|Home | Community | Message Board|
You are not signed in.|
|Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder Red Vein Kratom Cultivation Supplies Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order|
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
Has physics found a way to demonstrate that consciousness creates the material world?
A physicist declares that a mystical experience enabled him to solve not only the riddles of quantum mechanics but the mystery of creation itself.
An Interview with Amit Goswami
by Craig Hamilton
Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Then open them and consider the following question: For the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know? If this sounds like the kind of unanswerable brainteaser your Philosophy 101 professor used to employ to stretch your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are actually physicists at reputable universities who believe they have answered this question and their answer, believe it or not, is no.
Now consider something even more intriguing. Imagine the entire history of the universe. According to all the data that scientists have been able to gather, it exploded into existence some fifteen billion years ago, setting the stage for a cosmic dance of energy and light that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet earth. An amorphous cloud of dust emerging out of that primordial fireball, it slowly coalesced into a solid orb, found its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of light and gases over billions of years, generated an atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only giving birth to but sustaining and proliferating life.
Now imagine that none of the above ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world's great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.
Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And, as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology, and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.
A professor of physics at the University of Oregon and a member of its Institute of Theoretical Science, Dr. Goswami is part of a growing body of renegade scientists who, in recent years, have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments and to validate their intuitions about the existence of another dimension of life. The essence of Goswami's theory is presented in his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World (1995). Rooted in an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), he weaves together myriad theories and findings in fields from artificial intelligence to astronomy to Hindu mysticism in an attempt to show that the discoveries of modern science are in perfect accord with the deepest mystical truths. Quantum physics, as well as a number of other modern sciences, he feels, is demonstrating that the essential unity underlying all of reality is a fact that can be experimentally verified. He asserts that because science is now capable of validating mysticism, much that previously required a leap of faith can now be empirically proven, and hence the materialist paradigm that has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question. By attempting to bring material realism to its knees and to integrate all fields of knowledge in a single unified paradigm, Goswami hopes to pave the way for a new holistic worldview in which spirit is put first.
Yet for all the important and valuable work Goswami and others are doing to reconcile the long-divorced domains of science and spirituality, thinkers such as Huston Smith and E. F. Schumacher have pointed to what they feel is an arrogance, or at least a kind of na?vet?, on the part of scientists who believe that they can expand the reach of their discipline to somehow include or explain the spiritual dimension of life. These critics suggest that the very attempt to scientifically validate the spiritual is itself a product of the same materialistic impulses it intends to uproot. Because of this, they claim, such efforts are ultimately only capable of reducing spirit, God, and the transcendent to mere objects of scientific fascination.
Is science capable of proving the reality of the transcendent dimension of life? Or would science better serve the spiritual potential of the human race by acknowledging the inherent limits of its domain? The following interview confronts us with these questions.
WIE: In your book The Self-Aware Universe, you speak about the need for a paradigm shift. Could you talk a bit about how you conceive of that shift? From what to what?
AMIT GOSWAMI: The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents building blocks of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings you and I think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.
Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world, we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation but it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. On those occasions, we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.
WIE: In your book, you refer to this new paradigm as "monistic idealism." And you also suggest that science seems to be verifying the truth of oneness that mystics have described throughout history that science's current findings seem to be parallel to the essence of the perennial spiritual teaching.
AG: It is the spiritual teaching. It is not just parallel. The idea that consciousness is the ground of being is the basis of all spiritual traditions. In the West, there is a philosophy called "idealism" that is opposed to the philosophy of "material realism," which holds that only matter is real. Idealism says no, consciousness is the only real thing. But in the West, that kind of idealism has usually meant something that is really dualism that is, consciousness and matter are separate. I don't mean that dualistic kind of Western idealism, but really a monistic idealism, which has existed in the West, but only in the esoteric spiritual traditions. Whereas in the East, this is the mainstream philosophy. In Buddhism, or in Hinduism where it is called Vedanta, or in Taoism, this is the philosophy of everyone. But in the West this is a very esoteric tradition, only known and adhered to by very astute philosophers, the people who have really delved deeply into the nature of reality.
