It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Love at the Core of the Cosmos

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
When people hold to an atheistic view of reality, I cannot understand how they aren't impressed by the sheer complexity of the being we embody: How can we be composed of 50 trillion cells, organized by 16 billion cortical neurons, each one of which is composed of around 100 billion molecules. To a scientist, and especially a materials scientists who knows how hard it can be to put together a complex protein chain, nevermind a biochemist who tries to track the thousand plus metabolic pathways that roam through the mindbogglingly complex structure of our cells, or the physiologist who dares to track the large-scale relationships between parts of our bodies (such as the testes/ovaries and the brain), how can one not kneel before this palace of complexity and marvel at the magic of it all? The theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman invokes the concept of 'non-ergodicity' to explain the fact that there is not enough time in the 13.77 billion years of the universe for a cell to explore all the possible states of its molecules, which more or less means: life is something more than the physical laws of the universe allow it to be.

Love and Awe



The most amazing thing is not merely that we can understand the universe, but that there is an energetic point within us that appears to be the basis of it all - an energy so powerful and so good that to contact it is to allow yourself and your body to be transformed. But still, look around you: this point creates this as much as it creates you. Look in the sky, at the stars. There's a seemingly infinitely sized cosmos around us which simply boggles the human imagination. How can such infinitude in space and the complexity of material organization it holds be boiled down to one basic point within each particle in this universe? Some people like to believe in the reality of the universe and chaos and happenstance because they cannot bear the actual truth.

Love in Social Mammals



Love becomes concretized and embodied in the ecological contexts of social mammals, reaching its highest expression in a member of the primate family - humans. Humans are the containers of this conscious not be fiat, but by ecological history. It is our handedness which provides the most fundamental basis for our high-level mimesis. And out is our mimesis which provides the basis for our capacity to reflect and speak in language. And it is only because we have language that we can use our active imaginations for abstract acrobatics like 'astral travel'. None of this occurs without a specific evolutionary scaffold holding it all together.

Peace of Mind and Peace of Heart



All of us yearn for peace of mind and peace of heart. We yearn for play, for joy, for love, for community, and for wonder. The world we have today is a world which deprives a good portion of us from play, half of us from joy and love, most of us from community, and perhaps 99% of us from wonder. We're made spiritually and intellectually week by this because we're compelled by convention to overlook what should other astonish us: how utterly organized and connected all of the objects of reality are. Our minds, which we take to be 'in our heads', are actually the emergent properties of these interactions: our minds are ecological products of the objects we interact with. Is this not astonishing? Doesn't this, or shouldn't this, apprise you to something fundamental about consciousness? That its ontological, or metaphysical basis, is at the very root of matter? and that its expression in humans and other living animals, is still a function of the ecological relationships these animals form with one another? This is a Yin-Yang situation. Consciousness is the 'activating' influence, but it is not MY consciousness that activates MY being; but rather, it is the OTHERS consciousness which activates my being. Think about it. When another person gives you a smile, you feel lightened; when a person hugs you when you feel sad, you feel warm. Every state change in your experience of consciousness is really referring to a human other (or some other) outside of you - it is an ecological referencing system, with a you a node or nexus of this information exchange.

Too often people say "consciousness makes the physical world", which is completely off in its understanding of how the process works. Consciosuness may be the root of reality, but it still matters that consciousness is a dyadic result of social interactions - a function which no single human or living being can ever escape, outside of escaping babyhood and the neediness that it creates, and the conditioning to others it subjects you to.

If consciousness is one - which it is, than it is also true that it is ecological - it is multiple. There are other subjectivities around you who played a role in constructing you; and any time you interact with such subjectivities, they shape you, and you shape them.

Consciousness is therefore the result of physical interacts as much as it is the basis of the structure of reality itself. It's a beautiful braid - a triquetra, making matter a function of consciousness as much as the conscious individual is a function of the material relationships that it has. The arrow does not go one way - but both ways.




posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Wow synchronicity at its finest!

I was literally just watching interstellar video clips - specifically when Dr brand says love is the one thing that we are capable of perceiving that can transcend time and space.
I finished watching the docking clip, Miller’s planet and then what brand described above.
Close youtube, came here and bam!



posted on Dec, 7 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
So, you are not a Darwinist?



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If by Darwinist you mean "do you accept natural selection"? And to that question I answer in the affirmative. Natural selection is present in everything that happens and is empirically undeniable.

