Me

This is the place to post whatever questions you have related to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. The rest of us will do whatever we can to help you achieve a better understanding :)

Re: Me

Postby Webwanderer » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:00 am

epiphany55 wrote:Enlightened and WW, you both acknowledge that it is scientists (human beings), not science itself, that can be subject to closed mindedness. I agree with this, although this only reasserts the need to encourage the take up of science in our schools and universities in order to keep a broad profile of scientists coming through.

Until schools and universities encourage more inclusive consideration, they will likely just keep turning out more materialistic focused scientists like we have now. The one's who genuinely think outside the box, such as E2B suggested, did not get their willingness to explore from the schools. On the contrary, most professors promote a materialistic approach or they get replaced.

We want philosophy to inform scientific hypothesis. Big time.

Agreed.

But there was a more important point in my last post, which can be summed up as - don't trust the subjective mind. Is this not ET's message? Experience should be unbounded, but to use your mind to try and explain your experiences, without the rigour of reason and verification, is to be subject to its capacity for elaborate illusion.

Well don't completely distrust it either. Where does insight come from? There is a healthy balance of skepticism and open mindedness that leads to the promissed land of greater understanding.

Science does not = materialism.

No. Science is the study of physical phenomena - without the materialist bias that it is the basis for all that is.

Materialism = the depth of what we currently know about the universe and reality. Depths can (and will) be deepened!

I'll leave you with that definition. Mine suggests that materialism is the belief that the physical universe is reality and all other phenomena arises from that.

Ye of little faith.

Now that's funny.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6308
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:01 am

Enlightened2B wrote:Roger Penrose and Carl Sagan, yes, but those other guys you mentioned are not exactly 'outside the box thinkers'. Neil Degrasse Tyson? hmmm. Not so sure about that. That guy is pretty much on Lawrence Kraus's stage. You want an outside the box thinker? Look into Tom Campbell's work or John Hagelin. But, Tom Campbell especially. These are mainstream physicists who are not afraid to stick it to the rest of the science community by REALLY going outside the box and that's what we really need. I would include Roger Penrose in there too actually.


Thank you for the suggestions, I have heard of Hagelin but not Campbell. A big part of me relishes the status quo being shaken up, whether in politics, science or indeed one's own state of awareness. The reason I mentioned 'Tyson and Harris is that they are not afraid to bring in aspects of the "spiritual dimension" to their talks and writing. They have a huge and respected mainstream presence, so they are among the key voices to help break taboos regarding this convergence between science and metaphysics.

I see materialism as a necessary stepping stone, from the (man made) superstition of god and mystical beliefs such as astrology. But to what? Who knows?

That aside, if we would stop much of the conceptual talk about science and other topics (in relation to awakening), and simply Be with our experience, we wouldn't even need science to validate to us where consciousness comes from or who we are. There's really only Love in our direct experience.


I'm happy to leave science aside. I came to this forum with a great respect for ET and a deep interest in the awakening process. But when someone pulls up ET about a particular unsubstantiated claim, e.g. about the nature of consciousness, it should be treat as such. People may align their experiences with ET's work, but that doesn't mean it is reality beyond a false positive generated by the mind.

The nature of consciousness is more objective than I think many people on here give it credit for. A profound experience of one-ness, a NDE, is an experience. It is not an explanation. Whether or not we believe the current trend in science can provide the explanation is irrelevant to the fact that experience does not = explanation.

Explanation comes from the reasoning processes in the mind. You can't reason with experience, until that experience is verified through means not reliant upon the subjective mind.

Trust me. I've learned more from studying NDE's than I can possibly care to know about the physical universe itself. It just doesn't appeal to me anymore. The physical Universe is all we have. Don't get me wrong. But, learning more about other substances of the Universe or what black holes are, are minisucle, compared to the insight I've gained from the study of non-physical realities.


What makes them reality? Is it that a large number of people have experienced the same thing?

I hate to use the movie screen reference because it really creates duality. But, let's do it here:

Many modern scientists approach is equivalent to studying the objects moving on a movie screen and ignoring the fact that the objects are not real. You can't separate Being from the expression itself of Being. There is only Being. Studying the physical universe in the way that modern science approaches it, is essentially believing yourself to be something separate from that which is being expressed. It's almost comical to watch and yet I have compassion for these scientists because they are largely lost in their own limited beliefs of ego. It's all good.


