A Shift Into Enlightenment

Post links to sites, web pages, videos, etc.
Forum rules
No links to copyrighted materials.

A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby goran » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Hi,

I just wanted to share my latest blog post!

http://www.uncoveringlife.com/shift-enlightenment/

Thanks,
Goran
http://www.uncoveringlife.com – Enlightenment Starts Here
goran
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:07 pm

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby kiki » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:25 pm

Thanks for sharing. Nice job of taking what seems so mysterious to so many and showing the simplicity of it.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---
Your donation will help keep us online.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby ashley72 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:32 pm

Goran,

Are you familiar with the Ponzo illusion?

I recently had to write an essay on this phenomena.

Image

There is a few different theories on why this illusion or effect occurs which I won't discuss here.

But one interesting observation is the Ponzo illusion has also been used to demonstrate a dissociation between vision-for-perception and vision-for-action (Two-streams hypothesis). Thus, the scaling of grasping movements directed towards objects embedded within a Ponzo illusion is not subject to the size illusion. In other words, the opening between the index finger and thumb is scaled to the real not the apparent size of the target object as the grasping hand approaches the object.

I read your blog on perception & basically your implying that perception has a "learned" or "memory" component which you referred to as a "veil" or the conceptualisation of objects. I think this is true, our perception is complex and has multiple streams or channels affecting or comprising it...which can be demonstrated by the Ponzo illusion.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby ashley72 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:55 pm

Goran,

How would you define perception? & what is the basic purpose of perception? To objectify or conceptualise our dynamic & flowing sense perceptions into a "abstract" structure or isomorphic mapping (from primary layer => target layer)???
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:26 pm

Ash, he's not going to respond. He doesn't come for actual discussion. He comes here merely to self-promote his blog and his book and practically never responds to conversation or engages in any. He does this on multiple spiritual forums too. I know this, because I searched his book last year.

Just letting you know.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby ashley72 » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:58 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:Ash, he's not going to respond. He doesn't come for actual discussion. He comes here merely to self-promote his blog and his book and practically never responds to conversation or engages in any. He does this on multiple spiritual forums too. I know this, because I searched his book last year.

Just letting you know.


He does respond sometimes. Check out this discussion I had with him back in 2012

http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth.info/viewtopic.php?t=10763

Goran is refuting the existence of an external world. So in his mind everything is an illusion... no electrons, atoms, photons, molecules, electromagnetism, chemical reactions, gravity, etc.

When people take that approach you need to throw out every discovery in human knowledge that the human race has made over thousands of years by billions of people investigating the perceivable world. All the inventors, like Thomas Edison who invented the light bulb were acting on a illusionary world!

It's "extremely" arrogant to say I'm going ignore the entire collective knowledge of the human race with my own contradictory belief system.

If Goran invented something of significance like the "light globe" in support of his theory that the external world doesn't exist I might take more notice of his theories.

But alas! ...We all know that ain't going to happen!

Edit:
I was just thinking why does someone who does not believe in an external world even bother self-promoting himself on a discussion forum without the intent of having a discussion... Because he's using the forum to gather followers so he can sell them books at a profit!

I know my state of mind is characterized by a general distrust of others' motives because I believe that humans are selfish by nature, ruled by emotion, and heavily influenced by the same primitive instincts that helped humans survive in the wild before agriculture and civilization became established... lol
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby Enlightened2B » Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:53 pm

ashley72 wrote:I was just thinking why does someone who does not believe in an external world even bother self-promoting himself on a discussion forum without the intent of having a discussion... Because he's using the forum to gather followers so he can sell them books at a profit!


That was kind of my point and I find his philosophy very dangerous. I'm not making a personal attack against Goran himself. I know nothing about the guy and I do believe he has good intentions. I just think, he's highly caught up in a very danerous belief system and I have no problem ripping apart this flawed philosophy, because all philosophy is flawed on some level. This one, the most.

His perspective is based off of flawed solipsistic/Kantian/Berkeleyish/Direct Path 'teachings', not realizing that it's just another form of dogmatic limited religion. The perspective is flawed on countless, countless levels. Number one, the people who convince themselves of this, claim that consciousness is all for all of the mistaken reasons. Mistaken because their perspective is beyond limited. Let me explain:

They claim that a human hand for example, doesn't really exist, outside of the colors and shapes that make it up, which is so incredibly mistaken. First of all, they perceive the world merely through the lens of their own limited body/mind vehicle. They claim that the perception that they view the world as, is Consciousness, and because they can't view anything, outside of their direct perception, they automatically believe it doesn't exist, and therefore, Consciousness is All, but really what they're saying is 'human perception is all', which of course is completely not true.

So, because they can't simply comprehend the INCREDIBLE complexity that comprises the human body including cells (which are also alive), particles (the same) and not to mention the incredibly complexity of how everything within the body works symbiotically to co-create homeostasis, and how the human body itself is a holographic projection on a smaller level of what we are, on a larger level, they automatically assume, it doesn't exist! But, hey, I can't actually see the cells/atoms of my body. So, I guess they don't exist, right?

