From: Philip Benjamin [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ > Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds") [Roland Cichowski] Dare I ask why your posts are filled, perhaps, so vehemently with all of the Augustinian, pagan, Wamp stuff. It may have given me a wrong impression of you. I don’t understand what it has to do with consciousness. [Philip Benjamin] Any refence to the authoritarian, global-Marxist-socialist (Comintern) is “vehemently” disapproved and branded as “conspiratorial” bigotry and “ignorance” by the established acade-media order. European and American histories (other than the Progressive-pagan revisionist versions) are expunged from the curricula under the pretext of Church-State separation, because most of these histories are related to and deeply rooted in Church History. It is a conscious (pagan un-awakened, kundalini/reptilian), calculated misstatements about distant or recent past. The acade-media use it to destroy personal lives and relationships or connivingly in political and socio-cultural discussions—especially in the less-informed social media. Reality existed before CopenPagan Interpretation came into existence!! That the Western Civilization was (and still is to some extent) distinctly different and separate from the rest of the world of “un-awakened” consciousness is a HISTORICAL fact. The role of the once pagan Augustine of the (3 rd - 4 th Centuries) is unquestionable in baptizing Platonism into Scriptural norms (though he later on completely got out of Platonism). The anchoring of Augustinian philosophy and theology to the Athenian Mars Hill discourse of Rabbi Saul of Tarsus is too obvious. These are “truth-facts” which cannot be denied. The later “quickening” are all Augustinian-- Reformation, Wesleyan and Puritan Revivals, the Two Great Awakenings in America and many others still current. The Western Acae-Media Pagan(ism) – WAMP-the-Ingrate-- does deny all that unconscionably and/or ignorantly. Somebody has to point that out. It is not only a question of “consciousness”, but also of conscience. It is not bigotry, only chivalry. Revisionists hate it. Progressivism/paganism shuns it. The division between “awakening” and “dormancy” or “deadness” is abysmal. The hatred there is REAL but one-way—from the latter to the former. Philip Benjamin
From: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ > Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:13 AM : Philip Benjamin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds") Philip, Thank you. At last I think I can begin to perceive your approach. I agree when you say: The answer is “yes”. Nothing never existed. Otherwise something cannot exist now. This can be settled only by a degree of rationality. Perhaps you did not notice my statement in my previous post …It is the fact that you are here to make this statement, which means that nothingness is not a reality; your presence the presence of your consciousness means a condition of nothingness really does not exist. So, I think we are saying the same thing here. Therefore the issue is, why do we seem to be disagreeing with one another. I think I can begin to perceive an answer when you say. What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or LIFE having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce life. LIFE can produce dead matter and life. If you substitute consciousness for the word LIFE… (What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or Consciousness having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce Consciousness. Consciousness can produce dead matter and life.) Then this more or less equates with my view. Some of the key points: Consciousness having aseity [being sufficient unto its self?] given that I am seeking an explanation for what consciousness is I have to consider if that is possible for my consciousness. Several perspectives arise; if I have an immortal soul, perhaps but I cannot tell this until I die. Hmmm… If you are saying that consciousness has asiety then I think I can agree with that. How can Impersonal Consciousness produce personal beings? A Personal Aseitous Being is a necessary Reality. I think we may be agreeing here also. The concept of what I think of as personality might seem not to exist. Yet I feel I have a personality and it seems you do also. It's almost like consciousness, possesing of a certain intangibility. It would also seem to be an important component of conscious. My question is where does it come from, never mind what it is? My answer is that it must lie in the beginning of things. Our divergence seems to come about around here somehow. For you that beginning would seem to come from a material reality. For me that does not make sense. Given that our understanding of a physical reality cannot explain (as yet) how consciousness can arise from what you call dead matter. At best it is consigned to the status of an epi-phenomenon. I have been considering if dead matter can arise from life or consciousness. In terms of the nature of the ultimate reality that is our existence. I can’t help thinking that if that ultimate reality is consciousness then it is capable of producing an experience of what you call dead matter. It