The Winding Path – 130

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

2015-04-13 11:19

Wanderobo Axolotl –  “Why are you saying it is a myth? I thought quantum mechanics both in theory and in experiment demonstrated conclusively that at the submicroscopic level ‘observations’ or ‘subjectivity’ changes what has not yet been into what it is but only when it is observed. “

Since there is this phenomena of the observer as well as that which is observed, an understanding of reality must accommodate it.

A purely objective universe without awareness does not exist.

I also do not subscribe to “supernatural” anything. Reality and nature are the same thing.

I started to read about this “Schrodinger’s cat” business but decided not to court the headache. Sorry, though if you want to paraphrase for me, how it might relate to my statements above, I will happily study on that.

2015-04-13 11:75

brmckay – ” … Especially if the person explaining the non existence of “Jesus” is the same one who established the existence of “Jesus” in the first place. (or at least participated in the process.)”

Carol Lynn – “I call bullshit. Very few children are traumatized by finding out that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are not real. The parents certainly participated in establishing the existence of these entities in their children’s minds. Why should ‘Jesus’ get any more traction if a non-believing parent explains that while many people believe that he’s real, there’s no actual evidence that any gods exist? Religious traditions can be fun to participate in, and there is no need to stop the fun parts, but so is putting baby teeth under a pillow for the Tooth Fairy to exchange for cash.

I think formal apologetics may be beyond a five year old, but teaching kids to spot logical fallacies is always a good idea and can start at a young age.”

Not sure which aspect of my comment you consider bullshit.

That it is “hard” to explain. Or, that the “non-existence” of the beloved old friend is an unwarranted assumption.

You realize of course, that the cultivation of the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny storylines are conscious acts of pretend on the part of the parents.

On the other hand…

The cultivation of a mythic framework for contemplation and reverence in ones offspring is entirely different.

It is something we do to give them context for their experience, and a sense of meaning.

One wants to assume, that the parent at least desires, to transmit something close to what they understand, in real time.

2015-04-13 13:32


Ryan Bell (responding to Paul) – “The Christians that got involved in abolition, and even lead the movement, did so right as the culture was starting to question slavery, not because of the Bible or anything God has revealed.”

When you were religious, and there was a need for character transformation, did you really imagine God as an old guy in the sky, pointing out chapter and verse in a book to make it happen?

Why would you do that now? (even in the negative)

2015-04-14 10:04

DavidMHart – ” i.e. are you claiming that the probability of his existence is exactly 50%? And would you apply that same estimate to other legendary or divine entities, like the Angel Moroni, Melek Taus or Quetzalcoatl? What are you basing your probability estimates on?”

My statement was definitely more poetical than mathematical in nature.

We all have much to learn. And my preference is to leave the doors wide open.

Trusting to potential and innate genius. Which “hath brought us safe thus far”.

And yes, I have not expressed a localized ownership of these qualities. (i.e. Not said, “our potential and innate genius”. Or assigned them to Jesus or Quetzalcoatl.)

2015-04-14 11:25

DavidMHart  – “Okay, I hope this doesn’t come across as rude, but I’m having trouble making sense of what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the existence of Jesus is exactly as likely as his non-existence? If not, what did you mean by ‘Neither existence or non-existence is more certain than the other’?

As for leaving doors wide open, sure I have no problem with that in principle, but where two claims are incompatible, then they eat up two different chunks of probability mass. If A and B are the only two logical possibilities, you cannot raise your likelihood estimate of A without lowering your likelihood estimate of B, since the total combined probability is at most 100%. We may be mistaken in our probability estimates, but at least we are keeping ourselves intellectually honest if we make sure that the combined sum doesn’t exceed certainty – I.e. it cannot be simultaneously very likely that Jesus exists and very likely that he doesn’t. So if your estimate is not 50/50, despite what your comment seemed to imply, then I’d be curious as to what your estimate actually is of the likelihood that Jesus exists.”


Let’s not hurt ourselves here. Our standards, criteria and lexicons are too far apart.

But I will ask, What do you mean by “Jesus existing”?

Or, even more to the point, what does it mean to exist, and from whose vantage point is existence interpreted?

