In everything I do ....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Whatshappening
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Whatshappening »

David Quinn wrote:
Whatshappening wrote:Logical truths can't change, so they are not subject to cause and effect. To ask for first cause is to ask for the impossible.

However it seems to me it's a bigger issue then just logical truths. Isn't it the case that every specific condition has specific associated truths?

Isn't it the case that these associated truths never change?
If a thing is unchanging, it is only because it is caused to be unchanging. Causality produces both changing and unchanging things.

Logical truths are causally created. The truth that 1+1 equals 2, for example, is created out of the specific forms of 1, 2 and equals. If these things were different, then that truth would be different. So it is true what you say, that each specific thing automatically has its own specific truths, simply from the way it exists.

Another example is the one you mentioned - namely, that there is only one everything. This truth is generated out of the manner of what everything is. If everything were different, then the truth associated with it would be different.

In other words, all logical truths are causally created.

David, can you think of anything else?
Ultimately, the only thing that is without cause is Nature itself - the totality/everything. Being everything, there is nothing else it depends on.

-
"Causality produces both changing and unchanging things", is a contradictory statement. To produce a unchanging thing requires change. That's too messy for me, and inconsistent with my experience.

Let me ask you something, when does truth become true?

Lastly, " Being everything, there is nothing else it depends on.", means reality is self sustaining.

Sustaining
Gary
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by jupiviv »

Before I respond to Whatshappening I'll respond to a part of David's post that I omitted in the last post.
David Quinn wrote:There can be many concepts of everything, but when it comes to the sum total of all things that can possibly exist, there is only one of those.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as an idea of everything, for the same reason that there is no creator of everything, or a bucket of everything. Rather, all possible ideas would be part of everything.
Whatshappening wrote:
It is the part that responds, not reality as a whole(since you are a part of it as well).
This seems contradictory to your other comments regarding reality as one thing...."as a whole" implies one.
We are not talking of any ordinary, finite whole here.
the "everything" idea is all inclusive.
And this idea is itself included in everything, which in turn is an idea, which in turn is included in everything, ad infinitum. Don't become fixated with this "idea of everything", because there isn't such thing.
Whatshappening
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Whatshappening »

jupiviv wrote:Before I respond to Whatshappening I'll respond to a part of David's post that I omitted in the last post.
David Quinn wrote:There can be many concepts of everything, but when it comes to the sum total of all things that can possibly exist, there is only one of those.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as an idea of everything, for the same reason that there is no creator of everything, or a bucket of everything. Rather, all possible ideas would be part of everything.
Whatshappening wrote:
It is the part that responds, not reality as a whole(since you are a part of it as well).
This seems contradictory to your other comments regarding reality as one thing...."as a whole" implies one.
We are not talking of any ordinary, finite whole here.
the "everything" idea is all inclusive.
And this idea is itself included in everything, which in turn is an idea, which in turn is included in everything, ad infinitum. Don't become fixated with this "idea of everything", because there isn't such thing.
This is about understanding, simple understanding of a simple concept. Understanding that everything isn't all inclusive isn't possible. Unless you cheat and change the definitions.

You can do what ever you want, believe what ever you want, but I'm going with what's possible. I've tried the impossible, now I'm left with an alimony payment. No thanks...

Do you agree, "in everything I do, reality responds accordingly". I still haven't seen a falsifying example, it will only take one.

One
Gary
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by jufa »

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:
Ultimately, the only thing that is without cause is Nature itself - the totality/everything. Being everything, there is nothing else it depends on.
How do you know this? Please explain!
Because, by defintion, there can be no thing (and therefore no cause) outside the realm of everything.

Should there be no cause for Nature, what then would be the cause of that of Nature?
The cause is the reality that nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

-
The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition. Definition needs a structure of cause. So explain what definition you are speaking upon.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God.

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God.

-

But if there is only cause & effect....then what was the first cause ?
If all is ETERNAL ...there can be no begining.

However...Nature to me is synonymous to "GOD". Nature = God

But to conceptualize it distorts the non-conceptuality of "it" .
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Kunga »

Another way you could look at it is, that everything is energy ?

Even if there was nothing...that would be something.

nothing=something


lol
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

Whatshappening wrote:
David Quinn wrote: If a thing is unchanging, it is only because it is caused to be unchanging. Causality produces both changing and unchanging things.
"Causality produces both changing and unchanging things", is a contradictory statement. To produce a unchanging thing requires change. That's too messy for me, and inconsistent with my experience.
Let's consider an example of something that has never been created before. Let's say that a giant green glob suddenly appears in the sky above us. One minute it is not there and then, through the unfolding of causal conditions, it appears.

Immediately, an infinite number of logical truths are created: The green glob is what it is - a green glob. It isn't a brown chair, for example, or a human fingernail. It isn't the totality of all there is. It exists in time and space. It is perceiveable. And so on. These are all logical truths which are timeless and unchanging, yet were only created in the event of the glob's creation.

Let me ask you something, when does truth become true?
When it can't be refuted by logic.

Lastly, " Being everything, there is nothing else it depends on.", means reality is self sustaining.
Yes, with the qualification that it doesn't have a self (which is what makes it indestructable). Unborn and therefore ever-living, as Lao Tzu once said.

-
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by jufa »

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God. I ask you again how do you know this?

-

If is not a definition. I did not ask you for guesses and assumptions, I ask you how do you know these things?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

jufa wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God. I ask you again how do you know this?
If is not a definition. I did not ask you for guesses and assumptions
The if's above don't express a guess or an assumption on my part. They are simply part of the convention of expressing a logical point. Like in math: if 1+1=2, then 2-1=1.

I ask you how do you know these things?
By opening my eyes and being intelligent. If you want to understand the fundamental nature of all things, then defining Nature or Reality to be everything is the only rational option.

-
Whatshappening
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Whatshappening »

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God.

-

But if there is only cause & effect....then what was the first cause ?
If all is ETERNAL ...there can be no begining.

However...Nature to me is synonymous to "GOD". Nature = God

But to conceptualize it distorts the non-conceptuality of "it" .
"But to conceptualize it distorts the non-conceptuality of "it". That's an unfruitful comment. To think this way, figuratively, means you've given up before the race has began.

If you think something is impossible, then I guarantee, for you, it will be.

If we are going down the road of assumptions to assume there is no road precludes any further exploration. You've put yourself in unwinnable situation.

Reality can be conceptualized, we do it all the time(lately, we've become really good at this). Think about your everyday behavior. How are we successful? It's not with fatal assumptions.

In everything you do, reality responds accordingly. Realities response to "non-conceptuality" is..."OK,no more answers for you."

Answers
Gary

P.S. I used to think the same way...till something came along forcing me to give my head a shake, leaving my enculturation behind.
Whatshappening
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Whatshappening »

David Quinn wrote:
Whatshappening wrote:
David Quinn wrote: If a thing is unchanging, it is only because it is caused to be unchanging. Causality produces both changing and unchanging things.
"Causality produces both changing and unchanging things", is a contradictory statement. To produce a unchanging thing requires change. That's too messy for me, and inconsistent with my experience.
Let's consider an example of something that has never been created before. Let's say that a giant green glob suddenly appears in the sky above us. One minute it is not there and then, through the unfolding of causal conditions, it appears.

Immediately, an infinite number of logical truths are created: The green glob is what it is - a green glob. It isn't a brown chair, for example, or a human fingernail. It isn't the totality of all there is. It exists in time and space. It is perceiveable. And so on. These are all logical truths which are timeless and unchanging, yet were only created in the event of the glob's creation.

Let me ask you something, when does truth become true?
When it can't be refuted by logic.

Lastly, " Being everything, there is nothing else it depends on.", means reality is self sustaining.
Yes, with the qualification that it doesn't have a self (which is what makes it indestructable). Unborn and therefore ever-living, as Lao Tzu once said.

-
"Truth becomes truth when it can't be refuted by logic". For that to be the case then the existence of all truth depends on the existence of an ever present refuter. Strange, you didn't mention that in your above example of the green glob.

Secondly to claim,"immediately an infinite number of logical truths is created" has some fatal problems. Infinite logical truth is inherently contradictory. If it's infinite then falsity has to be part of it. Too messy for me.

More importantly, it's inconsistent with my experience. I'm a trades person, a carpenter. As such I work with the associated truths. Those truths don't come and go. Those truths existed even before humans inhabited the earth. If truth comes and goes then how is it that I can predict what's going to happen. As a carpenter I predict outcomes all the time, any journey person does this with, reliable, successful results. I can make predictions regarding a building even when the building doesn't exist.

My conclusion, based on experience, is that truth exists in the absence of, associated, condition. But condition can never exist in the absence of, associated, truth. Fortunately, the absence of condition is condition, it's inescapable. Once you recognize this then you can begin to understand causeless nature of reality. It takes some reflection on your part but none the less.

Just for the sake of discussion, assume what I'm saying is true. What else can we know? Anybody?

Know
Gary

P.S. Does anyone see the existential value of "in everything I do, reality responds accordingly" ?
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by jufa »

David Quinn wrote:
The if's above don't express a guess or an assumption on my part. They are simply part of the convention of expressing a logical point. Like in math: if 1+1=2, then 2-1=1.
I do not know how many way I can ask an intelligent person how do they know what that logical point is without getting the cart before horse answer. Like do you know or don't you know how
Ultimately, the only thing that is without cause is Nature itself
How can the following be true
By opening my eyes and being intelligent. If you want to understand the fundamental nature of all things, then defining Nature or Reality to be everything is the only rational option.
IF the Nature of intelligence has no cause, being Nature has no cause, by your words?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Kunga »

Whatshappening wrote:
Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:The question to you was ["How do you know this?" Please explain?] Please explain By what definition.
The definition is: Nature is everything. If Nature is everything, then by definition nothing can be beyond, or before, Nature.

How then can Nature have a blueprint for cause of structure, no less the necessary element to have a cause of existence should there be no thing, or idea, or thought base?
If Nature is everything, then by definition there cannot be any base to it, nor can it have a blueprint.

In all directions, there is only cause and effect unfolding endlessly. The eternal play of God.

-

But if there is only cause & effect....then what was the first cause ?
If all is ETERNAL ...there can be no begining.

However...Nature to me is synonymous to "GOD". Nature = God

But to conceptualize it distorts the non-conceptuality of "it" .
"But to conceptualize it distorts the non-conceptuality of "it". That's an unfruitful comment. To think this way, figuratively, means you've given up before the race has began.

If you think something is impossible, then I guarantee, for you, it will be.

If we are going down the road of assumptions to assume there is no road precludes any further exploration. You've put yourself in unwinnable situation.

Reality can be conceptualized, we do it all the time(lately, we've become really good at this). Think about your everyday behavior. How are we successful? It's not with fatal assumptions.

In everything you do, reality responds accordingly. Realities response to "non-conceptuality" is..."OK,no more answers for you."

Answers
Gary

P.S. I used to think the same way...till something came along forcing me to give my head a shake, leaving my enculturation behind.




Gary...when I say "non-conceptual" it doesn't mean the end. It just means, when you conceptualize you are limiting yourself to a conception.
Without a conception you leave the door wide open to possibilities....The Unknown. You can't conceptualize something you have no concept of.

Concepts are in language.
Some things are indescribable with human language. No human concept could accurately describe this reality.
Sometimes silence is the only answer.
In that silence.... you intuit.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

Whatshappening wrote: "Truth becomes truth when it can't be refuted by logic". For that to be the case then the existence of all truth depends on the existence of an ever present refuter. Strange, you didn't mention that in your above example of the green glob.
To understand my point, you need to distinguish betwen truth and existence. A truth is always timelessly true, irrespective of whether there is someone to conceive of it or not, irrespective of whether it exists in a conceptual form or not.

Take 1+1=2, for example. If all sentient life were to die out tomorrow, leaving no consciousness behind in the Universe, 1+1=2 would still remain absolutely true, even though there is no one left to conceive of it.

Someone might conceive of a particular truth in an instant only for it to disappear again, never to be thought of again. Yet that one instant is enough. The conceptual existence of that truth may be momentary, but the truth it expresses is timeless and can never be refuted.

Secondly to claim,"immediately an infinite number of logical truths is created" has some fatal problems. Infinite logical truth is inherently contradictory. If it's infinite then falsity has to be part of it. Too messy for me.
I said infinite number of logical truths, not infinite logical truth.

More importantly, it's inconsistent with my experience. I'm a trades person, a carpenter. As such I work with the associated truths. Those truths don't come and go. Those truths existed even before humans inhabited the earth. If truth comes and goes then how is it that I can predict what's going to happen. As a carpenter I predict outcomes all the time, any journey person does this with, reliable, successful results. I can make predictions regarding a building even when the building doesn't exist.
See above.

My conclusion, based on experience, is that truth exists in the absence of, associated, condition. But condition can never exist in the absence of, associated, truth. Fortunately, the absence of condition is condition, it's inescapable. Once you recognize this then you can begin to understand causeless nature of reality.
You may well be onto something here. What do you mean by "causeless" exactly?

P.S. Does anyone see the existential value of "in everything I do, reality responds accordingly" ?
In its current form, not much. It's far too vague to be meaningful. If you're not talking about cause and effect, then what are you talking about? A moral principle?

Let's consider a specific scenario: A child spies his father on the other side of a busy road and sprints across to him with a big smile on his face, only to be knocked down and killed by a passing car. In what way does "reality respond accordingly" here?

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David, it sounds like Mr. Whatshappening is talking about Jungian synchronicity. What he probably means is that if we do some extreme creative action, there is a feedback from the universe that appears to Rhyme with our past choices.

I'll give you an example:

I took your advice and had a relationship with a young woman. My goal was not to use her, but to love her with all my heart and mind, just to see the consequences of it. It was a way to become more mature as a human being. It was paradoxical, because in some sense I was using her, but I did it with the highest level of love and thoughtfulness I could.

There was some very unexpected feedback from "the whole of life" that had a very profound resonance with my choices. During the decay of that period, reality unfolded effortlessly and the coincidences that piled up were astonishing.

I now have my own unique style as a spiritual teacher. I'm basically Michael Jordan, and if you can put your ego aside, David, you're going to be Phil Jackson.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

I had look up who Phil Jackson was. A basketball coach, apparently. Sure, if you can use me to springboard to greater heights, then go for it.

I'm not sure where synchronicity comes into play regarding your experiences with the woman, though. Isn't synchronicity simply the ego latching onto favorable coincidences that sometimes arise and making a big deal out of it?

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Cory Duchesne »

The reason people make a big deal out of it is because they are forgetting about the needs of the people around them.

"
The sage has no mind of his own.
He is aware of the needs of others.
I am good to people who are good.
I am also good to people who are not
good.
Because Virtue is goodness.
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not
faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness.
The sage is shy and humble - to the
world he seems confusing.
Others look to him and listen.
He behaves like a little child.
"

Those who have a profound synchronicity have two choices. Be crucified by others (due to over the top self-aggrandization, which stirs resentment) or self crucifixtion.

Self Crucifixtion does not require will power. Get to know about the aspirations of other people, and you'll have no choice but to make a sacrifice.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

jufa wrote:David Quinn wrote:
The if's above don't express a guess or an assumption on my part. They are simply part of the convention of expressing a logical point. Like in math: if 1+1=2, then 2-1=1.
I do not know how many way I can ask an intelligent person how do they know what that logical point is without getting the cart before horse answer.
If you open your eyes and unblock your ears, you won't have to keep asking it.

Like do you know or don't you know how
David Quinn wrote: Ultimately, the only thing that is without cause is Nature itself
I do know.

jufa wrote: How can the following be true
By opening my eyes and being intelligent. If you want to understand the fundamental nature of all things, then defining Nature or Reality to be everything is the only rational option.
IF the Nature of intelligence has no cause, being Nature has no cause, by your words?

Intelligence has causes, the same as anything else in Nature. But Nature itself is beginningless and therefore without cause.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

Cory Duchesne wrote:The reason people make a big deal out of it is because they are forgetting about the needs of the people around them.

"
The sage has no mind of his own.
He is aware of the needs of others.
I am good to people who are good.
I am also good to people who are not
good.
Because Virtue is goodness.
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not
faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness.
The sage is shy and humble - to the
world he seems confusing.
Others look to him and listen.
He behaves like a little child.
"

Those who have a profound synchronicity have two choices. Be crucified by others (due to over the top self-aggrandization, which stirs resentment) or self crucifixtion.

Self Crucifixtion does not require will power. Get to know about the aspirations of other people, and you'll have no choice but to make a sacrifice.
You've lost me. I still don't know what synchronicity is, other than a mental construct that makes the ego feel special.

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Cory Duchesne »

By creating the pure running waters of your high quality philosophy, there's the chance you've been deprived of a certain dimension of consciousness. Unfortuantely, because you know nothing of it, you'll only project the limitations of your own thinking onto others. This is psychology, it's a science. Your pure deductive reasoning, as useful as it is, has to be dropped at the right time.

As Kierkegaard said - purity is to will one thing. This has a certain beauty to it, because if every human is willing one thing with purity, it creates many pure elements in culture. If you know anything about chemistry, elements tend to react and organic molecules eventually form.

If being deprived of the experience of Jung's synchronicity causes you any form of anguish, imagine the pain of some of your more feminine forum members, such as the various women who've been here, or the fire-blooded James Quirk, etc.

Regardless, I have little attachment to my synchronicities. I'm 31 years old, but I've been having them since I was 21.

Additionally, great talents ripen late, so you might be in for another round of mysticism in these next coming years, David. If not, I will still help you produce your film script, if that's what you still want.

During the age of 25 to 30, I underwent the experience of death. There was no mysticism or synchronicity during that time. I scrapped the bottom of the human condition uttterly, and had every ounce of life taken from me. Humiliation to a very unusual extreme.

You also might want to consider the practical function that metaphorical thinking has in spirituality, and the reasoning behind Kierkegaard's poetic style. Synchronicities imbue a profound love of God, and a complete disregard for conventional society.

Everything seems infantile, yet there is compassion for humanity.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

It's still no clearer to me. It's probably because you are not very clear by what you mean by synchronicity. You may well be referring to something that I give a different label to, or have a different explanation of. It's hard to say.

You say you have experienced them since you were 21. Can you describe one of them?

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I'm not sure explanations can do them justice because they span so much time. It's essential to reflect on relationship from past moments to future, and consider function and harmony. It's very much connected to sociology, and it's also musical.

First of all, synchronicity is just a word. It's also very new to psychology and the science requires physics and neurology, there is much more to be developed around it. Jung and the physicists that supported him referred to it as an "acausal" principle. But I see no need to frame it that way. (I will discuss more about David Bohm, a physicist who supports causality).

The synchronicities grow in complexity, each one building on the other, and they have a strong relationship to your life purpose and your life purpose is obviously fuelled by your emotional connection to existing personalities in history, your expectations, as well as contemporary people.

Like I said, it's been occurring my whole life (even going back to about 12 years old) so I have a chain of memories that goes back to childhood.

For me to tell you some of my synchronicities completely defeats the function of it - which is wholeness, an implicate order and personality. This is subjective, however, your deductive reasoning actually adds fire to it. I see no conflict between your philosophy, as well as David Bohm's, J.Krishnamurti's, and even Jung. Jung never had enough time to straighten it out, so we're going to pick up where those guys left off.

I could tell you a memory of mine, and it would be like giving you a glass of water out of lake, David. You would look at it for what it was, just an isolated event that could be explained through natural science (as well as your own experience).

Natural science is the new barrier for humanity. Kierkegaard knew this.

I know you have a beef with the Copenhagen interpretations of physics (which defies cause and effect), but David Bohm offered a second interpretation of QM that did not defy cause and effect. Bohm kept it intact. However, ironcially for you, Bohm had experienced synchronicity, telepathy and was very much a mystic. Bohm was a very respected physicist, and like a lot of physicists, he could see the limitations and moved to eastern philosophy, working with J. Krishnamuriti.

I can recall your reasoning show episode with Dr. Richard Healey. After you explained your views of causation, Healy himself suggested you would like David Bohm.

Telepathy is not literal. It is not a literal reading of thoughts, but exists in a metaphorical realm. It's another plane of consciousness of pure thought. So again, this works in your favour.

I first started having weird coincidences when I first heard about spirituality. I was raised Catholic, and from my early memory I dreaded church and had no respect for priests or alter boys. I was raised in a traditional fishing community, so there were lots of opportunities to be an alterboy and engage in that nonesene, and while many boys took the opporutnity, I was much more content hunting snakes, exploring forests, etc.

Very healthy masculinity, and judging by my metabolisim, sufficent testosterone.

--

My first spiritual teachers were Timonthy Leary, Terence Mckenna, John Frusciante and Alan Watts. The moment I started reading their words, the mysticism, synchronicity, telepathy and ecstasy activated very intensely.

Religious Ecstasy is another thing I'm not sure if you know anything about. The reality of someone allowing themselves to be burned at the stake or nailed to the cross is very fathomable to me. I'm sure men have willingly died for spritual beliefs, because I have been inside the furnace of ectasy more than a few times.

Why am I telling you this?

This is ultimately a science of personality, and it's also about Art. The spiritual man is in heaven, and God Arts in heaven.

Like I said, I will likely be wiring the entire planet with the philosophical paradigms that will be dominate for centuries. You will be included, but your personality David likely has a shadow. I'm dragging you into the public, and I'll defend you, but I'll also be supporting things you don't understand, and you might not ever understand.

The transhumanists, atheists, religious fundamentalists, the mystics, the pure reasoners, the arts, even Woman....all will play a role.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by David Quinn »

So does all this involve ideas of the Universe having a purpose? And that you personally are important to its fulfilment? Do you think the Universe is consciously helping you to serve such a purpose?

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: In everything I do ....

Post by Cory Duchesne »

David Quinn wrote:So does all this involve ideas of the Universe having a purpose? And that you personally are important to its fulfilment? Do you think the Universe is consciously helping you to serve such a purpose?
For me, it involves Kierkegaard's three dimensions. The aesthetic is important for children. Boys and girls need a rich, stimulating environment, that includes unstructured time in the natural world, and a great deal of mythology and poetry helps. Childhood movies are ideally very dark. The Dark Crystal by Jim Henson is one of the best, because the aesthetics are haunting, creepy, but strangely beautiful, and the movie has a profound didactic poetry. Children would not forget that movie. As adults, they would see it again, the philosophical ideas that are cloaked in metaphor would hit home, and since the adult world is very creepy, the ugliness of life would be easier to see as beautiful. Kierkegaard talked about the dialectical redoubling. He claimed women couldn't do it. There's the chance they could if it appeals to the heart enough, but that's another subject. I believe tragedy is important for adults, and that it creates a stronger heart. I noticed young women don't like tragedy and war movies, they always want the comedies.

The ethical is an introduction to values related to good and evil, and that involves some conceptual thinking, obviously.

The religious involves despair and psychological death. This involves the concept of the totality, and a gradual loss of attachment to the finite.

I see no reason why an individual cannot "pace himself" by cycling through those 3 dimensions, indefinitely until the end of his life.

I think this philosophy is very inclusive to a very large variety of types of people.

--

As for purpose, the only thing we can know is what you and I agreed on last year. The universe is there to be created. We can make the world whatever we want, and I know what my preferences are.

I despise tribal family. I am a very musical and artistic person, but I would have no problem seeing the biological family unit destroyed.

I hate people who live vicariously through others and get angry when behaviour does not conform to narcissistic wishes. The chip on my shoulder is essentially that.

Other than that, I'm pretty tolerant. However, the thing that I seek to destroy (tribal family) is obviously very close to the heart of most people.

--

Finally, to speculate about the universe having a purpose beyond my own created values is beyond my framework. My synchronicities are essentially processed like Weininger dealt with his hallucinations. They must be put into a rational context that is beyond logical doubt, and you move on.

The narcissism that overcomes so many spiritual people is largely born from an inability to play as a team. These people are just in it for themselves, and of course, there are plenty of sheep who will admire devils, largely because the sheep wish they were devils. (submissives).
Locked