaita, distinguishing obscuration from source? Though ultimately I think it unites them, as a rope mistaken for a snake is only the rope, the camouflage only the chameleon.

Quote:

One model of origination actually has a timeless aspect to it but that is found in general relativity and not in any of the mystical explanations of organized religions.



I thought Buddhism has a nuanced stand on origination - that from Advaita is more familiar. Shankara goes on it a good bit, essentially that consciousness is self effulgent, one without a second. And Tao you said agree with on original mind? I assume you are distinguishing these from organized religion?

I think it's a matter of interpretation and we could dig it out of the Bible, etc. say, just as in that like nothing was before the Father. Whether that is agreeable would depend on how the Father is considered, defined, and what is experienced or our version of what is.


Edited by syncro (10/26/23 03:59 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28518542 - 10/26/23 06:18 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

"There is a separate sky for each of us"-Anonymous


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28518566 - 10/26/23 06:52 AM (3 months, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
"There is a separate sky for each of us"-Anonymous




With separation and deception as natural attributes of an ego we might perceive them at work. If someone doesn't sort their laundry we would perceive the colors seeping into the light.


Edited by Buster_Brown (10/26/23 06:57 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #28519622 - 10/26/23 11:47 PM (3 months, 8 hours ago)

Doesn't separation actually define things?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: BrendanFlock] * 1
    #28519794 - 10/27/23 05:57 AM (3 months, 2 hours ago)

If words we need; can we think of space without words?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28519832 - 10/27/23 07:05 AM (3 months, 1 hour ago)

Quote:

BrendanFlock said:
Doesn't separation actually define things?



In marriage it certainly can redefine things.


Where does the wave end and the ocean begin?

Where is the boundary line between me and the universe to be found?

Are the bacteria in my body a part of me?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28519837 - 10/27/23 07:21 AM (3 months, 54 minutes ago)

It's a paradox; suppress (deny) our animal instincts even if it's ultimately impossible.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Buster_Brown] * 2
    #28519872 - 10/27/23 08:08 AM (3 months, 7 minutes ago)

Where does the boundary between “me” and “you” lie if we both operate within the same medium of Reality and are interconnected by language?

If I were to exchange one atom of my brain for one atom of yours, at what point would I become you and you become me? Would there be any functional difference, except the memory change?

I think we make imaginary distinctions to create identities when they’re actually merged into one singular whole.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28519889 - 10/27/23 08:31 AM (2 months, 30 days ago)

I think the boundaries exist on some levels and don't on others, so I think you are right in many ways.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Buster_Brown] * 1
    #28519977 - 10/27/23 10:22 AM (2 months, 30 days ago)

Quote:

Buster_Brown said:
It's a paradox; suppress (deny) our animal instincts even if it's ultimately impossible.




It's impossible but it's also not suppressing, denying, but changing form or quality, on a good day. Where a heavy thought was, pure mind is the same. Then if only the gut bug nation will fall in line. How many entities are we?

Success in concentration may be like herding entities, cat entities.


Edited by syncro (10/27/23 10:25 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBuster_Brown
L'une
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28520047 - 10/27/23 11:48 AM (2 months, 30 days ago)

I'm entertaining Angels unaware; a visitor last night tried to impress me with much the same information.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28520203 - 10/27/23 02:29 PM (2 months, 30 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
Quote:

Kickle said:
This brings the question: If it is merely an illusion/delusion to experience individual perceptions, then what individual could possibly realize this?




...
While it is true that the filter of subjectivity prevents us from seeing and knowing the universe as it is, it does not prevent us from learning objective facts about it that can be of tremendous utility. Ergo perception though subjective is demonstrably capable of providing objective information, which can be and is employed in a consistently objective manner.
...




Drop the word "objective" and it makes sense to me. As humans our environment is capable of providing information which can be employed. And some of the information can be employed in a relatively consistent manner.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28520308 - 10/27/23 04:26 PM (2 months, 30 days ago)

If information we observe is consistent, like the value of a measurement of weight, then this satisfies at least one of the formal definitions of the word objective.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 2
    #28520877 - 10/28/23 07:16 AM (2 months, 30 days ago)

There was a theory proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler that interests me greatly: "it from bit", and "Participatory Universe".

Quote:

Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every it—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.[89]





Quote:

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago





This resonates a lot to me with ideas I've entertained that the "noise" or "material data" we see in front of us is simply patterns re-interpreted by the mind of Reality that is all of us. That is, we "re-arrange" information within our minds to form new patterns, and in the process, new "material" worlds, new dimensions, new universes.

That we agree on the worlds we construct out of information, to Nillion's, point makes it "objective". It's also evidence that we share "one world" and that we are of "one world". However, if someone has a private, independent experience, it's still an experience that Reality is having, it's just that it hasn't been corroborated by another point of existence. From Reality's standpoint, there's no fundamental difference between "subjective" and "objective", as they're all experiences of fact, and ultimately "inner" is "outer"--"mind" and "matter" are one (at least, that's my current line of thinking on this topic...)


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Edited by solarshroomster (10/28/23 07:20 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 2
    #28520932 - 10/28/23 08:53 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

:awesomenod: CC did an It from Bit thread with a talk by a swami, It from Bit from Chit.

Still no one guessed the source of this. It should be popular among yogis.

Quote:

The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant advances," Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington writes in The Nature of the Physical World. "In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes the alchemist Mind who transmutes the symbols. . . . To put the conclusion crudely, the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. . . . The realistic matter and fields of force of former physical theory are altogether irrelevant except in so far as the mind-stuff has itself spun these imaginings. . . . The external world has thus become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions."




Quote:

Kick at rocks, Sam Johnson, and break your bones, but cloudy, cloudy is the stuff of stones.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28520934 - 10/28/23 08:53 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
If information we observe is consistent, like the value of a measurement of weight, then this satisfies at least one of the formal definitions of the word objective.




That's why I suggest including the word 'relatively' before consistent. I haven't found anything which is perfectly consistent. That goes against impermanence. If there is no variation (aka change) then you've discovered something which is permanent.

If there is variation, then it is a scale of how much. With some variations appearing relatively consistent. Relative to human perception.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28520945 - 10/28/23 09:13 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

I suppose Arthur Eddington's quotes are known and available including that one, but particularly quoted where it struck me is in Autobiogaphy of a Yogi.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Kickle]
    #28520970 - 10/28/23 09:49 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

Yesterday I weighed 200 lbs on the scale.
Today I weigh 205 lbs.

Those are consistent in that the amount I weighed yesterday will never change. That my weight changes and that change can be measured is also an objective perception that can be consistently measured.

If nothing in the future can change the value of measurements I took yesterday then I cannot consider the reality of impermanence to be in opposition to the idea that we perceive objective facts.

But this may just be a matter of perspective.

I consider impermanence to, also, be an objective truth that we can perceive. Some might even consider it to be the ultimate objective truth that we can arrive at and I might be one of those people.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28520973 - 10/28/23 09:51 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

syncro said:
where it struck me is in Autobiogaphy of a Yogi.



How do you feel or what do you think about that book, if you don't mind my asking? When I read it I was reminded of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine series.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 1
    #28520994 - 10/28/23 10:19 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

I read it back in 80's when pretty new learning and finding inspiration. I was taken and felt in contact with the lineage, read everything from it I could and took lessons for a time. It also lead into that from Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc., from there Advaita, Ramana Maharshi, Nirsagadatta, and to Vasistha, Buddhism, Daoism and so on. I view the lineage and teachings from SRF as a source of grace and beginning in this life, and take aid from them still. It introduces Babaji the immortal of the Himalayas, and in the lineage is Lahiri Mahasaya, and Yukteshwar, awesome influences along with Yogananda.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28521015 - 10/28/23 11:08 AM (2 months, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
I consider impermanence to, also, be an objective truth that we can perceive. Some might even consider it to be the ultimate objective truth that we can arrive at and I might be one of those people.




Seems there is an affinity for the word objective. No biggie. But the philosophy on objects goes back thousands of years and has been refuted quite soundly imo. Naturally, it takes exposure to the refutations in order to consider them.

Impermanence is often used as a base level refutation. If something exists as an object, it must have some permanence to it. At least long enough for the brain to process it and label it. This would be enough permanence to suggest impermanence is not all pervasive.

So either impermanence pervades and there is never an object, or objects exist and impermanence has limitations. Isn't this so?