WIE: So you are saying that modern science, from a completely different angle not assuming anything about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life has somehow come back around and is finding itself in agreement with that view as a result of its own discoveries?
AG: That's right. And this is not entirely unexpected. Starting from the beginning of quantum physics, which began in the year 1900 and then became full-fledged in 1925 when the equations of quantum mechanics were discovered, there have been indications that our worldview might change. Staunch materialist physicists have loved to compare the classical worldview and the quantum worldview. Of course, they wouldn't go so far as to abandon the idea that there is only upward causation and that matter is supreme, but the fact remains that they saw in quantum physics some great paradigm-changing potential. And then in 1982, results started coming in from laboratory experiments in physics. That is the year when, in France, Alain Aspect and his collaborators performed the great experiment that conclusively established the veracity of the spiritual notions, and particularly the notion of transcendence. Should I go into a little bit of detail about Aspect's experiment?
WIE: Yes, please do.
AG: To give a little background, what had been happening was that for many years quantum physics had been giving indications that there are levels of reality other than the material level. How it started happening first was that quantum objects objects in quantum physics began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. Now, initially people thought, "Oh, they are just like regular waves." But very soon it was found out that, no, they are not waves in space and time. They cannot be called waves in space and time at all they have properties that do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.
But the fact that there is transcendent potential was not very clear for a long time. Then Aspect's experiment verified that this is not just theory; there really is transcendent potential, objects really do have connections outside of space and time! What happens in this experiment is that an atom emits two quanta of light, called photons, going opposite ways, and somehow, these photons affect one another's behavior at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. Notice that: without exchanging any signals through space but instantly affecting each other. Instantaneously.
Now Einstein showed long ago that two objects can never affect each other instantly in space and time because everything must travel with a maximum speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light. So any influence must travel, if it travels through space, taking a finite time. This is called the idea of "locality." Every signal is supposed to be local in the sense that it must take a finite time to travel through space. And yet, the photons emitted by the atom in Aspect's experiment influence one another at a distance, without exchanging signals, because they are doing it instantaneously they are doing it faster than the speed of light. And therefore, it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead, the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality.
WIE: That's fascinating. Would most physicists agree with that interpretation of his experiment?
AG: Well, physicists must agree with this interpretation of his experiment. Many times, of course, physicists will take the following point of view: they will say, "Well, yeah sure, experiments. But this relationship between particles really isn't important. We mustn't look into any of the consequences of this transcendent domain if it can even be interpreted that way." In other words, they try to minimize the impact of this and still try to hold on to the idea that matter is supreme.
But in their hearts they know, as is very evident. In 1984 or '85, at the American Physical Society meeting at which I was present, one physicist was heard saying to another physicist that after Aspect's experiment, anyone who does not believe that something is really strange about the world must have rocks in his head.
WIE: So what you are saying is that from your point of view, which a number of others share, it is somehow obvious that one would have to bring in the idea of a transcendent dimension to really understand this.
AG: Yes, it is. Henry Stapp, who is a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, says this quite explicitly in one of his papers written in 1977 that things outside of space and time affect things inside space and time. There's just no question that that happens in the realm of quantum physics when you are dealing with quantum objects. Now of course, the surprising thing is that we are always dealing with quantum objects because it turns out that quantum physics is the physics of every object. Whether it's submicroscopic or it's macroscopic, quantum physics is the only physics we've got. So although it's more apparent for photons, for electrons, for the submicroscopic objects, our belief is that all manifest reality, all matter, is governed by the same laws. And if that is so, then this experiment is telling us that we should change our worldview because we, too, are quantum objects.
WIE: These are fascinating discoveries that have inspired a lot of people. A number of books have already attempted to make the link between physics and mysticism. Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu Li Masters have both reached many, many people. In your book, though, you mention that there was something that you felt had not yet been covered, that you feel is your unique contribution to all of this. Could you say something about what you are doing that is different from what has been done before in this area?