Myself, I honor the horizon line. Logic and reason can only go so far.

2015-04-14 13:53

(Responding to DavidMHart)

I can’t assume what degree of theological sophistication was in play.

Some people have indeed created a deity out of Jesus, but I consider that excessively primitive.

On the other hand, I have no problem interpreting his statement that “I and the Father are One”.

And, since the term “Father” here, references God. The question of existence and non-existence is moot. God being Existence and the potential of it. Including that which exists in the relative sense of the word. (i.e. our experience of things.)

In other words the life of the carpenter/messiah shows us the TRUTH of our own Self.

I’m not trying to be evasive, just to honestly represent this view.

I’ll refer the thread back to the original comment now. I know I’m starting to loose track of the context for all these quotes.  Perhaps others are as well.

2015-04-14 14:39

Carol Lynn – “Children can outgrow Jesus as they get older, exactly the same way we all understand they will outgrow Santa.”

You assume they should. Right? (So why am I being called “narrow-minded”?)

To be clear, I am aware that there are as many storylines going on about Jesus as there are people who have heard the name.

Yours being one of them.

Personally, I find the cacophony of opinion very distracting, and usually frequent other pastures.

2015-04-14 16:23

(Responding to DavidMHart)

I get the impression that your experience of religious thought is limited largely to the Abrahamic traditions and primarily Christianity.

That would NOT be the case with me. I have much more affinity to those traditions that reduce the impact of dualistic thinking on our experience.

Therefore the confusion that you describe is probably a result of my unfamiliar monism.


For some reason you are strategically keeping me off balance with unacknowledged points.

I have a question for YOU. Why would one consider a multitude of universes rather than the aggregate of All as Universe?

Infinitude is the whole point. It brings everything into focus.

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 129

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

2015-04-10 14:30

(Responding to Guest)

Perhaps it is time for Christianity to encourage the faithful to open their hearts and minds to the oceans of the worlds scripture. See what gifted sages from other cultures besides descendants of Abraham have seen.

India, and China come to mind.

Once familiar with contemplation and experience over millennia. The articulation of non-limited and eternal reality becomes second nature.

We learn to translate, separating wheat from chaff and the thread of gold running through the Bible rings True. This is because God is ever present everywhere. Always. Here and Now.

The tradition in question though, has maintained a particularly heavy layer of the primitive, dualistic, ethnocentric and proprietary.

And so, lain down many a false trail.

Very nicely said.I especially liked your summary.

ctcss – “Basically, trying to approach religion in a serious manner is a non-trivial undertaking.”

One critique that I will make regards an earlier statement,…

“In addition (and probably far more importantly), it would be helpful if those of us who consider ourselves to be religious did our best to develop our relationship with God, learn something of God’s nature (i.e. all-good and all-loving), and then strive to do our utmost to understand and follow God to the best of our ability.”

This is (IMO) mostly pretty solid, but when you say “(i.e. all-good and all-loving)”, it reflects one of the unnecessarily confusing side effects of God as Other. i.e. the dualistic relationship of God and “his” creation.

God as the All, is neither good or bad. Neither loves or hates. Those conditions reside in our hearts. They are diminutive polarities born from our relative experience. Which in turn gets it’s nature from the nature of God as All. (Perfectly aware of It’s own self.)

It is the process of growing close to God as All, that awakens in us the absolute prototype from which these sets of perfectly complementary pairs are derived.

If, as you say we engage the transformation in a “a serious manner”.

2015-04-10 16:06

JedRothwell – “… The Bible was written by barbaric people. That’s all there is to it. There is no mystery. None of it has anything to do with God’s will, because God does not exist. “

Nothing that you have said actually warrants concluding that “God does not exist” (or that nothing warrants the status of God). It only shows the discerning reader that you yourself have no better grasp on things than our “barbaric ancestors” had.

What you are describing is an “attitude”. You have chosen to amplify scorn in place of reverence. This is a choice. Nothing more.

(Responding to JedRothwell)

Thank you for your direct and honest response.It seems a notch above the usual evasive surliness I’ve had to process recently.

