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.
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.
– 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 … .”
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.
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.