What is Our Next Bold Leap?
People seem to be experiencing spiritual enlightenment left and right, some after years of dedicated meditative practice, others by a single, awe-inspiring transformative experience. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Indeed, we are all riding that evolutionary wave that will inevitably and thankfully wash us to the shore of a new way of being.
No matter where we are in this journey, we have the choice to open more to the process or remain where we are for a while longer (or even close down more, but who would want to do that after experiencing the delight of opening?). If we have the desire to open more fully, to be that proverbial flowering lotus, we often have to challenge ourselves, pull ourselves out of our comfort zone. We have to take a bold leap.
In Teotihuacán, Mexico there is a place where such a leap was literally taken. Teotihuacán (Teo) is known as "The Place Where Humans Become Gods". From about 650 C.E. (Common Era) to about 1200 C.E., the Toltec civilization thrived in Teo, just prior to the Aztecs. The Toltecs were not a single culture. Rather, they were a group of individuals from a variety of tribal groups who achieved a level of spiritual enlightenment.
Most people go to Teo now as tourists to walk amidst the ruins and climb the two largest pyramids in the complex -- the Pyramid of the Sun and the Pyramid of the Moon. A smaller, but no less magnificent, pyramid, the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, also resides in the complex. Quetzalcoatl is the Mesoamerican deity that is part snake, part bird, representing the union of matter and spirit, earth and heaven, the "Sovereign Plumed Serpent." His prophetic return (anticipated in our time, according to some) heralds a time of peace and a new spiritual era. This new spiritual era is the result of the unity that Quetzalcoatl represents. It is the honoring of the divine masculine and the divine feminine, logic and reason, science and spirituality. It is an honoring of the Oneness of all things.
Here at the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl individuals would have the opportunity to expand their awareness and perspective and take a leap of faith. This area has two parts. On one side there is a high platform. On the other side is the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl itself. In between the platform and the pyramid is a drop off of about 30 feet. The distance between the two is about 15-20 feet. Back in the time of the Toltecs, a spiritual leader would lead a group to this area in the dark of night. He or she would then challenge individuals in the group to make the leap from the platform to the pyramid, leaping into the "mouth" of Quetzalcoatl. Many would be scared and not jump, knowing the distance before them. Some, though, would jump. Unbeknownst to them, the spiritual teacher filled up the chasm with water, allowing those who took their leap of faith to make it safely.
If you are a fan of the movie The Matrix (aren't we all?) there is a perfect equivalent to this concept. Morpheus loads the "jump program" for Neo to take his leap. At this point in the movie, Neo has already awakened into the "real world" and been unplugged. The much more difficult process then begins of disconnecting him mentally.
"You have to let it all go, Neo -- fear, doubt and disbelief. Free your mind," Morpheus says to Neo on the rooftop. Morpheus then leaps with ease to the other rooftop 50 feet away. Watching this, Neo is in awe, and he gathers his courage to make his leap. He bravely runs and jumps off the edge of the roof, but of course he falls. As the movie mentions, everyone falls the first time. Why does everyone fall the first time? Because it is so hard to flip that switch! After years, decades of believing we cannot do something, our minds become very attached. It is a very strong structure, and it is a process to dismantle the structure and fully detach. But the lesson is, Neo took the chance and leapt! And eventually, through several additional leaps of faith, Neo awakens on more levels, learns to fully disconnect from the limitations created by his mind, and ultimately creates a world of peace and saves humanity.
Interestingly, this peace transpires only through the unity of the divine feminine and the divine masculine. In the Matrix movies, the Oracle is represented by a motherly, black woman. She is the feminine, the intuitive one, the yin. The Architect, on the other hand, is represented as a white man, with white beard, even a very light-colored suit. He is the masculine, logic and reasoning, the yang. In the end they come together for the sake of harmony.
I had the privilege of going to the sacred land of Teotihuacán on a spiritual "power journey" a few years ago, an experience that forever and beautifully altered my life. Currently, the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl is set up for tourists with a metal fence around the platform so that you cannot walk (or fall) down to the bottom of the drop off or go crawling on the pyramid. The leaders of our journey brought us to the platform facing the mouth of Quetzalcoatl for us to ask ourselves, had we been with the Toltecs in ancient times, "Would I have taken the leap?" More significantly, "Would I take the leap right now?" without knowing about the water, of course. Would I leap with complete trust and surrender? I looked over the edge, seeing the distance and the hard stones below, just as Neo hesitantly gazed over the edge of the skyscraper prior to his brave jump.
I decided to take the leap, which wasn't literally flying across the chasm, but I challenged myself to open to a new perspective, a new possibility. During this journey at Teo, I had experienced a vision. I could have discounted it as my imagination. I could have gotten stuck in a belief that I was completely loony. I could have kept quiet about it, but I decided to open my mind, heart and mouth to the possibility that it was something to be truly heard and even shared. My vision showed me how I was to play a role in the continued evolution of humanity, starting with a specific ceremony to be conducted with two other people and a very powerful crystal on top of the Pyramid of the Sun. I decided to follow through with my vision and the ceremony was completed as it was shown to me.
Through the ceremony there was an activation of the earth's energetic grid, initiated from the place of Teo and connecting with many other sites around the world. This activation raised the vibration. Surprisingly or not, this happens all over the world each day, as our consciousness is continually shifting and evolving, and people are following through with their intuitions, raising vibration, and opening themselves to assist others in the process of awakening.
So what is our next bold leap? What is our next move to more fully disconnect us from our own limitations and realize our potential? Is it something personal, such as gathering our courage to ask a man or woman that we've long-been attracted to on a date? Is it giving our supervisor at work notice because we know that our job is no longer serving our best interests? Is our next bold move writing a blog posting that reveals our beliefs/experiences even though they may go against the grain of much of society? Is it larger scaled? Is it writing a book for the world? Is it following through with an intuition or vision that involves us and our role to help humanity?
For each of us, if we so choose, our next bold leap is to simply shine, to express ourselves, to exude our brilliant, divine nature. In what specific manner that is expressed is up to you. I am reminded of Marianne Williamson's wise words, from A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of "A Course in Miracles":
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, "Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?" Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
We are riding that wave to a new way of being. Or, to use the other metaphor, each one of us stands on the platform facing the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl. The situation before us looks to be one of great distance, and that is sometimes utterly frightening! "Free your mind." The benefit of taking a bold leap into the mouth of Quetzalcoatl is we get ingested into the knowing of the unity of matter and spirit, of our human aspect and also our divine aspect. We no longer have to fear that we are inadequate. And we no longer have to fear that we are "powerful beyond measure." With this knowing, we experience freedom and so have the opportunity to choose what we want to do next. Perhaps our next bold leap as a unified tribe of humanity will be to create that longed-for world of peace.
Image by bdebaca, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 3-13-09
- Kristi Bowman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
This is quite possibly
"God within" ?
I completely agree with cjmoore that the message needs to continue to be said in as many ways as possible - the message being that we have incredible potential both as individuals and as a whole of humanity. Oftentimes we can get turned off by words such as "God" (as I quoted Marianne Williamson's piece) for one reason or another.
This God within is an experience, a shift in perspective, an understanding, a knowing. This experience can feel so powerful and awe-inspiring that we don't know what to call it, so we come up with words such as "spiritual" or speak of "God" within to try to give name to it.
One of my favorite quotes seems applicable here. It is from Toltec Shaman, Don Miguel Ruiz from his book Beyond Fear: "We are God dreaming that we are not God."
Experience beyond belief
" What are the seven steps to transformation?
Step 1: Accept that beliefs are natural. We all have beliefs. There’s no getting away from that. It’s a simple fact of life. It’s natural to have beliefs—it’s what our minds are for. They evolved to give us maps or shortcuts that help us navigate through life. Just don’t mistake your beliefs for reality. The map is not the territory. You don’t drive your car onto the map and you don’t eat the menu. Yes, beliefs are natural, nevertheless they disconnect us from reality.
