Curtis, (I'm totally babbling here...sorry for the slog needed to get to the salient points -- IF THERE ARE ANY.)
I'm willing to use religious metaphors as tools, but let's face it, they've sometimes triggered knee-jerks in ya. I say "God," and I mean "whatever the fuck ultimate reality is," and you hear, perhaps at least a couple of times: "imaginary white bearded guy with Whom Edg thinks he can communicate." But the word "God" is faster to type than "W.T.F.U.R.I." So when I use "God," please hold back that deep need to choke me. I know you will. I agree that we cannot know if someone's brain is sensitive and hep or merely delusional, and that when it came to TM I drank the cool aid and didn't really challenge MMY's assertions. (But, as a poet, let me underline that just about any words can be made to fit any experience, so it's no surprise that anyone can say anything about God, and it can believed deeply and sincerely without any sense of dissonance. Therefore, as a fellow ape, I feel compassion for apes who get caught in a trap of certainty about how they're interpreting their experiences. It's so easy to do.) I don't know physics...just metaphors to me. When I note that I am certainly having an experience, this is not necessarily an event about which the intellect needs to prattle in order for it to be authenticated as "real" to me. You know this too, but let's have it always on the table between us. If I hear someone speaking in the distance but do not hear well enough to pick out the words, I can still pick up on emotions and maybe even the concepts just from volume and tone of the delivery. My brain is able to process it "into" meaning of some sort that I trust deeply. Maybe folks can hear God but not be able to pick out His words...but yet still be certain about His message? Maybe the quantum foam is heard as "OOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM," and since OM means ALL THINGS, folks feel free to assert that it means, well, ANY THING, and they'll be speaking truly as far as they know. ??? That doesn't carry much proof-heft, cuz I can point my finger anywhere and be sure to be targeting something real. To say God is vengeful or loving or The True Psyche of Elvis Presley ....true true true. It's all true. Everything. And that's why it's often such trouble with hard-wired believers -- they're telling the truth but not the whole truth so help them God. This would be a "feeling in God" or "intuitively relating to divinity" instead of a "believing in God." And frankly, I kinda like the folks that do this, cuz they're almost always about loving. It's in the ones who insist on a precise conceptualization of their "takes" that we see spiritual fascism trying to add lyrics to the divine song. I have this "silence" about which I cannot conceptualize except with the same old tired ways of mysticism, but despite the challenge of framing the experience, I feel no challenge in interpreting the experience by intuition/gut check/feel. To me, silence is God's very presence not because I can construct a proof but because I cannot deny that I am intensely aware of "it" -- more than if I were to come upon a 1000 pound unexploded bomb in a downtown London construction site. And it's not merely a sound thingie. White paper between black letters, what exists between a "this" and a "that," the blank I get when I try to know my next thought," that pause before a sneeze, the first answer to the question "Why?" and/or the color of the precise line that separates yin from yang. Poetry. But there it is: we have many ways of "thinking without concepts manifested as 'words passing through consciousness.'" And from birth we're always siding with our own spontaneous conclusions, so I just have big-assed compassion for true-believers. Even the bastard bullies. I made a Trikke video the other day in which I tooled around solely on my driveway while I spoke quietly to the camera in a constant patter of observations, and I was trying hard to be cogent and I was. Yet my carving skills went unaffected by the processes of manifesting my intellect verbally. I did the most marvelous little moves rat-a-tat-tat but it was almost entirely a non-act of "me" staying out of the way of the, GET THIS, MINDFUL act of another me's creativity -- that of my muscle memory mind. I simply was not carving. The body was doing all the choices except every now and then I'd mindfully add a decision. It was so obvious that there were, sorry to put it like this, TWO MEs. I seem to be populated by these other types of "me." Anyone knows these "me"s. Who doesn't multitask? I think MMY's insistence that we can only have ONE thought at a time is pure bullshit. Everyone talks while driving error free -- using the turn signals, whatever -- decisions that never even gets to "the chooser" of the mind. So I ask you, Curtis, with your giant fucking heart loving music as if it were holy (it is,) isn't there a part of you that sings a vaster song while the wordy part of you is being linear and logical? I think you can tap into vastness of every sort, and so far, I'm not buying into your distrust of your "takes" about what your experience of silence is, because you've only explained why the intellect cannot always be trusted. How do you come to distrust that ancient song that seems to buzz, loudly or softly doesn't matter, in yourself and others? It's really an experience. You really have it. You feel its hugeness, its boundlessness, but you say something quite psychologically alarming when you say, "but that's just bullshit from the brain." Yet you will be certain to come to alert status if you but hear someone shouting in alarm sight unseen from around a corner!!! Why do you believe yourself in some regards but not others? Yes, there's almost always a "shouter to be found if one peeks around the corner," but you're saying there's no God singing the song you definitely non-hear! Can it be that you and I are simply losers who didn't give the ashram and the meditation and the yoga and the right living and the right diet and the right everything else enough time to cure us of our disbelief? Nabby thinks so. Why the struggle for you and me? Why do Christians get to feel whole and resonant with their assumptions and you and I feel like jerkwads if we pray to an invisible being? In Maslow's self actualization chart -- isn't feeling whole and jiggy with the intellect a sign of maturity? Not that a nutjob can't bogusly claim harmony with his intellect, but I think you know what I'm asking. The quantum foam concept beguiles me. Out of nothing, something. Miracle right there. Ya'd think it would drive the physicists nutzoid, but nope. How do you process the idea of the Big Bang? If you are not willing to give credit to God as creator, and all the physicists are scratching bloody furrows in their skulls cuz they can't see on the other side of the Big Bang fence either, why are you so certain that your experience of silence is devoid of that kind of fecundity? It would seem to me that that quality of being THE SOURCE OF ANYTHING is not as strongly "selling itself" to you as it does to me. I've wallowed in Advaita so much that, natch, I'm wired to project that quality into the silence, but are you saying you are completely devoid of any such romantic notions about silence? Gotta run....maybe there's something to chew on in the above. Help me Obiwananada. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Thanks for picking up on this Edg. Comments below. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Curtis, > > > > I believe in the Absolute. I'd even say that I KNOW the Absolute -- except > > that that would seem as if I'm claiming enlightenment. But, intellectually > > speaking, I have conceptualized about the Absolute in my writings about > > Advaita so much that, well, I've sorta mood made myself into a hard-wired > > nervous system prone to a belief in it. > > To know that this involves belief is my idea of enlightenment. We all have > these states from meditation. The question is what do we make of them, what > do they mean. I have no problem with someone interpreting them through the > filter of the East, but I do have a problem with people claiming that this > gives them an epistemological upper hand from my own less spiritual view of > what it means. In other words we are both interpreting our experiences the > best we can. That is pretty much all we ever do. No one gets a pass from > that process into ultimate surety in my view. > > > > > The personal God, maybe, only maybe, I believe. I like the Sefirot in that > > it portrays a divine personality that, yep, if I were to author up God, > > that would do as a start. > > > I've never heard a version of him, no matter how abstract that seems to > improve on just the miracle of life itself. That blows me away without the > overlay thoery. But as I said, the abstract belief is not a problem for most > atheists. And it is not the majority view of God on this planet. Most people > believe he wants you to wear certain hats and not eat something or do eat > something on certain days. > > > > I believe in scientific facts too.> > > Check. Knowing that it is a method of change where facts can be proven wrong > at any time and is therefore not the kind of absolute knowledge claimed by > spiritual traditions. > > > > > I like your key distinction in this debate, but I ask this additional > > question: > > > > "Does the quantum foam has any causal relationship with materiality?"