We don't know if we are separate from it yet, that's the point. If someone tells me they think we are all of the same substance, whether that "substance" takes the form of vibrations or particles, there is evidence for this. But there's a huge leap between that and saying "because we are of the same substance we are all one consciousness".

To me, that is oversimplifying the complexity of this vastness in which we find ourselves. You may consider materialism as simplifying the concept of one consciousness, but that's because you've started with the assumption of one consciousness and see science as playing catch up to your subjectively reached conclusion, based on what I don't deny was surely a very real experience.

Somewhere right before that leap, I share so much with the people on these forums, dare I say more than my own biological family! I just cannot let my experience, my imagination, dictate my assumptions about the nature of such a deeply mysterious and complex entity as consciousness.

I live for experience, but I don't trust the subjective mind to explain my experiences with any accuracy.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Me

Postby smiileyjen101 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:35 am

Epiphany said:
Explanation comes from the reasoning processes in the mind. You can't reason with experience, until that experience is verified through means not reliant upon the subjective mind.

I totally agree Epiphany. And you cannot reason it when the subjective mind only denies it.

You can maybe however, notice the 'difference' it has made, separate to the experience and pretty much permanent afterwards. There's a quote I don't know who originally said it - change is the violence that throws us headlong into our future.
If there is no experience outside of our self selected safe and expected experiences there is no 'change', everything stays the same.

Violence in this statement merely means the energy in motion touching on a thing or person or situation with force, and likely not awarely or willingly called to oneself - the 'surprises' of life that shift us.

The nature of consciousness is more objective than I think many people on here give it credit for.

It's funny because even though I thoroughly agree with this I am the absolutely wrong person to agree with this and suggest that you do not need an nde or such to know this - purely because I cannot objectively go back to prior to my experience and really, honestly, truthfully know if I was aware of it 'prior', or could have been as aware of it 'without' the experience.

I know that I can experience objective consciousness while not in any other experience but this awake, blood & bones, one now, and I applaud anyone who does, however they come to it.

I just cannot let my experience, my imagination, dictate my assumptions about the nature of such a deeply mysterious and complex entity as consciousness.

I live for experience, but I don't trust the subjective mind to explain my experiences with any accuracy.


Bravo!!!! Me too :D For me it can only definitively point to elements of what it is 'not', not totally what 'is'.

If one does objectively - awarely, capably, willingly objectively recognise their perspective of experience as a perspective of experience and allow others to pull on the strings of their (if they are aware, capable, willing) subjective perspective objectively the strings unravel the ball of wool that represents the 'experience'.

I might point to the difference now of Dr Eben Alexander in his awareness on reflection about how he used to think he was being scientific and compassionate in the way he would dismiss those of his patients who tried to talk to him about altered consciousness awareness experiences under his knife. He totally thought he was being scientific and now realises he was being completely the opposite. He totally thought he was being compassionate and helpful dismissing their accounts - whatever it was an account of --- he was not at all being helpful, he can only realise this now in hindsight and in experience as others are saying they are being scientific while dismissing his queries.

Even he can't fully explain that to others. Me, I could only --- somewhat compassionately ----- chuckle.

Knots fall out, unconnected strands fall out, a thing with no root withers and dies ..... and still we are only subjectively perceiving unravelling an experience objectively through the subjective filters.

None of this defines the totality of the experience of consciousness or consciousness itself. It can however let go of what is not relevant in and of the experience.

So for me, it helps to unravel and let go that which is not, knowingly, even knowing that it still doesn't define what is, except that it subjectively appears to me that it is equilibrium of all that is and is not. The one thing that does not unravel under inspection or not, or ever, is the totality of it all. - whatever label you want to put on that, or not :wink:

Even funnier - my nearly 3 year old grand daughter has taken to explaining 'complex' stuff with 'cos' as in why or why not this .... 'Cos'.

I was musing on it after she answered a question from me with 'Cos'.

