The Winding Path – 171

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

2015-08-28 14:16

Michael Mitchell – “…if we seek a God of love and integrity,…

By the cultivation of these virtues in ourselves.

we hope that He recognizes that we have reached the understanding that we can do nothing to earn His acceptance, as we cannot identify exactly we can do so.

Acceptance from that end should be assumed. It is we who are blind. A self imposed disability. Remove the distractions and impediments.

In accepting God, the illusion of being separate from Go is recognized for what it is.

It is not really relationship with God that we seek but realization of God.

Consider also that God also wants a relationship with us. How can we prove this?

It is the very same interest and hope that manifests in ourselves.

While of course, not putting stipulations on what it must be like. Beware of the effect of religion in this context. Authentic individuality is a prerequisite, for anything more than just pretend.

And so we pray for authenticity.

2015-08-28 15:08

Michael Mitchell – “‘Narrow is the road to righteousness …’ The world is ripe with those who will find God. As “God has placed eternity in our hearts,” then so He will lead us to Him by the means He has chosen. Free will does not mean we choose the way to God. This is the lie plaguing mankind, supplying many “spiritual” experiences but leading none to God.

The nature of “we” or “I” needs to be examined.

The habit of thinking in terms of “relationship with” or “seeking” God is a stop gap method.

When one such as Jesus say’s “I”, what does HE mean?

The Sanskrit word yoga means “yoke”, as in alignment and harnessing with.

This freedom of our will, IS the freedom of God.

And, as always, if “we” think “we” own it, we’re not free yet.

2015-08-28 12:17

Paul Hughes – “what would happen if you found out there was No God ?

That can only be a change in attitude.

What it means is summed up by; “Why the change in attitude?”

It doesn’t remove God, other than from our personal consideration.

Everyone has their own answers and dilemmas,

Against a background of the unchanging and eternal.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs | Leave a comment

The Winding Path – 170

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

2015-08-27 11:11

@Write4U post #201

I think it should be quite clear that we are not on the same page about some aspect of the subject.

This may relate to my use of the word ‘sentience’, and your unwillingness to interpret it in the eternal context as I intended. From now on I will try to stick with the more accurate term; “Self’. This would de-emphasize the issues of “intention” and “will”, which have confused things so far. Those characteristics, only being “potential” in the non-relative or absolute condition.

Self: the infinitely dynamic potential of infinitude. The (non-anthropomorphized) ground of all being.

Finite Infinities: The prime numbers; The even numbers; Every number except ‘2’; Conditions with the latent potential to exist, excluding the intangible ones (like thought and imagination); All sentient life instances of localized self awareness, except the one called Write4U, etc.

Infinite Infinity: There is only one. We’ve been calling it the ‘true’.

At this point the whole thing is getting overworked to the extreme. Perhaps if you grant me the above adjustments, we can conclude that we are indeed on the same page. The difference being in what we view as important.

2015-08-28 07:59

@Write4U post #204

The following was in my mailbox yesterday morning. I was going to include it in the last post, but thought it was a too blunt, and bound to be taken wrong anyway.

Now it seems to be just the thing.

Lao Tsu (Tao Teh Ching) – “As the meaning of Tao was lost among humanity, it was replaced with intelligence. Along with intelligence came hypocrisy.

Adieu.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 169

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

2015-08-25 08:36

Write4U – “@brmckay, I think we are in general agreement.

Probably not so much. The point of divergence remains significant.

Write4U – “IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.

It is a simple formula, all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no IMplication of what is to become reality (in any form).

Hierarchically speaking, ‘potential’ is preceeded by infinitude. That means that there is no actual limit to “potential”, so the term itself becomes ‘something extra’. It is as intangible as the emergent characteristics of ‘mind’. (Isn’t this what Occam’s razor is about?)

Write4U – “The Word that theists use for the exact same condition is God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word.

The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated. IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.

You have merely circumvented the intangible characteristic to allow your paradigm credence. It is equivalent to the ‘fatal flaw’ referred to above.

