The Materialist Insult

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

This thread is very interesting to me, so thanks for this, LesMisanthrope. I too agree that the body-mind is best looked at as a whole.

I also like to put various considerations to a real "field" test, so to speak. Just talking about things is nice enough for sharing ideas, etc., but I am interested in real "in life" understanding too - not just with more mental concepts. So on this note...

Why are we tending to be idealists? Given what we have considered so far, I can state that whether we think of ourselves as materialists/realists or spiritual-types, if we just believe we are simply the physical body-mind, then we are idealists because there is no such proof. And even if we just believe there is more, that we are not just the physical body-mind, that there is a God or any other non-physical possibility - without directly proving this, we are just believers and therefore also idealists.

Isn't the most realistic approach to discovering what is actually true in terms of our appearance here - is to suspend all of our inherited beliefs relative to this matter? E.g., whether we are simply the physical body-mind or not.

As an exercise, can we simply just relax all of our voluntary activities, notions, conceptions, thoughts, ideas, ideals, desires, feelings, emotions, etc., etc., and just notice what is arising both internally and externally?

If you tend to get caught up with thinking, just notice that thoughts are also just arising, like anything else. Are we actually a thinker thinking these thoughts or are they simply arising as a pattern of the body-mind? It is not necessary to make thoughts stop to be free of them during this exercise of simply "noticing". Again, just notice them like any other object or other.

See if you can stay open in this manner, because isn't this a better approach to finding out what is actually real in terms of this "being the body-mind presumption" - rather than presupposing what we think is real with just our beliefs and ideals? If what is real is actually real, it should certainly be noticeable - otherwise, how real could it be? See if you can maintain this open approach for 10-15 minutes for starters.

Hint: The whole body-mind is best to be at ease, with the body, emotions, and mind all released of their incessant idealistic seeking for pleasurable "union" with objects/others. If such release from this incessant seeking is not possible, just notice it like anything else arising.

LesMisanthrope, do you approach your life in this manner? I am interested in finding out how you and others actually come to conclusions such as being the physical body-mind or not.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


In order the prove one way or another if the paranormal is valid, one would need the technology to efficiently test every living person on the planet. At the very least one should conduct tests, with respect to the origin of such conclusions, this related to indigenous cultures, where historically there were not purges. For the sake of argument I would ask that you check into when such research has ever occurred.

Every study that is cited by those scientist who support psi ability is preformed on members of western society.

An issue being that is psi ability can be related to Genetics, due to history that capacity in westerners could very well have been diminished in many ways.

You (and actually mean that in the most plural way) presents that if anything new comes up you will look into it.

Ok so scientist have never investigated religion by looking into the cultures that still relate to its origins.

They have never conducted a psi test upon the Earths population. Though today, probably, every scientist on the planet would have to stop what they were doing, in order to conduct such a test.

Further, during the first year of a Masters Degree (in the United States) there is a course, where it is made clear that science is essentially ,all about statistics.

And the fact that individuals present arguments that does not take that into consideration is insulting.

Its kind of like me going to a mechanic because of a problem with my car and him telling me that my Fluokbber is broken and it will cost $1000 to repair.

Any thoughts?

I suppose I would concede that you are correct in saying that happiness, monetary gain, wealth, etc. are ideals moreso than they are material aspects of our world, but I suppose that since these items satisfy the emotions of the physical body, they can be thought of in terms of matter or material. I would say that this argument is not very solid at all though, and I can see where the contradiction comes about, since how can anyone only believe in what is tangible, yet seek to satisfy desires that clearly are not composed of matter.

But on the other hand, I suppose it could be argued that what stems from matter is material, and these desires that originate in the brain are therefore "from" the physical, and are thus part of the material world. I would not personally hold that view or use that argument, since it is so shaky, but I thought I would throw it out there. There is probably a better argument than that, as surely this matter has been written about and debated throughout the years of philosophical work that has been done by the many philosophers. I also agree with you on your point that some of the definitions themselves may be flawed, as well as our understanding.

reply to post by bb23108

This thread is very interesting to me, so thanks for this, LesMisanthrope. I too agree that the body-mind is best looked at as a whole.