So, they claim that consciousness is all because nothing can be said to be, outside of 'human perception'. So, according to them, everything is just human 'perception'. It's straight up solipsism. That's not arrogant to me because they can't help themselves. This is simply what they've convinced themselves to believe, yet ironically, they talk about having no beliefs. The entire perspective is based in delusion.

Ironically enough, Goran claims that there is no 'I'. Yet, count how many times in his posts, or in his blog or even this post in this thread that he refers to 'I' in his blog. According to him, there is no 'I' nor is there a 'myself'. Yet this is what he wrote above:

"I just wanted to share my latest blog post"

When it's convenient for him as you see, that "I" very much exists....as in....selling books. And honestly? I believe Goran has very good intentions. He's simply mistaken. It's laughable how contradictory and ridiculous it is. The same exact thing I noticed from Peter Dziuban, author of 'Consciousness is All'. The guy in his book went as far as to claim that everything in reality is just colors and shapes, including blood. Then, I go on amazon, and watch as he argues with the reviewers who gave his book one star as he attempts to defend his 'non existent book'. It's highly amusing watching this. HIGHLY amusing.

That's not enlightenment. That's insanity.

Look, I have no problem admitting that I'm biased against Goran's perspective, because I've been down the direct path nonsense myself at one point and it's nihilistic and solipsistic and simply highly mistaken once again.

So, I figure....why even bother at this point starting a conversation with him? You know where it's going to go. Both of your perspectives are based in deep rooted beliefs. Yours in materialism and his in philosophy.

So be it.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby rachMiel » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:09 am

ashley72 wrote:everything is an illusion... no electrons, atoms, photons, molecules, electromagnetism, chemical reactions, gravity, etc.

Yes ... and not yes.

Ultimately, there are no objects, because every object our mind conceives of is, by definition, a concept. And a concept is never that to which it points. As my electrical engineering brother is fond of saying to his students, there are no existents that adhere to Ohm's Law. Ohm's Law is just a model that can predict certain behaviors quite accurately.

This is not to say that there is nothing there, that everything is an illusion created by mind. My take is that there is *stuff* "out there" ... and our mind/sensorium interprets this stuff as the objects and actions of everyday life.

Conventionally, objects do exist. If you don't believe it, smash your hand into a table. ;-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby Enlightened2B » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:46 am

Boy, do we love to make human perception anthropomorphic. Sorry, but a tree is not a concept. Nor is any object merely a concept. We might label it 'tree' and sure, when we think of a tree, it becomes a concept, but does that mean the tree, itself, is not an experiencing expression of energy, just like you are, just like I am, just like a bacterium is, just like a cell is? The tree very much exists outside of our human vehicle whether we perceive it or not. It's not just 'raw sensory'. Again you're invalidating the experience of any other living and non living creature, when you believe that it's our human minds which bring the raw sensory into actual objects. Believe it or not? The tree, a bacterium, a cell, a rock are all experiencing very nicely whether us puny human beings perceive them or not. :wink: The tree is composed of the same atomic and subatomic structures that you and I are. Our minds are incredibly powerful and we love to think that we are the anthropormophic gods of consciousness, but are merely only one potential path of exploration of consciousness as I see it.

As long as there IS something to experience, that means it very much exists. Even if that something is far beyond the sensory tools of experience (our senses), because wherever anything is, is the center of existence, since holographically, we are all connected to the Source through the same energy field. There is nothing that requires a human mind to exist.

True enlightenment is opening your perspective up to include the larger perspective on life of all things, not closing yourself off and limiting yourself to merely your own human perceptions. Those who continue to harp down the solipsistic path and who still can't grow out of it, seem to me that they are trying to escape their lives.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby rachMiel » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:26 pm

Looks like I miscommunicated. (Wouldn't be the first time!) I'll try again:

There exists stuff.
Mind senses that stuff and interprets it: names it this or that.
But the name is never the thing it seeks to name. It's just a pointer, metaphor, concept.

So do trees exist? No, because "tree" is a name.
Does stuff exist that we name "trees?" Yes!

No mind-opomorphism there that I can see. The stuff that's out there exists whether or not any mind perceives it. But, sans mind/interpretation, it doesn't have a name.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby ashley72 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:43 pm

rachMiel wrote:Looks like I miscommunicated. (Wouldn't be the first time!) I'll try again:

There exists stuff.
Mind senses that stuff and interprets it: names it this or that.
But the name is never the thing it seeks to name. It's just a pointer, metaphor, concept.

So do trees exist? No, because "tree" is a name.
Does stuff exist that we name "trees?" Yes!

No mind-opomorphism there that I can see. The stuff that's out there exists whether or not any mind perceives it. But, sans mind/interpretation, it doesn't have a name.