The finitely infinite version of potential, remains an encapsulated, and therefor a relative understanding. Useful within it’s sphere, but necessarily partial and anthropomorphic. The concept of it does not acknowledge the unbounded and absolute nature of the ‘true’.

Write4U – “Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things.

This is the ‘preferred framework’ I mentioned earlier. I would suggest that it is akin to an optical illusion. Consider the possibility that sentience is the emergent characteristic of infinitude and that what you describe as emergent from the brains of living beings, is an abstracted sense of localized sentience. In spiritual circles, the overly specialized ramification of this is often referred to as ‘ego’. Or, the ‘false self’.

Write4U – “But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).

What is gained by excluding the intangible? It certainly does not lead one to ‘truth’.

I would have to point out, that the absolute intangibility of infinitude, makes the fleeting and ephemeral dreams of man as heavy as lead.

Write4U – “Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving. What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.

‘Truth’ is foundation as well as the manifestation; Entirety. The parsings of science and religion only pay homage, and most certainly do not circumvent or supplant ‘truth’.

That homage that we pay, can be inadvertent or intentional. It makes no difference to the Truth. The effects manifest as experience. The potential of that, is unbounded.

Write4U – “IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief, then how do you relate to your belief in a (any) God,
the Word which you choose to use. I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives.

It is not clear to me how or why you arrive at this conclusion.

Write4U – “The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality. In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?

Potential is infinitude. But not the linear kind as in a set of possibilities. I think that this must be what you envision, and it explains the exclusion of the intangible from your version of the Universe.

Write4U – “As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?

Even in the relative primitivity of my (and presumably your) experience, reality is wonderfully malleable. George’s too. He must be talking about something else.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 168

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

2015-08-24 12:38

brmckay – “@Write4U #161

Some thoughts and questions:

– What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
– How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?

Write4U – “It depends on your interpretation of ‘awareness’. Is a computer aware? Yes, but not in an abstract sense, it is purely packets of information being transported via the mathematical function. In that sense, one might say the computer is Pseudo-intelligent.

– If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)”

Write4U – “I submit that the term awareness has two application; One, a pure Metaphysical mathematical connectivity. Two, a Self-Awareness which is not purely mathematical, but also has Motive, and Emotional issues.

– In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?
– Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.
– To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)

Write4U – “I hope I can be more objective than that. I truly appreciate the deep insights contained in those works. A lot of them seem to understand the difficulty of presenting common symbols in their formalization of their scripture. I don’t dismiss scripture. I say they are mathematically incorrect, even as the metaphorical message is valid.

(Emphasis was added by me.)

I still have not understood your rational for excluding experience (i.e.sentience) and it’s various by-products from “reality”.

Is it because the mathematical function cannot interpret experience? Please forgive me if you have already covered this; I am fast reaching the limits of my comprehension. Can the mathematical function interpret it’s own implicit and explicit existence?

Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.

Write4U – “Perhaps, but the fact remained that all potentials in my environment placed me at that table, at that time, sitting in that seat, drawing a once in a century hand. But it had nothing to do with me, as a personal favor from a higher Sentience. I was merely the lucky final selections of all potentials which resulted in my extraordinary position? It was a Function of Natural Selection , another timeless property of the wholeness.

(Note: I have highlighted a distracting anthropomorphic imposition.)

Are “the Function of Natural Selection” and the “Mathematical Function” both latent characteristics of “truth” along with “potential”? The pantheon is growing. Are they real? If so, why not a “function” of Self awareness?

Write4U – “I submit that the Implication, which forms and emerges out of all the potentials present at that space/time coordinate in a chronological order along the timeline which is created during the transition of potential to function which is causal to expression in physical reality. To make happen what in fact does happen. The dreamlike image of what is ‘determined’ to become reality, The Implicate.

To me this sounds a like a mathematical function, not the function of a god as anyone has expressed before.