AG: I'm glad that you asked that question. This should be clarified, and I will try to explicate it as clearly as I can. The early work, like The Tao of Physics, has been very important for the history of science. However, these early works, in spite of supporting the spiritual aspect of human beings, all basically held on to the material view of the world. In other words, they did not challenge the material realists' view that everything is made up of matter. That view was never put to any challenge by any of these early books. In fact, my book was the first one that challenged it squarely, and that was still based on a rigorous explication in scientific terms. In other words, the idea that consciousness is the ground of being, of course, has existed in psychology as transpersonal psychology, but outside of transpersonal psychology, no tradition of science or scientist has seen it so clearly.
It was my good fortune to recognize that all the paradoxes of quantum physics can be solved if we accept consciousness as the ground of being. So that was my unique contribution, and of course, this has paradigm-shifting potential because now we can truly integrate science and spirituality. In other words, with Capra and Zukav although their books are very good because they held on to a fundamentally materialist paradigm, the paradigm is not shifting, nor is there any real reconciliation between spirituality and science. Although these books acknowledge our spirituality, the spirituality is ultimately coming from some sort of material interaction.
But that's not the spirituality that Jesus talked about. That's not the spirituality where a mystic recognizes and says, "I now know what reality is like, and this takes away all the unhappiness that one ever had. This is infinite, this is joy, this is consciousness." This kind of exuberant statement could not be made on the basis of epiphenomenal consciousness. It can be made only when one recognizes the ground of being itself, when one cognizes directly that One is All.
As long as science remains on the basis of the materialist worldview, however much you try to accommodate spiritual experiences in terms of parallels or in terms of chemicals in the brain, you are not really giving up the old paradigm. You are giving up the old paradigm and fully reconciling it with spirituality only when you establish science on the basis of the fundamental spiritual notion that consciousness is the ground of all being. That is what I have done in my book, and that is the beginning. But already there are some other books that are recognizing this, too.
WIE: So there are people corroborating your ideas?
AG: There are people who are now coming out and recognizing the same thing, that this view is the correct way to explain quantum physics and also to develop science in the future. In other words, the present science not only has shown quantum paradoxes but also has shown real incompetence in explaining paradoxical and anomalous phenomena, such as in parapsychology, the paranormal even creativity. And even traditional subjects, like perception or biological evolution, have much to explain that these materialist theories don't explain.
However, if we do science on the basis of the primacy of consciousness, then we can see real creativity of consciousness. We can truly see that consciousness is operating creatively even in biology, even in the evolution of species.
WIE: This brings to mind the subtitle of your book, How Consciousness Creates the Material World. This is obviously quite a radical idea. Could you explain a bit more concretely how this actually happens in your opinion?
AG: Actually, it's the easiest thing to explain because in quantum physics, as I said earlier, objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things: they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories. Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves. Right? So then the question arises: What converts possibility into actuality? Because when we look, we only see actual events. That's starting with us. When you see a chair, you see an actual chair; you don't see a possible chair.
WIE: Right I hope so.
AG: We all hope so. Now this is called the "quantum measurement paradox." It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion? Because after all, in the materialist paradigm, we don't have any causal efficacy. We are nothing but the brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles. So how can a brain, which is made up of atoms and elementary particles, convert a possibility wave that it itself is? It itself is made up of the possibility waves of atoms and elementary particles, so it cannot convert its own possibility wave into actuality. This is called a paradox. Now in the new view, consciousness is the ground of being. So who converts possibility into actuality? Consciousness does, because consciousness does not obey quantum physics. Consciousness is not made of material. Consciousness is transcendent. Do you see the paradigm-changing view right here how consciousness can be said to create the material world? The material world of quantum physics is just possibility. It is consciousness, through the conversion of possibility into actuality, that creates what we see manifest. In other words, consciousness creates the manifest world.