Step 2: Realize that every belief is a habit of mind. Thoughts and beliefs are abstractions—literally “snapshots” of reality taken from the ongoing flow of experience as it happens moment by moment. They are frozen fragments of consciousness, mechanical habits that keep you stuck in the past. Mesmerized by your beliefs, real life flows past unnoticed. Here’s how it works: You have an experience. Then you interpret it. Turn it into a belief. Then into dogma. Beliefs, then, are nothing but mental habits, stepping stones to dogmatism and fundamentalism.
Step 3: Recognize the origin of beliefs. Every belief is composed of thoughts, and every thought begins as a feeling. Think about it: Long before you could think or speak, as an infant your life was flushed with feelings. Feelings come first. They are grounded in your body and connect you with reality.
Step 4: Focus on feelings in the body. Feelings are literally the sensations you experience in your body. Learn to pay attention to them. Take time out to sit quietly and just notice what’s going on, without trying to change anything. Simply feel your sensations—in your chest, around your eyes, in your legs, your back, your belly . . . Remember: Every thought begins as a feeling, and feelings connect us with the world. They are messages from nature. Learn what it means to feel your thinking—and not just think your thoughts.
Step 5: Stop believing your beliefs. “But,” you say, “if I don’t have any beliefs, I’ll have nothing.” Far from it. In fact, letting go of beliefs opens you up to what is really happening in your experience—right now! And experience is the royal road to reality. Have you noticed: Experience and reality always happen together, right now. Also, notice I didn’t say “stop having beliefs.” That would contradict Step 1. As long as you have a mind, you can’t help having beliefs. It’s what the mind does naturally, and you have little choice about that. But you do have a choice whether or not you believe your beliefs. You do not have to believe that your beliefs are true. Instead, you can learn to hold beliefs as “likely stories,” as Plato once said. So, take courage, let go of your beliefs, don’t hold onto them, and see what happens. I promise: You won’t disappear, you won’t die.
Step 6: Cultivate being the Witness. As you practice sitting quietly, feeling the sensations in your body, noticing thoughts as they come and go, arising from your feelings, you will come to a new realization about who you are. You are not your mind. You are not your thoughts or beliefs. In fact, you are not even your feelings. In this evolving state of consciousness, you will begin to experience a new sense of freedom. You may begin to notice something quite profound: someone, or some other part of you, is observing everything that is going on. The question is: Who? That’s the sixty-four-billion dollar spiritual jackpot. It’s the essence of spiritual practice. Who, then, is observing the flow of thoughts through your mind? Well, that’s who you are! You are the Witness that unifies self and world. And the way to get to this realization is by practicing experience beyond belief.
Step 7: Spend more time in ‘sacred silence.’ In the end, the core wisdom of all spiritual traditions is some form of “Let go and let God.” Learn to just be—by yourself or in community. Be comfortable beyond thoughts, words, judgments, or beliefs. You don’t need to sit still and quiet to practice this, but it helps. It takes some discipline to tame the mind, to wean it off its diet of beliefs, to break the habits of thoughts, desires, and fears that inevitably distract us and distort reality. After a while, though, when you pay more attention to the Witness, you come to realize that the deepest source of wisdom is not what you think or believe. Rather wisdom lies in that space of “sacred silence” beyond all words and ideas, where what is shines forth. Those who open up to it, often call it the Source."
Christian de Quincey http://www.thewisdomacademy.org/page12/page12.html
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Tao of Carlos
Into the Abyss ... 'lest ... {Casteneda}
wonderful piece
I think we need to be careful
We need to be careful and accept that the old system is dying and that we need to build a new system (perhaps inspired by our archaic, shamanic past).
A wild running leap into the darkness of a 20 ft deep chasm is suicidal nihilism.
We are the ones we are waiting for...and we need to preserve ourselves, not kill ourselves off.
leaping
Yes, Lygeia, "we need to build a new system," as you say. Part of that new system involves moving out of our current belief structure, which is so often very limiting. Taking that bold leap can be frightening, but oh so liberating!
The situation presented to each of us is not that of leaping and then falling to the bottom of a deep chasm, but an opporunity to leap and soar above the mundane levels of our life!
Well written
Different kind of leaps
While I'm very positive to the article's taking up Neo's casting off his limitations, I find it difficult to understand how the author can bridge this to 'inevitable evolutionary waves', which through the article suggests, that everything eventually will turn out right.
Neo is demonstrating choices without garanteed outcome, choices not even based on faith (possibly trust). On the other hand part of the article are assumptions based on visions (which I'm sorry to say, you get thirteen on a dozen, few of them agreeing), prophesies and general wishthinking, as the FRAME for Neo's development. These two positions: Freedom and inevitabilty seem to be somewhat at odds. Hope the author can row it home, because the article contains many good points.
"Everything begins with choice."
Bogomil, I appreciate your comments, and I can understand how the evolutionary wave concept presented in the article and Neo's choice can be viewed as possibly at odds with one another.
I feel the "bridge" lies in the first sentence in the second paragraph, which states, "No matter where we are in this journey, we have the choice to open more to the process or remain where we are for a while longer..."
Evolutionary waves (shifts in consciousness) flow over multiple generations. I believe that humanity is, and will continue to, realize its potential, and what amazing accomplishments can be made in our coming together, and that this shift in consciousness will move us in a "positive" (for lack of a better word) direction. So, again, we can open more fully to this process or not.
Neo was presented with opposing scenarios akin to this discussion. For example, it was prophesied that he was the "One" who would save humanity - fate. It was also told to him by the Oracle, the very one who made the prophesy, "Make up your own damn mind." And Morpheus says to Neo, "Everything begins with choice."
At any moment, Neo could have thrown in the towel, but he chose to persist. We can simultaneously fulfill "prophesy" and be in choice.
Human potential is amazing. We have the capacity to create a world that is peaceful, one where there is nourishment for all, one that spreads kindness and love rather than hatred. If we believe it to be so, it will be our truth, and we will create it.
As we are "waking up", we are understanding this truth - that what we believe we make so. When we believe we have no limitations, we are free (we can choose) to create a life of beauty.
At the very end of the Matrix story (final scene in Matrix Revolutions), Seraph asks the Oracle, "Did you always know?" in reference to knowing the outcome of humanity and the prospect of peace.
"Oh, no. No, I didn't," the Oracle says, "but I believed...I believed."
Just a side note: much of this information is covered in more detail in my book, Journey to One, which will be published later this year.
Freedom versus Fate?: Perhaps both...
You indicate a fascinating good point to debate endlessly...
Recently I've been reading Sri Aurobindo: In my understanding he writes about the inevitability of the "Descent of the Supramental Shakti"(his terminology) AND the complete individual freedom to align(or not) with this cosmic evolutionary process...
Also I remember the words by Ramana Maharshi:
"The debate, `Does free will prevail or fate?' is only for those who do not know the root of both. Those who have known the Self, the common source of freewill and of fate, have passed beyond them both and will not return to them."
Well, I don't know...perhaps these are paradoxes only for the dualistic mind..maybe a non-dual perception embraces the opposites as polarities of a circle... ; )
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Re: Zorro
I'm less interested in finding the 'right' answer to freedom versus fate (at least at the present), than I am in finding the right assumptions and the right questions to base a search on. The level of paradox or dualism (which negenthropic_object fittingly calls 'false-oppositions') in the freedom versus fate dichotomy is one such important assumption. Christian, Mahayana, Hinayana or even Gnostic perspectives would vary considerably on this.
Personally I think, that the universe contains both options, but with the difference, that fate is easily observed and attached to, as fate more or less is the manifested 'natural' and mechanical laws governing most of the universal processes. Though these natural laws can be complex, they are also causal, and lead to deterministic results. Leaning back, not making choices would usually lead to 'fate'.
Whereas freedom is uphill, so to speak. It is hidden beneath determinism, and it requires a deep selfknowledge to find it and conscious will to connect to it.
By the way, thanks for mentioning Christian de Quincy. In my book, he's one of the good guys, not least because he's competent in his own field of philosophy of science, but also because he's willing to expand science's basic assumptions, so it (science) can start a dialogue with e.g. religion. It's about time.