But why couldn't it be the case that natural selection inevitably leads - at least in us - to an omega point: to love? Evolution is a beautiful concept which is perfectly consistent with spirituality and with God. Why couldn't God be the temporal flow of a Universal and Creative Now-Consciousness? In the Torah, when Moses asks what God's name is, God answers, "EHYH asher EHYH"...Go and tell the Israelites that "EHYH" sent me to you". Grammatically and semantically, "EHYH" means "I will be"; and in its double connotation, means, "I will be that which I will be". The claim here is that God is forever transforming into something new in every now. "His" name is YHVH - "being" - but in his highest expression, he is the Being that is forever transforming into a new Now.

You should read Gottfried Liebniz little book "The Monadology". Natural selection is perfectly consistent with its logic.

Every bit of matter is connected to every other bit of matter. These forms are under the control of a symmetry-logic, but the way they come together and how is largely unpredictable. Yet the logic of love within us seems to put us into the deepest level of connection with the underlying oneness, allowing us to perceive that in the "Aleph" of EHYH is love itself. The Hebrew language captures this by the numerical value of one and love - both equalling 13, which is conceived geometrically as the unification of the twelve lines of the cube.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

that's cool.



posted on Dec, 8 2019 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte
So God is being whatever is actually occuring?
The form (the appearance) of now is the image of the invisible (formless) God.
And the appearance of people appear within the image.

Is there anything that stands apart from that?





edit on 8-12-2019 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Well time is real insomuch as time is what the Universe around us is.

We can't function coherently within the universe, and as bodies, without acknowledging the reality of Threeness i.e. the trinity. Rejection of the trinity amounts to rejection of reality and rejection of what is required for us to coherently structure it. If we want happiness; if we want peace on earth, if we want play, love, and awe, we must suffer within the ream of time.

I know itsnowagain that you must have suffered greatly in this world for you to be committed only to the now. But the reason the world is as it is, the reason Christianity emphasises the trinity and the reason it also comes with suffering, is that working within a broken, asymmetrically organized world is painful. Paying attention to and learning from the past, and planning for and provisioning for the future, is a source of problems when people haven't figured out the structure of the reality they live within. But we must let science continue gaining knowledge, so that humans can know how to live in the world in harmony with one another, the biosphere, and above all, with themselves.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If by Darwinist you mean "do you accept natural selection"? And to that question I answer in the affirmative. Natural selection is present in everything that happens and is empirically undeniable.


The emergence of various traits in a population that best fits the environment occurs all the time. But there is no way for new traits to emerge because of the required biological complexity to bring forth new functions. All adaptations come from organisms that are working with a pre-set genome, and epigenetics further shows that these adaptations are temporary and reversible - indicating it is not evolution.


But why couldn't it be the case that natural selection inevitably leads - at least in us - to an omega point: to love? Evolution is a beautiful concept which is perfectly consistent with spirituality and with God.


Love falls under the same dilemma of being totally incapable of being created by random chance mutations in a biological organism. How could that possibly be wired into a nervous system of a biological organism ?

biology did not generate Love, Love always existed and biology is its material form.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Love is Spirit.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: vethumanbeing

...In the Torah, when Moses asks what God's name is, God answers, "EHYH asher EHYH"...Go and tell the Israelites that "EHYH" sent me to you". Grammatically and semantically, "EHYH" means "I will be"; and in its double connotation, means, "I will be that which I will be". The claim here is that God is forever transforming into something new in every now. "His" name is YHVH - "being" - but in his highest expression, he is the Being that is forever transforming into a new Now.
...


Exodus 3:13-16 ... Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?”
...
God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”​—Ex 3:14, ftn.

That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars suggest that the name means “He Causes to Become.” This definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.

This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah’s later statement to Moses: “I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.

To “know,” therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David’s name but still asked, “Who is David?” in the sense of asking, “What does he amount to?” (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt’s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. ...

Source: Jehovah (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, “have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch. lii. 6, ‘Therefore my people shall know my name;’ or in Jeremiah, ch. xvi. 21, ‘They shall know that my name is Jehovah;’ or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], ‘They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;’ we see at once that to know Jehovah’s name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)”​—The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Love is just another way of biology trying to keep the species viable. It's all about sensory cues and matching neurological templates that create a physiological stimulus that feels good. That's why we "love" our pets, and vice-versa. And that's why love is so easily neutralized by simple things like depression and physical illness.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




But there is no way for new traits to emerge because of the required biological complexity to bring forth new functions.