WIE: To be honest, when I first saw the subtitle of your book, I assumed you were speaking metaphorically. But after reading the book and speaking with you about it now, I am definitely getting the sense that you mean it much more literally than I had thought. One thing in your book that really stopped me in my tracks was your statement that, according to your interpretation, the entire physical universe only existed in a realm of countless evolving possibilities until at one point, the possibility of a conscious, sentient being arose, and at that point, instantaneously, the entire known universe came into being, including the fifteen billion years of history leading up to that moment. Do you really mean that?
AG: I mean that literally. This is what quantum physics demands. In fact, in quantum physics this is called "delayed choice." And I have added to this concept the concept of "self-reference." Actually the concept of delayed choice is very old. It comes from a very famous physicist named John Wheeler, but Wheeler did not see the entire thing correctly, in my opinion. He left out self-reference. The question always arises: The universe is supposed to have existed for fifteen billion years, so if it takes consciousness to convert possibility into actuality, then how could the universe be around for so long? Because there was no consciousness, no sentient, biological, carbon-based being in that primordial fireball, the big bang, that is supposed to have created the universe. But this other way of looking at things says that the universe remained in possibility until there was self-referential quantum measurement so that is the new concept. An observer's looking is essential in order to manifest possibility into actuality, and so only when the observer looks does the entire thing become manifest including time. So all of past time, in that respect, becomes manifest right at that moment when the first sentient being looks.
This idea has existed in cosmology and astronomy under the guise of a principle called the "anthropic principle" the idea that the universe has a purpose. It is so fine-tuned, there are so many coincidences, that it seems very likely that the universe is doing something purposive, as if the universe is growing in such a way that a sentient being will arise at some point.
WIE: So you feel that there's a kind of purposiveness to the way the universe is evolving, that, in a sense, it reaches its fruition in us, in human beings
AG: Well, human beings may not be the end of it, but certainly they are the first fruition, because here is then the possibility of manifest creativity, creativity in the sentient being itself. The animals are sentient, but they are not creative in the sense that we are. So human beings certainly seem to be an epitome right now, but this may not be the final epitome. I think we have a long way to go, and there is a long evolution yet to occur.
WIE: In your book, you even go so far as to suggest that the cosmos was created for our sake.
AG: Absolutely. But that means sentient beings for the sake of all sentient beings. And the universe is us. That's very clear. The universe is self-aware, but it is self-aware through us. We are the meaning of the universe. We are not the geographical center of the universe, but we are the meaning center of the universe.
WIE: Through us the universe finds its meaning?
AG: Through sentient beings.
WIE: This human-centered or sentient-being-centered stance seems quite radical at a time when so much of modern progressive thought, across disciplines from ecology to feminism to systems theory, is going in the opposite direction. These perspectives point more toward interconnectedness, in which the significance of any one part of the whole including one species, such as the human species is being de-emphasized. Your view seems to hark back to a more traditional, almost biblical kind of idea. How would you respond to proponents of the prevailing "nonhierarchical" paradigm??
AG: It's the difference between the perennial philosophy that we are talking about, monistic idealism, and what is called a kind of pantheism. That is, these views which I call "ecological worldviews" and which Ken Wilber calls the same thing-are actually denigrating God by seeing God as limited to the immanent reality. On the face of it, this sounds good because everything becomes divine the rocks, the trees, all the way to human beings. They are all equal and they are all divinity. It sounds fine, but it certainly does not adhere to what the spiritual teachers knew. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna, "All these things are in me, but I am not in them." What does he mean by that? What he means is that "I am not exclusively in them." So there is evolution in manifest reality. Evolution happens. That means that the amoeba is, of course, a manifestation of consciousness, and so is the human being. But they are not in the same stage. And these ecological-worldview theories don't see that. They don't rightly understand what evolution is because they are ignoring the transcendent dimension, and they are ignoring the purposiveness of the universe.