Rach,

I understood what you were implying. However, to say that ultimately there are no objects can easily be mis-interpreted because the "objective" world is describing the separation we visually perceive between objects. In other words, I perceive that a tree is separate from the atmosphere or sky around it. Now, whether the "separation" is illusionary because all things are inter-connected...by a wave structure at a sub-atomic level, is not really changing the fact we visually perceive the separation at our macro human perceivable perspective... and that is not illusionary... from the human perspective! ...Which is all that is relevant when talking with other humans!!! Lol

Folk that try and deny the existents of an objective world or reality just don't get it. I can have an understanding or appreciation that the physical reality is actually a super wave-structure or substrate with a viscosity of zero. But in doing so I do not need to depart from conventionally describing my physical world or reality objectively.... because how does one communicate with others... if we can't define the world objectively?

So do trees exist? Yes they do exist objectively!!! Does a distance "lake" viewed on the horizon of a sandy desert exist... no that is a mirage or illusion.... there is no physical lake that you will find. A bit like you will not be able to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow only one in your imagination!!! Lol

So to be correct... "trees" absolutely exist both physically & objectively. But the physical substrate of a tree may be structurally a wave medium with a viscosity near zero. :wink:

Now Goran made this assertion back in 2012....

What people aren't getting, and thus a major reason why they're completely stuck in their search, is that there is no world external to perceptions. When they hear something like "All there is, is consciousness", they proceed to interpret that as if consciousness is some magical force that operates within the universe. What you need to realize is that there is no universe at all, period. There is no space nor time, and thus no atoms, cells, neurons or any matter at all. All of that is entirely imaginary. When you fully realize this, you will realize that there is no you. ~ Goran


Which is absolutely both absurd & insane. Goran clearly doesn't know the difference between imagination the stuff of brains & the physical structure external to his brain stuff.

Goran is so insane he is appealing to people... Hey believe it or not you do not really physically exist neither do I! Which is completely contradictory because he's attempting to have a conversation with others.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby rachMiel » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:44 pm

ashley72 wrote:So to be correct... "trees" absolutely exist both physically & objectively. But the physical substrate of a tree may be structurally a wave medium with a viscosity near zero. :wink:

As I see it:

"Tree" is a mind-made conceptual construct (i.e., a name) that describes our perception of non-mind-made stuff (atoms, waves, the mystery, whatever). Without mind there is no "tree" ... there is just the stuff "tree" points to.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the name is never the thing it names*. Names are just pointers, metaphors, symbols.

* Except in mind-made conceptual systems like mathematics, formal logic, scientific classification, etc.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby ashley72 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:20 pm

rachMiel wrote:
ashley72 wrote:So to be correct... "trees" absolutely exist both physically & objectively. But the physical substrate of a tree may be structurally a wave medium with a viscosity near zero. :wink:

As I see it:

"Tree" is a mind-made conceptual construct (i.e., a name) that describes our perception of non-mind-made stuff (atoms, waves, the mystery, whatever). Without mind there is no "tree" ... but there IS the stuff "tree" points to.


Hang on... if I scratched into stone... The letters "T-R -E -E"... and then a few years later humans became extinct on planet earth... Those symbols would still be scratched in the stone. If a learning machine or alien race was left to decipher those symbols it could compute & act on those symbols.

Symbols are universal... so without mind there could still be the word "tree" & machine readable.

Think of another biological living species that eventually evolves from present day over millions of years to eventually compute the word "Tree" via supervised learning. In fact,chimpanzee can be taught to understand concepts like the word tree & the physical substrate it maps to.

In fact the physical substrate which comprises a tree... Contains "quantum information" which is universal in nature. One day we may decipher this quantum code to exacting precision. The word "tree" is the human short-hand. Just like the word "one thousand and fifty five" has a numerical or decimal short-hand 1055.

The point I'm trying to make is humans didn't invent information. Information is universal in nature. All biological species as well as equipment & machines can compute and process information. Information exists period! The physical tree is really made up of quantum information which could be a wave structure.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby coriolis » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:18 pm

ashley72 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is humans didn't invent information. Information is universal in nature. All biological species as well as equipment & machines can compute and process information. Information exists period! The physical tree is really made up of quantum information which could be a wave structure.


Information, however, cannot be cleanly separated from that which processes it just as what is seen does not exist independently from that which sees it and some information is mostly "human invented".
Information and that which makes it "informative" are entangled in so many ways that building a universally applicable conceptual model of them is impossible to do because, in actual experience, they never occur separately.
The statement "Information exists period!" is only half true in the wilds of tangible events.
Look deeply inside yourself and try to find yourself.
The ensuing failure is the true finding
---- Wu Hsin
User avatar
coriolis
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:51 pm

Re: A Shift Into Enlightenment

Postby Enlightened2B » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:39 pm

coriolis wrote:Information, however, cannot be cleanly separated from that which processes it just as what is seen does not exist independently from that which sees it and some information is mostly "human invented".


hmm, so basically, you believe that the tree does not exist apart from your human perception of seeing it? If that's not what you meant, then, care to embellish a bit, by what you actually did mean by the bolded statement above?
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Next

Return to Recommended Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests