With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed.

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

David Quinn:
movinalways: Then why sing the singular song of logic?
To break down the many barriers that people have erected against it.

The path to enlightenment is: the full and free use of logic + intuition + courage + the whole-hearted desire to truly understand. Nothing can be accomplished if any of these components is absent.
I understand why one would want to break down the barriers that people have erected against becoming logical, that one would want to become the guardian spirit of logic, but can you also understand why one would want to break down the barriers that people have erected against other forms of conscious thinking, to become their guardian spirit? It's not the becoming logical that I question, becoming logical is absolutely necessary for ego survival in its playground of time and space, it is the equating of becoming logical with becoming the Infinite that I question.
David Quinn:
movingalways wrote:
The question I have for you is: Are you a natural man or a spiritual man?
Is there a difference?
A spiritual man in relation to my definition of Nature [see below] is a man who is wise to the principles and patterns of Nature [time and space], but being aware that Nature is but one realm of infinite realms, of which none is he separate, keeps his awareness open to be moved 'out' of Nature and into 'one' of these 'alternate' realms.
David Quinn:
"Nature" is just a label given to the totality of reality. Other labels could be "God", or "Tao", or "The Infinite". Again, these are just labels and nothing more. Let's call it "Fwull", if you want.
"Nature" is a label you give to the totality of reality, but not one that I give to the totality of reality. My definition of Nature is the ego-universe-time-space realm [of the (infinite realms) of the Totality/Infinite].

Since you equate Nature with The Infinite, and you said logic is but one thing the Infinite creates, is it not logical then that there are worlds or realms of the Infinite yet to be discovered that are not logical realms?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

This is widely reported.
When a person is in the experience of enlightenment and getting about in the World.
A striking cognition takes place.
Everybody is enlightened!
The person gets the joke.

Everybody is in the game of trying to make an idea, person, institution or thing appear to be solid and permanent.
Admit it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

David, after thinking a bit more on our discussions to date, I came up with a logical argument for further discourse if it is your wish:

One can logically deduce that there are an infinite number of worlds in the mind of God. One can also logically deduce that some of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space, but one cannot logically deduce that all of these worlds follow the principles of logic as does this now world of time and space. Here, in our now world of time and space, 2 + 2 is always 4, the World Trade Center fell in September of 2001, not in any other month or any other year; however, in an immaterial world yet to be discovered by the man living in a material world, it is logical to deduce that these references of time and space do not apply. Obviously a man has to actualize the world in which he lives now before he can actualize another, this is what I believe Jesus meant when he said "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it", but without the realistic hope of infinite worlds to be fulfilled beyond this fulfilled world, man is doomed to fall into boredom and despair.

It is also a logical deduction that to have this viewpoint of infinite worlds of which at least some do not contain awareness of logic is the most logical viewpoint when considering the scope and nature of the infinite Mind of God.

Which means that when one hears the call to discover other actual worlds in the mind of God, it is a necessity that one cease identifying with the light of this world, the light of logic and emotion and begin identifying with the light of all worlds. And through this shift in identification from the light of this world of logic and emotion to the light of all worlds, the attachment to the light of logic and emotion is gradually severed.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

We have evidence of infinite worlds within our own Universe, the insect world, the bird world, the plant world, and on and on, and in this ONE Universe there is a time for all things under the sun. To look farther for what is right under our noses is illogical.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

someone's trying to figure out an escape route.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pam,
movingalways wrote:... without the realistic hope of infinite worlds to be fulfilled beyond this fulfilled world, man is doomed to fall into boredom and despair.
What if this is your particular sense of doom, of boredom and despair in the face on not having a hope on "infinite worlds"? Or in other words, what if on one of these world people were caused to be content without this hope? Perhaps one has to explore the mechanics of hope and fear in this context and what they maintain or create.
It is also a logical deduction that to have this viewpoint of infinite worlds of which at least some do not contain awareness of logic is the most logical viewpoint when considering the scope and nature of the infinite Mind of God.
I think the point is that you cannot know much about those worlds with other laws of time and space. The act of "knowing" them as human being would need application of the logic which is not just "one way" of thinking but more like the bits and bytes of thought, of distinction and identification - they are all tied up. So one is free to imagine universes where 2+2=5 or time runs backwards but you're not going to experience it or identity it in any direct or complete sense without grasping it through the laws ruling your own perception. The possibility therefore is not as important as you appear to present it as (as logical argument). Perhaps it could be said we are "doomed" to our own universe of perception by its own definition.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

being resigned to suffering or a committed sufferer,
a condition that projects a here and there,
where the grass is greener over there apparently.

like a fly stuck on flypaper.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Movingalways, I enjoyed your post. There are as many worlds as there are perspectives. Perspectives are created by some combination of the availability and the unavailability of information. You're right in saying that there are an infinite number of words because there is an infinite combination of accessibility and inaccessibility.
I prefer to look at it as one total informational world out of which perspective grabs various sub-world identities. Some of these will be logical, in that the parameters of dimensionality are self consistent throughout, and some will be illogical in that parameters of dimensionality are subject to change. Illogical sub-world identities are present, but not particularly useful for a mind as the construction of a concept of consciousness requires a consistency of temporal relationship.
movingalways wrote: Obviously a man has to actualize the world in which he lives now before he can actualize another
I fail to see the obvious, maybe you can help me. You seem to imply that man lies above the worlds he experiences. As I see it Man/Experience is a component of these sub-world identities.
movingalways wrote:It is also a logical deduction that to have this viewpoint of infinite worlds of which at least some do not contain awareness of logic is the most logical viewpoint when considering the scope and nature of the infinite Mind of God.

Which means that when one hears the call to discover other actual worlds in the mind of God, it is a necessity that one cease identifying with the light of this world, the light of logic and emotion and begin identifying with the light of all worlds. And through this shift in identification from the light of this world of logic and emotion to the light of all worlds, the attachment to the light of logic and emotion is gradually severed.
I agree with your conclusion that attachment to logic and emotion is severed with a fuller understanding of the mind of God, but I'm not sure that the path to that understanding is through comprehending other sub-worlds, logical or not. There is one undifferentiated world that contains, through perspective, the illusion of phenomenal reality, logic and the self. Logical and illogical worlds equally obfuscate the underlying truth of existence.

Interesting that differing methodologies so consistently lead back to the same inevitable conclusions.
I loved this forum the first time I found it because I could always taste the truth in all of your perspectives. As I understand some of them more fully I'm finding it very productive in re-understanding the one foundational truth of divinity. I think there is some truth to the idea that understanding a concept is having the ability to turn it over in your head from different perspectives.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Eric Orwell wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Obviously a man has to actualize the world in which he lives now before he can actualize another
I fail to see the obvious, maybe you can help me. You seem to imply that man lies above the worlds he experiences. As I see it Man/Experience is a component of these sub-world identities.
Man is the interpreter of God's worlds, the spirit of movement. Man is also aware of being transcendent to his interpretations, the spirit of rest. "I am the light [the rest] of the world [the movement]. An example would be when Jesus cried out on the cross to the transcendent Father "it [this world of human thinking] is finished."
Eric Orwell: Interesting that differing methodologies so consistently lead back to the same inevitable conclusions.
I loved this forum the first time I found it because I could always taste the truth in all of your perspectives. As I understand some of them more fully I'm finding it very productive in re-understanding the one foundational truth of divinity. I think there is some truth to the idea that understanding a concept is having the ability to turn it over in your head from different perspectives.
I love what you said here: "re-understanding the one foundational truth of divinity." It nicely sums up what I understand to be the absolute truth of Man's journey in all of God's worlds.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: I think the point is that you cannot know much about those worlds with other laws of time and space. The act of "knowing" them as human being would need application of the logic which is not just "one way" of thinking but more like the bits and bytes of thought, of distinction and identification - they are all tied up. So one is free to imagine universes where 2+2=5 or time runs backwards but you're not going to experience it or identity it in any direct or complete sense without grasping it through the laws ruling your own perception. The possibility therefore is not as important as you appear to present it as (as logical argument). Perhaps it could be said we are "doomed" to our own universe of perception by its own definition.
Who said anything about being a human being in other worlds in God's Mind? :-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:someone's trying to figure out an escape route.
No, a transformation that comes when it comes.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Eric is easily fooled.
You dress your argument up as deductive logic.
It is in fact inference.
A model, a belief, a theory, guesswork.
You do not know and will not admit it is guesswork on your part.


Your argument depends on hearsay,
In an inquiry, depending on hearsay to make a case is feeble.
Your witness, Jesus, has not been examined as a credible authority.
We are expected to automatically assume he is.

The question remains open.
You have not answered it.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Beingof1 »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Eric is easily fooled.
What a drama queen you are.

I thought your mantras spoke of emptiness and meaningless nothingness about emptiness? What happened?
Suddenly; meaning about something, someone and content are important?

Gedditt?
You dress your argument up as deductive logic.
So now style of ensemble and fashion is cheeky? Do you ever make a point except to talk about someone else?
It is in fact inference.
A model, a belief, a theory, guesswork.
You do not know and will not admit it is guesswork on your part.
When oh when are you gonna snap out of your daydream?
Your argument depends on hearsay,
In an inquiry, depending on hearsay to make a case is feeble.
Your witness, Jesus, has not been examined as a credible authority.
We are expected to automatically assume he is.

The question remains open.
You have not answered it.
I have yet to see you answer a single question - talk about the blind trying to lead.

When you get asked questions, you reply with gobbledygook how that; its all meaningless and empty and cannot be answered because its all meaningless and empty that's why nothing can be answered. Now you demand answers.

Seriously - you need to start answering questions or you will continue to spiral into drama fantasy.
NobodyListens2Genius
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by NobodyListens2Genius »

I have read all of your comments and seen complex points but these lead nowhere on the issue of solipsism. The best way to tackle it is to assume solipsism true. To view things as if you are the only being in existence and all other people are only manifestations of your conciousness.

After doing this you are able to come up with a few good questions that seem to go against only yourself existing, some of these are:


If age itself is only an illusion, why has my mental capacity increased?

If it is only I that exists, how have I learned anything I didn't previously know?

If it is "imaginary" and only I exist, how did I come into existence?

Why is math so consistent and applicable if it is made up nonsense?



What I really discovered after pondering all these questions was that the amount of doubt you can place on what you think you know is incredible.

And I agree that anything I experience, even daydreams, are real in some sense, but my definition of imaginary and real was only based on whether or not everything is only being experienced by me. Meaning the people next to me don't see or think and when they leave the room they don't exist save for in my memory.

My logic is so feeble, I believe whatever I'm told.

I'm on a magical smartphone right now, if someone asked me how it worked, my answer would go about as far as "electricity".

Because we assume there are 6 billion others we take it on faith that there are thousands of people out there that completely understand how my smartphone works and how to make it. But if you truly realise that all information we view is only temporary, and the second we stop thinking about it its gone, then it becomes clear that all logic is simply based on shallow illusions.


Where did I come from? Mum. Shes made from organs, molecules, atoms, then sub-atomic particles. But where does logic really lead? Are any of these real answers? Or am I simply seeking answers to questions that don't make sense?

How would I know if information was false if the real answer to "how does this smartphone work?" Is.... " it was thought up by you, it doesn't need a "how", all your logic is based on other similar bullshit"


Not to mention solipsism answers every possible question I've ever heard. Maybe its just so simple and obvious our intellect would never accept it as truth.
Last edited by NobodyListens2Genius on Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

get rid of belief systems Boo and the question remains open.
surely you can tell when you're trying to 'sell' a theory.

surely, even you can grok that if a thing depends for existence then it can't possibly truly exist,
in that case it is ultimately meaningless.
it's not rocket science.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NobodyListens2Genius
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by NobodyListens2Genius »

Also, because you are geniuses you might be accustomed to explaining complex concepts, but I found that the only way to progress on forums is not to spend all our time trying to cut each other down, but to make simple straight forward points that we can all work on together or can take into consideration.
Eric Orwoll
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:14 am

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Eric Orwoll »

