originally posted by: Blue Shift
Try to imagine the universe without yourself in it. You don't exist. You have no body or anything that would help you perceive or contemplate the
universe. It just doesn't exist. Yeah, you can philosophize and create a hypothetical objective reality, but you're only able to do that because you
currently exist and have a real brain and body to do that with. If you didn't exist, neither would the universe. So that pretty much puts the ego at
the center of everything.
That's an interesting concept and one that as far as I know quantum physics supports.
There is no such thing as an objective reality that's separate from the subjective observer.
This doesn't mean to say that the subjective observer collapses the probability wave and actualizes reality, but it does suggest a couple of ideas.
One, that all what is, was and ever will be, includes everything that is, and that there is nothing that is not.
While we don't know precisely what happens when we die in this physical form, on an individual basis, within this all-inclusive POV it could be said
that death has no meaning or significance.
God as the all-in-all
is the God of the living and of each generation, not the dead. To God all people are alive.
The implication of this, is that, at the most fundamental level, we always were, are, and will always be, because no other context is available as a
Of course the materialists will beg to differ and say that we're just a thing in a bag of skin nothing more in an impersonal, meaningless accident for
which questions of meaning and value, intent or purpose cannot be asked. How dare you?!
But even within that context they can be shown to be mistaken on the basis of an interdependent, cosmological unity apart from which they would not
I see it as a very strange and very mysterious predicament of sorts, that to face and "be with" is the only intellectually honest position to take,
however inscrutable although there are a whole array of things that can be deduced from within that space, which is really the domain that Mr. McKenna
was exploring and likes to explore and theorize from within, from a POV that's at least HONEST, and that doesn't make all these presuppositions about
some sort of dead thingness with the human being set apart as just another thing and the Earth a speck of dust, and life of no significance, meaning,
Life itself has flung us headlong into this predicament, and it's perfectly ok to ask these kinds of questions and try honestly to face it and come to
grips with it, or losing one's grip on everything they presumed to "know", instead of trying to sell us something that just doesn't sell any more, in
light of our own continued evolution, and involution and our POST-modern worldview and understanding. There's nothing unscientific about any of this
either, since it's a continual inquiry on the basis of everything now known, including the measurement of the fine-tuned Higgs Boson Mass and
The prevalent and predominant, materialist monist dead thing theory, just doesn't stand up under any amount of real scrutiny and analysis, and honest
intellectual inquiry where the only real knowledge is the knowledge of experience that cannot stand apart from that experience and point to itself and
call itself nothing but a thing and everything a random, coincidental happenstance as a capricious random addition from nothing and for no reason. I
liked his analogy there, where even the proposition that God is a clam in the center of the galaxy as say held as a variation on the theme of the
Mormon faith, is more believable than what the competing viewpoint of the modern scientific era is trying to sell us, even in the face of this obvious
process of which the present moment is it's purpose as something that intentionally bootstrapped itself all the way to this moment, including the
My God there's a rational basis for faith as a state of gnosis, who's inherent inkling and whim is the mirth and charm involved in placing us in this
very predicament while forcing us to ask a question of it, but one that assumes nothing, and simply goes by the data at hand (looking around, feeling
Rene Descarte mulled this over, and he arrived the conclusion that when you're staring at the apple, both must be arising in consciousness or a
thought form for there to be an objective reality within which the subjective observer resides, even if all he can rely upon is a dimly filtered
perceptual reality via the five sense. That a mind is perceiving it, and that's it's there and real in it's own right without the possibility of
subjective experience and objective reality being somehow divided, set apart, distinguished and removed from the equation (then where are we?), has
utterly astounding implications, even if they cannot be determined with any degree of precision.
It's like he says, when you discard the unworkable paradigm in the face of the reality and allow yourself, with courage, to explore it as an
intelligent phenomenon which was meant (that fully intended to), from the beginning of time, to unwind itself in this particular manner placing us in
this very predicament that we are now in and face, and well, it might begin to appear that God (whoever or whatever that might be) has quite the sense
of playful irony and humor that invites further exploration, not of evolution in "outer space", with the human being and Earth removed from the
equation or thought of as well, as nothing at all of any meaning or value or significance or purpose or a dead thingness, but of the domain of
involution where the only possible knowledge can arise. It is the humor of the knowledge of true understanding. But first you have to admit that
you're screwed and can't get out of it, where perhaps even suicide would accomplish nothing at all to change it.
Once in it, always in it, at least right now.
The materialists want to avoid, not just God or accountability to some all-knowing supreme being, although that's probably part of it and who wants
God operating like a peeping Tom anyway, but to avoid and evade at all cost, the question of why, and what does it mean and signify?
Some of them are even willing to entirely lose their own sense of humor on the alter of the old paradigm for fear of the new.
We can know more, by knowing that we don't know, and by knowing what we do and can know for sure.
The prevailing scientific paradigm that makes this cowardly presupposition in the face of the obvious, just to avoid the implications of further
inquiry along these lines, is a purely subjective and unscientific presumption. It's chicken#, and it's very much a leftover strong bias against deism
of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
It's not just so 2 minutes ago, it's so hundreds of years, ago, this line of thinking and frame of reference.
We've moved on and are growing up, but into what we cannot say and whatever it is, it's certainly not reversing it's trend or slowing down any time
soon, and so he's right to say that the time we are in "history" is getting closer to a great rise in novelty and complexification.
So the predicament only gets even worse, in light of the new context, but that said
"There is nothing the universe loves more, than courage."
~ Terrance McKenna
edit on 16-9-2016 by AnkhMorpork because: (no reason given)