becomes a question of if we can see through the true nature of our experience of things. What is an experience? We automatically take our experience of things as given. There is plenty to suggest that there is something wrong with this from a physical perspective. Most prominent is the issue of how colour qualia arises. If it arises in what we call consciousness that works it is something we paint upon our experience and then put it out there and call it a reality. If we believe it is out there as a separate quality in a physical universe then we have a problem explaining how it appears in our experience. Plenty to think about. PS. Dare I ask why your posts are filled, perhaps, so vehemently with all of the Augustinian, pagan, Wamp stuff. It may have given me a wrong impression of you. I don’t understand what it has to do with consciousness. Thanks for the deep thoughts. Roland On 16/02/2021 1:40, Philip Benjamin wrote: Roland: You ask: “This is the problem when you and others take this sort of attitude. Are you really saying that you can know that anything exists without your consciousness? How can you know that?” The answer is “yes”. Nothing never existed. Otherwise something cannot exist now. This can be settled only by a degree of rationality. What is more rational? Dead matter having aseity or LIFE having aseity. Dead matter cannot produce life. LIFE can produce dead matter and life. Finite goddess of Science is imprecise, imperfect and indefinite. Will any religion or philosophy really answer these questions? Eastern or Greco- Roman mystic religions have come up with all kinds of superstitions and speculations. How can Impersonal Consciousness produce personal beings? A Personal Aseitous Being is a necessary Reality. Augustine was once an erudite, Phoenician pagan of Greco-Roman roots. He was instantly TRANSFORMED through the instrumentality of a child’s song that led him to Romans 13:13 (www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwestaugustinians.org%2Fconversion-of-st-augustine&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9c81ad44e88e45d21ecb08d8d252bb82%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637490600073424659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xllcdsIUyqC%2BDEnsIMMfclNE084S0QYeQ04omBYhbgY%3D&reserved=0>). He baptized Platonism into Scriptural norms, and sconced it into the foundations laid by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus on Athenian Mars Hill (Acts chapter 17), where the Greco-Roman unknown god was clearly identified as Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) in the Person of the Risen Messiah. That SEPARATED the West from the rest of the PAGAN world of un-awakened consciousness. These are historical facts. There are more histories as Reformation, Wesleyan & Puritan Revivals, Welsh Revival, The Two great Awakenings in America and great awakenings world-wide (Kagawa in Japan, Sadhu Sundar Sing in India etc.). Seemingly, Bohr or the Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism) have never heard of these historical facts!! Philip Benjamin Some of my publications: Nuclear charge dispersion in the fission of 232Th by protons of energy 20–85 MeV February 2011Canadian Journal of Chemistry 47(2):301-312 DOI: 10.1139/v69-042 Authors: Philip Benjamin et al. Nuclear charge dispersion in the fission of 232Th by protons of energy 20-85 MeV; P. P. BEN JAM IN, D. A. MARSDEKN~. ,T . PO RILE^, AND L. YAFFE; CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY. VOL. 47, 301-312, 1969 McGill Unrversity, Montreal, Quebec With financial assistance from the Directorate of Chemical Sciences, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant Nos. AF-AFOSR 62-64 and 489-64. ELECTROLYTIC COMPLEXATION OF 99mTc ATCONSTANT CURRENT: ITS APPLICATIONS IN NUCLEAR MEDICINE Philip P. Benjamin, Abbas Rejali and Hymer Friedell Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; J Nucl Med. 1970 Apr;11(4):147-54. BENJAMIN, Philip P. A rapid and efficient method of preparing 99mTc human serum albumin: its clinical applications. Intern. I. App!. Radiation Isotopes 20:187, 1969. BENJAMIN, Philip P. J Nucl Med. 1970 Jan;11(1):49-50. Electrolytic complexation of technetium: inhibition by impurities and a recipe for routine preparation. . From: Roland Cichowski <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 7:26 PM To: Philip Benjamin <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds") Heh! No, Philip, that is NOT just a CopenPagan view. Reality DID NOT exist before Niels Bohr came into existence!! Neither does yours. Seriously Philip, just a unsupported assertion from you! Sure you can do better. Where is your evidence, scientifically verified and repeatable evidence? I’m assuming you consider yourself a scientist of some sort. This is the problem when you and others take this sort of attitude. Are you really saying that you can know that anything exists without your consciousness? How can you know that? I know that something we call consciousness is here in this moment because I am it and I cannot deny my own presence. I don’t know about yours and am willing to freely admit that. As to what my consciousness experiences really are I will admit I have no way of