We actually seem to live in a world of massive containment. We can only meet because we are dominated by matter - otherwise a quick hug would blitz a large town.
On 27 Mar, 19:35, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Why not,, new world to explore.. The last true frontier. > All things are possible. > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Questions arise as to whether we can construct conditions > > for a very different human existence. > > > Why couldn't we? We are only limited by our own constructs of > > limitation. > > > On Mar 27, 11:01 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We spend a lot of time in science excluding things and explanations in > > > trying to arrive at things that work reliably. In the general run of > > > life there is much we cannot exclude or even recognise in what is > > > happening. Like Justin I can only admit to blundering along - the owl > > > of Minerva only taking flight in murky mud - to mix a few metaphors. > > > In hot fusion the key is an exclusion boundary preventing the plasma > > > from grounding out to a reality - contamination ruining the experiment > > > and the conditions for its existence (though we hope to tap a power- > > > line in). Questions arise as to whether we can construct conditions > > > for a very different human existence. > > > > On 27 Mar, 11:52, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, I am not sure what rubbing the lamp means to this thread, but, > > > > Justin, I certainly appreciate the way you lead us along the lines of > > > > philosophical reasoning to arrive at the poignant place that connects > > > > us all in a thread. Completely meaningful. > > > > > On Mar 26, 1:18 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Reality is that it is there and that it is not me. > > > > > > I look at a teacup. Is it a teacup or is it just my seeing a teacup? > > > > > If it is a teacup it is real. If it is just my seeing a teacup then > > it > > > > > is not real. > > > > > > This is the typical way of looking at reality. > > > > > > The problem with this is revealed in the mystic traditions. If > > > > > abstraction is the process of thinking of something that cannot exist > > > > > without something else, as existing without that something else, then > > > > > the idea of reality becomes an abstraction. The experienced is not > > > > > conceivable apart from experiencing of some kind and reality and to > > > > > the extent that it is conceived of that way, becomes the illusion of > > > > > worlds behind the scenes. > > > > > > Now this abstraction lies so deep in our ideas that all of us are > > > > > capable of imagining the universe with no one in it, no one > > > > > experiencing it. We do that easily and we ascribe the term reality to > > > > > that abstraction. That is "the universe" and the fact that it is > > > > > experienced is considered a contingent fact that might have been > > > > > otherwise. It is just luck that we experience the universe. If > > > > > evolution had gone the other way then .... Its simple, just imagine > > > > > the world before people or sentient beings evolved or imagine it > > after > > > > > they are gone. We are almost completely unaware of the how our real > > > > > absence (not just a temporal structure with a point that has us > > arrive > > > > > and end - but complete absence) would erode the hypothetical nature > > of > > > > > "it". It is easy to see how its color would be undefinable but much > > > > > harder to see how its spatial material structure, the stuff of set > > > > > theory and mathematical modeling, would become equally meaningless. > > > > > > Only in the mystical traditions are the notions of reality > > appreciated > > > > > and the presenting of already-merging-originally is experienced. The > > > > > world is correctly experienced as a verb and the meaning of its > > > > > reality -or perhaps better "reality-ing" becomes clear. Here the > > > > > notion of reality is seen as being meaningful, as having meaning and > > > > > therefore is not separate from, nor reducible to, mind. It is > > meaning- > > > > > ing itself around us and throughout us. This does not then exclude > > our > > > > > temporalizing and spatially abstracting the essent, of recognizing > > > > > material structures and of understanding the relationship of those > > > > > structures to our own incarnation, but all of this becomes essential > > > > > material and is not the One reality at the center. It is just > > > > > contingent structure. > > > > > > Those states of conscious are hard to come by but their insight is > > > > > invaluable in comprehending the meaning of reality. > > > > > > While the notion of reality as being that which is "other than > > > > > thought" has uses the problem with it is that it cannot handle the > > > > > mystical experience of reality. It is ignorant of the Tao. > > > > > > Consider these two statements: "When we say something is a fantasy, > > we > > > > > mean that it isn't a part of the world of our natural senses. It > > > > > exists soley in the subjective mind." "When we say something is real > > > > > we seem to be implying that the object is perceived through senses > > > > > other than pure thought" > > > > > > The first problem is that reality as it is usually meant is not > > > > > ascribed to something that is seen sensually as opposed to > > > > > cognitively. For example if I induce the sight of a cow electrically > > > > > by stimulating the right neurons (or even by projecting light in a > > > > > realistic way into our eyes, we would usually say that the cow that I > > > > > experienced is not real even though I saw it. Alternatively we may > > say > > > > > that it was a "real experience" but not a "real cow". My "just seeing > > > > > it" means that it was subjective and therefore not real. So the > > > > > distinction between mind and senses is not the key. It is the > > > > > distinction between that which is "purely subjective" and that which > > > > > is not that is the key. > > > > > > However, the problem is that in reality itself the meaning and being > > > > > are kind of the same thing. It is the meaning-ing of being and the > > > > > being of the meaning-ing of being originally as one experience. > > > > > Otherwise being becomes roughly "that which is not meaning", or at > > > > > least "that which is not just meaning" - something again other to > > pure > > > > > meaning - and becomes something other, something necessarily > > > > > meaningless. > > > > > > I am sure that I am being clumsy here but the essence of my comment > > is > > > > > that a notion of reality that makes distinction between either > > sensory > > > > > vs cognitive content or objective vs subjective entities will not > > work > > > > > because of its failure to realize the Tao. > > > > > > Being in reality is completely meaningful. > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