Two things arose, one that in the situation she was reluctant to share what she was feeling, she may be beginning to realise that a particular answer without all the 'isness okayness' would skew the experience or information - so by not saying what she does know that she feels/knows she's avoiding shame for self and/or other when it is not her intention to shame anyone, even herself because she knows on some level that her perspective is not the all of it.

If we 'force' her to define her answer she will have to pick a strand, and she is uncomfortable in doing so.
I was musing on it and realised 'cos' is the same answer as 'it just is what it is'.

So really, all I have to do is translate for my daughter that the little one's 'Cos.' is just 'It is what it is' from a nearly 3 year old's perspective.

Not sure that she's gonna appreciate that :wink:
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Me

Postby Enlightened2B » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:48 am

Sorry Epiphany, I never got back to you. Been dealing with a flood in my apartment. Very stressful. Let me quickly respond to a couple of your points.

What makes them reality? Is it that a large number of people have experienced the same thing?


You mean non-physical realities reference I presume. I'd say the sheer volume, some of the inexplicable observations with the experiences, the similarity between the majority of the experiences, but most of all, is the effect that the experiences have had on the experiencer. Reality is a subjective term. I don't claim the non-physical realities to be truth, because I have not experienced it myself yet. However, I do believe that what these people experience, is highly likely leaning towards some sort of truth. Truth, in that, what they experienced is most certainly real. I'd say there is a very good chance that this is the case. But, I like to leave myself some wiggle room, in case I'm wrong 8)

We don't know if we are separate from it yet, that's the point. If someone tells me they think we are all of the same substance, whether that "substance" takes the form of vibrations or particles, there is evidence for this. But there's a huge leap between that and saying "because we are of the same substance we are all one consciousness".


I wouldn't get too caught up in the term 'consciousness' because it tends to have very 'brainy' connotations. I'm not interested in where consciousness stems from anymore.
The statement you make above, is coming from the conceptual mind. I do the same thing. I'm an over analyzer actually as a type A personality. So, I always need to analytically understand. But, all I can say is that in my own experience, when I've gone deep enough in a form of meditation, there is only Being itself. Being IS Oneness. When I see, that in my experience, there is Love surrounding anything and everything, including the fear that arises, I realize that I must be Eternal. There is simply nothing in existence, that is not me already, until the mind claims otherwise. It's not a conceptual understanding, It's more of a feeling. As soon as the mind comes in with questions, Oneness seems to be in question. The feeling of Unconditional Love is beyond anything in existence. It's the knowing that nothing and no one could ever harm you because you ARE existence itself. It's clouded at times for me, so it appears that sometimes I am something other than love, but I've had glimpses of it, and I know I AM.

I'm not a Rupert Spira fan because I don't like the Direct Path Teachings at all. However, there is one video by Rupert Spira which is really great. He talks about how reality is a seamless whole. Forget about terms like Consciousness and Awareness. There's only Being itself. The mind comes in and attempts to break up this seamless whole into parts because that's how the mind views. It's not wrong, but when we believe everything the mind thinks, is where the Ego Perspective comes in and voila....we have a universe of separation.

And I very much agree. Don't trust your direct experience alone (which is really what the Direct Path teachings do). It would leave one to believe that the Sun actually sets and the Earth is actually flat and that rainbows are real and that a twig in water is actually crooked. This is delusion to trust this direct experience. Our own body/minds are incredibly limited. There is an incredibly vast Universe outside of our direct perception. The Point is though, from what I've gained, especially from the study of NDE's and also my own experience of samadhi is that Being itself is all that exists. The objects and appearances we interact with are also other expressions of that very same Being. In your deepest, experience, there is only Being itself. Being being human, Being being a tree, Being being a rock. Concepts, defintions and labels aside, there is only Being,being itself in multitudes of ways.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1897
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Me

Postby Rob X » Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:54 pm

Hi Epiphany 55

I very much like your contributions to this forum - I find myself agreeing with much of what you say.

I would just like to add a note about the limits of science (not that you are necessarily suggesting that science has no limitations.) I've always had an interest in science - I have far more books on evolutionary biology and neuroscience than anything that could be termed spiritual. But I hear alarm bells when anyone (especially scientists) make the claim that science is the only way of acquiring genuine knowledge of the universe. This claim is not scientific - it is itself a metaphysical or philosophical statement. It's not the business of science to make such a claim, this is the domain of scientism - and we should be wary of scientism (which is a limited belief) posing as science.