To me the overall effect demonstrated by what has emerged, suggests quite clearly God. Though not “a god”

Write4U – “My point is the Potential Condition exhibits the exact same creative abilities of any god, but it does so only from the dynamics of transmission of fundamental packets of information, through an efficient mathematical function, which always and timelessly existed in pure abstract qualities of the wholeness. They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that), but for these functions to be able to emerge simultaneously with the change, they must have been latent abilities of the pre-existing condition, made visible to us in a limited range of observable detail as reality. There are particles penetrating through steel as if it doesn’t even exist.

IMO, the scientific quest for ‘knowledge about’ has just begun, whereas the spiritual quest for ‘personal relationship with’ seems to have stagnated for lack of unexplainable (holy) miracles, which otherwise might have reinforced your belief in a sentient personal relationship to God (whatever that may mean).

I challenge all Theists to actually create a holographic image of God inside your mind. How does this mental image appear to you in human terms. Close your eyes and ‘see’ God. What do you see[?]”.

(Emphasis added by me.)

I won’t be able to help you with this exercise. For me, It represents a “straw man” type of scenario.

The understanding that I work from, and have been trying to convey here, is that ideas and mental images are always finite and relative. The personal sense of “self” (or ego), is also an abstraction. An idea. Finite and relative.

I would say that the goal of knowing “truth” cannot be approached from within the limitation of the body/mind complex. I would also say that the body/mind complex is not a “true” limitation.

You would say that through the mathematical function we can understand the “real”, but must relegate our “experience” (i.e. sentience), to some other place than the “real”. As I understand you, It (i.e. experience), is not included in the “universe”.

I would say that experience is “real” and that the Universe (i.e. Wholeness) includes our “personal sense of self”, our actions and thoughts, just as it includes the phenomena of light and the motion of stars.

Since the infinitude of the origin, is ever present and eternal, it can only be through it’s own nature that it may be known.

The difference between our views is that you emphasize a limited and abstracted understanding of the parts via mathematical description.

I emphasize experience of original nature via Self realization.

I’m wondering what Bohm would say? Or, Krishnamurti?

Write4U – “Please forgive if this may sound intrusive, but I promise to respect the image, (any image) from volunteers, with an sincere effort to compare it in my own mirror neural network to something I can identify with and at least empathize with.
Which I believe I have already demonstrated in my viewpoints on Deism.

* (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)

Write4U – “But a self caused sentient (aware) causaility, seems ‘highly improbable’ to me, IMO. By the law of Heirarchical orders, Potential would have to have existed before the self caused mathematical causality, could have ‘Become into Being’.
That seems pure logic to me.

Unless “Potential” is a root characteristic of “Awareness” as it is “Experience” or “Function”.

My definition of God is simply, all of it. And we have both said something similar:

Write4U: “They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that)”

brmckay: “The emergent characteristics of infinitude.”

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 167

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

2015-08-19 08:33

Write4U – “If we have a definitive term for identifying the inherent (latent) abilities in all things, why do we NEED a still greater Motivational construct? Remember Ockham’s razor?

If you believe we must dig still deeper, then you will have to come up with a reasonable explanatin why Potential requires an yet greater (and presumably sentient) Causality.

What is it’s purpose”, how does it work, what are its (metaphysical) properties?

IMO, the word Universal Potential (in its most abstract interpretation) is as deep as one can go. Anything beyond that seems unnecessary in Physics. In subjective human terms (taking into account our desire for greater satisfaction) may be a factor but that would not be a universal property IMO.

I’m possibly splitting hairs. But, to me the term “Universal” implies post emergence, but if you also intend it to include primal infinitude (being referred to here as “truth”), then I’m good with it.

Since I never talk just in terms of physics, and as yet don’t think that I talk in terms of metaphysics either, I suspect that there actually are gaps in our understanding that may be hard to reconcile.

Per the above quote, I want to point out that I am not talking about a sentient causality (at least as you seem to think of it). But rather, that what you are calling “Universal Potential”, can as easily be seen in more theological terms as the “Universal I Am”. Or, God.

Going by either name, it permeates the entirety. In fact is the entirety.