> > > I hope you don't view it as a cop out for me to say that I am not trained in > the math needed to really understand these concepts outside a poetic sense of > how the words feel to me. > > > > > If it does, then everything that ever happened is echoing still in the > > subtle precincts....or as I would frame it: omniscience. > > I think you are engaged in an artistic endeavor. I'm all for it as long as we > say upfront, this ain't physics, this is a song I wrote and I dig how the > words sound together. If I have misjudged your own background in physics > please forgive me. > > > > > Maybe the quantum foam is the akashic records. But I don't think anyone > > can tap into that database easily unless they're right there at the ritam > > level of quiescence. Probably one person out of a billion can -- a theory. > > I haven't seen anyone come close to demonstrating that they have such access > to the mythical akashic records and it would be pretty easy to prove. They > could start with a cancer cure that doesn't kill you or hurt so much. > > > > > But the Absolute, by definition, must be transcendental to even the quantum > > foam, so my money's on the quantum foam being the body of, say, Vishnu.> > > Let me get a baseline rolling and you can rap away. If you are guna break > out the Vedic gods we might have some great material for a song. > > > > > These days, to me, silence is really there, and I'm not defining it as > > "where some thing audible isn't." It may just be a conceit of my > > intellect, but I see a vast distinction in this regard. > > > > And, sorry to come off goofy here, but I swear I can "know silence" all the > > time if I but, well, stop what I'm doing/thinking and even breathing, but > > for a nonce, just a nonce, just a glance, and there it is. See? It's not > > that I'm in an all time reality of basking in silence, but man-o-man, it > > sure is easy to "hear" it as if it were a soundtrack of an open mike in a > > perfectly quiet and huge room. > > > > Oh, that's coming off as better than I mean to portray myself, but I'm > > something like this description. > > > > It's as if reality is sheet music in which the spaces between the inked > > notes are easily, but seldom, noticed. > > This is paydirt for me Edg. Any of us who have done the time with meditation > practices have this experience right? I know I do. The question is how do > we understand what this level of our mind means? IMO the East got too far > carried away with what it means and what its value is. But it has a value. > But for me it is the least interesting thing about my mind, not the most. I > like it at a certain level and will use meditation to tweek it a bit to this > day since I began to reevaluate the value of TM for me after Maharishi's > death. And if a person didn't feel connected to that silence then I can see > where that could cause problems. But now with my interest in brain science > coming through with more details in the last decade I am more interested in > understanding how the different brain parts communicate with each other to > give us a sense of our self. I believe this is the direction to understand > this all better. And meditation is a tool for shifting how the brain relates > to its different parts. But for me, identifying with the silence as my big > Self, or any other Eastern inflated view of its ultimate value seems > assumptive. And the idea that anyone knows that when we die, this continues > seems like wishful thinking. But it is such a weird wish because it lacks > everything I value in my life beyond consciousness itself. What good is that > with no guitar? > > > > Sorry to bother you with this. If I had more I.Q. heft, I'd come atcha raw > > and all evangelical just to see if I could make you sweat. > > > > Edg > > > Always a pleasure. And all my IQ has lead me to conclude is that I don't > know shit. But I don't believe I am alone! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I think I figured out something important concerning the dialog between > > > theists and atheists. When theists argue against atheists, it usually > > > concerns the actual existence of a God. The arguments are often at the > > > most abstract range of philosophical discussion where metaphysics and > > > ontology (the study of what exists in philosophy) wander into a local > > > Starbucks, and after ordering bloatedly caloric peppermint and > > > gingerbread lattes,sit together eating cake balls off sticks (actual > > > Starbucks overpriced confectionery)like a couple of dorks. > > > > > > If I hear one more theist announce that you "can't prove that God does > > > NOT exist" as if proving a negative is even logically possible for > > > anything, I might just have to replace all those Starbucks' cake balls > > > with C4 plastic explosives, order my $1.53 coffee-of-the-day, and sit > > > down to enjoy the fireworks. (Surprisingly little brain matter gets > > > splattered from the cake-ball-on-a-stick eaters.) > > > > > > Wow, sorry about that. I didn't realize my homicidal rage at this faux > > > Tootsie-pop till I started writing. But in my defense, I sat through > > > the whole mini cupcake fad without a single peep. It was only when they > > > covered the little bastards in chocolate and put them on a stick that I > > > had to say my piece. So where was I...so easily distracted by food... > > > > > > Oh yeah, the problem atheists have has nothing to do with the existence > > > or non existence of any of the various god ideas that people enjoy. And > > > the move by theists to frame the discussion in those terms can now > > > officially cease with this post. > > > > > > I have never heard any atheist (and I've read a few) make a case for the > > > non existence of God. The actual existence of God is not an up topic. > > > It literally doesn't come up much. It is completely eclipsed by the > > > actual problem atheist's have is the theist's claim that anyone knows > > > what God wants. > > > > > > That is the problem atheists have with theism. They don't believe that > > > any of the self-appointed managers for the big guy, are actually > > > receiving W-9s (Yeah, God never gives health insurance benefits of > > > fulltime employment just like Maharishi. We are all independent > > > contractors to save on taxes.) with heaven listed as the address of the > > > employer and the employment ID number being Pi. > > > > > > So if someone holds up say, a Bible, and says, "this is the word of God > > > and we are going to follow everything in it except the part where we need > > > to kill people for working on the sabbath because we might run out of > > > Bud-lite during the football game and might need a 7-11 run including but > > > not limited to pork rinds and Yahoo. And we can't openly support slavery > > > or beating women with a rod the thickness of your thumb, but when you try > > > to bring these cases in front of a judge, don't worry we will work > > > something out for you. But that thing that says that gay people are an > > > abomination is the word of God, and we are the right ones to be making > > > these distinctions..." > > > > > > the atheist puts up one of his fingers and says, "I don't mean you are > > > number one". > > > > > > It has nothing to do with the possibility that there might be some kind > > > of super being out there, or in here or wherever, it has to do with > > > whether or not it is credible that this particular book can be > > > distinguished from any other wonderful examples of people making shit up > > > and repeating the stories again and again until other people forgot that > > > someone made it up. And back in the day before celebrity publishing > > > dominated, the catch phrase for anything someone wanted to promote as the > > > next best seller was that God wrote it, or dictated it, or had it ghost > > > written for him or her or him dressed like a her.(Yes I mean you > > > cross-dressing Krishna. The Christian Bible says you are an abomination > > > with your blue Jersey Shore spray tan.) > > > > > > So this is my cause for the New Year. Bringing up this critical > > > distinction between what atheists actually are saying, and what many > > > theists want them to be saying because it would be much more convenient > > > if the burden of proof could be shifted away from the person claiming to > > > speak for God. > > > > > > I want to start the New Year off right by stating unequivocally that I > > > have never met any human being who I believe is so different from the > > > rest of us that this specialness can only be explained by actual contact > > > with the creator of the universe. What I do see are one out of a million > > > of us, audacious enough to claim to have this connection, and whole > > > bunches of the rest of us deferring to this claim without demanding more > > > proof than that he stays up late a lot, giggles at his own jokes and one > > > time a plane or boat didn't leave without him when it usually leaves on > > > time. (actual proof offered of Maharishi's special state of mind) > > > > > > I am resisting the temptation to stick the landing with some cutesy > > > reference to those damn cake pops to tie this whole post together because > > > I'm serious this time. > > > > > > Atheists don't know if there really is some God being. Neither do > > > theists. Or if they do, they have not made a convincing case to atheists. > > > But that is a moot point. > > > > > > The real point is that nobody knows that God hates gay people so lets get > > > the F off their backs (unfortunate image I know) and let them enjoy the > > > hell of marriage like straight people. Because we may not be living > > > eternally, but being married can sure make it feel as if you are. > > > > > > That's as stuck a landing as I'm gunna get. > > > > > >