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleconnectedcosmos
Neti Neti
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/15
Posts: 7,426
Loc: The Pathless Path
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro] * 1
    #28521390 - 10/28/23 04:48 PM (2 months, 29 days ago)

@syncro that was a great video , I may have to rewatch it :awesomenod:


--------------------


54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: connectedcosmos]
    #28521641 - 10/28/23 08:48 PM (2 months, 29 days ago)

I didn't think I would but left it playing this morning and watched almost all of it again. I wasn't paying good attention but another thing I found interesting in it is Jim Holt's theory on the 'problem of consciousness' that quantum entanglement renders consciousness in the brain.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 222
Last seen: 5 hours, 19 minutes
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28524960 - 10/31/23 08:50 PM (2 months, 26 days ago)

It'd be good to hear from a more modern Arthur Eddington.


--------------------
LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life'

Your life, your call.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: lostintimenspc]
    #28525174 - 11/01/23 06:11 AM (2 months, 26 days ago)

I'd like to hear updates on the shadow world.

I happened onto the Esoterica channel last night, and as it was Halloween, well, not sure but I ended up in the Nag Hammadi in the Gnostic Society Library, read On the Origin of the World, and some Valentinus and am going through Psychology and Salvation - The Three Elements Within The Human Being.

Interesting the similarities to the affairs in Secret Doctrine, the rulers who envy the spiritual seed, gnosis, lack it anyway. I think I got about a third into the Secret Doctrine last year and fell off. The Gnostic pieces I came across are a nice treat, beautiful and relatively simple.


Edited by syncro (11/01/23 06:14 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: syncro]
    #28525178 - 11/01/23 06:23 AM (2 months, 26 days ago)

It's odd considering entities that lack the seed of gnosis, I thought self-imposed, like, what's the problem? Though both gnosis and the problems are evident within.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleNillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Kickle]
    #28525187 - 11/01/23 06:46 AM (2 months, 26 days ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Impermanence is often used as a base level refutation. If something exists as an object, it must have some permanence to it. At least long enough for the brain to process it and label it. This would be enough permanence to suggest impermanence is not all pervasive.

So either impermanence pervades and there is never an object, or objects exist and impermanence has limitations. Isn't this so?



The idea that it is either this or that regarding impermanence isn't something I able to take seriously. Impermanence can pervade and objects can exist at the same time.

It seems silly for our species to try to force some logical dichotomy upon reality. The measurements I took the other day will not change, they are permanent. The form I had at that time in space is set in time and space, then and there.

It's rather simple, objects and objective data don't change if we consider them differently. This allows us to understand the world in a useful and pragmatic manner through things like measurements. It is because things like objects exist in time and space that we are able to observe the impermanence they have over time in an objective manner.

Objectivity and impermanence thus do not negate one another but are mutually dependent and supportive. The opposition of two sides of one coin, one might say, does not make the coin cease to exist.


Edited by Nillion (11/01/23 06:49 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28525402 - 11/01/23 11:14 AM (2 months, 25 days ago)

What are you using to make these conclusions if not logic?

How much did you weigh yesterday? :smile:


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Kickle] * 1
    #28525425 - 11/01/23 11:38 AM (2 months, 25 days ago)

What you are talking about reminds of conceptions of personal identity / Self with the Ship of Thesus thought experiment. Are we changing our arrangements all the time, yet remaining fundamentally the same?

Is the Self of yours that began reading this post different from you now, several seconds later? Did you die an infinite number of times? But yet you still feel like you are "of the same essence". Are we all of the same ultimate Self?

re: logic...
My own hunch is that all material aspects of Reality, including the laws of physics / nature, arise from foundational laws of logic. However, where did logic come from? Did it need to exist? Assuming it needs to exist, why?


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGenesisCorruptedS
Taoist, Writer, Student, Artist
Male Unread Journal User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/01/23
Posts: 7,171
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 4 hours, 13 minutes
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion] * 2
    #28526117 - 11/02/23 01:36 AM (2 months, 25 days ago)

One time somebody who was very high. Broke through completely.
They were walking through a museum. As he was appreciating some indescribable art.
An entity came to stand beside them. Staring at the same piece. The man deep in contemplation. Suddenly yelled out loud, to no one in particular.

“What is the point of my existence on the Earth? Why must we suffer?”

Without really looking at them. The entity just simply responded.

The point of existence in your universe. Is for consciousness, to become aware of itself.

That’s it?

That’s it.

Everything is meaningless unless we give it meaning. We need to find something to give ourselves purpose in this world.