Dennis, in response to your comment against movingalways' methodology:
Few of the sources that get thrown around here are logically rigorous, that doesn't discount the possibility that each is representing truth.
The perennial philosophy predates a formal conception of logic, and yet it reaches many of the same conclusions as myself, you Dennis, and movingalways/Jesus.
I think what Pam is getting at is that there is no universal dictate to express truth in logical form.
Truth needn't be discovered tautologically, many people arrive at it empirically. Once you acquire a certain understanding you begin to test your experience against it. Any truth, if valid, will be constantly reaffirmed in the face of challenge.
My own logic seems correct to me, but the predominant reason that I believe my conclusions is more closely related to this second, empirical, type of validation.
Dennis Mahar wrote:A model, a belief, a theory, guesswork.
You do not know and will not admit it is guesswork on your part.
All we have is guesswork. That's the whole premise of this topic: our epistemological limitation. Even the best chain of logic can only be proven self referentially. We never know whether our statements about relationship correspond to a reality exterior to ourselves.
For the individual, tautological, ontological, metaphysical and empirical attempts at truth are all equally impossible to confirm.
No source can be viewed as a "credible authority". It is up to the individual unpacking the symbology of language to conclude whether the material therein contained corresponds to a greater syntax of reality.

In some ways it is foolish to assemble a complete logical symbolism for truth, as that symbol set will be judged against the readers pre-constructed syntax of truth. Even logical arguments will be interpreted into a worldview in an empirical way.
Non-logical expressions, if they come from someone who's internal syntax of truth matches the external/undifferentiated truth, can be used to reenforce one's understanding by the same empirical method. Thus, I can taste the truth in an argument well before I can logically unpack its information.
NobodyListens2Genius wrote:The best way to tackle it is to assume solipsism true.
Can you qualify what makes this approach the best? It seems that the most accurate would be to admit that you can never know, then attempt to test both hypotheses to see which you prefer.
NobodyListens2Genius
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by NobodyListens2Genius »

It's the best approach, or atleast a necessary one, because without doing so you can't truly understand the concept and are prone to making points that don't apply. You need to experience the doubt for yourself, so you can scrutinize each of your own attempts at solving the issue and see if they hold up

Even if you don't think its the best approach, why not try it?
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Cathy Preston »

I intuitively understood immediately MA is seeking escape, key words being boredom, despair, and realistic hope. But to simply say I know intuitively you're full of poopoo MA, seems unproductive so I attempt to break through using logic, what else can I do? Intuition and logic go hand in hand, work together. It's how I test my intuition, and how I try to communicate it.

This world when actually seen is neither boring, nor full of despair, one who hopes is counting on a positive outcome, but what outcome is there; positive or otherwise.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cathy Preston wrote:I intuitively understood immediately MA is seeking escape, key words being boredom, despair, and realistic hope. But to simply say I know intuitively you're full of poopoo MA, seems unproductive so I attempt to break through using logic, what else can I do? Intuition and logic go hand in hand, work together. It's how I test my intuition, and how I try to communicate it.

This world when actually seen is neither boring, nor full of despair, one who hopes is counting on a positive outcome, but what outcome is there; positive or otherwise.
And is your intuitive logic the truth of of how MA understands boredom, despair and realistic hope? No. This is the difference between a philosopher and a mystic. The former reasons that non-human absolute truth is the same as human intuitive logic whereas the mystic reasons this reasoning to be the granddaddy of all fallacies.

A philosopher understands a philosopher. A mystic understands a mystic. I am a mystic.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:get rid of belief systems Boo and the question remains open.
surely you can tell when you're trying to 'sell' a theory.

surely, even you can grok that if a thing depends for existence then it can't possibly truly exist,
in that case it is ultimately meaningless.
it's not rocket science.
Dennis, rocket science doesn't truly exist, as you say, and yet here you are, talking about it.

This gets to the heart of the difference between the player and the renunciate. The player knows that human thinking is meaningless, but is not willing to remove the meaninglessness of human thinking from his spirit, whereas the renunciate engages his whole spirit toward this one goal of immaterial truthFULLness. This is why I say logic is not the language of truth. Logic brings you to the truth of the illusion of matter, but has no problem keeping the illusion of matter alive; this is not truth, this is magical thinking.

As I said once before, until one is emptied, emptiness remains as a thought.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You've declared yourself a mystic.
that constitutes form.
that means 'player'.
by your reasoning it is 'magical thinking'.

what is the basis upon which a mystic gets to be mystic.
there has to be a rationale.

Form is empty and thought rushes in to fill the void as Cathy indicates in another thread.
clear blue sky and thought possibilities drifting by like clouds.
mystic is a thought projection.
it's how you like to be noticed, your preference.

We get it, your message in a bottle,
you're hot and we're not.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

All we have is guesswork
Eric,
inference is guesswork.
we have deductive reasoning to resolve the situation.

in order to disclose true nature,
to prove no thing exists ultimately,
we have deductive reasoning.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Dennis Mahar »

As I said once before, until one is emptied, emptiness remains as a thought.
When the mind, analysing phenomena,
determines them to be empty of inherent existence,
if it then needed to further investigate this analysis,
the process would be without end.

While the object of the analysis
was found to be non-existent,
there is no longer a base of investigation.
Without a base, analysis no longer operates.
this is what is called cessation.

When this is familiar, the object appears to us as an illusion or dream, which appears to exist while not really existing at all.

What is the benefit of this realisation?

we are able to recognise that all that appears to our mind manifests itself spontaneously as really existing.
when the attention to objects is strong, the conception of an inherent existence occurs and adheres to their appearance as if they were unquestionably true.
whatever emotions are born such as attachment, greed, aggression,
they arise from the subject conceiving inherent existence as base and cause.

I think you will agree with all that Pam.

afflictive emotions arise out of a false belief that the object appearing truly exists.
once the analysis is complete,
there is no basis for afflictive emotions.

watching a person acting out aggression, passion, attachment etc..
is watching a person believing his/her object exists intrinsically, independent of the meaning he/she has projected.
the meaning is the false belief that the object truly exists.

the acting out is empty (born out of ignorance)
and
meaningless.

jumping at shadows.

I go along with Aristotle who postulated a purpose for existence.
His postulate is 'activity'.
people being passionately activated or passionately overwhelmed,
investing emotion in projects,
getting the 'most' out of life,
overcoming adversity,
its in all the stories.
In that way everybody is enlightened,
they 'get it'.
what they don't get is they make it up.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: With only one consciousness, reality cannot be confirmed

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:You've declared yourself a mystic.
that constitutes form.
that means 'player'.
by your reasoning it is 'magical thinking'.

what is the basis upon which a mystic gets to be mystic.
there has to be a rationale.

Form is empty and thought rushes in to fill the void as Cathy indicates in another thread.
clear blue sky and thought possibilities drifting by like clouds.
mystic is a thought projection.
it's how you like to be noticed, your preference.

We get it, your message in a bottle,
you're hot and we're not.
Mystic is a thought projection, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Man cannot exist without thought. But the thought projection of a mystic is dedicated to one goal, the goal of the cessation of the law of the six-sense consciousness. It is a projected thought world entirely different than that of emotional imaging or intuitive logic, both of which are projections dedicated to the continuation of the law of the six-sense consciousness. Why the mystic is not a magical thinker and why the intuitive logic is a magical thinker is that the mystic is actualizing the path of the truth he or she has discovered, whereas the intuitive logic remains caught between the two worlds of spirit and soul. It is as the Buddha said, there is the unborn and the born, and if one reads his suttas carefully and without fear of annihilation [the despair of which I referred that both Diebert and Cathy misinterpreted] they will discover that Nirvana is realization of the unborn, not the born. All of the Buddha's suttas are directed toward the final goal of ending the cycle of rebirth. How is the unborn realized? By withdrawing the born, there is no other way. This is the path of the mystic, the withdrawal of the born. It is a projected thought world of spirit that manifests a daily dying to the projected thought world of the soul.

You used the collective "we" to project what you believe is my intent in declaring that I am a mystic. How can there be integrity of dialogue between us when you project groupmind into the conversation?
Locked