WIE: So you would say that they have part of the picture but without this other aspect that you are bringing in, their view is very
AG: It's very limited. And that's why pantheism is very limited. When Westerners started going to India, they thought it was pantheistic because it has many, many gods. Indian philosophy tends to see God in naturethey worship rocks sometimes, that kind of thing so Westerners thought it was pantheistic, and only later did they realize that it has a transcendent dimension. In fact, the transcendent dimension is developed extremely well in Indian philosophy, whereas in the West, it is hidden in a very few esoteric systems, such as those of Gnostics and of a few great masters like Meister Eckhart. In Jesus' teachings, you can see it in the Gospel according to Thomas. But you have to really dig deep to find that thread in the West. In India, in the Upanishads, the Vedanta, and the Bhagavad Gita, it is very explicit.
Now, pantheism sounds very good, but it's only part of the story. It's a good way to worship; it's a good way to bring spirituality into your daily life because it is good to acknowledge that there is spirit in everything. But if we just see the diversity, if we just see the God in everything, but don't see the God which is beyond every particular thing, then we are not realizing our potential. We are not realizing our Self. And so, truly, Self- realization involves seeing this pantheistic aspect of reality, but also seeing the transcendent aspect of reality.
WIE: In addition to being a scientist, you are also a spiritual practitioner. Could you talk a little bit about what brought you to spirituality?
AG: Well, I'm afraid that is a pretty usual, almost classic, case. When I was about thirty-seven, the world started to fall apart on me. I lost my research grant, I went through a divorce, and I was very lonely. And the professional pleasure that I used to get by writing physics papers stopped being pleasure.
I remember one time when I was at a conference and all day I had been going around, beating my own drums and arguing with people. Then in the evening when I was by myself, I felt so lonely. And I realized that I had heartburn and I had already exhausted a full bottle of Tums, and still it would not go away. I discovered suffering, literally. And it is that discovery of suffering that brought me to spirituality, because I couldn't think of any other way although I had given up the idea of God entirely and had been a materialist physicist for quite some time. That particular world where God didn't exist and where the meaning of life just came from brain-pursuits of glory in a profession just did not satisfy me and did not bring happiness. So I came to meditation. I wanted to see if there was any way of at least finding some solace, if not happiness. And eventually great joy came out of it, but that took time.
WIE: It's interesting that while you turned to spirituality because you felt that science wasn't really satisfying your own search for truth, you have nevertheless remained a scientist throughout.
AG: That's true. It's just that my way of doing science changed. The reason that I lost the joy of science was that I had made it into a professional trip. I lost the ideal way of doing science, which is the spirit of discovery, the curiosity, the spirit of knowing truth. So I was not searching for truth anymore through science, and therefore I had to discover meditation, where I was searching for truth again, truth of reality. What is the nature of reality after all? You see my first tendency was nihilism nothing exists. But in meditation I had a glimpse that reality really does exist. Whatever it is I didn't know, but I saw that something exists. So that gave me the prerogative to go back to science and see if I could now do science with new energy and new direction, and really investigate truth instead of investigating for the sake of professional glory.
WIE: How then did your newly revived interest in truth, this spiritual core to your life, inform your practice of science?
AG: What happened was that I was not doing science anymore for the purpose of just publishing papers. Instead, I was doing the really important problems, which are very paradoxical and very anomalous.
For example, the quantum measurement problem is supposed to be a problem which forever derails people from any professional achievement because it's a very difficult problem. People have tried it for decades and have not been able to solve it. But I thought, "Well, I have nothing to lose and I am only going to investigate truth, so why not see?" Quantum physics was something I knew very well. I had researched it all my life, so why not do the quantum measurement problem? So that's how I came to ask this question: What agency converts possibility into actuality? It still took me from 1975 to 1985 until, through a mystical breakthrough, I came to recognize this.
WIE: Could you describe that breakthrough?
AG: Yes, I'd love to. It's so vivid in my mind. You see, the conventional wisdom was that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon of the brain. And despite the fact that some people, to their credit, were giving consciousness causal efficacy, no one could explain how it happened. That was the mystery because, after all, if it's an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then all causal efficacy must ultimately come from the material elementary particles. So this was a puzzle to me this was a puzzle to everybody and I just couldn't find any way to solve it. David Bohm talked about hidden variables, so I toyed with his ideas of an explicate order and an implicate order, but this wasn't satisfactory because in Bohm's theory, again, there is no causal efficacy that is given to consciousness. It is all a realist theory. It is a theory in which everything can be explained through mathematical equations. There is no freedom of choice, in other words, in reality. So I was just struggling and struggling because I was convinced that there is real freedom of choice.
So then one time and this is where the breakthrough happened my wife and I were in Ventura, California, and a mystic friend, Joel Morwood, came down from Los Angeles and we all went to hear a talk by J. Krishnamurti. And Krishnamurti, of course, was extremely impressive, a very great mystic. So we heard him, and then we came back home. We had dinner and we were talking, and I was giving Joel a spiel about my latest ideas of the quantum theory of consciousness, and Joel just challenged me. He said, "Can consciousness be explained?" I tried to wriggle my way through that, but he wouldn't listen. He said, "You are putting on scientific blinders. You don't realize that consciousness is the ground of all being." He didn't use that particular word, but he said something like, "There is nothing but God." And something flipped inside me that I cannot quite explain. This is the ultimate cognition, that I had at that very moment. There was a complete about-turn in my psyche, and I realized that consciousness is the ground of all being. I remember staying up that night, looking at the sky, and having a mystical feeling about what the world is, and having the complete conviction that this is the way the world is, this is the way reality is, and one can do science. You see, the prevalent notion was: How can you ever do science without assuming that there is reality and material? But I became completely convinced that one can do science on this basis.
WIE: So that night something really did shift for you in your whole approach. And everything was different after that?
AG: Everything was different.
From www.wie.org What Is Enlightenment?
Also check www.peterussell.com on the exact same spiritual/scientific realization from Peter Russell.
I'm not really here
Loc: Austin, TX
Last seen: 11 years, 10 months
Well shit, you dont gotta copy and paste the whole web site, i got to about paragraph two and went cross eyed, thats a shit load of bandwith to waste.
That was some awesome reading. Great post.
I once had an argument with my friend; I was saying how I thought that both free will and destiny could exist. I could not explain in at all. That bit about upward and downward causality put my thought into words. Very cool.
1up on the rest
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
definately a good post. Bed time. brain hurts.
No one knows the worth of innocence till he knows it is gone forever, and that money can't buy it back. Not the saint, but the sinner that repenteth, is he to whom the full length and breadth, and height and depth, of life's meaning is revealed. Good and evil loose all objective meaning and are seen as equally necessary and contrasting elements in the masterpiece that is the universe.
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
re: free-will and destiny co-existing - I've thought about this before as well and the best metaphor I've come up with is like getting sucked into a whirlpool - you can swim whichever direction you want and slightly effect your direction but inevitiably you'll get sucked right into the middle where you're supposed to go ;-)
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
The last post in this topic is more than 30 days old! (exactly 5419 days)
Please only post a reply if it is truly relevant!!
|Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder Red Vein Kratom Cultivation Supplies Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order|
|Similar Threads||Poster||Views||Replies||Last post|
|Physical / Spiritual Worlds...||Grav||1,434||14||03/17/02 11:33 PM|
|The Holographic Universe- Science and Spirituality
( 1 2 3 all )
|gettinjiggywithit||6,598||42||03/17/08 12:25 PM|
( 1 2 3 4 all )
|Shroomism||15,123||70||08/26/04 02:18 AM|
|Philosophy and "spiritual" living
( 1 2 all )
|11polakie11||2,815||20||06/25/02 04:43 PM|
|Does psychology attempt to explain the consciousness?||Ayrios||1,738||11||09/23/04 10:02 AM|
|Is there anything other than the physical universe?
( 1 2 all )
|silversoul7||3,512||38||08/26/04 05:53 PM|
|The Stages of Spiritual Growth
( 1 2 all )
|Zahid||4,534||21||08/02/03 04:13 AM|
|Consciousness at the Planck Scale?
( 1 2 all )
|Diploid||5,570||32||10/03/04 06:30 AM|
|You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics|
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,189 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]