--------------------

Wanna Play? I offer free
Dream Interpretation, Therapy &
GC’s Perfect Day Ayahuasca Recipe
Shroomery Manual? Click here.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: GenesisCorrupted]
    #28528436 - 11/03/23 09:16 PM (2 months, 23 days ago)

Quote:

GenesisCorrupted said:
One time somebody who was very high. Broke through completely.
They were walking through a museum. As he was appreciating some indescribable art.
An entity came to stand beside them. Staring at the same piece. The man deep in contemplation. Suddenly yelled out loud, to no one in particular.

“What is the point of my existence on the Earth? Why must we suffer?”

Without really looking at them. The entity just simply responded.

The point of existence in your universe. Is for consciousness, to become aware of itself.

That’s it?

That’s it.

Everything is meaningless unless we give it meaning. We need to find something to give ourselves purpose in this world.




This was beautiful. Thank you!


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinesyncro
Registered: 01/14/15
Posts: 2,696
Last seen: 6 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: solarshroomster] * 1
    #28531483 - 11/06/23 08:59 AM (2 months, 20 days ago)

video- Conscious Reality: Unraveling the Mind with Swami Sarvapriyananda and Donald Hoffman
Looks like this just came out- the swami and the cognitive psychologist who is working on conscious networks and for me was first exposure to the idea that we hardly perceive reality, but evolve to survive for survival's sake by making icons and hacks.

The swami is a scholar in his field. For Hoffman in science, since spacetime as foundation is doomed he says, for next fundamental principles we are looking beyond it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblespinvis
Stranger

Registered: 09/15/20
Posts: 586
Re: Why does Reality Exist? [Re: Nillion]
    #28559186 - 11/28/23 08:00 AM (1 month, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Nillion said:
I like those.
This is from the translation I mention by John C. H. Wu:

Quote:

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.
Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:
As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:
As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

These two flow from the same source, though differently named;
And both are called mysteries.

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.




This is the only English language translation of it that I follow or accept.

I'll give a brief explanation of why.
Here is the second part of chapter 5 of the translation I use:

Quote:

Between Heaven and Earth,
There seems to be a Bellows:
It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible;
The more it works, the more comes out of it.
No amount of words can fathom it:
Better look for it within you.




Here is one from a website that claims to explain Tao:

Quote:

Is not the space between Heaven and Earth like a bellows?
It is empty, but lacks nothing.
The more it moves, the more comes out of it.
A multitude of words is tiresome,
Unlike remaining centered.




Another from a different website:

Quote:

May not the space between heaven and earth be compared to a bellows?
‘Tis emptied, yet it loses not its power;
‘Tis moved again, and sends forth air the more.
Much speech to swift exhaustion lead we see;
Your inner being guard, and keep it free.




Another:

Quote:

The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows;
it is empty, yet has not lost its power.
The more it is used, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend.
It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.




Another:

Quote:

How the universe is like a bellows!
Empty, yet it gives a supply that never fails;
The more it is worked, the more it brings forth.
By many words is wit exhausted.
Rather, therefore, hold to the core.




I know I should not be sharing this causally but here is the explanation of this using the translation of John C. H. Wu:

Quote:

Between Heaven and Earth,
There seems to be a Bellows:




You are the thing that connects heaven to Earth, a human being, feet on the ground, head in the air and inside you, between the ground and your feet are your lungs.

Quote:

It is empty, and yet it is inexhaustible;
The more it works, the more comes out of it.




When you breathe you inhale and exhale using the empty space.
The more you do this the more the air comes out of you.

Quote:

No amount of words can fathom it:
Better look for it within you.





The bellows it is talking about it literally inside you.
We call them lungs.

I won't really discuss the Tao much, nor argue about it or explain the chapters, but it is a way rather than a thing. There are actual applications and meanings of the teachings that are precise and specific but they are written in a special way that both conceals their meaning and contains it for those who know and follow the way.

I follow Tao but I don't really like to discuss it.
It is not really a thing to discuss.

So regarding Tao being ordinary mind I am sure that made sense to the person in the quote and others who read it but it is not the Tao I know and follow. There is a lot that Zen tradition and Tao have in common. Original mind is part of that. I don't disagree there, but that Tao is a mental state is not something I can accept personally.

Though I could be making this all up and be lying or be totally confused about it and not have any truth to share about these things.

Regarding the quote about truth, I agree with it, but see it as about the truth of the ineffable, not the truth of things like how much a person weighs when they step on a scale. I believe there are limitations to what human beings can know and the more we try to understand them then the further from understanding them we get. A single thought or emotion can be a blinding and distracting thing. Original mind lacks those distractions and is required to follow the way. Focusing on breathing is a widely used method in regards to that. As is the training of the mind and body. The bull needs to be tamed, after all.