Although science is the most effective method of acquiring empirical knowledge of the physical universe, the subjective world remains problematic. There is much to be done in this area - and even then it may still prove to be beyond the scope of what we currently understand (define) as science. This is not an excuse to jam open the floodgates to any old subjective nonsense (and there is plenty of that about), we are right to be extremely cautious and if we are to broadcast claims about our experience then we need, in some sense, to be able to back it up. I suppose that it comes down to how flexible our definition of 'evidence' might be.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Me

Postby Phil2 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 10:23 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:If we 'force' her to define her answer she will have to pick a strand, and she is uncomfortable in doing so.
I was musing on it and realised 'cos' is the same answer as 'it just is what it is'.

So really, all I have to do is translate for my daughter that the little one's 'Cos.' is just 'It is what it is' from a nearly 3 year old's perspective.

Not sure that she's gonna appreciate that :wink:


Cute observation Jen ... and yes for a child this simple 'cos' means "it is what it is" or even "I don't know, why care about that ? don't bother me with that "

But of course adults always want to 'explain' and 'rationalize' all things and behaviours (it reassures them to 'know' why), so we force our child to find an 'acceptable' explanation for all things, and particularly for their own behaviour ... and children understand rather quickly how to deal with this ... and they become kind of 'hypocritical' ... eg. when they do something 'wrong' they are forced to apologize ... they don't really mean it but they express a false apology so everyone is satisfied with an 'apparent' and 'acceptable' apology ... this is how children become 'unreal' and develop fake personalities, social masks and façade ... which is also the cause of many 'neuroses' ...

It reminds me The Little Prince who never answered a question ... he probably knew the futility of all answers and explanations ...

:)
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:21 am

Rob X wrote:Although science is the most effective method of acquiring empirical knowledge of the physical universe, the subjective world remains problematic. There is much to be done in this area - and even then it may still prove to be beyond the scope of what we currently understand (define) as science. This is not an excuse to jam open the floodgates to any old subjective nonsense (and there is plenty of that about), we are right to be extremely cautious and if we are to broadcast claims about our experience then we need, in some sense, to be able to back it up. I suppose that it comes down to how flexible our definition of 'evidence' might be.


Thanks Rob X. I agree, the subjective world is problematic as far as verifying exactly what it means. This is the hard problem of consciousness in a nutshell. Why/how do we "feel like" this subjective awareness?

Here's the pickle... Subjective experience cannot be verified by the same source of its creation. A flame cannot burn itself.

But what science has proven is that there are means of verification that surpass even our own common sense. For example, the ability of an electron to be in two places at once. In other words, there are discoveries that can be objectively verified, yet lie completely outside what we perceive to be physically possible.

In that sense, it's the universe that is telling us how it works at most steps of the way, not us. This is the essence of "what is", The universe doesn't care whether we "get it" or not. Given the rigour of trial and error, the universe will reveal to us as close to reality as we're likely to get, even if we're not particularly looking for it in a logical manner.

Perhaps the truth of consciousness will never be understood by the subjective mind NOR science. But I am confident that theories beyond anything we ever imagined, will become plausible in the near future.

It's not that I think the subjective mind is too limited to answer questions on reality. On the contrary, I think the subjective mind has the potential to extend far beyond reality. Just because our subjective minds are capable of a vast exploration of perspectives and ideas, does not make it THE tool to explore reality. Quite the opposite - the subjective mind is always looking for something more than reality necessarily offers.
Last edited by epiphany55 on Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Me

Postby smiileyjen101 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 12:29 am

Phil said: and children understand rather quickly how to deal with this ... and they become kind of 'hypocritical' ..


Break my heart .........nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo don't do it! :wink:

And so begins the descent into the world of 'should' and 'should not', rather than the world of is, or is not :(

The original context of her 'cos' to me, was over not wanting to spend time somewhere that is totally expectant that one knows the rules in the world of should and should not within totally biased perspective (how stressful that is for children who just innocently 'are'). I guess 'small doses' might apply :wink: and she's struggling to balance those things.

What wonderful teachers children are.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com
User avatar
smiileyjen101
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Previous

Return to Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest