Fleetwood, thanks for insights...maybe it's that both settle into a level of Beingness, of course us humans have to work harder at that! On the level of Beingness, there is a profound unity in which distinction between Knower and Known fall away.
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 6:42 AM, "fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Both - the knowingness is always there, as you say, instant access to a subtle level of vibration. Then if more knowledge is desired, the attention just settles a little on the object, and the object of attention gives up all its knowledge. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : salyavin, when you say that consciousness is a verb, not a noun, it reminds me of a friend who has been told he's in Brahman. He says that both the knower and the known fall away. All that's left is knowing. But my intuition tells me that it's knowingness rather than knowing. A vibrational state rather than a doing. On Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:59 AM, salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Xeno, The problem with Hawking's approach is that he is hung up with matter, a thing that is measurable by scientists. But, apparently, he does not consider superstrings to be a scientific fact. These superstrings exist at the Planck level or at 10 to the power of minus 33 centimeters. It's still an unproven theory and one of many involving different kinds of strings, loop quantum gravity and others. It will only become a fact as and when it gets tested, which is currently impossible but when they switch on the LHC at CERN this year and get it up to full power they might get a glimpse of what direction to go in. These are very interesting times for physics, and all of us I hope, they are finally doing what they forgot to do with string theory 30 years ago, which is test the predictions as they go. Mind you, there are so many different versions of ST that they will never know which one is correct but it will be nice if they can at least narrow it down. These superstrings are the bases of all particles that make up matter or energy in the universe. At the Planck level, there is an ocean of these superstrings that form other universes aside from our own. You should watch John Hagelin's lecture about superstrings on YouTube. In addition, regarding your point about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, there is a principle in logic that refers to the Prime Mover. This is invoked when one comes up with an infinite regression of causes, which you've pointed out. If you accept the concept of a Prime Mover, then it appears that you accept the rest of the argument in the KCA. Lastly, there is the hard problem of consciousness. Is it a phenomenon of emergence or is it the basis of everything in the universe? Emergence. Consciousness is a function of the brain and not a thing. Saying that the mind is someTHING is a category error, consciousness is a verb not a noun. Get over that and you stop looking for some mysterious dualistic substance that survives us or is independent of us or is some universal constant that interacts with us. It's what our brains do. Of course, it still leaves us a problem but not as hard as we thought. Before anyone complains about dogma, there is a lot of thought and research behind these statements but I'm not going to elaborate now as the pub opens in a minute. TTFN droogs.