Please regard anything I write as nothing more than an opinion. I could be wrong, lying, insane or maybe even a bot, you never know.
These are just words on a screen, after all. I share a lot of stuff that I probably shouldn't, for one reason or another. I ask for your forgiveness for this.




Thanks for your reply. Wanted to get to this sooner but real life got in the way, and completely forgot about it. To break the ice, first a little jesting (but a gem nonetheless) :tongue2:

Tang dynasty poet Bo Juyi (772-846);
Quote:

Those who speak
Know nothing;
Those who Know
Are silent.
Those Words, I'm told,
Were uttered
By Lao-tzu.
If we're to believe
That he himself
Was someone who Knew,
Why did he end up
Writing a Book
Of Five Thousand Words?



My first intention was just to reply with the following, and leave it at that, since it's very relevant to what you wrote, and could potentially make it clear with what was pointed at previously.

Thomas Cleary; Ch'an Foyen - Instant Zen: Waking Up in the Present - Emancipation;
Quote:

In ancient times a Zen worthy asked an old adept, “What is essential for emancipation?” The old adept said, “Fog is ris­ing from your feet, reverend!” At these words, the Zen worthy suddenly got the message.
Do you know about emancipation? If you formulate the idea that you can understand, then you are blocked off from it.
Later, another adept said, “I dare not turn my back on you, master; for fog is rising from your feet!” Then there is the story of when Beiyuan Tong left Dongshan. Dongshan said, “Where are you going?” Tong replied, “Into the mountains.” Dongshan said, “Flying Monkey Ridge is steep—a fine sight!” Tong hesitated. Dongshan said, “Reverend Tong!” Tong responded, “Yes?” Dongshan said, “Why don’t you go into the mountains?” At these words, Tong suddenly got the message.
The ancients were quite direct in their ways of helping oth­ers. Whenever people came to them, they would show them. In this case, he said he was going into the mountains; what does this mean?
People today do not realize clearly, inevitably making an understanding. By a bit of understanding, they have blocked themselves off. One can only investigate comprehensively through experience; one cannot understand just by intellectual interpre­tation. Once you have comprehended thoroughly with unified comprehension, you will no longer doubt.
Nevertheless, this is not easy to maintain. If you have entered into it correctly, you will not backslide. Thus, even if you have clarified what can be understood, that is not comparable to see­ing what cannot be understood and also having the ability to maintain it. Then you will always be aware and always be alert.
This is why an ancient said, “The normal mind is the path; can one aim for it?” “If you try to head for it, you are turning away from it.” Seeing as how you are not allowed to head for it, then how do you maintain it? It’s not easy!
Is this not emancipation? If you seek a state of emancipation, this is what is called a cramp! Xuansha said, “The whole earth is an eon of hell; if you do not clarify yourself, this is a serious cramp.” It will not do to idle away the time.



However, considering your interest into Taoism, and the time you've invested in typing your reply, I'm going a little deeper. Before we get to that, another precious gem, and highly recommended for anybody interested in Taoism:

The Book of Taoist Master Zhuang;
Quote:

Every That is also a This, every This is also a That. A thing may not be visible as That, it may be perceived as This. This and That produce each other. Where there is Birth there is Death. Where there is Death there is Birth. Affirmation creates Denial, Denial creates Affirmation. Right creates Wrong, Wrong creates Right. The Taoist's This is also a That, the Taoist's That is also a This.



Anyway, thanks for sharing your preferred translation, and personal interpretation of chapter five, your Tao so to say on this bit, of the Tao Te Ching, that was great, and beautiful insights! I'm going to post excerpts of chapter 1 and 5 from the translation of Ellen M. Chen from 1999, including its commentary (a very dry and literal translation, this is important so the translator doesn't put too much of their own interpretation into it), which is not only extensive, it also refers to a great many commentators (both ancient and modern) and aims to take you back in history to that place and time period, which should be interesting enough to warrant this long wall of text (okay maybe not for everybody :lol:). It's meant purely for educational purposes.

Quote:

1
1.
Tao that can be spoken of, Is not the Everlasting (ch 'ang) Tao. Name that can be named, Is not the Everlasting (ch 'ang) name. 

2a. Nameless (wu-ming), the origin (shih) of heaven and earth; Named (yu-ming), the mother (mu) of ten thousand things. 
Alternate,
2b. Non-being (wu), to name (ming) the origin (shih) of heaven and earth; Being (yu), to name (ming) the mother of ten thousand things. 

3a. Therefore, always (ch 'ang) without desire (wu-yii), In order to observe (kuan) the hidden mystery (miao); Always (ch 'ang) with desire (yu-yii), In order to observe the manifestations (chiao). 
Alternate,
3b. Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch 'ang) Non-Being (wu), We desire (yii) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao); By the Everlasting (ch 'ang) Being (yu), We desire (yii) to observe the manifestations (chiao). 

4. These two issue from the same origin, Though named differently. Both are called the dark (hsiian). Dark and even darker, The door to all hidden mysteries (miao).

Detailed Comment
2. These lines and those in (3) can be read in two different ways. The traditional reading (2a, 3a), found in the Ho-shang Kung, Wang Pi, and Ma-wang Tui texts, holds that wu (non-being, nothing) and yu (being, having) are adjec­tives modifying the characters following them. The Ho-shang Kung commentary understands Tao from two aspects. As formless, Tao is nameless; as heaven and earth giving rise to all beings, it is the named. The named is not Tao as such, but heaven and earth that give rise to all beings: "The nameless is Tao. Tao being formless cannot be named. The named refers to heaven and earth, which having forms, positioning yin and yang, and containing the yielding and the firm, have names." The modern reading (2b, 3b) treats wu and yu as nouns standing by themselves. Modern commentators like Ma Hsu-lun, Kao Heng, Yen Ling-feng, and Duyvendak believe that the traditional reading is wrong. According to them these lines say that Tao, which strictly speaking cannot be named, can be given two names, non-being (wu) and being (yu), depending on how we look at it. If we regard Tao in itself, prior to heaven and earth, Tao is named non-being. If we look at Tao in its relationship to the world, as giving birth to all beings, Tao is named being.
The traditional reading, taking Tao to be both nameless (wu-ming) and named (yu-ming), is well supported in the text. Tao is said to be not only nameless (wu-ming, chs. 32.1, 37.2, 41.2), but impossible to name (pu-k 'o ming, ch. 14.2), and having no name (pu ming-yu, ch. 34.2), though at the same time Tao is also the name that never goes away (ch. 21.3). Also, Tao is characterized by the negative, wu, in all sorts of manners. It is not only nameless (wu-ming), but desireless (wu-yii, chs. 34.3 and 37.2), without action (wu wei, ch. 37.1), without partiality (wu-ch 'in, ch. 79.3), without limit (wu chi, ch. 28.2), etc.
The same cannot be said of the modern reading. Non-being (wu) and being (yu) as independent concepts appear only in one instance in the text (ch. 40.2). In chapter 2.2 we read: "Being (yu) and non-being (wu) give rise to each other." Here being and non-being are parallel to the difficult and easy, long and short, etc., i.e., complementary opposites in the realm of finite beings. They are not names of Tao as the arche and mother of all beings. 
The modern reading, however, is superior in conceptual clarity. Yen Ling­-feng points out that it brings out more sharply the aspect of pure negation in Tao, while the traditional reading gives only particular aspects of Tao's negative nature, e.g., its namelessness or desirelessness (1959: 14-15). Whichever read­ing we adopt there is a progression of thought from (1) to (2). The everlasting Tao or Name as the process of becoming is seen in its dipolar aspects as non-being and being, or the nameless and named. As arche Tao is non-being or nameless. As giving rise to the world of ten thousand things and mother­ing them Tao is being or named. We move from fundamental ontology to cosmology.




Quote:

5
1. Heaven and earth are not humane (jen), 
They treat the ten thousand beings as straw dogs (ch 'u kou}. 
The sage is not humane (jen), 
He treats the hundred families as straw dogs (ch 'u kou). 

2. Between heaven and earth, 
How like a bellows (t'o yo) it is! 
Empty and yet inexhaustible, 
Moving and yet it pours out ever more. 

3. By many words one's reckoning (shu) is exhausted.
It is better to abide by the center (shou chung).

Detailed Comment 
1. To detractors of the Tao Te Ching these lines are the most damaging evidence against it as a deeply spiritual tract. In openly declaring that heaven and earth are not humane (jen), that is, they are unkind, these lines have puzzled its ethically-minded Confucian admirers. Recently they have also provided grounds for attack by Christian critics (Lo Kuang: 72-74). Wei Yuan's (1794-1856) comment on these lines is typical of the Confucian effort to divest the Tao Te Ching of this offensive trait and color it with Confucian sentiments: 

Lao Tzu saw that in a time of chaos the lives of the people were precarious. Thus touched at heart he said: "Ah! How unkind are heaven and earth at times, treating the ten thousand things like the grass underfoot, letting them live or die by themselves! When the sage is unkind, he treats his people like the trampled grass with no sympathy at all!"

Wang Pi, however, was able to defend these lines without apology: 

Heaven and earth follow the natural way of things, they neither act nor make. The ten thousand things govern themselves. Therefore heaven and earth are not humane (jen). The humane one makes and trans­ forms, dispenses favors and acts. But when things are made and trans­formed, they lose their genuineness; when favors are dispensed and actions are taken, not all things may flourish. If not all things may flourish, the earth would not be a place bearing forth all things. But the earth has not produced the grass for the beasts and yet the beasts  feed on the grass; it has not produced the dogs for humans and yet humans feed on the dogs. Doing nothing to the ten thousand things, yet the ten thousand things all find their right use .... The sage's virtue (te) corresponds to that of heaven and earth. He treats the hundred families as grass and dogs.

Wang Pi's comment brings out the unintentional character of the universe. The non-humane way of heaven and earth means the absence of design. To act humanely is to choose this and reject that, to apply something like Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason allowing certain possibilities to be actualized and others to be suppressed. The humane way is one of conscious selection and planning; Tao's way is pure sponteneity. Because heaven and earth are not humane, having no value distinctions or any principle of selectivity, everything is allowed to come forth, to find its place and use. This inhumanity on the part of heaven and earth, Su Ch'e (1039-1112) points out, is indeed the greatest kindness. The non-providential character of heaven and earth turns out to be real providence to the ten thousand things.
Wang Pi interprets ch 'u kou as grass (ch 'u) and dog (kou). In the Chuang Tzu chapter 14, ch 'u kou stands as one term meaning the straw dogs used for sacrifice.

Before the straw dogs (ch 'u kou) are presented at the sacrifice, they are stored in bamboo boxes and covered over with patterned embroidery, while the impersonator of the dead and the priest fast and practice austerities in preparation for fetching them. But after they have once been presented, then all that remains for them is to be trampled on, head and back, by passers-by; to be swept up by the grass-cutters and burned.  (Watson: 158-159) 

Once a thing has served its purpose, it is speedily destroyed. Heaven, earth, and the sage treat all beings and all people as unfeelingly as straw dogs, mere means in the universal process of becoming. To Hegel, all individuals, even great heroes, are subject to the cunning of reason that victimizes them for the appearance of the higher universal in the world historical process. Existence is a procession in which each individual has an appointed time and place.

Once that role is played out, room must be made for others. Once their objective is attained, they fall off like empty hulls from the kernel. They die early like Alexander, they are murdered like Caesar, transported to Saint Helena like Napoleon. This awful fact, that histori­cal men were not what is called happy-for only private life in its manifold external circumstances can be "happy" -may serve as a con­solation for those people who need it, the envious ones who cannot tolerate greatness and eminence.  (1953: 41)

The Tao Te Ching does not regard history as the progressive unfolding of the higher universal in the realization of the absolute idea. It is also typically against the worship of heroes (ch. 19.1). There are no great world historical figures in Taoism.
Though its benevolence is not to be measured against the standard of human kindness (jen), Tao is a benevolent power (chs. 34, 62, 77, 81). Tao is the great image that brings the blessings of peace and tranquillity to all who come to it (ch. 35.1). Chapter 41.3 says that Tao alone helps and fulfills all. Chapter 79.3 says: "The Tao of heaven has no partiality, it is always with the good people."
Yet, in this chapter heaven and earth, functioning as the bellows of the universe, undeniably form the devouring mouth in which all beings must perish. The return of all beings to the womb of Tao is necessary to the continuous pouring out of new beings in the world. Erich Neumann presents the rationale of ancient fertility cults:

The womb of the earth clamors for fertilization, and blood sacrifices and corpses are the food she likes best. ... Slaughter and sacrifice, dismemberment and offerings of blood, are magical guarantees of earthly fertility. We misunderstand these rites if we call them cruel. For the early cultures, and even for the victims themselves, this sequence of events was necessary and self-evident.  (1954: 54)

Both the Tao Te Ching and the Chuang Tzu (Watson: 84-95) hold the conviction that the harmony and creativity of the whole is more important than the demands of the individual. Heaven and earth pay no heed to an individual's private needs. The dynamic outpourings of creativity are emphasized, not the right of the individual to stay around and state his or her claims. If the death of the individual is necessary for the unending life of the whole, so be it. In chapter 6 we shall see that only the whole is an inexhaustible and deathless life force.

2. The characters that stand for bellows are t'o yo. T'o is the external cover of the bellows, and yo is the bar that produces the air flow with back and forth movement. Heaven and earth form the furnace that absorbs and remolds all beings. The art of metallurgy was highly developed in ancient China. The beauty of Shang bronzeware has not been matched elsewhere in the world, but the lore of the ancient smiths has not been fully explored. Marcel Granet speaks of Taoism as going back to the days of the guilds of the smiths, custodi­ans of the most wondrous of the magical arts (1926, II: 161). Mircea Eliade says: "The first smith, the first shaman, and the first potter were blood brothers" (1971: 81). It is generally accepted that Taoism, both religious and philo­sophical, descended from ancient shamanism. There is also a reference to the potter in chapter 11.
T'o yo also symbolizes the reproductive activity of the male and fe­ male. According to Kao Heng, yo also means mou, the male animal, key, or the hill. The activity of the bellows symbolizes the interaction of the male and the female, here understood as heaven and earth. The emptiness between heaven and earth makes for continuous motion explaining the world's inex­haustibility.
On yet another plane t'o yo stands for a musical instrument. Yo also means a flute that produces music because of its hollowness. This is how Wang Pi interprets yo. The secret of Tao's inexhaustible creativity thus lies in its empti­ness. In the Chuang Tzu, chapter 2, the music of earth is said to be produced by the spontaneity of the wind (Watson: 36-37). The music of heaven is the music of silence, the message in the next verse. 

3. The Tao Te Ching generally takes a negative attitude toward speech (yen): Heaven does not speak (ch. 73.2), nature speaks little (ch. 23.1), and the sage teaches wordlessly (chs. 2.3, 43.2). Speech and discourse as the externalization of thought means the loss or falsification of the real. They belong to the coming out process, thus leading us away from Tao. It is by keeping to the silence of the center that one holds on to the root.
Shu literally means number or counting. In the Chuang Tzu, chapter 2, there is a passage that states that the counting or numbering from one to two to three pertains to the coming out process that will never lead us back to Tao (Watson: 43). Language and numbers lead to the many, not to the source of all beings. Wang Pi takes shu, number, to mean the reasoning prin­ciple (li) in things. In this sense the first line would read: "By many words the principles are exhausted." According to Ma Hsii-lun, shu, number, stands for a homophone, meaning speed or quickness. Language (yen) as the objectification of thought speedily disperses one's life energies so that one becomes quickly depleted. To preserve one's life energies it is better to keep silent.
Duyvendak translates chung as the "middle course," giving the impression that these lines refer to the Confucian mean governing speech and action. Such an interpretation is unwarranted. Chung as the opposite of speech means the center that does not come out, hence, does not distinguish or falsify. As chapter 56.1 says: "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know," the Taoist mystic who has the vision of the unceasing creativity of Tao does not argue about the merits or demerits of humanity (jen) and righteousness (i). Was it the same insight that prompted Wittgenstein to say: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?





:cookiemonster:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Greatest Spiritual Quotes?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 116 117 )
Chronic7 233,342 2,329 01/22/24 08:14 AM
by RJ Tubs 202
* Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel*
( 1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )
zorbman 178,039 1,020 03/15/18 06:53 PM
by BrendanFlock
* The 4th Density
( 1 2 3 all )
ShroomismM 16,296 49 10/19/08 12:07 PM
by ariark
* How to Ascend
( 1 2 all )
ShroomismM 12,046 28 09/10/20 12:08 PM
by delusionalpothead7
* Everything in our universe can merge with my soul, any time. Painkiller 114 4 12/08/23 09:32 PM
by lostintimenspc
* The Catholic Church No Longer Swears by Truth of the Bible. gettinjiggywithit 4,356 18 05/19/06 02:24 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Mayan Galactic Signature DB.....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
vampirism 39,228 113 04/21/05 04:06 AM
by emptywisdom
* Dream Thread
( 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 all )
ShroomismM 49,343 246 11/08/07 05:30 PM
by gbeatle

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
1,397 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.049 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 12 queries.