OM , most people don't want to die or have so many desires like
psychic powers that they make so much of consciousness. In my view
there is only God, Atma Or Pure Consciousness. We are all just his
reflections or have emanated from him. Maybe my reasoning is awry and
you and others are right. But in that case also I am right, You will
become one with God when you get salvation and then there will be no
individual I , as far as you will be concerned. If I am not mistaken ,
you at least believe in predeterminism , like me.
On May 1, 4:57 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> “…There would be no I as that also requires
> some sort of sense. There would be no thought as it would require a
> memory of words or sound. It would be simply a state of coma…” – RP
>
> RP, thanks for responding to what I believe was my post.
>
> With that assumption, the above part of your notes makes some very
> large assumptions that do not appear to be the case. Yes, I can
> understand how they make a kind of ‘sense’ on first glance; however,
> somehow you appear to assume that all of consciousness/awareness
> involves thought and/or sense perception. I and others do not find
> this to be the case.
>
> On May 1, 8:45 am, RP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just contemplate for a moment what comprises consciousness. You are
> > conscious of sight, sound, scent, taste , your body through sense of
> > feeling. In your mind you are aware of these very things through your
> > memory of them. If your memory and the centres of these senses cease
> > to work for some time what would be there in your awareness.
> > Consciousness then would be aware of itself. There would be no shape
> > or a feeling of some object. There would be no I as that also requires
> > some sort of sense. There would be no thought as it would require a
> > memory of words or sound. It would be simply a state of coma.Go and
> > ask for general anaesthesia for a few minutes, that would be your self-
> > realisation.
>
> > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Consciousness observing itself is nothing new. Being able to find
> > > cultural analytical memes as correlates too is nothing new while
> > > looking at/for the truth. The process is at once complex (as in ‘the
> > > many’) and simple (as in ‘the one’). This is no contradiction.
>
> > > On Apr 30, 9:20 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 30 Apr, 16:31, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > No pat you did not insult my intelligence as it is hard to insult
> > > > > someone who is, I actually have that in my profile here, Title;
> > > > > Working Slob... I must say that you are a true character, Yahoo, LMAO!
> > > > > I always thought it might be pronounced Yaowee, as in if you had
> > > > > touched a hot stove! Consequently, most people after doing so, scream,
> > > > > hollar and shout profanity while invoking the Lord's name as well.
> > > > > Having had this thought in my head for some time, I have developed
> > > > > quite a tolerance for pain and most times remain silent. lol!
>
> > > > Well, SLOB could be an acronym for Specifically Lazy Old Bore. And,
> > > > again, I'm only saying that for laughter's sake, not that it's true.
> > > > It could equally be Secretly Latent Omnipotent Being. Don't worry,
> > > > I'm sure you're not the only poster here who's fluent in the ancient
> > > > tongue of Profanity. But, of course, that raises the question what is
> > > > 'fanity' and why, then, is swearing pro-fanity?
>
> > > > Have a good weekend!!
>
> > > > > On Apr 30, 5:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in fact,
> > > > > > > know this about the name יהוה
> > > > > > > The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely
> > > > > > > Yahwee
> > > > > > > than anything else but hard to tell since the language has
> > > > > > > evolved so
> > > > > > > much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely to
> > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > from the names of the characters that form the name which are;
> > > > > > > Jod,
> > > > > > > He, Vau an He.
>
> > > > > > Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are
> > > > > > other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take
> > > > > > them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as it
> > > > > > has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the
> > > > > > letter that, in some letters, completely changes the pronunciation.
> > > > > > For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is
> > > > > > pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a
> > > > > > 'B'}
> > > > > > that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the word
> > > > > > with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels associated
> > > > > > with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o',
> > > > > > short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used colloquially,
> > > > > > "my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first
> > > > > > person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've
> > > > > > always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the
> > > > > > search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the sin
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > 'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance.
> > > > > > 'Twould serve us right. ;-)
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I
> > > > > > > > > look for
> > > > > > > > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be
> > > > > > > > > employing 11
> > > > > > > > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to
> > > > > > > > > the "One"
> > > > > > > > > or God as I like to call it?
>
> > > > > > > > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling you
> > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic string
> > > > > > > > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic
> > > > > > > > fields, the
> > > > > > > > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the
> > > > > > > > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM,
> > > > > > > > Gravity,
> > > > > > > > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force and
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of
> > > > > > > > those 26
> > > > > > > > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the
> > > > > > > > remaining 10
> > > > > > > > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which
> > > > > > > > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and,
> > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract concepts
> > > > > > > > we use
> > > > > > > > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). It
> > > > > > > > is my
> > > > > > > > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in
> > > > > > > > fact, a 16-
> > > > > > > > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10
> > > > > > > > dimensions expand.
>
> > > > > > > > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the
> > > > > > > > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory and
> > > > > > > > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. My
> > > > > > > > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible
> > > > > > > > space-
> > > > > > > > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and how
> > > > > > > > THEY
> > > > > > > > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and
> > > > > > > > only with
> > > > > > > > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and 'the
> > > > > > > > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He
> > > > > > > > did. And
> > > > > > > > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm
> > > > > > > > not sure
> > > > > > > > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH
> > > > > > > > (commonly
> > > > > > > > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > don't think that was by chance.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of
> > > > > > > > > > > something. You cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes
> > > > > > > > > > > are manmade and
> > > > > > > > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited.
> > > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent,
> > > > > > > > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > so that we can
> > > > > > > > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any
> > > > > > > > > > > religion in this
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic
> > > > > > > > > > > and not a
> > > > > > > > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much,
> > > > > > > > > > > they believe in
> > > > > > > > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their
> > > > > > > > > > > faith. Some
> > > > > > > > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such
> > > > > > > > > > > activities. I
> > > > > > > > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much
> > > > > > > > > > > above us and
> > > > > > > > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual
> > > > > > > > > > > acceptance.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of
> > > > > > > > > > evidence--
> > > > > > > > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily
> > > > > > > > > > enough, it is
> > > > > > > > > > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > afraid that I,
> > > > > > > > > > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written
> > > > > > > > > > that book.
> > > > > > > > > > And that will be done. You and many others believe that
> > > > > > > > > > God is so far
> > > > > > > > > > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand
> > > > > > > > > > Him. In the
> > > > > > > > > > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very
> > > > > > > > > > end simply
> > > > > > > > > > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no
> > > > > > > > > > one else
> > > > > > > > > > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to
> > > > > > > > > > tread, well,
> > > > > > > > > > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that,
> > > > > > > > > > then,
> > > > > > > > > > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and
> > > > > > > > > > obligation. I'll
> > > > > > > > > > never fill in all the fine details,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