Just for the record, I never think of myself as Christian. Just someone who looks everywhere for evidence of that Universal principal called Dharma.

I was not referring to the Bible when I used the term reverence.

As for myth. Those cultural dreams the species passes through, millennia upon millennia. They are as essential to our humanity as mastery of mathematics or reason.

However, neither grasping at them as certainties, or trying to eradicate them is helpful.

With awareness and intention, they are the catalyst by which we become integrated in the All. Shed the layers of limitation. Return to the beginning and see it for the first time.

2015-04-11 10:20

(Responding to JedRothwell)

You have illustrated perfectly what I meant by “grasping at them (specific myths) as certainties”.

As for “they are dying off on their own”; No, they are changing. Moving on. Like a river of images and much needed meaning. They are evolving.

For instance, there is a myth currently entertained by many atheistic scientists that there is an absolutely objective reality independent of any subjective aspect.

This too will pass. Simply because it hasn’t answered the primal question.

2015-04-11 09:58

Aaron Rational – “I think all of these religions suffer from the same issues. The scriptures, the books they all refer to are old, primitive and full of wild superstition and conjecture (even Buddhism is full of ridiculous theories about rebirth, devas, hell realms, etc). 

Hinduism, the same.Sorry, but although I believe silent contemplation is valuable, I feel it is “prescriptive” not “descriptive.”

Looking to any ancient religious architecture to explain life is a mistake.”

“Looking to any ancient religious architecture to explain life is a mistake.”


The Universality of the Tao remains unchanged.

The Father and the Son. Not different. One.

Tat Tvam Asi.

2015-04-11 10:40

Ignorant Amos – “Whaaa?

Tat Tvam Asi?

Major Vedantic schools offer different interpretations of the phrase:

Advaita – absolute equality of ‘tat’, the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, and ‘tvam’, the Self, Atman.

Shuddhadvaita – oneness in “essence” between ‘tat’ and individual self; but ‘tat’ is the whole and self is a part.

Vishishtadvaita – identity of individual self as a part of the whole which is ‘tat’, Brahman.

Dvaitadvaita – equal non-difference and difference between the individual self as a part of the whole which is ‘tat’.

Dvaita of Madhvacharya – “Sa atmaa-tat tvam asi” in Sanskrit is actually “Sa atma-atat tvam asi” or “Atman, thou art not that”. In refutation of Mayavada (Mayavada sata dushani), text 6, ‘tat tvam asi” is translated as “you are a servant of the Supreme (Vishnu)”

Acintya Bheda Abheda – inconceivable oneness and difference between individual self as a part of the whole which is ‘tat’.”

Beautiful list but what is your point?

I see many fingers pointing at the moon.

Of course, if you think the moon cannot exist, then differently punctuated digits all pointing upwards, might seem like a dance for fools.

(Responding to Ignorant Amos)

I take it that maintaining a balanced perspective is not a virtue in your scheme of things.

What are your thoughts on soup kitchens and hospice care? Outreach to gang members? Or Christmas in April?

Most people despise villainy and homicide on their own lack of merit. I would like to add generalized scapegoating to the list.

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 128

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

(Responding to Notagod)

You keep leaving subjective experience out of what you call the Universe.

Just where do you suppose you or I fit into the picture.

I’m curious what the justification for this is, in the circles you run in? Or is it completely unconscious?

As for testing and confirming; Just how is that done if the experience is subjective?

Purely objective reality is as much a myth as anything on your list of improbables.

Your statement….

” …the actual reality of the universe remains unchanged regardless of how humans perceive it.”

…can not be true. Universe means Universe. All phenomena and underlying potential.

It’s really perplexing just how much traction the “flat world” version gets among those who should know better.

Think about it.

(addendum: Upon reflection on my part, it is true that the universe remains unchanged no matter how humans perceive it, but only when it is understood as the Singularity. Absolute Infinitude. The Entirety.

However I’m pretty sure that this is not what you meant.)

2015-04-09 08:53

Notagod – ” ‘So let’s let it rest’?

Ok, so let’s slow it down a bit. Do you think that human perceptions alone can change anything beyond the orbit of the planet Jupiter? Please note that the orbit of the planet Jupiter is very (very very?) small when compared to the observable Universe, letting alone anything of the order you are suggesting with singularity, absolute infinitude, and the like.

I’m not intending to ignore the content of your reply I just want to make sure you really want to go there.”

Putting sensors in orbit around Pluto of course. But this isn’t really pertinent to any point I’ve made so far.

Why are you asking me this?

Back to apples and oranges.

And, as regards singularity, size doesn’t matter.

2015-04-09 10:16

Notagod – “I still want to be on the research team that studies you as now you are able to put sensors in orbit around Pluto by perception alone, you are truly a unique individual.

Because I suspect you’ve redefined Universe to exclude anything that doesn’t occur in the space between your ears. Apples and oranges indeed! Agreed upon definitions of words need to matter for communication to occur.

I need to stop, since Peter’s recent post I’ve totally lost what little interest I had in your silly game, it has become completely insignificant.”

Oy Vey!

2015-04-09 09:33

Kevin Osborne (responding to Notagod) – You are welcome to peruse that website to see how thoroughly I have examined this reality.”


Notagod (reaponding to Kevin Osborne) – “See there? Your weren’t able to change reality even with your best thoughts that you could. Incidentally, I think reality would be a lot better if there were no people exploiting fools and yet you still exist so it isn’t working for me either.”

Rescuing fools in his case.

Without an integrated comprehension of our absolute interconnectedness, your version of science will lead us like lemmings into the abyss. Right along side the other sociopathic jihadists.

Hubris is a blissful and exciting ignorance. Until it isn’t.

And faulting Kevin Osborne for raising the bar is just evidence of work yet to be done.

Kevin Osborne (responding to Notagod ) – “Early in one’s look into more, it is easy to feel attacked and to strike out. This is a function of feeling we are exploitable and therefore victims. Our freedom here lies in our personal willingness to move, which includes perceiving places to go to. Since it is choice made more or less consciously, being more conscious seems useful. Folks tend to be more reasonable and happy with choices and the striking out tends to fade. My experience.”
Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 127

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

brmckay – “Where did all this come from?  I’m sure you have some answer but why would it be more viable than any myth, metaphor or scriptural explanation.  It satisfies you and that is what matters but is also all that can be said.”


Notagod – “It came as a reply to the comment above it.

Myth and scripture have problems relating to current reality. That’s why they require metaphor to even make it out of the realm of unbelievable nonsense, although, they still often retain the character on nonsense even with the metaphor giving its all to the effort.

Reality doesn’t care if I am satisfied with it, all that matters to me is that I try to understand it and do the best I can without disregarding it.”

Sorry about the ambiguous first line. I was mentally waving my hand across an imaginary horizon when I wrote it.

As a result the remainder of my comment also got off on the wrong foot.

Though the satisfaction I was referring to was your’s, not reality’s, that part of your response is interesting.

“Reality doesn’t care if I am satisfied with it, all that matters to me is that I try to understand it and do the best I can without disregarding it.”

The assumption that there is no feedback loop between our aspirations, deeds and dreams does not match my experience.

So I can’t concur.

If I want to walk across the room, it usually happens. This phenomena is an example. The complete spectrum of possibility is as yet unexplored.

I find that the universe is malleable, restrictions seem to be imposed by my habits and expectations. These in turn can be changed or removed.

Notagod – “Your life is apparently much different than mine, color me surprised that you always get what you want and/or can always do what you want.”
Perhaps try a different lens. This type of exaggeration doesn’t help. Just makes my statements seem inane.

What I described is the type of intentional effort that one practices when the God/enlightenment thing becomes paramount.

You also could try brushing up on the concept of karma. The Sanskrit term means “work” or “action”. It is usually naively thought of as “good or bad”, but is rather, the inertia of thoughts and deeds. Cause and effect with consciousness factored in.

Isolating the subjective experience from what it considers reality is the root cause of our confusion.

This has all been said before and better. But the understanding can get lost for generations. Drowned out by residual primate passions and fears.

Hubris and addiction to novelty.

Notagod – “Well, whatever it is it certainly isn’t helping you make clearly understandable and well structured arguments. I’m not implying that my writing is better, just that yours isn’t. So what’s the point of all the fluff?”
I apologize. But mainly, this is just something that doesn’t interest you.So let’s let it rest.
Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 126

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

Wick Samuael (responding to Max Doubt) – “define ‘objective evidence'”.

Max Doubt – “Why don’t you tell me what grade you’re in there at school, and maybe I can explain it to you in a way that’s simple enough for you to understand.”

Was that your definition? Seemed more like you are stalling for time.

I suppose it would be rather difficult to provide objective evidence of God.

In that God can’t actually be objectively removed from the All. And to whom and by whom would the the evidence be provided?

So why would you ask for it?

2015-04-05 16:17

Wick Samuel (responding to Max Doubt) – “most atheists take the same approach, engage in ad-hominem instead of dealing with the argument, gesticulate, insult, scream and yell, but whatever you do, dont engage with the argument.”

That has been my experience as well. Though usually not so patently enfeebled as this fellow.

The pattern you described also applies to certain strata of theists.

It’s psychology we’re dealing with here, not specifically intelligence or lack of it.

Max Doubt – “We have some closely related, reasonably well supported explanations for the origin of the universe as we know it. To ask what created it carries with it the implicit claim that something created it. The burden would be on those who make that claim to demonstrate that something created it, because without that, it’s not even meaningful to ask what that something was.”
It exists. It’s scope and depth completely unknown and unknowable by the means you insist on. Rules that make it “meaningless” to even contemplate it.

The universe is created and sustained. The nature of that phenomena is the point.

All you are doing is ridiculing other peoples ways of thinking about it.We call it God. Pointing at thousands of gods believed, by billions of people, over tens of thousands of years, is just evidence that you are not getting it. Those names and ideas can only be considered as approximations of the actual God. Maybe you call it Reality. But that is no closer to the Truth. (and no further from it).

Max Doubt – “Given that I wrote exactly what I meant, it seems you may have a little trouble understanding plain English, too. Want me to keep it dumbed down a bit for you, too?”

Excellent….never question your own comprehension, and always assume that you are the smart one in the room.You should go far.

As for providing objective evidence of God…

“It may just be impossible considering nobody has ever done it.”
Certainly not using your criteria. But, another season in the minors will do you good. A chance to get some of the attitude out of your system.
“You can rename gods or make any undefinable imaginary connections you like, but you’re still talking about something that can’t be shown to actually exist.”

Consider that we are talking about apples and oranges.Not likely to yield results of any use.

Good luck to you.

Max Doubt – “You have no way to differentiate your god thing from any other figment of your imagination. As far as anyone outside your head can tell, it exists only in your head.”

I was talking about the universe (should have been clear from the quotation above it) why are you back on this “gods” fixation?

Try just listening for a change.

I mean, I got your point from the get go. Just found it oddly (though predictably) irrelevant to the actual question under consideration.

As for finding other people fair game for ridicule, that is an even more debilitating handicap. But I’m sure I couldn’t convince you about why it might be so. At least not at this juncture.

(Responding to Max Doubt)
The existence of the universe is precisely the evidence you require. Your difficulty in perceiving it as such, is the result of your “imagined” need of something outside to have created it.The REASONABLE way to understand what may REASONABLY be referred to as God, is that the phenomena of existence, the thing that exists and the potential to exist are all part and parcel. Nothing is outside or inside. The universe is not large or small.

Evidence that this is true, requires the transcendence of (or better, emancipation from) the objective/subjective perspective.

None of this is new. Perhaps if you read more widely I wouldn’t have to belabor the basics.

If you still need to keep beating that dead “objective evidence” horse, I’ll leave you to it.

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 125

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

Armanatar – ” the Big Bang itself was almost certainly a quantum event, and as such could have no cause, or could have a cause which occurred after itself. “

So,…this period preceding the big bang would be before time, and causality. Those phenomena being things that evolve out of a compounding back upon itself. From the development of relativity.

Would this be a rough approximation for a laypersons purposes?

And, does that timeless/non-relative condition persist? It must I guess, because you are talking about it. We are now able to investigate it. Develop mathematics, tools, and techniques to study the thing.

(From outside looking in? But that wouldn’t actually be feasible; so I must have it wrong.)

“The point is that the universe is inherently non-deterministic, though it behaves deterministically within certain parameters. There are things which cannot be predicted, not merely as a limitation of our ability, but as a limitation of the things themselves.”

Like an artist or musician engaging their process, but only up to the point of the great mystery and genius of creation.

(Spontaneous gratitude. Humble respect. Happiness.)

2015-04-04 11:05

(Responding to Theodore Seeber)
Would it stretch the paradigm to contemplate on absolute Infinitude (singularity) as the initial causal agent?


Theodore Seeber –“You can rename God however you want to.”
Yes, I know. Just wanted to emphasize a fundamental point. One that should be recognizable and hard for your opponents to dismiss. (Though strangely, it’s significance is still slow to sink in.)


Notagod (responding to Sophia Sadek) – “I don’t know of any anti-theist that advocates destroying all copies of any book. That isn’t what anti-theists are about.

Certainly, not all products created by humans are worthy of respect and I guess, contrary to your statement, that you don’t respect all products either. Also, Creators (there are many of them) were created by a collection of humans not the other way around.”

Where did all this come from?

I’m sure you have some answer but why would it be more viable than any myth, metaphor or scriptural explanation.

It satisfies you and that is what matters, but is also all that can be said.


Wick Samuel (responding to Max Doubt) – “Just go ahead and define what you mean, if I encounter any words I don’t understand i’ll look them up.
please remember, a response of ‘you’re to stupid to understand’ indicates you don’t want to explicitly state that the evidence you are demanding doesn’t make sense when we’re talking about an immaterial being, you were just throwing out a one liner you thought looked good.”
Excellent retorts.

But thinking of God as “an immaterial being” seems a bit weak.It leaves our experience in the “material” universe unexplained.

Somehow outside of that which has no outside. (or even inside if you want to get right down to it.)

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 124

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

(From Patheos blog – A Catholic Thinker – Tod Worner – “On Catholicism & Atheism…My Dogma & Yours”)
Tradition, Doctrine and Dogma can also be, and very often is, a ball and chain.

Like leaving contemplation of being and existence to scientists, waiting for the pros to tell us what God is (wants?) or how to best be, Same thing.

We risk squandering the opportunity to know.

Here and Now.

2015-04-03 12:19

Annerdr – “Very few atheists will state ‘there is no god.’ “

Maybe it is just the internet, but I have met a lot of atheists who are not in the least covert as they assure me there’s no “god” or “gods”.

Any lip service they might pay to “waiting for proof”, is heavily Teflonized in sarcasm.

Theodore Seeber (responding to Annerdr) – “natural: the events of the universe God designed that man can understand with our current level of knowledge.
supernatural: the events of the universe God designed that happen whether man can explain the event or not.
The only difference between the natural and the supernatural is OUR understanding of the event in question.
Thus the fact that anything happens at all, is proof that God exists.”
Annerdr  (responding to Theodore Seeber) – “Given those definitions, I suppose nothing is natural or supernatural, because I see no reason to suppose that god designed anything.”
(responding to Annerdr)

Ah, now you’re just being stubborn. About the use of a word.

Not really giving actual thought to the matter under discussion.

Is this then a policy of some sort? What is it’s purpose?

His explanation was well neigh perfect and instead of saying “oh, that is interesting”, you get all petulant.

“I see no reason to suppose that god designed anything.”

The word “designed” always gives me problems too, but I give Theodore Seeber free rein. Not wanting to interfere with his flow.

I want to see what he says. And am rewarded with some wisdom.

It’s as simple as that. The point he made is useful.

The adjustment that it suggests, is that God is existence.

I would add; … and, the potential to exist. All encompassing. Nothing that is outside of itself. Inside and outside is meaningless in terms of God.

The word “designed” might better be replaced with something like “manifests”. Or even “creates”.

But whatever verb we choose, it should only be in the present tense.

That is all there really is.

Alms and Patronage

Tip Jar




Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 123

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.


