On 24 Feb 2009, at 23:44, Günther Greindl wrote:
>> I would say the Universal Soul. To be the ONE? The difficulty is
>> Plotinus is not always clear.
> I go now from my reading of mystical texts, not from the arithmetic
> interpretation - and here mystics often report feeling at one with
> universe, everything etc.
> I would say that this is the realization that your true nature (to be
> more precise than before) is not different than that of the ONE/dao/
I am OK with this. But it is "beyond word".
Lao Tse said "the Dao which has a name is not the Dao". Plotinus said
the ONE is ineffable, ...
>> The "universal soul" hypostase *is* a first person (or a theory about
>> a first person). Some would say it is just an "abstract person". That
>> it is just the least common part of all souls, or in the arithmetical
>> "toy" theology, that is the common part of all first persons
> Ok, I think attaining this "minimal person" is also a meditative
> but the full mystical experience reported in all cultures etc would be
> union with the ONE:
> The Perennial Philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit
> formula, tat tvam asi ('That thou art'); the Atman, or immanent
> Self, is one with Brahman, the Absolute Principle of all existence;
> the last end of every human being, is to discover the fact for
> to find out who he really is.
> Aldous Huxley
> END QUOTE
I agree. But up to now I can really talk about this trough both comp
and the arithmetical self-reference.
This leads to open mathematical problems.
>> total amnesia (forgetting not just who you are, but that you are, +
>> forgetting everything up to the idea of time and space), yet
>> conscious, if not being even much more conscious with the feeling
>> memories are making you less conscious, and that a memory-brain is a
>> filter on histories. Stable memories differentiate consciousness
> Yes, I agree, I think brains/memories are filters on histories; but
> above description of pure consciousness - what introspective reason
> leads you to believe that that is still the experience of a (minimal)
> person an not already experience of the "source"? (I like to change
> words for the "ONE" so that no connotations become entrenched; after
> all, it is "described" as the ineffable)
OK, but the term "source" has many connotations too. All terms are
With comp "truth" is the less wrong, in the language of a Lobian
machine working out the "theology" of a simpler machine.
No introspective reason leads me to believe the experience of the
Universal Soul" is different from the fusion with the One.
It is purely mathematical reason which leads me to make a distinction
in the mathematical theology.
Any machine *asserting* it has fused with the ONE, is provably wrong.
>> A problem for comp is that, well at least I have thought that comp
>> makes the soul (the first person, the third hypostase) conscious only
>> through its building or generating time. But the salvia reports and
>> own experiences make me think I could be wrong there.
> Indeed, a first person, namely, what we call a person (narrative,
> history, agency, autonomy etc) requires temporality.
Yes, it is weird. I am very confused about this.
>> AUDA in short.
> Ok, you have whetted my appetite, now I will have to read the Plotinus
> paper ;-)
Plotinus, for me, is mainly a good pedagogical path. It helps also to
recast the machine interview in the human philosophies.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at