My version of course requires more respect for the role of the “subjective in the scheme of things, and that is probably where we will find large areas of difference in our viewpoints.

2015-08-19 14:38

Drew Bekius – “It called me to ensure that my faith was presented in the most rational light, which forced me to make sure that my faith itself was rational.

Rationality is good and useful, as is Love.

2015-08-19 15:05

articulett – “Anything with no measurable qualities is indistinguishable from nothing-

The infinitude of singularity is measurable only within the relative terms of it’s emergent characteristic.

The Universe, including us; our thoughts and actions; This is God.

The theology that you ridicule is the comic book version.

2015-08-20 11:55

articulett – “…and before we had the scientific method, intuition and faith seemed like a valid method for figuring things out

Intuition and faith are still valid, and can now (as ever), be supplemented and refined by attention to the scientific method.

The degree that this takes place, is relative to the ability and intention of the individual.

Just as your “knee jerk reaction” to “faith” is relative to you as an individual. While others may find a heavy dose of irrationality in it.

Nothing about the situation indicates that science and theology are incompatible. Except perhaps as a personal obfuscation.

2015-08-20

Jared Prince responding to rambler – “So you say and so say the charlatans of metaphysics.

I do agree that we have free will but that is an argument independent of the validity of metaphysics.

What is metaphysics anyway?

All the definitons seem to come down to “the contemplation of the nature and purpose of existence“?

How can that be valid or invalid?

Like “free will”, the focusing of our attention upon it’s subject is part of the package.

2015-08-21 15:13

[Responding to the Patheos Blog – Squid – “From Where I Stand: Why Are Most People so easily persuaded to accept evolution over creation?” – by I.T. Dummie]

The emergence of God from the undefined and eternal void is the beginning of creation.

That primal awareness reflecting upon it’s own nature is the beginning of evolution.

In the (proverbial) blink of an eye, here we are. Here and Now.

2015-08-22 10:32

louismoreaugottschalk –
if it is as I’ve heard it said
one is in God’s image is
one’s act of contemplation upon one’s existance inspired?
‘know thyself’

jesus said:
‘if you see me you seen the Father’~JOHN14.9
was he the most perfected human?
in some inscrutable way
through the temple curtain that was torn
exposing the Holy of Holies
at the moment of his death by crucifixion
one can scarcely grasp
that the whole human race is now in Christ
supernaturally taken out of the empire system
and placed forever in safekeeping
in the new body prepared for one to occupy and serve
God and one’s neighboif it is as I’ve heard it said
one is in God’s image is
one’s act of contemplation upon one’s existance inspired?
‘know thyself’

jesus said:
‘if you see me you seen the Father’~JOHN14.9
was he the most perfected human?
in some inscrutable way
through the temple curtain that was torn
exposing the Holy of Holies
at the moment of his death by crucifixion
one can scarcely grasp
that the whole human race is now in Christ
supernaturally taken out of the empire system
and placed forever in safekeeping
in the new body prepared for one to occupy and serve
God and one’s neighbor via the companionship of the Holy Spirit.
Lemme lay this on you!
yay verily yay!r via the companionship of the Holy Spirit.
Lemme lay this on you!
yay verily yay!

But why point this at me?

Since the companionship of the Holy Spirit does not require any infrastructure.

2015-08-23 08:58

louismoreaugottschalk –
I’m not sure what you mean by infrastructure…
but as far as I know
the Holy Spirit is seen as part of the trinity,
is in some inscrutable way one with it
& therefore ‘first cause’ for everything.
I guess it would be fair to call that infastructure IMO.

Primal, and thus superseding any infrastructure imposed from our end.

Not dependent upon religions or science.

And yet knowable because it is our original nature.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 166

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

2015-08-16 06:39

Write4U – “Absolute Being = Condition

Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space

I interpret that to mean; Potential, Brahman, Absolute Being, Condition, can never express themselves directly in our Reality.

Thus the terms like, ‘acts of God’, ‘miracles’, or ‘hand of god’ are false. It is all part of a continual mathematical process.

The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future. Thus it must also be a property (a potential) of the Wholeness.
Consider: when/where mathematical function fails, the result is either chaos or nothing.

Don’t misunderstand, with the term Mathematics I am not referring to our invention of mathematical symbols as a universal language. It is a Function in the dynamic wholeness. Can it be otherwise? I highly doubt it. The mathematical function (in the abstract) is a perfect function for processing ‘packets of information’, physical or metaphysical.

We even use it to create AI.

I would be more inclined to say Absolute Being = Primal Awareness.
If you reference Brahman, what then about Atman? (and what does this imply for AI?)

The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future.

Yes, but the function arises with the first thing. The function is a result of the primal cause.

I understand that the function is not the language, but nature itself. Primal Awareness compounding in increasingly complex combinations. Like a hall of infinite mirrors. But there must first be something to reflect and to reflect upon.

My emphasis on “awareness” seems to be a source of difference between us. It reminds me of my own critique of the Deistic apartheid. Whereby the primal cause resides somewhere else, disassociated from the results of it’s causation.

My understanding would be that we humans particularize miracles as events. The hand of God, as actions in time. In “truth” though, the “miracle” is a constant state. A steady stream.

Residing in that awareness is enlightenment. The realization of Atman. Non-differentiation. Original nature.

2015-08-17 08:36

@Write4U #161

Some thoughts and questions:

– What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*

– How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?

– If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)

– In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?

– Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.

– To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)

Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.

* (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)

2015-08-18 08:48

@ Write4U #164

I’ve never had a handle on what metaphysics is exactly. I’m guessing that you mean it as something beyond empirical inquiry.

I would suggest that cultivation of Self realization (i.e. Atman) ought to be considered empirical inquiry, but most likely won’t be.

That aside, I’m not finding all that much to fuss about in your comments.

By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality.

Well? Yes. But, how is it “a reach too far” though? Especially if one factors in underlying infinitude as the primal cause of the causal Potential.

This strikes me as very satisfying definition of God. Primal cause. Both implicate and explicit. The question of sentience and the nature of that sentience is where it gets fun. But it doesn’t benefit much from debate. Since sentience is the foundation of experience, the proof is in the experience. Experience and Potential being a seamless dynamic.

I realize that the above statement is all over the map. (Don’t need Lausten to tell me.) But, there is a point where a neat, linear analysis completely falls apart in this discussion. All conditions, stages, effects, manifestations, as well as potential, are in “truth”, simultaneous and non-different.

[Note: Write4U has included some interesting links. To go along with his advocacy of David Bohm he has now introduced David Birnbaum author of Summa Metaphysica and developer of Potentialisim Theory.]

http://potentialismtheory.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/19/david-birnbaum-jeweller-philosopher

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 165

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

2015-08-13 07:07

Lausten – “Nothing is ‘bad’. I was using the term ‘not bad’ as in ‘okay’ or ‘a reasonable effort’. In this case is was understatement because you went from ‘undefined potentia’ to ‘the word is the THING’ in two steps. Either you’re making it up as you go along, or that is giant leap of knowledge.

I don’t have difficulty considering things if they make any sense at all, which you don’t. I’m perfectly capable of discussing things that came before language. We have the language of math to help us with that.

Since we are discussing “unbounded no-thing”, math is no more adequate than English in the matter. It would seem that there isn’t any potential for us to work with here. We might as well consider it bad Haiku and move on.

An acorn becomes a tree at around 4 to 6 feet according to my tree identification guide. Why would you say a tree is not a tree?

Since my question remains irrelevant, I’m afraid yours must as well.

2015-08-13 08:37

Write4U – “And here is a review of Bohm’s Lifework; http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

Thank you. I am grateful for the link to Bohm’s work. The following quote taken from the segment on his dialogues with Krishnamurti, pretty much says exactly what I have been getting at. Right down to the use of the term “no-thingness”.

The Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue set a profound precedent in being one of the first enduring dialogues between a leading Western physicist and a world-renowned Eastern spiritual master. Their discussions probed deeply into various dimensions of human knowledge and experience, including in-depth discussions of the limitations of human thought, the nature of insight and intelligence beyond thought, as well as many other topics such as truth, reality, death, existence, fragmentation, and the future of humanity. In exploring the distinction between truth and reality, for example, some of the jewels of insight that emerged may be summarized as follows (which, in the spirit of Bohm and Krishnamurti themselves, should perhaps be read slowly and contemplatively to be absorbed). There is a gulf between truth and reality; they are not the same thing. Illusion and falsehood are certainly part of reality, but they are not part of truth. Truth includes all that is; it is one. Reality is conditioned and multiple. Truth is beyond reality; it comprehends reality, but not vice versa. Reality is everything; truth is no-thingness. We need truth, but our minds are occupied with reality. We seek security in reality, but authentic security comes only in complete nothingness, that is, only in truth. The seed of truth is a mystery that thought cannot encompass; it is beyond reality.

This should save us days of ineffectual back and forth. It being the only point I really needed to make.

2015-08-13 09:03

Lausten – “sooooo, you intend to be ambiguous, you don’t want to say anything that actually means anything, did I get that right?

No, you didn’t get it right. Please see my response to Write4U’s comment #133.

2015-08-14 08:04

Write4U – “Are you becoming a Bohmian convert?

Truth isn’t something that one converts to, just learns to recognize.

I am grateful for confirmation from such heavyweights as him and Krishnamurti.

I am also pleasantly surprised.

2015-08-14 10:42

Responding to Write4U. I’m using the terms “truth” and “reality” as they were used in the article about Bohm and Krishnamurti.

Mathematics and English don’t exist in “truth”, only in “reality”.

Our experience (interpretation of observations) is the subjective expression of the objective.

subjective and objective don’t exist in “truth” only in “reality”.

The infinities of mathematics do not exist in “truth” only in “reality”

So, for sure, if one is contemplating “truth”, Mathematics or English won’t do.

And, when contemplating “reality”, I prefer to increasingly engage the whole being.

Since in “truth” there is no difference.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 164

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

2015-08-14 07:40

Write4U – “Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.

Finally somebody zeros in on the essential elemental; Infinitude.

There has been such a clutter of confusion about ideas of God misconstrued as God.

God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing.

The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image.

The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are.

Yet the infinitude of the foundation permeates entirely.

2015-08-11 09:21

Write4U – “I am always amazed at the philosophical approaches to enlightenment through meditation.

Theism tells you to fill your mind with God in order to ‘connect’ and experience enlightenment.
Deism tells you to empty your mind completely in order to ‘connect’ and experience enlightenment.

IMO, as a meditation discipline, Deism is preferable as it seeks to ‘clear the mind’ of all subjective notions in order to allow for objective thought, whereas Theism seeks to replace all objectivite thought by ‘filling the mind’ with subjective notions.

At least one must be the wrong approach.

I like your analysis of these seemingly antithetical exercises, though the presumption that, “At least one must be the wrong approach”, doesn’t seem obvious to me. Considering the inscrutable nature of that which is under scrutiny.

Utter fullness not being different than utter emptiness, when it comes to infinitude. Or am I wrong?

2015-08-12 08:14

Write4U – “I would not presume to say you are wrong, but to compare subjective human thought process with an objective infinitude is a false equivalence, IMO.

We are not even sure of what we observe without the aid of mathematics. Optical illusions is but one example of the limitations of the human brain (mind).

But, the Infinitude we are referring to includes the subjective viewpoint. Subjective and Objective are not in play. (per the meditative exercise or whatever)

Generally this is where the conversation spins-out, degrading into projections and accusations. I have grown reluctant to do much more of that. The statement of yours above, that I initially responded to, encouraged me to try again. (younger versions of ourselves ran through this a year or two ago).

The exercise is good for me, but only as it moves forward into fuller comprehension.

Your statement:

Write4U – “Infinite potential is a property of the universe and hierarchically exist as the Implicate order before it is expressed (Explicated) in reality.

Is just inches from the understanding that I look for. I’m only encouraging you to put more emphasis on “infinitude”. As I understand your use of language, one could say that absolute infinitude stands in relation to infinite potential as infinite potential stands in relation to reality.

To me this is common sense, and if I lack the discipline of your training, perhaps you could apply some of it to the above scenario. Unless of course you already have, in which case I could use some explanation as to why it doesn’t change the conversation.

As for our dependence on mathematics for confirmation of our observations, I would think that that form of confirmation is an arbitrary and overly narrow restriction. It unnaturally limits our potential as human beings and I don’t understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of trying to limit experience in that way.

2015-08-14 08:31

MikeYohe – “This is the main point. Religion has been around for a long time. But religion does not need a god. And it does not need a hell. Religion is about after life.

Unless, like me you find it to be about enlightenment. The intuition of the inherently eternal foundation of existence.

You are right, it does not need a god, or hell. These things arise along with ourselves in the confusion of seeming otherness.

Our situation, this experience of existence, has the potential to teach us by what it is not; undivided and entire.

A conscious co-operation with this process is the essence of religion.

It does not require “death”. Death not being real once the confusion of identity is removed.

2015-08-11 09:01

MikeYohe – “On my timeline of religion. If I was to put the start of the “infinitude” of god in religion. I would have a range of 600 BC to 200 Ad, is that correct?

I don’t know about that kind of thing. But, I figure it has always been the foundation for any adept, shaman, mystic, rishi or saint.

References to immortality, eternality, beginning-less-ness, end-less-ness, oneness, singularity or omni anything, satisfy me as pointers to infinitude.

The Vedic and Sanskrit literature for instance, rests on an ocean of oral tradition, evolved over millennia, steadily clarifying the undivided and timeless nature of Brahman.

2015-08-11 12:19

MikeYohe – “Yeah, the reason I stated that, the older religions show no proven signs of having a god. But they did have a heaven. And it is still that way in some religions today that we don’t know how far back in history those religions go.

Ah! I possibly get your point. I’ll try to remember this in future replies.

I think the emphasis on God or on heaven may be a matter of personal inclination, or an indication of ones stage of development.

If there is a sense of otherness remaining, I find it is reasonable to think in terms of God and creation. Otherwise I can imagine it becoming a mere formality.

2015-08-12 11:30

Lausten quoting me – “
//God’s image being the undefined potential resulting from unbounded no-thing.//

I really should have stopped there. When they start splitting up words to make a nothing a thing, you know it’s bad.

//The point of religion being to draw us up close to that. To focus our attention. Regain the image.//

Regain the no-thing? Focus on nothing? Draw us into a conversation where you didn’t define the important terms?

//The Word is the first THING. Endless iterations later, here we are.//

And now you know what the thing is? Not bad, just two sentences away from saying it’s not defined.

Can you describe any more precisely what it is that is “bad” for you?

“unbounded no-thing”, preceding language, as it were,

it would not ultimately be through language that it is known.

That is pretty obvious. Though some would have difficulty even considering it.

It’s not unlike deciding at what point an acorn becomes a tree.

One could just as well say it never does.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 163

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

2015-08-05 09:34

[response to louismoreaugottschalk repeated from the previous post]

I appreciate your confirmation. Since I don’t want to get into it with this crowd, I can still satisfy my need to follow-up.

As an alternative “solution” to the previous sarcastic one I’ll just say that:

If the dragon has 10,000 heads, my response is to look for the root cause.

That cause has it’s efficient remedy. As you know.

Thanks.

louismoreaugottschalk – “I’m not sure I know the cause or the remedy to anything like a thorough explanation for eitherCause or remedy.

I have done some exploring of causes in order to answer my own existential anxt; ‘why, w no map, would I launch out of the frying pan into the fire!’

Seems to me each human is a microcosm that has trauma, consequences, triggers, syndromes, addictions that correlate and correspond to the macrocosm of the larger society we exist in and contribute to. I’ve identified at least five domains that have helped me understand things, have helped me find a lens to see the bigger picture. I always have in mind my activities are ways I seek in order to heal fr emotional/mental pain in order to have greater freedom and recovery for my microscopic self. I have a feeling that some of these things apply to the macrocosm of a dysfunk civilization.

And…the catalysing grace of the Higher Power.

The ignorance of it, being the cause. Knowledge of, and alignment with it, the “efficient” remedy.

Individuals entangled in the maze of self fulfilling pursuit, bound by a falsely finite horizon; This, is the dragon.

It’s many heads compounding exponentially.

2015-08-05 15:19

louismoreaugottschalk – “… magical thinking
wishing to control outcome
all one’s investments consumed by the passion to control
and have things come out for one’s own selfish purposes and reasons.
where did this obsession come from?
why does it continue to hold sway over the entire creation?
isn’t this what is talked about being spiritual wickedness in high places?
IMO grace comes if we ask.
more grace when one knows how & what & why & who to ask.

“Wickedness” I’ll reserve for intentional harm. Mostly our problems are a result of mistaken identity.

Not knowing the boundless field of our potential and seamless integrity.

IMO grace comes if we ask.
more grace when one knows how & what & why & who to ask.

This is the practice. Once we realize that we have been lost to it.

Even then, there is the danger of claiming ownership. Of asserting a proprietary or correct approach. Rules before results.

The myths and metaphors we lived by can color the interpretation of our inherent redemption. I consider it good, not to impose that on the next guy.

The dragon doesn’t need any more heads.

[By way of confirming the synchronistic efficiency of the “remedy”, I later followed louismoreaugottschalk to an excellent Christian blog where the same things had been getting said and read at the same time via Christian terms and citations.]

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs

The Winding Path – 162

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

2015-08-03 09:46

louismoreaugottschalk – “I think what you say triggers atheist’s defences. sometimes all they have for an identity is their defenses; forums like this one entrenches group think. You are an invading virus! Nevertheless the truth is a wedge against such vanity!

This one [adam], I have now learned to leave alone for his own sake.

it’s interesting this “concept” of identity. I’m not a big fan of it. What it usually refers to is the mistaken association of the personality (i.e. ego) with the Self.

The more we cling to, and reinforce THAT, the deeper the hole gets and ignorance runs the show.”

louismoreaugottschalk – “yes ignorance runs the show and playground bullys assume preeminence among those that can bully. oy!
I’m seeing some beauty and wisdom in following you as you engage w the culture though.

2015-08-04 09:55

Kevin Osborne responding to Button – “This is something anyone can test easily. If you are feel unhappy, close your eyes and tell yourself to look where your attention is. Something will likely come up. Look it over to the point where you understand it. This takes a little practice but it works. This place is very complex but our personal history is easy to locate, if not educated out of it.

myeck waters responding to Kevin Osborne – “STOP!

No one but you finds this shit convincing. Just take it somewhere else. This is not the place for you.

brmckay responding to myeck waters – “What has fascinated me in following this discussion, is the lack of actual reflection taking place upon the dysfunctional nature of the civilization unfolding.

I think the frog has been thoroughly boiled long ago.

Since the precedent has been set, perhaps we can start medicating males who show signs of abnormal interest in guns and explosives.

louismoreaugottschalk responding to brmckay – “I think your observation is spot on. what is the pattern of dysfunction of USA civilization. is it like the Romans? is it like the 3rd reich? marginalized people are at risk. hideous fact; it’s open season on targeted ppl who cannot escape the slaughter and have no voice that anyone listens to.

I appreciate your confirmation. Since I don’t want to get into it with this crowd, I can still satisfy my need to follow-up.

As an alternative “solution” to the previous sarcastic one I’ll just say that:

If the dragon has 10,000 heads, my response is to look for the root cause.

That cause has it’s efficient remedy. As you know.

Thanks.

——-

Alms and Patronage

Posted in logs