20150-03-25 07:03

carolyntclark – ” I just knew that without the God factor the mysteries of suffering can be explained by the randomness of nature.”

What about nature qualifies as random?

2015-03-25 07:03

carolyntclark – “chromosomal aberrations, fetal anomalies, cerebral malformation, brain chemistry imbalance, metastatic cells, endocrine disorders, immune disorders, congenital genetic disorders, myriad of syndrome afflictions, contagious diseases, and the many tragedies caused by natural disasters of fire, flood and wind.”

But, the randomness perceived is the result of attitude. Nothing is isolated from anything else.

Effects of causes. And causes of of Effects. Change.

Even Singularity and Universe.

carolyntclark – “Alleluia !!”





Alms and Patronage

If this work seems good, and you can help. I would be grateful for your patronage.



Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 122

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

2015-03-22 09:46

carolyntclark – ” I just knew that without the God factor the mysteries of suffering can be explained by the randomness of nature.”

What about nature qualifies as random?

2015-03-22 10:00

sTv0 – “N. DeGrasse Tyson says: ‘If you’re scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you, and that understanding empowers you.’ “

Relatively speaking…

Different than before but no more or less informed or empowered except in our own satisfaction.

2015-03-23 10:36

sTv0 – “I take it you’ve not had much science education…?”


What is the required threshold of “much”?

Is there a point where the absolute no longer provides context for the relative?

In terms of the eternal NOW, are the makers of this;


Less informed and empowered than us?

Or, they in turn, somehow more of something (real?), than their own ancestors.


In terms of the eternal NOW.



Alms and Patronage

Alms and Patronage. If this work seems good, and you can help.



Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,

The Winding Path – 121

For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME  above them.

Recently my attention was brought back to an excellent blog by Troymo for which I am grateful.  My own work of late, has seemed stale, overworked, threadbare and frayed at the edges.  So I’ll rely more on voices of others for awhile.

The original comments from which the following are annotations can be found here.  Or summarized at The Winding Path – 074.

2015-03-07 18:28

troymo – “I must say brmckay … I have given this some more thought as of late … and think I now take your comment quite differently. Yes, our “regulating sets” are the essence of ‘finite,’ I agree.

Furthermore, if I follow your thinking, ‘we’ are (parts of/to) the ‘entirety,’ further ‘realizing itself.’

Therefore, not separate, but part of ‘the same.’ Not ‘individual but ‘evolving,’ as ‘it’ evolves thru our/this experience.

Still, I believe ‘our experience’ (as I have just suggested) is integral to the process. And, actually, REQUIRED (as described in my reply to Nearly Normal Fred, below) in order for this process (or God, ‘the entirety’) to fully realize itself, and/or evolve.

‘Reality,’ relativity, and consciousness … a feedback loop – each part further defining the other – and so, ….’the entirety’ revealed.”

Thanks for the follow-up. Not sure if I can summon an adequate verbiage for the occasion, but will try. At least to make a statement or two.

– The Perfection of Singularity expressing as Awareness. (Primordial “Self”).

– “Our experience” expressing as change. Motion, around and through the resulting infinitude of compounding “perfectly” complementary poles.


– The Absolute as Entirety. As Singularity. As Potential. As Foundation.

– The Relative as local expressions of the Primordial Awareness. Orbits of “self interest”. Subject to the process of evolution.

Some questions:

– What does “REQUIRED” mean in this context? I think of it more as the nature of it All.

– What does “the process of evolution” really mean? In the relative sense of things, it must be cyclical. On one hand, towards individual comprehension of Entirety as an abstraction;  religion, philosophy, science etc.. On the other, towards resolution of individual awareness into the undivided Awareness; enlightenment, direct experience of non-separate identity.

An inconclusive conclusion:

– In the absolute sense, evolution does not exist. (Singularity as Absolute Infinitude is changeless, timeless, formless….), The individual part has never been separate from the whole. The seeming of it to the contrary, is an effect. (Astonishingly taken completely for granted. An effect of innate perfection?)

– In the relative sense, our only seemingly “mysterious capacity for will”, picks and chooses. More or less informed by it’s current understanding. Big picture and small.

troymo – “Yes, I hear you….. the best analogue I can conceive in this moment is that of ‘the cell’ (in relation to the ‘human experience’) and ‘it’s micro-evolution’ – a matter of bringing greater awareness and/or structure to the ‘macro’ (or, ‘it’s entirety’) IE – us.

I wonder if you had a chance to read my exchange with ‘nearlynormalfred’ (below), as it regards the ‘feedback loop’ I mention?

It seems in this sense you and I agree; where I may have inadvertently misconstrued ‘the mechanism’ … or ‘purpose.’ That said, the word’purpose’ does seem inadequate here, as it can hardly be ascribed to ‘entirety,’ that which is fully formed, determined, infinite, and complete.

For reference, my discussion with ‘nearlynormalfred’ was one focused on ‘point of view,’ in relation to ‘wave function’ (measured in particle physics) and how this effects (human) perception. I have included the link for you here…. would love to get your thoughts … .”

2015-03-15 17:07

Yes that was a fun read. But I’m not claiming to have totally grasped every nuance in it, or in your comment. What jumps to my mind though is the similarity of Adi Da Samraj’s (aka. Bubba Free John, et al.) statements, and the Advaita Vedantin’s assertion that the only Brahman is real.

Since I tend to be a little scared of the former’s personality, I’m more likely to read other exponents of the latter (Advaita). Reading of this sort, being mainly about confirmation or inspiration. Of those teachers who use Advaita Vedanta as a template, I like Ramana Maharshi for his technique of direct “inquiry” into the Self, and Vivekananda for his wonderful articulation.

On the homefront, I’m becoming more inclined to extend my working model of “Reality” to encompass the paradox of the relative. So when you remark that, …

“However, so far as we can prove, a ‘point of view’ is required to acknowledge (any of) this. In other words, the two cannot be separated with ‘true’ certainty.”

…,I might also point out, that since a “point of view” (even if only just One) exists, all speculation about a universe without it, is a further abstraction. Something extra.

Awareness comes with the package.

I get a kick out of your final summary point … just because.

troymo – “Either way, the universe may not be so big at all. It might even be a ‘relative perspective’ which helped make it….. and my reply a ‘Dualistic language game FTW :)’ ”

In terms of the absolute, undivided and formless; size hasn’t been invented yet. But we show up, and can’t fit it all in our heads. Win-Win.

2015-03-19  02:09

troymo – “Yes, my choice to describe the universe in terms of ‘size’ here is a taunt, since most view it according to its ‘obvious form,’ …. something which is apart from us, measured by telescopes, …. ‘out there,’ and utterly MASSIVE. Suggesting it is ‘small’ therefore immediately invites a paradox, about what ‘size’ really means … if anything at all, since ‘size’ must be a function of something else IE – relative.

Thus questioning people’s sense of the world ‘as it appears,’ in this way, is an attempt to open their mind toward a ‘sense of infinity’ – something not big, nor small, .. fully defined, and yet undefined…. it just ‘IS.’ Or, as you say … ‘the entirety.’

I like to say ‘always, in all ways.’

I don’t believe most people grasp this, or (ever) even think about it … let alone, mathematically,… and what it means, …. for something to draw between all points simultaneously. ‘Points’ … don’t even exist. Therefore, time does not exist. ‘Everything,’ (the universe and all it is made of) must equal ‘one.’

And so to your statement, ‘size hasn’t been invented yet’..… I would add, ‘it never will be.’ ‘Size’ is something ‘experienced,’ a product of ‘consciousness.’ The universe itself is not ‘relative,’ it is the ‘conscious experience’ which is.

Nevertheless, why this is and what it means …. I am, so far, too naïve to tell.”


So nice to sit back and listen for a change. I feel like I’ve been overworking my stuff a bit lately and need a break.

I’ll try to spend some time looking through your blog. There is quality here. Especially a respect for the infinite.

My strongest epiphany so far is the occasional flash on how the sheer utterness of nothing, results in all this. Perfect. Can’t be otherwise.



Alms and Patronage

If this work seems good, and you can help. I would be grateful for your patronage.


Posted in logs | Tagged , , ,