proving that those experiences are there without me. I know they are there for me, but could be illusory. I assume you know yours are there for you. Have you ever stopped to consider that if what you perceive as reality does NOT exist without you then everything that you have built and understood by accepting the proposition (without proof) that it DOES, could be wrong? It would block you from understanding a greater reality or what is really causing you to exist. Perhaps you have no need for self-knowledge or awareness. First casualty in your believe system if it should turn out that your version of reality does not exist without you is that what you call the ‘CopenPagan view’, could be right. I can understand how this would be annoying for you but really do you want to risk an existence of ignorance based upon an unprovable assertion? I prefer to accept for the moment that I do not, one hundred percent, know. What I do know is that the proposition that my daily reality does not exist without me seems to solve more issues than the idea that it does exist without me. I may get to the end of my journey and discover I am wrong until then I will keep searching. You think you have an answer but it is all based upon an unprovable assertion. Do you accept other unprovable assertions? If not then why would you accept the foundational one upon which you have constructed your whole view of reality when you have no way of proving it; If you have please let me know, seriously I mean it. >From a figment of your imagination called Roland that you are using to try to >correct your error.😉 Surprise me by giving me a provable answer, Roland. On 15/02/2021 6:29, Philip Benjamin wrote: No, Roland, that is a CopenPagan view. Reality DID exist before Niels Bohr came into existence!! From: Roland Cichowski <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 7:57 PM To: Philip Benjamin <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds") Philip, a brief response to: Reality— for to be REAL-- either exists or it does not, whether anybody looks at it or perceives it is immaterial. With respect I really do think this is where you are making a crucial error in your thinking. Of course it is vitally important if anybody looks at it or not. If no one experiences reality how is anyone to know it exists? It would to all intents and purposes not be there. If it were there it might as well not be. You are not the only one who fails to recognise the importance and contribution of consciousness to the existence of anything at all. You unwittingly support this when you say: Nothingness could never have been a REALIY [reality]. That is very true, because if nothingness were a reality then you would not be here to observe it, you are something. Your presence negates the possibility of nothingness. It is the fact that you are here to make this statement, which means that nothingness is not a reality; Your presence the presence of your consciousness means a condition of nothingness really does not exist. If you can perceive that this is the state of things in regard to nothingness then how can you make the statement that whether anyone looks at the state/condition we call ‘reality’ is immaterial? Consciousness is as relevant to the existence of a condition of reality as it is to the non-existence of nothingness. To follow you own reasoning. How do you know that there are not many things in existence which you know nothing about because you have not had an opportunity to see/experience them? To all intents and purposes such things do not exist for you. You do not experience them so they are not available to your consciousness. Effectively they do not exist in your version of reality, they are propositions, nothing more. Perhaps they are not even that. If they were suddenly to appear to you then you would believe they exist. it would change your whole perspective on reality. Would you still then believe it was an immaterial as to whether they existed or not? All the best Roland. On 13/02/2021 1:40, Philip Benjamin wrote: [Philip Benjamin] A quick reply is in order for now.” [Quantum particle’s] existence requires an observer/consciousness (your consciousness)”. That is the CopenPagan Interpretation. Reality— for to be REAL-- either exists or it does not, whether anybody looks at it or perceives it is immaterial. Nothingness could never have been a REALIY. There is of course the possibility of “close sensory approximation”. The mistake is to call Schrodinger Equation a “wave equation” it is a “wavelike equation”. Wave-likeness is not equal to waviness. Absurd/illogical solutions of this equation cannot be accepted, if an artificial paradox such as wave-likeness = waviness is accepted as reality. A particle is a REALITY. A wave-form is another REALITY. Particles do not transform into waves without an external source of very high power!! One physicist once commented that a trained “sage” can see particle as wave in the slit experiment! The statement that “Addictions often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities” does not mean that the two are the same. There are certain consequences to certain behaviors and beliefs which are verisimilar to developmental disabilities. Imaginations