Evolution is a combinatorial process by virtue of the fact that the organism is continuously encountering a new and different environment. The concept which matters here is called "exaptation", for instance, exaptation is what happened when the front gills of fish evolved into jaw bones in amphibians. Similarly, the evolution of arms for brachiation in primates became used for figurative speech and tool use in hominids.

When you think of life from the beginning, that is, from its deep sea hydrothermal vent roots, the evolution of the genome is co-occurrent with the evolution of the cell. The membrane of the cell is studded with millions of receptor proteins, and these proteins respond to nutrients and toxins in the environment. These receptors are dynamically connected to metabolic pathways within the cytoplasm, which stream down into the nucleus to act upon the genome via epigenetic switching mechanisms like DNA methylation and acetylation.



Evolution is perfectly feasible in this manner, with transformations being the result of microscopic movements into the "adjacent possible". Look at human development. Why should the growth of a human from infancy to adulthood be any different from whats being claimed for evolution? Difference is, there is a world of cultural forms which sediment layers of meaning which in evolutionary time, have taken hundreds, thousands, and millions of years to create. The fact that it comes together all at once in a human life is a function of the extension of what makes organisms grow into the environment. Cognitive scientists describe this dimension of the process as 'extended' cognition. We use objects and at the same time objects allow us to think and know in certain ways.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

So therefore you do not think love is at the core of the cosmos?

What is the essence of love, but acceptance? If its already there, and its the path of least resistance, than our not experiencing it is a function of our bodies reflexively putting up a defense. The more strained we are, the colder we are. Depression and illness is a coldness that comes from not accepting what is happening.

If reality is ineluctably ecological, and inflexibly lawful, then things happen for a reason no matter how difficult to digest that may be.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Blue Shift

So therefore you do not think love is at the core of the cosmos?

No. It's zero-point positron-electron interactions that create patterns according to Turing and Mandelbrot models.



posted on Dec, 9 2019 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: vethumanbeing
If by Darwinist you mean "do you accept natural selection"? And to that question I answer in the affirmative. Natural selection is present in everything that happens and is empirically undeniable.

On minor scales not reported in fact so miniscule one cannot measure the changes within the specie. We have no fossil records of giraffes that show a progression (reason) for neck vertebra lengthening.

t: But why couldn't it be the case that natural selection inevitably leads - at least in us - to an omega point: to love? Evolution is a beautiful concept which is perfectly consistent with spirituality and with God. Why couldn't God be the temporal flow of a Universal and Creative Now-Consciousness?

Predators will never respect or come to love their prey. God wants to experience being a human; It has no time to wait for biological changes that would never happen. It has designed the Human for the ultimate experience; just as it has with other species existing here. This is an experimental Time Space Illusion planet; a laboratory.

Astrocyte: Every bit of matter is connected to every other bit of matter. These forms are under the control of a symmetry-logic, but the way they come together and how is largely unpredictable. Yet the logic of love within us seems to put us into the deepest level of connection with the underlying oneness, allowing us to perceive that in the "Aleph" of EHYH is love itself. The Hebrew language captures this by the numerical value of one and love - both equalling 13, which is conceived geometrically as the unification of the twelve lines of the cube.

Love is an undefined energy form that attempts to contradict the second law of thermodynamics (everything goes from bad to worse). The ancient Egyptians are far better at expressing everything Kabbalistic as they were the originators of Hebrew logic/mysticism and alchemical accomplishment.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Well time is real insomuch as time is what the Universe around us is.

We can't function coherently within the universe, and as bodies, without acknowledging the reality of Threeness i.e. the trinity. Rejection of the trinity amounts to rejection of reality and rejection of what is required for us to coherently structure it. If we want happiness; if we want peace on earth, if we want play, love, and awe, we must suffer within the ream of time.

I know itsnowagain that you must have suffered greatly in this world for you to be committed only to the now. But the reason the world is as it is, the reason Christianity emphasises the trinity and the reason it also comes with suffering, is that working within a broken, asymmetrically organized world is painful. Paying attention to and learning from the past, and planning for and provisioning for the future, is a source of problems when people haven't figured out the structure of the reality they live within. But we must let science continue gaining knowledge, so that humans can know how to live in the world in harmony with one another, the biosphere, and above all, with themselves.

Can you tell me what the three is in 'threeness' please?

You stated to Blueshift that one must accept what is happening otherwise coldness and depression occur...... now is what is happening.



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join