[FairfieldLife] Re: monism = nondual
---Don't believe everything Vaj says!by any means. He's the King of Tomfoolery. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 21, 2008, at 1:52 AM, yifuxero wrote: Vaj would have us believe that a horse is really a zebra, and visa versa. Nope, Mr. Ed says a horse is a horse... From Wiki: (absolute monism). Hinduism Monism is found in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda, which speaks of the One being-non-being that 'breathed without breath'. The first system in Hinduism that clearly, unequivocally explicated absolute monism was that of Advaita (or nondualist) Vedanta (see Advaita Vedanta) as expounded by Adi Shankaracharya. It is part of the six Hindu systems of philosophy, based on the Upanishads, and posits that the ultimate monad is a formless, ineffable Divine Ground called Brahman. Such monistic thought also extends to other Hindu systems like Yoga and non-dualist Tantra. Kashmir Shaivism. Don't believe everything you read, esp. on the Wikipedia! Brahman is a vrtti.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Philosophical monism is a philosophical position that has a precise definition,
which is, roughly as we've been using the term, to indicate that pure
consciousness and the absolute vacuum state of the quantum field are identical
and coextensive, which makes the brain a receiver of the impulses of a
non-physical field rather than a manufacturer of consciousness. This basic
definition and basic question does not change because we realize that the table
we thought solid is really mostly empty space and energy. So the initial
question still remains. The table may be an illusion (not the usual definition
of illusion) as you say. The individual consciousness may be an illusion
(using your implicit definition) also. But then, the fundamental question
still remains. Is pure consciousness identical and coextensive with the
absolute vacuum state of the quantum field, or not? Most physicists still say
not, while the number who say yes to that proposition
is growing.
- Original Message
From: Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 6:25:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ ...
wrote:
I included you because you're the one who correctly insisted that what folks
were presenting as evidence wasn't evidence. The attractiveness of the
theory is that it makes life after death much more possible than does the
theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Monism would
make life after death a virtual certainty in terms of consciousness
persisting, though that says nothing about individual consciousness
persisting. On that score, I'm with Nitzsche: And immortal Peter! Who could
stand him?
I think there is a better way to approach monism. I don't think it makes any
sense to describe consciousness as an emerging property of brain any more than
the opposite, reality is the result of consciousness. These both suggest
Descartes style dualism. One puts more emphasis on the spiritual/immateria l
the other on the physical/material.
It is my understanding that the physical/material is an illusion. For all
intents and purposes a table appears to be a static object fixed in space.
However that illusion is provided by a useful evolutionary circuit in our
brains that categorizes objects so we may manipulate and interact with them.
Otherwise reality would be impossible for us to comprehend. Survival would be
impossible.
This requires us to live in fiction. The truth requires us to go beyond common
sense. Common sense falsely suggests the sun arcs across the sky yet the truth
is we are on a turning planet. We can not trust common sense. It does well
for base survival challenges but will get us nowhere when exploring the Kosmos
as a whole.
Objects, physical, material things are not static. They are made up of tiny
centers of energy moving very fast. These energy fields make patterns and our
interconnected with all other fields of energy. The table in front of me
appears solid because it is moving very fast. My perception of the table is
further clouded by the fact I do not directly interact with the table but
instead hold a model of the table in my consciousness in order to interact with
it. Thus, I use the history of tables from my past to understand this table.
Thus my mind uses shorthand to fill in my immediate experience of this table.
From this point of view there is no primacy in mind/body dualism. Mind does
not rise from body or vice versa. Instead there is only energy manifesting
itself as a perceived thought or object. Both object and thought are
transient, alter experience, have limited value, are limited in space/time and
are fundamentally unified.
This is monism as I understand it.
s.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
-No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the Vacuum
State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The
cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can be
equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philosophical monism is a philosophical position that has a precise
definition, which is, roughly as we've been using the term, to
indicate that pure consciousness and the absolute vacuum state of the
quantum field are identical and coextensive, which makes the brain a
receiver of the impulses of a non-physical field rather than a
manufacturer of consciousness. This basic definition and basic
question does not change because we realize that the table we thought
solid is really mostly empty space and energy. So the initial
question still remains. The table may be an illusion (not the usual
definition of illusion) as you say. The individual consciousness may
be an illusion (using your implicit definition) also. But then, the
fundamental question still remains. Is pure consciousness identical
and coextensive with the absolute vacuum state of the quantum field,
or not? Most physicists still say not, while the number who
say yes to that proposition
is growing.
- Original Message
From: Stu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 6:25:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ ... wrote:
I included you because you're the one who correctly insisted that
what folks were presenting as evidence wasn't evidence. The
attractiveness of the theory is that it makes life after death much
more possible than does the theory that consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain. Monism would make life after death a virtual
certainty in terms of consciousness persisting, though that says
nothing about individual consciousness persisting. On that score,
I'm with Nitzsche: And immortal Peter! Who could stand him?
I think there is a better way to approach monism. I don't think it
makes any sense to describe consciousness as an emerging property of
brain any more than the opposite, reality is the result of
consciousness. These both suggest Descartes style dualism. One puts
more emphasis on the spiritual/immateria l the other on the
physical/material.
It is my understanding that the physical/material is an illusion.
For all intents and purposes a table appears to be a static object
fixed in space. However that illusion is provided by a useful
evolutionary circuit in our brains that categorizes objects so we may
manipulate and interact with them. Otherwise reality would be
impossible for us to comprehend. Survival would be impossible.
This requires us to live in fiction. The truth requires us to go
beyond common sense. Common sense falsely suggests the sun arcs
across the sky yet the truth is we are on a turning planet. We can
not trust common sense. It does well for base survival challenges
but will get us nowhere when exploring the Kosmos as a whole.
Objects, physical, material things are not static. They are made
up of tiny centers of energy moving very fast. These energy fields
make patterns and our interconnected with all other fields of
energy. The table in front of me appears solid because it is moving
very fast. My perception of the table is further clouded by the fact
I do not directly interact with the table but instead hold a model of
the table in my consciousness in order to interact with it. Thus, I
use the history of tables from my past to understand this table.
Thus my mind uses shorthand to fill in my immediate experience of
this table.
From this point of view there is no primacy in mind/body dualism.
Mind does not rise from body or vice versa. Instead there is only
energy manifesting itself as a perceived thought or object. Both
object and thought are transient, alter experience, have limited
value, are limited in space/time and are fundamentally unified.
This is monism as I understand it.
s.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px
0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-
height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Are you mixing world views?
- Original Message
From: tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:43:05 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
-No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the
Vacuum
State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The
cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can be
equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
-- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ ... wrote:
Philosophical monism is a philosophical position that has a precise
definition, which is, roughly as we've been using the term, to
indicate that pure consciousness and the absolute vacuum state of the
quantum field are identical and coextensive, which makes the brain a
receiver of the impulses of a non-physical field rather than a
manufacturer of consciousness. This basic definition and basic
question does not change because we realize that the table we thought
solid is really mostly empty space and energy. So the initial
question still remains. The table may be an illusion (not the usual
definition of illusion) as you say. The individual consciousness may
be an illusion (using your implicit definition) also. But then, the
fundamental question still remains. Is pure consciousness identical
and coextensive with the absolute vacuum state of the quantum field,
or not? Most physicists still say not, while the number who
say yes to that proposition
is growing.
- Original Message
From: Stu buttsplicer@ ...
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 6:25:03 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander
mailander111@ ... wrote:
I included you because you're the one who correctly insisted that
what folks were presenting as evidence wasn't evidence. The
attractiveness of the theory is that it makes life after death much
more possible than does the theory that consciousness is an emergent
property of the brain. Monism would make life after death a virtual
certainty in terms of consciousness persisting, though that says
nothing about individual consciousness persisting. On that score,
I'm with Nitzsche: And immortal Peter! Who could stand him?
I think there is a better way to approach monism. I don't think it
makes any sense to describe consciousness as an emerging property of
brain any more than the opposite, reality is the result of
consciousness. These both suggest Descartes style dualism. One puts
more emphasis on the spiritual/immateria l the other on the
physical/material.
It is my understanding that the physical/material is an illusion.
For all intents and purposes a table appears to be a static object
fixed in space. However that illusion is provided by a useful
evolutionary circuit in our brains that categorizes objects so we may
manipulate and interact with them. Otherwise reality would be
impossible for us to comprehend. Survival would be impossible.
This requires us to live in fiction. The truth requires us to go
beyond common sense. Common sense falsely suggests the sun arcs
across the sky yet the truth is we are on a turning planet. We can
not trust common sense. It does well for base survival challenges
but will get us nowhere when exploring the Kosmos as a whole.
Objects, physical, material things are not static. They are made
up of tiny centers of energy moving very fast. These energy fields
make patterns and our interconnected with all other fields of
energy. The table in front of me appears solid because it is moving
very fast. My perception of the table is further clouded by the fact
I do not directly interact with the table but instead hold a model of
the table in my consciousness in order to interact with it. Thus, I
use the history of tables from my past to understand this table.
Thus my mind uses shorthand to fill in my immediate experience of
this table.
From this point of view there is no primacy in mind/body dualism.
Mind does not rise from body or vice versa. Instead there is only
energy manifesting itself as a perceived thought or object. Both
object and thought are transient, alter experience, have limited
value, are limited in space/time and are fundamentally unified.
This is monism as I understand it.
s.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font- family:Arial; margin:14px
0px;padding: 0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a; font-size: 85%;font- weight:bold; line-
height:122%; margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom: 10px;}
#ygrp-mkp
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Good point. The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha (the space element). And akasha being the so-called fifth element is already within the other elements, in fact it's what they have in common. But it is also the first (relative value) to separate from the void. On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:43 PM, tertonzeno wrote: -No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the Vacuum State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can be equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
You cannot mix Western physics and Eastern physics like this.
- Original Message
From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:56:03 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Good point. The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha (the
space element). And akasha being the so-called fifth element is already
within the other elements, in fact it's what they have in common. But it is
also the first (relative value) to separate from the void.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:43 PM, tertonzeno wrote:
-No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the Vacuum
State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The
cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can be
equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
---right Vaj! Otherwise, if such an argument were true, this would be a typical example of the Hagelinian-error (equating something - some field, however cosmic or finely-grained) Pure Consciousness; and evidently Hagelin and other physicists comprised their standing as true scientists by cow-towing to MMY's misguided notions about physics. No wonder Hagelin was awarded the Ig-Noble Prize in 1994. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good point. The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha (the space element). And akasha being the so-called fifth element is already within the other elements, in fact it's what they have in common. But it is also the first (relative value) to separate from the void. On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:43 PM, tertonzeno wrote: -No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the Vacuum State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can be equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--Precisely!.. Hagelin and MMY are the one's in error: falsely mixing
Pure Consciousness with some field.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot mix Western physics and Eastern physics like this.
- Original Message
From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:56:03 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Good point. The Vacuum State is more similar to the
akasha (the space element). And akasha being the so-called fifth
element is already within the other elements, in fact it's what they
have in common. But it is also the first (relative value) to separate
from the void.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 4:43 PM, tertonzeno wrote:
-No. There's no connection between Pure Consciousness and the
Vacuum
State of any Field, (say the long sought-after Higgs field). The
cosmic/quantum vacuum is seething with energy; but the vacuum can
be
equated with an element, the space element; and is thus relative.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px
0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-
height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica,
clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-
align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-
transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-
align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-
size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Nonetheless, people in the TMO (IIRC it was Hagelin) have tried. I believe they tried to theoretically connect the five elements to five quantum spin-types! In the original multidisciplinary, self-published MIU curriculum texts they went into considerable detail on the parallels and analogous nature of quantum descriptions of reality and meditation/ consciousness--but at the very end they would disclose that these were all just parallels and not the actual reality of the situation since physical physics was an entirely different realm (from consciousness) and the examples were merely analogies. You could 'only take analogies so far'. However at some point, the analogy disclaimer appears to have been dropped, at least in more public pronouncements (hopefully they've retained the disclaimer in the curriculum of, now, MUM). On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: You cannot mix Western physics and Eastern physics like this.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
But it was you mixing them: The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha
(the space element).
- Original Message
From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 5:18:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Nonetheless, people in the TMO (IIRC it was Hagelin) have tried. I
believe they tried to theoretically connect the five elements to five quantum
spin-types!
In the original multidisciplinary, self-published MIU curriculum texts they
went into considerable detail on the parallels and analogous nature of quantum
descriptions of reality and meditation/consciou sness--but at the very end they
would disclose that these were all just parallels and not the actual reality of
the situation since physical physics was an entirely different realm (from
consciousness ) and the examples were merely analogies. You could 'only take
analogies so far'.
However at some point, the analogy disclaimer appears to have been dropped,
at least in more public pronouncements (hopefully they've retained the
disclaimer in the curriculum of, now, MUM).
On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
You cannot mix Western physics and Eastern physics like this.
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
I didn't say same Angela, I said similar. It ain't the same, it's merely analogous. On Jan 2, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: But it was you mixing them: The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha (the space element).
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
I don't think it's a valid analogy--but I don't want to argue about it.
- Original Message
From: Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 6:04:17 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
I didn't say same Angela, I said similar. It ain't the same,
it's merely analogous.
On Jan 2, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
But it was you mixing them: The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha
(the space element).