and hallucinations about REALITIES could very well be “addiction” related, addiction to “occultism” or psychedelics for example. Philip Benjamin From: Roland Cichowski <rolandshh@ ><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] FW: Falling Outward (was: Words, definitions, and Many "Worlds") Philip lots of questions long answer, apologies… Questions: 1 . Property of what? Of space? Of matter? Will not “…the idea of consciousness being the property that expands space” deprive “consciousness” of its ontological nature? Answer: I don’t think so. If you are looking at the issue of what all things/experiences have in common. Then it could be said that consciousness as ‘being’ is common to them all. Try experiencing anything when you are unconscious. So, the idea that consciousness expands space is consistent with the idea that it is consciousness itself which is responsible for generating everything that you can be aware of. This includes your sense of space and time. Try experiencing reality without time. Such a reality is frozen; doesn’t go anywhere; can’t move forward or backwards. Likewise you will have trouble experiencing anything without space. Without some sort of space there is nothing for anything to be experienced in; nothing for anything to exist in. 2 . Quantum reality? Isn’t it the reality of “quantum (least measurable, quantifiable unit) particles”—PARTICLES nonetheless? Answer: I am not a quantum physicist but it seems to me from what I have read that a particle is as you say describing the least/smallest possible unit. Its true nature though is not observable by us (when we observe our rugs). We register its presence when we attempt to find what our rugs are made of and you are labelling the material with the word/symbol, ‘particle’. Its existence requires an observer/consciousness (your consciousness). Here you enter the tricky issue of how such particles come into existence. It seems it requires the presence of an observer for them to do so. In terms of our rugs they are what we are using to form the basic components of our rugs. As the weaver it is you placing them to form the reality which your consciousness experiences. I see no inconsistency here. A quantum reality is a way of labelling what is unseen and perhaps unseeable behind our everyday realities; the unseen tiniest components which we build with. 3 . Isn’t the PHYSICAL reality that of “ Wave-likeness of real particles” and not the imaginary waviness and the imaginary creation of artificial puzzles and paradoxes? Answer: sorry you have lost me a bit here. My perspective is that physical reality is an imaginary creation. This would include concepts like paradoxes and puzzles. Like the assumed physical reality itself they could be considered artificial. 4 . “… Many years working closely with people with developmental disabilities taught me this”. Addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex, occultism, sorcery, gambling etc. often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities. Some of the pioneers of quantum physics were addicts, otherwise psychiatrist (& a sorcerer) Carl Jung would not have been a contributing “quantum pioneer”. Answer: I find this comment disturbing maybe even offensive. I do not perceive the connection between developmental disabilities and addiction to drugs sex etc. as appropriate. Perhaps you have a lack of understanding of what a developmental disability is. It is a process which is not able to follow what you might expect to be its normal path of development. Injury either before or during birth is the most common recognisable cause. The unfolding of the sensory and physical abilities of such an individual is inconsistent or even not present. So their rugs do not make much sense to them. At best they are only slightly comparable to others. Most find it impossible to communicate what they experience to others or even relate to others. Their rugs or reality have become too different to others for them to communicate with others. To describe this in a simple way: If you are born blind you will never to be able to experience colour or visual form in the way others do. You will just hear about this mythical thing called colour and light. However, it will not exist for you, so how to converse with someone about it? What should be of more concern to every individual is the fact that development continues until your physical form disintegrates. Therefore it is possible for each of us to experience loss of bodily control, deprivation of sensory inputs and consequent mental confusion and frustration. How your soul/being would cope with this is something you might not want to find out. A stroke, brain injury, dementia all these things can change your course of development. You appear to be fortunate, so far. As for the developmental paths of addiction you mention. Yes you are able to develop in these directions. Usually people do so because of some unseen mental injury, deprivation, emotional abuse, lack of love and feeling in their lives. All these things can drive a person to drink as they say. The addiction is the result of the flight from the continuation of the pain they are experiencing. Recovering from such abuse and addiction is extremely difficult and many become lost. With respect I think your rug may have many crossed wefts judging from the way you have mixed, judged and divided historical components like Augustine and pagan etc. thought. 5 . “ Understanding of cause and effect and logic”, “individual consciousness seems to have the desire to exist”, “ to exist it needs something to exist in”, “empty space expanding”? These are questions of aseity, causality, origin, meaning (desire), telos etc. which do not belong to the realm of any objective science. Answer: I think I may agree with you here insofar as what you call objective science exists on/in the rug. Questions of aseity etc. would seem to be with the weaver; you. Therefore I do not understand why you seem to be objecting to exploring them. Perhaps you have convinced yourself that you can find your consciousness in your rug… 6 . In fact all these issues do not deal with the question of “what is consciousness?”, rather they deal with “what an individual is conscious of?” There is the world out there and the world within? An expanding empty space is an oxymoron. So also self-consciousness is another oxymoron when “self” is not real. If self is real and invisible the only candidate available for science today is bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) with its bio dark-matter chemistry, cocreating the resonant “dark” and “light” twins from the moment of conception. Closed thinking is tunnel vision. It is an established hierarchical, inflexible task based path. Here one does not think about much more than getting routines done. A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will require breaking ranks with the establishment swamp. Philip Benjamin Answer: sorry Philip I have tried to untangle your terminology in the past and find talk of swamps and what is it WAMPs reptilian consciousness etc. confusing and possessing of a tone of angst if not worse. As you say, ‘A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will…’; the tone of your comments often seem far from tolerant and relaxed so I get confused. Are you part of the establishment? Which establishment do you represent? I do not feel part of any establishment always the outsider. Are you sure you are not in a swamp? How can you tell? I pose these questions sincerely. As for dark matter; have you ever considered the possibility that it is dark because it is in the unformed realm of the weaver/observer? Is it something, which you as a weaver have not yet managed to cast onto the rug? Something that is your attempt to recognise and label the unseen; the part of the puzzle that is uncreated, Jung who you seem to deride, might have called it the unconscious. As such it is that, which we are not conscious of. Your depiction of it as dark matter as opposed to light matter would seem to suggest this. A struggle to bring it into conception, if so I fear you will find there is always a need for the unknown the unseeable. Interesting and thank you. Roland. On 12/02/2021 2:29, Philip Benjamin wrote: [Philip Benjamin] Questions: 1 . Property of what? Of space? Of matter? Will not “…the idea of consciousness being the property that expands space” deprive “consciousness” of its ontological nature? 2 . Quantum reality? Isn’t it the reality of “quantum (least measurable, quantifiable unit) particles”—PARTICLES nonetheless? 3 . Isn’t the PHYSICAL reality that of “ Wave-likeness of real particles” and not the imaginary waviness and the imaginary creation of artificial puzzles and paradoxes? 4 . “… Many years working closely with people with developmental disabilities taught me this”. Addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex, occultism, sorcery, gambling etc. often have verisimilar consequences as developmental disabilities. Some of the pioneers of quantum physics were addicts, otherwise psychiatrist (& a sorcerer) Carl Jung would not have been a contributing “quantum pioneer”. 5 . “ Understanding of cause and effect and logic”, “individual consciousness seems to have the desire to exist”, “ to exist it needs something to exist in”, “empty space expanding”? These are questions of aseity, causality, origin, meaning (desire), telos etc. which do not belong to the realm of any objective science. 6 . In fact all these issues do not deal with the question of “what is consciousness?”, rather they deal with “what an individual is conscious of?” There is the world out there and the world within? An expanding empty space is an oxymoron. So also self- consciousness is another oxymoron when “self” is not real. If self is real and invisible the only candidate available for science today is bio dark-matter (of negligible mass) with its bio dark-matter chemistry, cocreating the resonant “dark” and “light” twins from the moment of conception. Closed thinking is tunnel vision. It is an established hierarchical, inflexible task based path. Here one does not think about much more than getting routines done. A more spatial, tolerant and relaxed open mode thinking will require breaking ranks with the establishment swamp. Philip Benjamin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB470455408D56BC4926EEAE2EA8879%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