Selling my cleverness and buying bewilderment...
Thank you, yes, Christian de Quincey is brilliantly open-minded, and more important, open-hearted("feelings come first").
I'm not interested in the "right answer": I'll love always e.e. cummings for saying "Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question."
"Perhaps"and "Maybe", are increasing its presence in my vocabulary, day after day...Perplexity and Awe are coming to drink green tea with me more and more...
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Matrix and reality
Cancelled. Technical mistake.
Matrix and reality
It will soon be obvious, that I'm not side-tracking this thread, so please bear with me.
Human history has for thousands of years pivoted around two conflicting belief-systems:
The 'Cosmos' model, where the manifested universe, on a macro-cosmic scale, is experienced as space/time, matter/energy and various forces and principles regulating the workings of it. This model is based on certain structured order, 'natural laws' of causality, and is said to represent or being an extension of ultimate reality. Science and Abramic religion mostly belong to this model.
The 'Chaos' model, where the hidden micro-cosmos functions on zero-point, possibly quantum-or-beyond, level. The macro-cosmic 'natural laws' are increasingly more invalid, the closer the level is to pure chaos. Concepts as 'freedom', transcendence, Nirvana, Samadhi etc are associated with this model, and encompass non-causality. This is alternatively said to represent ultimate reality.
A deep-going and fascinating presentation of the two models can be found in R.A.Wilson's 'Illuminatus' trilogy, which can be recommended for the interested.
The present article contains expressions of both models, and without going into details, I will as a 'Matrix' fan, take up some parts of the Matrix films, which exemplifies the cosmic/chaos ideology-conflict. I will leave it to the reader to make his/her own conclusions on this. I'm just pointing out some interesting specific scenes, which apart from the films' main-theme of 'what reality is' turns attention to some fundamental questions.
The oracle does, on a couple of occasions, confuse Neo as to inevitability of destiny and prophecy as opposite to his own free-will choices. The buddhist-like clad child, with the: "The spoon doesn't exist". The architect of the matrix, who has build 'irregularities' into the matrix. These situations are excellent in profiling important belief-system aspects, and relatively easy accessed.
A much deeper analysis of each of the above parts of my post is possible, but I feel, outside the present scope of this thread. E.g. the function of 'faith' in this context.
Cognitive Juggling with different maps of Reality
It's interesting to realize how the indigenous cosmologies(Pachamama"Cosmic Mother"), including Tantrism(Shakti) and Taoism("the Misterious Female"), all of them have a loving relationship with the Cosmic Womb,the pole of "Becoming", seen as a Chaotic (self-organizing,"The Web without a Weaver") Cosmos (non-hierarchical, but worlds/dimensions nested without worlds/dimensions); where the patriarchal traditions have this curious denial of Time/Sex/Female...seeking to "escape" from this triad, instead of embracing the Becoming as the other pole of Being...
In a pragmatic way, I'm fascinated with the Stan Grof's tale of going to hear a conference about tantric cosmology by a Kashmir Shaivite scholar/practitioner, and thinking, first, that the tantrika speaker was reading one of Grof's works(a 40 years digest of thousands of psychedelic experiences): this is one of the most sophisticated cosmologies I know...
For example,
http://patrizianorellibachelet.com/TNWblog/?p=67
Well, in any case, I like to do cognitive juggling with different cosmologies, I feel it's fun, and a good mind medicine against dogmatism... (blessed be RAW for his "maybe logic").
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Great Article
Thank you for putting this together. You have articulated what I have been experiencing and it gives me much faith in what is in store for humanity. Best wishes -Camron
sacredgeometryatlanta.com
Semantics, iLLWill, remember semantics
The way you're using the word 'chaos' makes me suspect, that you using it in its debased form, which in normal usage indicates 'destructive confusion'.
In the sense I used it above, and as it's used in science, it implicates nothing like that. It means roughly that which is not cosmos. A religious equalent to Chaos could be 'the void'.
Consciously or not, by using the twisted meaning of the word 'chaos', you're voicing Abramic religious demagoguery, which tries to discredit anything not supporting their own Yahweh based cosmos-theory. Hopefully you are above that level of soapbox oration, but only are unfamiliar with the scientific use of 'chaos'.
The article centers on the process of 'leaping', and as demonstrated by the example of Neo, who 'after years of believing' must break his conditioning (in this case by defying gravity), the idea suggested is, that we CAN perform miracles, if we can transcend the cosmic laws. For me that would mean approaching chaos (an opinion not expressed by the author, I'm not trying to bend the article's words to my own conclusions).
The theological and doctrinal consequences of such a suggestion is ofcourse frowned upon by Abramic religion, something which wouldn't prevent me from discussing the subject of chaos though.
The bad guys (demons?) in one religion, can be the good guys in another. It should do well to establish really strong evidence, before venturing into that area.
Lessons from Alchemy & Chaos Theory
This is good stuff from an excellent jungian psychologist, mathematician, ceremonial magician..
http://www.dharmacafe.com/index.php/nature-psyche/article/lessons-from-a...
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
HE started,... no, HE did
Sure, 'seeing is believing'. But different individuals see different things, interpret them in different ways and arrive at different beliefs. Sometimes these beliefs or belief-systems get the status of ultimate and absolute truth, and are turned into impenetrable ideological fortresses, where examination and two-way communication is considered un-necessary, because this specific belief-system is right, right, right. It can even go so far, that it's considered 'heretic' for a true believer to inform him/herself of the content of alternative belief-systems.
Fine with me, if this is kept inside your own mind, home or group. But by some quirk of general human psychology, the true believers (be they religious, marxists, social Darwinists or whatever) often turn into missionaries. The world needs saving, for its own good ofcourse, and its considered irrelevant if the world really wants to be saved or not.
So at best a one-way missionary process of dishing out the one-and-only truth starts. And quite a few of the missionaries, being irrevocably lost in the solipcism of their own belief-system, start whining, when they are met with scepticism or opposition: "We're being picked at", usually and conveniently forgetting, that they themselves are the intruders, nobody asked for. But then missionaries ofcourse have a special dispensation from god or Marx to reform the world, while the unbelievers haven't. A perfect circle-argument of self-justification.
That the missionary often hasn't got a clue about what opposing arguments are about, and isn't interested (s/he already has absolute truth, so why bother), doesn't make hin/her more endearing, and heated discussion follows. Also fine with me. I never pretended to be fashionably meek, so I can protect my own integrity verbally.
The real problem is, when missionaries get p..... off by the world's resistance to be saved. They develop into hard-core fundamentalists, girdle their swords and start smiting the unbelievers. And the unbelievers or groups with a different belief-system have to fight back this invasion. Ofcourse the invaders are the demons for the invaded. Both ideologically and practically.
While I'm fundamentally a pacifist, I sympathize with the motives of my father, when he joined the local resistance movement after the german occupation of our country. He ended up in a KZ-camp (fortunately surviving). The same story as with the inquisition, Mao's cultural revolution, Stalin's purges or the money-mongers' economical exploitation. You have to say 'no' somewhere.
So as long as it's kept a private business, let people make the 'leaps' they want. And if someone wants to share opinions on this publicly, as on RS or similar places, be prepared for examination or criticism. This is not a bulletin board for passively accepted fundamentalism.
If I ever need any kind of blessings, I would prefer them from a god of my own choice. Those blessings send at me uninvited, could eventually turn out to be curses.
Brother!
The last ciggy. A sip of Harp (pretty good for Guinness) and some poetry/reasoning from Bogomil and the BlAZERS won!
Pretty good Saturday. Good for you brother! You made my day. Roger
======================
[Obligatory cutesy quote here]
Repentant or worse
I can certainly see, that it can create problems, when chaotic, not to say anarchistic, types like me, Neo and Morpheus leap around like a Fort'ean rain of frogs. As if it wasn't enough, that the universe insolently insists upon containing principles of uncertainty; cats-in-boxes which can't make up their minds, if they are dead or alive and intelligent design, which maybe is more design than intelligence.
There's no need to encourage the universe to more of such foolishness, so I seriously consider to adapt an attitude of servile obedience to the big boss, respecting orders filtering down to me through the hierachy and never, ever have any more individual opinions.
I furthermore accept, that should I ever again show signs of being able to stand on my own without crutches, I would wellcome invasion in my life to teach me better ways.
Impeccable answer
iLLWiLL, I bow to you for your intention. From time to time I can feel a lot of fear/anger/violence, in this forum(from me and/or from others).
Thanks for your bravery making yourself vulnerable.
Your answer makes a difference.
Deep Peace
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Slightly off track
I've always found it useful to have as broad a base as possible, when searching for reality/truth. It's amazing how many similarities and syncretistic possibilities turn up, when comparing different belief-systems (including science).
E.g. take the more esoteric base of the Abramic religions. Judaic mysticism, which is a very elaborate and complex thought system. It contains the concept Ain Soph, something omitted from Genesis, and this gives a complete different light on the relationship between original judaism and asian religions.
Sorry, this was a digression.
I don't think
I'm impressed by some very simple things: the way children are; the way ants behave; the way bees are; the way man goes.
Of all the things that are lovely, to me, the way man goes is most exasperating.
'You' see, 'I' see, 'they see' and these combine to a veritable challenge to LANGUAGE, and weilding such.
Yes, we may swing a sword and chop off someone's 'head'.
Are they 'dead'?
We can also say ANYTHING WE LIKE: does it hurt another's feelings?
Will they, maybe, take such to heart? And then, do what?
So we, all of us . . . or maybe just 'ALL' those with WORD-power: we have responsibility and responsibilitIES.
Everyone who hears our words; everyone who may read what we scribble: we are automatically BOUND by honesty and plasticity of INTENT or WILL: either to confirm or REPENT.
No harm intended. None taken. Not, at least, by me.
Live and learn.
And with regard to what has been said about some 'Returning' rather than 'LEARNING': the assumption is that there is not GENUINE GROWTH.
Rather, we are to accept only a dogmatic voice of an assumption: we live in a bounded and fixed reality.
That would be acceptable (to me) if there were some qualifying statement or statements as to what is meant by 'return'.
Sympathy, empathy and all that come of these terms and including 'compassion', 'forgetfulness', and 'forgiveness' and 'memory' . . . must they not? qualify such a seemingly harmless term as 'return'?
Relativity isn't the invention of an Einstein.
Sailors from old knew very well about this illusion of 'movement' of a 'shore' or a 'dock' and the feeling: the boat stands still.
What if the 'primary', or 'old' was just as illusioned?
Will 'return' mean going back to prior ignorances?
Or relatively 'older' things . . . 'not so good'?
The 'out' is: a system whereby we can EDIT current 'knowing' or understanding to more perfectly fit what comes with every day: greater understanding. And every edit writes LARGE: better today than yesterday. And presages: better tomorrow, than today.
JMO.
[No self edit: left as writ.]
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go!<
Right, but yet
I can already hear the argumentative rebuttals:
'Then nothing is certain: all is mercurial: all is good as deemed "good".' Hence: 'relativity'.
No one (but me as of yet) has said this, but let me just say again: I assume such will be posited. Anticipating such.
I assume any intelligent reader can understand that what I write: that's MY opinion. That is via MY onus, that is MY burden.
Yet I have a burden beyond what I may write: my own Conscience. My (deemed) BETTER part. And I may not always write what THAT says to me: my burden. I'll pay the price. Gladly. Being my FREEDOM. I see that as an internal conversation that I ASSUME represents a MUTUAL GROWTH or LEARNING.
If my conscience tells me to warn someone of something that may cause them harm if I should say nothing: the burden is on my own head if 'I' don't.
There's this assumption by me: a 'me', 'myself' and an 'I'. I take this literally.
I presume that such implies my 'hearers' are somehow 'defective' in that (I wonder: 'don't they?') they could as easily 'hear' their OWN conscience?
Yet, evidently, other contingencies can impose and then 'those with ears to hear' who do hear and do nothing: not so good. Including me.
This is even the very basis of the intelligent method that supplied to all who use THIS medium (the internet) to date: a method to insure that information transferance might not be interrupted by any severance of a SINGLE 'channel' or 'node', as by some catastrophy or blunder.
Multiple channels insures both: transmission and a means of comparision of, maybe, a single message: as to provide 'fealty' or 'accuracy' or a means for measure or judgement.
Arpanet wasn't an original idea, therefore.
These are the 'methods of intelligence'.
The thing about a 'good idea' is: such ARE NOT anyone's' personal property.
Not 'patentable'.
WAY of saying: maybe 'copyright'-able.
Yeh, and who cares? Saying: that is what matters.
An 'ala' may be put after your input. It is still that you spoke that matters. You'll judge your dependance on 'priors' all by yourself . . . if i'm any example.
Sigh . . . .at any rate:
History proves: the truth will out.
The more: the better.
TIDE (this i did edit);DSPR ii(Due to a sense of personal responsibility: twice . . . at least . . . and *I* may delete it, too. My right. Even if, as of yet, "i" am 'verified'.).
---------
I, for one, miss the 'unverified' posters. Gone! gone.
But not forgotten. Not by me!
Leaping, clinging or egomania
The aspect of the universe humanity mostly observes, is the 'clockwork' cosmos (= mechanistic order) part. The reason for mainly experiencing the cosmos part is the observation-point or perspective we use (i.e. our perception process and/or our self-reinforcing mental filters).
Cosmos is 'unfullfilled'. From the smallest to the biggest substructures in it, it consists of principles, forces, energies, particles, which are differently polarized (e.g. electromagnetic plus or minus). All these differently polarized fragments attract or repel each other, never reaching a harmonic equilibrium, but constantly change their relationships to each other. In daily language, it could be said, that cosmos can't 'find peace', it's eternally and restlessly on the look for the 'perfect answer', harmonic balance. As the buddhists say: "Everything is change".
A reasonable explanation for this unfullfilled state can be, that the initial starting conditions of cosmos not are arranged symmetrically.
All this is very basic science, and to deny it would require a complete change of science. By my guest, anybody who feels up to that.
Still considering it from the cosmos angle, we see a similar 'unfullfilled'ness' in the sphere of complex awareness-beings (probably including the sometimes experienced inorganic awareness-beings). A complex being clearly manifests the need for acquiring outside sources of energy, matter etc. usually taken from something lower in the foodchain. This is the common predatory principle, which even vegans use (I'm a vegetarian myself, so no offense intended). As 'evolution' progresses (and note, that I do not consider evolution as 'good' or 'bad', it's just an adaptive change in the fight for survival), predation will evolve into more complex patterns, e.g. alpha (fe)male behaviour as expressed in group hierachy, territory claims etc.
Unfortunately such alpha-behavioural patterns don't disappear, even when there's no need for them anymore. There's a residue left; what biologists and psychologists call 'reptile-brain' behaviour. Sadly these patterns are only getting more sophisticated, as complexity grows, and turn from the purely physical level with it's survival needs into psychological areas. I would like to encompass all such psychological alpha-bevioural patterns into one word: "GREED". Greed as an dysfunctional expression of filling the empty place, the missing dimension, inside us.
Such greed is manifested in many ways. Obsessive hedonism, the need for power, money, status ('the american dream') or an almost solipcistic attitude of self-righteousness. This is the basis of the soapbox-orating world-saviour fundamentalist; the 'wanna-be' with nothing to say, but saying it anyway, because s/he has this obsession for 'being somebody'; the politician/ideological boss, who hypocritically preaches observance of rules s/he doesn't follow her/himself etc.
To have meaningful exchanges with such people is hopeless, and suggestions that opposition to alpha reptile-brain behaviour should be sugarcoated, I consider at best cosmetically. The hierachy climbers will continue to climb in any case.
A saying no to invasive alpha behaviour can't be compared to having a functional exchange of opinions. The contributor cjmoore (who to my sorrow seems to have made a disappearance act) often expressed quite critical opinions. I often disagreed with him, sometimes I didn't understand much of what he was saying, but even when he satirized on me personally, I never felt really threatened.
'Leaps' can be many things. Sometimes you jump into possible death, sometimes you go through painful initiation processes, sometimes life just presents you with intense friction. But if you survive, the outcome is the same: You have broken your own patterns, and you can start learning.
Egomania
Yes, there is always the possibility that whatever condition we are in: we will attempt to 'save' it (or any hypothesis that may underly it) or defend it.
What will last, no matter any position, is a spectrum of reasoning or language. And it will be, I deem, language that will be finally 'judged'. Not 'person'.
We are refining a process of speech.
We are doing a kind of 'math' with regard to speech or 'speeking'. Not 'channels' or 'espousers'.
If this were an arena of doers and not 'writers', then we would be watching, not 'reading'.
So I think it allowable that we may say what we will or want as provisional, despite any actual living or deeds that may append to or attend any writer in actual fact or in a 5 or 4 dimensional world (dream?) apart.
This medium, we must admit (or what?) deals with words only.
You read here. I read here. Your write here: I write here.
It can be reduced to some form of 'stimulus' to outside action. Very well. Every reader will do what they will do. It is still entirely a matter of selection or self-election as to what will be acted-out.
I can't be certain about this, but think what people do is already extant as a 'pressure' on their 'trigger'.
I don't pretend to understand anything outside writing. I live in a world of pure word.
I don't write so as to elicit either praise or any following. I write as a process of BOTH learning and expression: To educate myself in the former, and to tell honestly where I am. No matter what I ever said before: that may not be me forever. So that's a math I use with regard to writing. Even should I say: 'period' anywhere.
It seems always to be a temptation to fall into the dogmatic voice. I think this refers back to a need for security or 'solid ground'. Like: 'yep! That's where I am alright!' Safe and secure. This probably is referent for a general biological need for 'rests'.
Both Jagadis Chandra Bose and Wilhelm Reich found in observations of nature: spasms. Spurts of growth and periods of quiescence. Maybe that corresponds with consciousness taking information in. Digesting. Then . . .?
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go!<
Language. Re: Roger
Hi Roger,
sorry I haven't answered you directly before. But there's the problem of making two lines of thought running parallel.
If I understand you correctly, you point to the possibility of refining language as a 'tool'. In my alter ego as a farmer and craftsman, this is something, I can support wholeheartedly. 'The right tool for the right situation'.
I guess, that most readers here are somewhat familiar with 'general semantics'. If not, it's worthwhile to take a look at it. I'm not suggesting a life-long study, just the fundamental outline. E.g. I have myself not delved deep into general semantics, though I in my youth practiced the somewhat similar Gurdjieff-method concerning language, and it's been valuable for me.
Personally I find, that a lot of the subjects brought up on RS aren't carried to the point, were practical application or even pragmatic consideration come into the picture. It's like the words, or language, has its own separate life, which isn't supposed to connect to anything else. The outcome looks like talk, and talk only.
From the alternative world in general, examples of certain kinds of pedagogic or psychological hypotheses stand out this way as disconnected abstractions. Or crank science looking just like so much white noise. Words put together as small children will randomly put together letter-cubes, without coherence or meaning.
Our presently most mysterious methodology for reality-seeking, quantum mechanics (e.g.one particle seems to be able to be two different places at the same time; two particles being able to communicate instantaneously across the universe according to another theory) has in spite of its really weird, paradoxial assumptions, succeeded in making a bridge to more mundane reality. Much of this based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which says, that pragmatism sometimes can be useful, until we get better answers.
Words used optimally and in proper context can have 'meaning'. Your computer and other electronic toys demonstrate that language and symbolism CAN lead to observable results, if used with precision.
Why not use this approach in the development of a 'spiritual science'? Efforts in this direction have already demonstrated their value elsewhere, but you don't see much of this here!
PS. Roger, did I detect a note of worrying about solipcism in your recent posts? On my part, I wouldn't bother. 100% pure solipcism is a logical absurdity (while egocentered one-way communication ofcourse is possible).
No, but private lives are
Until we elect to make all our communications a 'diary', we are allowed to think, again: provisionally. This is what I mean by 'provisional' and what can be detected in the thrust of all postings by anyone, methinks, is: what do others think of, like: THIS THOUGHT, or THIS IDEA?
So, I'm 'reading between the lines', rather after CJ Moore's on this topic: a method of enquiry.
And, hence, that posing questions, even in a dogmatic way, has a sub-text that bends back to a very natural interest: learning.
That, if anything, IS pragmatic.
I can understand why no-one wants to be 'corralled' or limited by any speculation. After all, the public reality is full of these 'big men on campus' types, who's lives seem 'perfect' and 'ideal' and they almost never seem to say: 'I DON'T kNoW'. And if they ever did, have been shown to resort to that quick-fix: 'press misinterpreted' what was said.
As far as I know, no one talking on any blog ANONYMOUSLY should be concerned about their 'political careers' or their ability to show to other readers that they live the implied facts or realities implied by their words.
So, as writers, we are obligatorilly being judged MOSTLY by the intrinsic qualities of our WORDS and, maybe, reasoning.
Then we have someone like CJ Moore, who blends both almost indistinguishably, and becomes evidently an 'outcast'.
"solipsism"? What? me worry?
I would have to say, to be internally consistent via what I've written or speculated upon or posited: I forgot what that term even means. So, here:
"solipsism: Noun, Philosophy, the doctrine that the self is the only thing known to exist [Latin solus alone + ipse self] solipsist n."
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsism
I wrote, elsewhere (like you, I do do that): I take the familiar phrase: 'me, myself and I': literally. At the very least.
'Egomania' would then be a kind of inflammation of a small component of any individual. Yet, tracing . . . I don't know: would that be 'backward' in a fundementally a-temporal 'reality'? or just 'inward' (as 'spiritual' is defined by those concerned with pure 'consciousness'?)?
So: 'worries'? Yes, naturally. If I didn't worry, I'd be content seeing everyone as a mere 'puppet' of myself, my 'i', or my 'me'.
History is rife with records of these and many variations of over-accentuation on partial knowledge, partial understanding and partial affections. Or we wouldn't, would we? have terms like 'nepotism', 'egoism', 'tryanism' and many others?
What I am most happy about is: a medium like this where thought can be seen to almost in real-time evolve and grow and 'power-mongering' can be seen to shrink and shrink until, maybe, we can see that power is distributed according to some principle or maybe even a law of utility as most benefits every informed one.
Remember the 'guilds'? What you practice on your farm today maybe you learned thinking it was always 'free information'.
Not!
Even today, anyone can know that many things that could lesson the burdens of daily energy expenditure are purposefully hidden and obfuscation is deemed 'proper'. I'm not an advocate of 'communism' as popularly conceived. With regard to information: should be freely available and without 'patent'.
Let the best 'manufacturer' win. Instead, we have let the biggest manufacturer win. We see farms being bought out by mega-corporations and then, I see it as: doom indeed.
So-called "Energy-efficient practices", even, has been appropriated by these carpetbaggers to rationalize their aims. At this moment, I'm thinking such 'corporatism' as 'benefactor': a fulminating 'cancer' on society at large. Even primitive and unknown cultures are being sought out to bring such into the 'fold'. (I shudder!)
I take the position of Mark Twain on this: suppose you were an idiot, then suppose you were a (to paraphrase) a member of modern society . . . but I repeat myself.
I'm not concerned about being a lone dreamer in some egg or tomb merely dreaming: I'm alone.
I think I can know this for certain in taking delight in the excellency of thoughts OF OTHERS that I freely adopt as they do delight, but which my little 'me' didn't create nor have anything to do with those who did create or fashion them.
At the same time, I can accomodate the idea that in all expression there may be a common impulse inward, common and 'general'.
My great fear? That I should attempt to live as if 'generalisms' could in any way repair my home or grow my plants or mow my grass and so leave off doing my daily chores. They are my very delight.
And my most fervent hope and prayer? That all should have such or accessibility to such. And I'm fully aware merely 'wishing' such is meaningless and merely writing, while still an 'act', can also be relatively meaningless.
So, to sum up: Idealism grows as we learn of other idealizers' ideals, and rather than 'worship' the other thinkers, graft their 'product' onto our body of THOUGHT. And so, we realize: we live in a world of THINKERS who, by personal effort, put their ideals into action yet amenable to GROWTH. Such a collectivity, such a 'body' I am most happy to say: glad to be member of such while reserving the right to part company at any time when any 'slippage' of rigorousness of thinking and self-examination should become 'popular'. I don't see that, though in you and most of the thinkers here. I'm close to it though in seeing anyone excluded en toto without a publically accessible rationale. I refer, of course, to cj's current status: 'unverified'. I find this simply: odious.
---------
ABC; 123: Let's
thanks again
Jumping with closed eyes
For at least 4000 years a deep ideological conflict has existed between two opposite maps of existence.
Staying with the symbols of the matrix films one map says that: 'The-Matrix-is-reality'; the other says that: "Neo, Morpheus-and-the-other-freed-humans-are-reality'.
The propaganda-aspects of this ideological conflict has been, and still is, intensive. E.g.:
"Don't eat from the tree of knowledge (=gnosis). Eat from the tree of life (=cosmos)". (Genesis)
or, from the other camp:
"Error elaborated its own Matter (=cosmos) in the Void (=chaos), without knowing Truth (=gnosis)". (Gospel of Truth)
(My inserts)
It makes it kind of tough to make a leap, if you don't know which direction, you're going to jump. And IF you decide to choose jump-direction on faith alone, there's a 50% chance, that you're wrong.
Faith isn't all, what it's made up to be (2-3000 different faiths can't ALL be right?). A broader base is advisable. But ooops, I forgot, .....we're not supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge. Nice little loop, isn't it?
So no matter what they say, the earth IS flat. And if you get too close to the edge, you'll get your leap, whether you want it or not.
That's
an excellent analysis of dichotomy.
This has been explored a little (with infinite variations it seems impossible to say anything but 'little') in literature and science-fiction especially.
So the 'whoops' factor is presumably Adam's after he sees the truth of the voice he heard.
Some folk from within the putative business of 'scripture writing', in commentary, this idea of the three-dee world as a mere niche in the spectrum of personal consciousness, let alone any 'all', seems to suggest that all we have to do is toss off all materiality in one joyous 'letting go' of it.
You and others have mentioned the Mahayanists and the various subsets of 'Buddhism' (where there is an argument that 'Buddhism' refers to working on the 'budh' or 'intelligence', not referring to Siddhartha) there are these stories of people who just go: poof!
They are actually gone body and all. Maybe they leave something that can be easily regrown like a tooth or a finger nail or some hair as 'talisman' that they once 'were'.
Same in our Hebrew lore with regard to Enoch: 'he walked with That, and was not.'
I see that movie the 'matrix' as kind of dark rendition of the basic fears some people have who explore and who may have run across the ideation behind 'mandala' as fundemental (the 'flat world' if circumscribed) and anything to do with so-called 'first principles'.
Therein more than likely one might fall into certain 'loops' that seem to take over the brain and result in real 'solipsistic' and irrational fears.
Someone said that reasoning can result in painting oneself into a corner and I think that has actually been recognized in various schools of discipline in yoga and actually everywhere, I've noticed. Modern brain science shows we do develop our brains rather 'unevenly', suggesting we selectively go to various modes as if by habit. Just looking at this, it occured to someone that when fear strikes: think of sex! or something else. I think Pollyanna promotes this rather pragmatic approach, doesn't she? Same with Scarlet OHara: I'll think about that tomorrow!
Who says the brain is 'finished' with say even 80 years of life?
At least one Gnostic text deals with the wonderment as to why some 'get it' and others 'don't': There are those who know, others who don't is the shorthand way of avoiding such loops. The Hindus, even with their frankness about both reincarnation and transmigration, have attempted to set this problem aside as well, but with a lot more detail and internal apologetics. Evidently not fully satisfactory to their stepchild: Mahayanism.
The Vashishtha text: MahaYoga or supposedly a subset of Ramayana goes into exacerbating detail about this very thing.
You can go from where you are to a different dimension as to where you also are and 'save the day'; or even just face merely a variation of the same problems. In the case of that books version of this, at least once, a woman who has become enlightened wants to save her husband also after the fact he died. Her teacher, Saraswati no less, says: no problem: just go here, reverse the prior circumstances or rather, engage before the tragedy, and then manifest that back here. TIME TRAVEL! in a piece known to be at least 700 years old!
They claim in was orally transmitted long before being written down. Someone once attempted to test if this could be believed: that the entire text of such a big book could be extracted from memory. Several examples were adduced. I forget where. (
I wonder how well this ancient-writer's (there seem to have been many 'vashishthas' as demonstrated by changes in writing styles in this collection (I can hear the roars of disapproval of some of our Hindu friends, since the meter is rather fixed and stringent. But we do say the same about the supposed 'collected works' of Shakespeare too, on the same grounds) sidewalk was swept or if the dishes got done? Or the million-and-one everday chores that must be done to keep a house up?
You get my point(s) I'm sure.
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go!<
Re: Roger
Hi Roger,
thanks for your post. It really forced me to blow the cobwebs from my thinking, I've been a bit mentally lazy of late. A few general comments, before I get to the essential.
It's my impression, that you, like cj, use a kind of shorthand american english. It can be a bit difficult for me to follow at times. So I can only hope I got it right.
I'm not familiar with finer details of hindu or veda philosophy. Only the general principles.
What voice did Adam hear? I have no associations to this.
Back to our present subject (including some of what you wrote on your latest post on Martel's thread). And for reasons of space I'll this time occasionally skip how I arrive at my conclusions. Should any reader later express a wish for an 'explanation' from me, I'll do my best to answer.
I have formerly said, that the initial conditions of cosmos implies a growing rate of complexity in its parts, which eventually has lead to what we call complex life (organic and inorganic). This has created a foodpyramid, or a foodchain, where the more complex forms are restricted to levels of complexity not too far below their own for 'foodsources'. E.g. plants can 'eat' directly from the soil, animals must eat plants, predators only other animals etc. 'Food' can in the context of more complex beings mean not only matter, but also energy.
Based on many human experiences, it would be a mistake to believe, that humanity is at the top of the foodchain. I'm fairly sure, that there exist e.g. inorganic complex beings 'above' us in the foodchain. These inorganic beings use human energy as 'food' (most likely emotions).
The structure of cosmos can thus be seen to be a predatory hierachy (an idea closely resembling the socalled 'strong anthropic principle'), when it manifests at the level of complexity. This is an important point, when we consider the cosmological implications. Why did the initial conditions in cosmos favour a predatory evolution instead of a symbiotic one. Predation doesn't create happy universes.
But first we must look at complexity itself. The physicist Schroedinger suggested, that complexity is a mechanism producing 'negative enthropy'. In normal language this means, that the enthropy which eventually will terminate cosmos, is slowed down by negative enthropy. This is done by 'separating' the various energies and forces regulating cosmos. And complexity, or complex beings, do this job. We're simply sophisticated 'separators', like those machines used for separating milk from cream, and our main function is to keep cosmos running. (Maybe we're ALSO here in cosmos to adore the creator or even have some fun on the way, but only as a sidetrack then).
I find this theory convincing. But there's more to it.... This negative enthropy mechanism isn't 'energy-efficient'. The total outcome of it will be more enthropy, not less, because of the unavoidable energy-loss in the process.
Predation instead of symbiosis? Predation is a faster evolutionary tool.
Is a picture of cosmos and the intent inherent in it beginning to emerge? Cosmos is a blueprint of guiding principles, which has been superimposed on chaos. But it isn't up to the job, chaos trickles through and will eventually free itself of the cosmoc blueprint. The mechanism to prevent this reversal to chaos, complexity, is worse than useless. My own conclusion is, that the intent in, or 'behind', the cosmic blueprint doesn't master the art of universe-creation very well. This 'intent' isn't omniscient, and is not representative of ultimate reality (whatever that is).
Now to the nature of the cosmic blueprint itself. Chaos 'exists', it's not a total vacum, as the uninformed postulates. As chaos doesn't contain elements of space/time, matter/energy or forces regulating it, it will naturally be outside the possibility of observation by cosmic (cosmos) perception. Science tells us, that cosmos essentially is emanations from a basic zero-point situation, and that it (cosmos) isn't the physical matter-manifestations we experience with our normal perception mechanisms.
So how can something, being non-existent physical matter, be experienced AS physical matter. Personally I find, that the idea of the cosmos blueprint as a 'dream', an illusion, an awareness hologram, Maya, Mara is a good answer. I will identify the scientific concept 'chaos' with the buddhistic 'mind'. This 'Mind' has been invaded by the dream of 'cosmos'.
Finally: To wake from this cosmos dream, it will be necessary to go 'beyond' its origin. As the 'Intent' in the cosmic dream seems to be incompetent, the point of awakening from the dream will be in true transcendence. That would be my leap.
Most likely this post will p... off some readers. But I'm willing to support every single aspect of it with evidence, and furthermore take a look at the theological, ethical and experiental facets if requested.
So then Roger, I won't deny that the cosmic dream is convincing. For the duration I tolerate it as a 'lesser' reality, and yes..... I do my dishing in the meantime.
As to why some 'has it' and others not. Time for that later.
Schroedinger et al.s,
A 'multiverse', if given any -- at all -- probity, can take (a thinker can take) the convenient 'out' that a 'predator' or 'food-chain' hierarchy is but one of innumerable 'possible' universes.
Assuming we allow such, I don't see any contradiction in positing that as fellow thinkers in THIS ONE: happens to have this as a dominant 'paradigm' writ: 'practical reality'.
So: the issue becomes: does it need be so?
In perusing all the various systems of thought available, which is what any 'systems analyst' worth her or his 'salt' must needs do . . . amongst this spectrum of alternative ways of thinking and doing is one 'least harmful' supposedly.
So we have looked at so-called 'breatharians' and their bases for claims of living on 'prana'.
And this format seems to have practically nothing to do with conscious systems appropriated in terms of 'beliefs'.
They eat not. nor drink: yet thrive.
Naturally any scientist would like to investigate such things and sift-out the conditions that might allow such even after finding some demonstrable facts: did they really not eat or drink?
So we can sift further: is such phenomenon(s) really 'wed' to what they believe or intellectually THINK or hold as 'dogmas'?
So when we find such across the board of various belief systems: more sifting required!
The partitioning of practical accomplishments versus co-existant and maybe mere 'epiphenomena' merely co-incident with something emanating from something deeper: we are tempted to think or say: they could have done this without all the 'voodoo'/hoodoo' and complex systems or 'non-system'atic ways of their conscious thinking processes. Maybe if they had not thought at all: could have done it much better! even.
Well, maybe not if we deem all 'faculties' or 'departments' we conveniently create personally to just 'function' or survive the shock of living in THIS particular 'whirl'.
I constantly fight my own 'inertia' or proclivity to go forward with incompletely dissected or understood impulses based, maybe, on prior error(s).
I presume this the 'work'.
'Vacuum' is even just a classical or Newtonian-only 'relativistic' term.
That a radio wave can traverse the simple distance between earth and moon, or video signals, whatever . . . and that many different highly complex 'vibrations' can so do and yet be rendered via 'telemetry' into 'intelligible' signals or translated into 'readable' signals automatically tells us 'vacuum' is a convenient fiction.
'It' is full, yet readibly filterable and capable of being 'read' by 'selection' and evidently is more than 'empty'.
A 'plenum', with discernable information. And maybe not just signals reducible to merely 'mechanism'. I don't have any problem with seeing even consciousness as such a 'mechanism' or medium or tool. As to what the nature of the 'users' consist: I'd only guess: a higher form of medium and being. I'll allow others to decide if that merely other level, as I deem it, is some 'personal' or a 'general' reality. I have to go on first hand experiences. Mine tells me utility is everyone's right. We are not subject to anyone elses might.
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go!<
Butterflies and observers
Quantum weather butterflies and observer-created existence are red herrings, preventing us from fully using the potential in the uncertainty principle.
It'll take quite a few butterflies to make more than a few cc big storm, and if Bogomil stopped observing the universe, it would go on existing. After all there would still be some zillion other observers around to keep it going.
So I prefer to consider most poofing as a consequence of humanity's inability to percieve 99% of cosmos. Most poofing is 'natural'.
When it comes to 'truth', we DO make the dishes, which is a kind of lesser truth. We can use science, religion and philosophy the same approximative way, until we directly are able to percieve a reality which is not so approximative. It has happened, you know, though Mara, the archons and that crowd try to keep it a secret.
Atlas
The story of 'Atlas' seems can be taken as a bit of ancient psychological understanding re processes typical. Not 'typical' as a criticism, either, but simply that every wakening thinker can undergo a wide variety of pitfalls or side-tracks or cul-de-sacs, etc.
And 'archons' and 'oversouls' and terms like that reflect somewhat of Blavatsky and the Theosophical School and maybe somewhat of Rudolph Steiner.
"Mara" is a Hindu term consisting of the same letters as Rama in reverse, and the prolific lore and commentary about that has two schools that render either as personality or principles and that is an endless conversation all by itself.
I don't know about any 'secret'.
the truth will out one way or another.
I think the driving force behind any idea is someone's personal will.
I think there is propaganda out there, no doubt, that stems from some 'insider trading' kind of impulse that would like people to mis-interpret any accessible line of thinking by any means so as to preserve personal advantages to kith or kin or cult or 'guild'.
Doesn't stop any thinker from sourcing and analysing sources and applying judiciousness and measure so as to reduce these things to some form of asssessment as to conditions or psychologies or personal forces that promoted them.
What is this but typical 'sizing up'?
I think someone analyzed Blavatsky and determined that she was a frustrated sci-fi writer who also was very widely read in the 'big-thing' of the day: spiritism or 'spiritualism' as a publishing genre.
Yet others felt she lived in the 'astral' where all bets are off, since such is akin to dream, yet with a tinge of 'these are facts!'
Well, then, so: all things do exist! Purple cows, 'black crows' are really 'white' (when you pluck em), etc. etc.
Well, I've never seen a 'purple cow', and as the ditty goes: I'd rather see than be one.
I think experiences of synchonicity and the idea that often occurs with such: somebody is doing stuff here: unseen, but 'behind the scenes' drives people into a tizzy attempting to develop an intelligible 'handle' on the situation.
Pretty soon, though, following along those lines it has been proven by many biographies and autobiographies this form of 'pigeon-holing' experiences can result in the thinker looking over the shoulder constantly and feeling 'put upon' and ending in a finalized state or conclusion. An 'enemy' is there.
Then this problem arises: yet various promoters die and are buried and the 'thingy' goes on.
Well, then! Must be some 'archtype' or 'spirit' or THE DEVIL (as person or maybe just a collective influence of many such thoughts or crowd of such thinkers out of body . . . etc.)
Baloney.
We have to begin to see that deriving probative facts from prior myths and ancient ways of recording information or even just creative imagination don't necessarily translate facilely to our present culture of methods of thinking and writing and recording facts.
It would be anachronistic to return to methods of 'intelligence' that had currency once, but whose lexicon whereby such were understandable and translatable is as of today: gone.
Maybe, though, we can figure that stuff out.
It is an 'x' in a real algebraic sense that accordion-like can be unfolded to reveal numerous simple things even a child can, and I belive children do, understand.
So, I put 'Mara' and/or 'The' devil, and many other such: right alongside 'Barney', the purple dinosaur.
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go!<
Devils, dishbrushes and doubt
So it seems, that we're back to the question I've asked on and off: "How do we evaluate ANYTHING?".
Does science 'explain' the multitude of demons, devils, djinns, archons etc experienced by people from different times or cultures as biochemical phenomena or psychological aberrations?
Does the school of the buddhistic maya or the theory of cosmos as a hologram 'explain' science as being an illusion?
Does economical theories 'explain' the present economic crisis better than a theory of a 'secretly' orchestrated maneuver?
And how comes, that I can use a dishbrush without first having to go through a period of existential uncertainty, but take it more or less for granted?
These are the real questions. Not if 'god' is 'dog' spelled backwards. Such is ideas about ideas.
Heh! Yeh! Good one!
I know what you mean . . . I think.
Taken one way: I evaluate only from my own current state of understanding. My evaluations are constantly changing as I learn more, read more. I think it not inapropriate to maintain a wish to have certain 'inalienable' rights.
I've been immersed in reading history for a while:
History of language. History of law. History of philosophy, history of our States and Its evolution, history of economics, history of 'metaphysics' (both classical 'metaphysic' and current popular conceptions of such) and history of physics.
I guess I'm a 'history' buff.
I'm finding in your writing something typical of you: You don't ask easy questions of you readers.
I'm only one, but have thus far found myself enriched by your positings and queries and speculations.
And assuming the position that what you wrote above is not rhetorical, but sincere:
The big question of the day is: what are 'natural rights' versus 'civil' rights?
Because this also refers back to a statement you made about 'solipsism'.
While there is any chance that 'reality' is a 'community' project it seems likely that positing any 'ultimate' way of evaluating anything: arguable.
Thinkers have this momentus task: first to think or ponder from current conditions. To then evaluate their own individual reactions to such.
Reaction evidently can be categorized into one of at least three major trends (not necessarily in any specific order):
1) Agreed upon and happily accepted;
2) Disliked;
) Neutral or having no concern one way or another.
In only the first two is it likely any action will be forthcoming.
In the first case: how can it be improved or augmented?
In the second case: how can it be improved or ameliorated?
I for one don't think there are 'natural rights'.
Rights are ever issues of THOUGHT.
Civilization has evolved and certain issues of social combination with thinking beings through the process of speech and writing and collective memories or history allow us to do the first two things: augment goods or ameliorate evils.
Thus, as long as we have this as an 'environmental' condition: other thinkers and their actions: we are, all of us, compelled to have to SAY, WRITE and be involved outside the comfort of our homes and private lives.
That is 'community service'. I wouldn't even as of this moment call that even a 'right'. I call it a necessity.
Else: we might let mad-people run over all that has as of yet been accomplished that is actually good or even very good.
At any 'divine moment': such would never be an issue.
Since we could just alter time and circumstances to our whimsy or just disappear from view.
Maybe that is an option for some 'masters' or some 'master race'!
I would guess that that might proliferate the numbers of the 'heavens' or 'dimensions' and 'talking' or 'arguing' is no longer required: the undesired will be sequestered away. Maybe even by simply 'tuning' such out.
That might be a way for some to realize 'perfection'.
Ignoring wrongs and injustices and whatevers.
Some may think their preferred 'way' should be universally recognized as a 'right'!
Then, because most will say nothing against such: the spectrum of information is limited and the 'squeeky wheel' will get the oil or oil their palms with their special advantages because they spoke loudest, and we said nothing.
Did nothing. Only groaned or mourned privately.
To sum up, then: I evaluate from my current state of understanding and learning. And reserve another right: to change my mind as either improves or simply increases.
I don't know in any 'absolute' sense other than this (absolutely just ME): outside any intellectual sense or any current state of possession of data something in me can sense what is kind and nice and fair and truthful. Outside any personal power of 'reason'. And if I'm any example I can at least say: this can be highly frustrating. To feel something is not right or not just or not true but still: to be unable to say, exactly, why.
Then cagier, mayber, others will just laugh. I think in a voting system, most of the time, this is what goes on and maybe those who run rely on such non-verbal sentiments as manipulable and swayable on the basis of appearances lone or 'sound bytes'.
It is ABSOLUTELY our responsibility to LEARN TO ARTICULATE all the compartments or faculties of our self-conscious BEING. Even if our 'valuation' may not be any 'gold standard'. How could it be?
When we can't say why we are against something: what do we do?
Let other's decide?
---------
ABC; 123: Let's Go
A kind of answer
Disregarding the more absurd new-agey interpretations of an 'observer-created universe', our universe (chaos AND cosmos) contains various intrinsic qualities. Sadly, human receptors and functions (be they physical senses, emotions or intellect) for recieving and processing information about the universe, are in our present state insufficient. What we end up with are small, disconnected bits of 'map of territory'.
Some of these map-bits are actually quite good and describe their territory relatively precisely, and can be used for 'local' navigation inside the territory of the map-bit.
But in between such map-bits we have big areas of uncharted territory. A common human fallacy is then to expand your favourite method for informationgathering and -processing to fill out the white spots on the greater map. E.g. using a 'faith-map' for expaining everything, an intellectual map explaining emotions or transcendence etc. Obviously this won't function untill we reach a level of at-one-ment (cessation of dualism). A situation where we have a 'grand unified theory' for relating to existence.
All this sounds very intellectual, academic or abstract, but 'maps' are not only intellectual. Our social, genetic and acquired spiritual maps also guide us through existence, but on a awareness-level so low, that we usually aren't observant about it.
If we rely only on disconnected map-bits, the outcome is often conflict. An honest individual will experience an inner split, not knowing what's up or down. From fundamentalists with missionary tendencies different greater maps (of 'everything') will emerge as a false 'grand unified theories', and social conflict will follow.
The first important thing isn't to argue about which map-bit, method or even less which 'grand unified theory' is correct, but to find a methodology for leading us out of this blind alley.
Formerly I have used a jigsaw puzzle allegorically to describe my favourite methodology, but I will try with a new one, which is more down to earth and maybe more useful. Consider all the disconnected map-bits as a result of left-brain activity. Such map-bits usually originate from some belief-system assumptions which linear'ly lead to certain conclusions. E.g. MY 'holy book' says it all; non-empirical observations are invalid; love is all we need etc.
Plant in your mind not only the idea of your own favourite 'reality map-bit', but also those 'reality map-bits' threatening it. Lean back, start 'floating' (=alpha state) and let the right-brain take over. If you can do this successfully, a pattern between all the map-bits will eventually emerge. This is a valuable first step towards a 'grand unified theory' for relating to existence.
You can then go back into your usual tunnel-reality and hopefully readjust it somewhat. E.g. by taking a leap out of some of the routine-filters, which sofar has been a prison.
For some this may sound a bit selfcontradictory with my other thoughts, so let me state, that my aim isn't to preach tolerance. I still reserve my right to say NO, when needed. The above mentioned suggestion is only meant as a personal experiment, which possibly can lead to filling white spots on the map.
As usual I have skipped some explanations on the way, as I suppose most of the readers here are familiar with the more basic aspects of 'reality-maps', 'floating', left/right brain activity, the possibility of conscious, personal changes on many levels etc.
letting go..
Well after I wake I usually ask myself why I had such a dream I ask myself why was I so scared, then it hit me like a lightning bolt. The unknown friend was also me, and the dream.. was my dream my construct, I made him zigzag effortlessly though traffic. Even though I know this on an intellectual level the part of me still finds it hard to let go . But thank to this dream I am now aware of this fear and I confront it every time I say "Well this is impossible I cant do this thing or that. I remember this dream.
Letting go is the hardest thing to do even when you are awakened to the fact that only you limit yourself.
Mountain-moving
is all very well in theory, but you don't see much of it nowadays.
So with the risk of contradicting some fake-zen or new-age clichées, I would suggest, that starting with moderate miracles and working your way up, will turn out to be the most realistic.
E.g. by finding out who you are, where you are, and what you actually can do. Just this is for most people a lifetime project, especially if their specific manual for reality is written in Enoch'ian; translated to Korean by someone, who neither masters Enoch'ian nor Korean very well and is for a completely different universe.