!--
#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--
!--
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--
!--
#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:52 PM, matrixmonitor wrote: ---right Vaj! Otherwise, if such an argument were true, this would be a typical example of the Hagelinian-error (equating something - some field, however cosmic or finely-grained) Pure Consciousness; and evidently Hagelin and other physicists comprised their standing as true scientists by cow-towing to MMY's misguided notions about physics. No wonder Hagelin was awarded the Ig-Noble Prize in 1994. Indeed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 2, 2008, at 5:52 PM, matrixmonitor wrote: ---right Vaj! Otherwise, if such an argument were true, this would be a typical example of the Hagelinian-error (equating something - some field, however cosmic or finely-grained) Pure Consciousness; and evidently Hagelin and other physicists comprised their standing as true scientists by cow-towing to MMY's misguided notions about physics. No wonder Hagelin was awarded the Ig-Noble Prize in 1994. Indeed. Matrixmonitor may not know this, but Vaj certainly does, because I've told him several times: the Ig Nobel awards are not a sort of booby prize calling attention to bad science, much as he might wish they were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize http://improbable.com/ig/ If you're going to criticize Hagelin's work, you'll need to do it on the merits, I'm afraid, Vaj.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say same Angela, I said similar. It ain't the same, it's merely analogous. It ain't even analogous. On Jan 2, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: But it was you mixing them: The Vacuum State is more similar to the akasha (the space element).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I included you because you're the one who correctly insisted that what folks were presenting as evidence wasn't evidence. The attractiveness of the theory is that it makes life after death much more possible than does the theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Monism would make life after death a virtual certainty in terms of consciousness persisting, though that says nothing about individual consciousness persisting. On that score, I'm with Nitzsche: And immortal Peter! Who could stand him? I think there is a better way to approach monism. I don't think it makes any sense to describe consciousness as an emerging property of brain any more than the opposite, reality is the result of consciousness. These both suggest Descartes style dualism. One puts more emphasis on the spiritual/immaterial the other on the physical/material. It is my understanding that the physical/material is an illusion. For all intents and purposes a table appears to be a static object fixed in space. However that illusion is provided by a useful evolutionary circuit in our brains that categorizes objects so we may manipulate and interact with them. Otherwise reality would be impossible for us to comprehend. Survival would be impossible. This requires us to live in fiction. The truth requires us to go beyond common sense. Common sense falsely suggests the sun arcs across the sky yet the truth is we are on a turning planet. We can not trust common sense. It does well for base survival challenges but will get us nowhere when exploring the Kosmos as a whole. Objects, physical, material things are not static. They are made up of tiny centers of energy moving very fast. These energy fields make patterns and our interconnected with all other fields of energy. The table in front of me appears solid because it is moving very fast. My perception of the table is further clouded by the fact I do not directly interact with the table but instead hold a model of the table in my consciousness in order to interact with it. Thus, I use the history of tables from my past to understand this table. Thus my mind uses shorthand to fill in my immediate experience of this table. From this point of view there is no primacy in mind/body dualism. Mind does not rise from body or vice versa. Instead there is only energy manifesting itself as a perceived thought or object. Both object and thought are transient, alter experience, have limited value, are limited in space/time and are fundamentally unified. This is monism as I understand it. s.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
Angela, Thanks for including me in the discussion. I doubt I have much to add. The way mathematicians and physicists look at the world is completely foreign for me. I have no pretensions that I have any clue what they are talking about. I have lost most of my desire for such ultimate ontological questions. I am asking different questions of my world and that keeps me busy. So what does interest my pea brain these days? Mostly epistemological questions about how I can avoid my more obvious cognitive errors. There is a lot of great stuff for me to work on here that has taken the place of my previous interest in the relationship of consciousness and matter. Now I figure that I have a short time above ground and when I die I will stay that way. That suits me fine for now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, So, the upshot is that no one has any hard evidence that pure consciousness gives rise to physical matter. If there were any, the TMO would have crowed about it even louder than they did, and weâd all know about it. And yet, the extant evidence is suggestive enough to keep an open mind: Philosophical monism would satisfy all three criteria: attractiveness, elegance, and explanatory power.It would be a logical conclusion to come to if, in fact, we live in a holographic universe. In other words, the experiences I and others have related and which lie (pun intended) at the basis of all the worldâs religions, may, in the final analysis be true to the actual structure of the universe.Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize winning physicist, is still the most cited physicist by those who wish to argue against philosophical monism. And that is because they havenât heard that, late in his career, he changed his mind. This was not so widely publicized, but I was at the lecture at MUM when he announced that change.The most compelling statement I know of comes from the mathematician Iâve cited a number of times, G. Spencer Brown. Unless you can follow his mathematical demonstration, his statement is likely to seem trivial, but it is far from that. I belong to a chat group that discusses his work, it is populated mostly by physicists and mathematicians, though there are a few engineers and computer programmer types as well. They all take him seriously, obviously, or they wouldnât belong to the group, but the point is these are all serious professionals. Hereâs a small comment by Spencer Brown in the notes to the mathematical text: There is a tendency, especially today, to regard existence as the source of reality, and thus a central concept. But as soon as it is formallyexaminedâ¦, existence* is seen to be highly peripheral and, as such, especially corrupt (in the formal sense) and vulnerable. Theconcept of truth is more central, although still recognizably peripheral. If the weakness of present-day science is that it centres (sic)round existence, the weakness of present-day logic is that it centres (sic) round truth. Throughout the essay, we find no need fo the concept of truth, apart from two avoidable appearances (true=open to proof) in the descriptive context. At no point, to say the least, is it a necessary inhabitant of the calculating forms. These forms are thus not onlyprecursors of existence, they are also precursors of truth. It is, I am afraid, the intellectual block which most of us come up against at the points where, to experience the world clearly, we must abandon existence to truth, truth to indication, indication to form, and form to void, that has so held up the development of logic andits mathematics. *ex = out, stare = to stand. Thus to exist may be considered as to stand outside, to be exiled. Of course, Spencer Brown is a mathematician, and they tend to believe that God made the universe out of mathematics. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism
I included you because you're the one who correctly insisted that what folks were presenting as evidence wasn't evidence. The attractiveness of the theory is that it makes life after death much more possible than does the theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Monism would make life after death a virtual certainty in terms of consciousness persisting, though that says nothing about individual consciousness persisting. On that score, I'm with Nitzsche: And immortal Peter! Who could stand him? - Original Message From: curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:05:29 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Monism Angela, Thanks for including me in the discussion. I doubt I have much to add. The way mathematicians and physicists look at the world is completely foreign for me. I have no pretensions that I have any clue what they are talking about. I have lost most of my desire for such ultimate ontological questions. I am asking different questions of my world and that keeps me busy. So what does interest my pea brain these days? Mostly epistemological questions about how I can avoid my more obvious cognitive errors. There is a lot of great stuff for me to work on here that has taken the place of my previous interest in the relationship of consciousness and matter. Now I figure that I have a short time above ground and when I die I will stay that way. That suits me fine for now. --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander mailander111@ ... wrote: Curtis, So, the upshot is that no one has any hard evidence that pure consciousness gives rise to physical matter. If there were any, the TMO would have crowed about it even louder than they did, and we’d all know about it. And yet, the extant evidence is suggestive enough to keep an open mind: Philosophical monism would satisfy all three criteria: attractiveness, elegance, and explanatory power.It would be a logical conclusion to come to if, in fact, we live in a holographic universe. In other words, the experiences I and others have related and which lie (pun intended) at the basis of all the world’s religions, may, in the final analysis be true to the actual structure of the universe.Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize winning physicist, is still the most cited physicist by those who wish to argue against philosophical monism. And that is because they haven’t heard that, late in his career, he changed his mind. This was not so widely publicized, but I was at the lecture at MUM when he announced that change.The most compelling statement I know of comes from the mathematician I’ve cited a number of times, G. Spencer Brown. Unless you can follow his mathematical demonstration, his statement is likely to seem trivial, but it is far from that. I belong to a chat group that discusses his work, it is populated mostly by physicists and mathematicians, though there are a few engineers and computer programmer types as well. They all take him seriously, obviously, or they wouldn’t belong to the group, but the point is these are all serious professionals. Here’s a small comment by Spencer Brown in the notes to the mathematical text: There is a tendency, especially today, to regard existence as the source of reality, and thus a central concept. But as soon as it is formallyexamined…, existence* is seen to be highly peripheral and, as such, especially corrupt (in the formal sense) and vulnerable. Theconcept of truth is more central, although still recognizably peripheral. If the weakness of present-day science is that it centres (sic)round existence, the weakness of present-day logic is that it centres (sic) round truth. Throughout the essay, we find no need fo the concept of truth, apart from two avoidable appearances (true=open to proof) in the descriptive context. At no point, to say the least, is it a necessary inhabitant of the calculating forms. These forms are thus not onlyprecursors of existence, they are also precursors of truth. It is, I am afraid, the intellectual block which most of us come up against at the points where, to experience the world clearly, we must abandon existence to truth, truth to indication, indication to form, and form to void, that has so held up the development of logic andits mathematics