I also like to put various considerations to a real "field" test, so to speak. Just talking about things is nice enough for sharing ideas, etc., but I am interested in real "in life" understanding too - not just with more mental concepts. So on this note...

Why are we tending to be idealists? Given what we have considered so far, I can state that whether we think of ourselves as materialists/realists or spiritual-types, if we just believe we are simply the physical body-mind, then we are idealists because there is no such proof. And even if we just believe there is more, that we are not just the physical body-mind, that there is a God or any other non-physical possibility - without directly proving this, we are just believers and therefore also idealists.

Isn't the most realistic approach to discovering what is actually true in terms of our appearance here - is to suspend all of our inherited beliefs relative to this matter? E.g., whether we are simply the physical body-mind or not.

As an exercise, can we simply just relax all of our voluntary activities, notions, conceptions, thoughts, ideas, ideals, desires, feelings, emotions, etc., etc., and just notice what is arising both internally and externally?

If you tend to get caught up with thinking, just notice that thoughts are also just arising, like anything else. Are we actually a thinker thinking these thoughts or are they simply arising as a pattern of the body-mind? It is not necessary to make thoughts stop to be free of them during this exercise of simply "noticing". Again, just notice them like any other object or other.

See if you can stay open in this manner, because isn't this a better approach to finding out what is actually real in terms of this "being the body-mind presumption" - rather than presupposing what we think is real with just our beliefs and ideals? If what is real is actually real, it should certainly be noticeable - otherwise, how real could it be? See if you can maintain this open approach for 10-15 minutes for starters.

Hint: The whole body-mind is best to be at ease, with the body, emotions, and mind all released of their incessant idealistic seeking for pleasurable "union" with objects/others. If such release from this incessant seeking is not possible, just notice it like anything else arising.

LesMisanthrope, do you approach your life in this manner? I am interested in finding out how you and others actually come to conclusions such as being the physical body-mind or not.

Great thoughts. Good job.

I have thought long and hard about myself thinking, a very difficult task. I do get caught up in thinking, this I’ll readily admit, but I don’t see that as a bad thing, as someone like Eckart Tolle would have us believe, because silencing something about ourselves is essentially limiting oneself. And because I see thinking as another sense or emotion of myself as entire organism, I choose only to rest them when I sleep—silencing them the natural way.

And yes with your Cartesian doubt and simply “noticing” the goings on around me, I can confirm through every sense, through my apparent context, that I am this organism and all it contains.

I know this doesn’t answer your questions, but I appreciate you bringing up points to ponder further.

reply to post by Kashai

In order the prove one way or another if the paranormal is valid, one would need the technology to efficiently test every living person on the planet. At the very least one should conduct tests, with respect to the origin of such conclusions, this related to indigenous cultures, where historically there were not purges. For the sake of argument I would ask that you check into when such research has ever occurred.

Every study that is cited by those scientist who support psi ability is preformed on members of western society.

An issue being that is psi ability can be related to Genetics, due to history that capacity in westerners could very well have been diminished in many ways.

You (and actually mean that in the most plural way) presents that if anything new comes up you will look into it.

Ok so scientist have never investigated religion by looking into the cultures that still relate to its origins.

They have never conducted a psi test upon the Earths population. Though today, probably, every scientist on the planet would have to stop what they were doing, in order to conduct such a test.

Further, during the first year of a Masters Degree (in the United States) there is a course, where it is made clear that science is essentially ,all about statistics.

And the fact that individuals present arguments that does not take that into consideration is insulting.

Its kind of like me going to a mechanic because of a problem with my car and him telling me that my Fluokbber is broken and it will cost $1000 to repair.

Any thoughts?

Where has it been shown that something such as psi abilities warrant any research whatsoever? Where have we seen that such an ability or substance exists? Where are all the humans with psi abilities? In the east?

How is it possible for a non-physical paranormal phenomenon to be tested by empirical physical-based science, even if we were able to muster the equipment and manpower to do so? The onus is on the parapsychologist to first prove that something exists before we're able to test it.

There's no math, no data, no framework, inconclusive results, it's not falsifiable, it's purely anecdotal evidence, and so forth. There must first be something to look at and examine before it can be measured and tested. These issues need to be addressed before it is to be taken seriously.

I am open minded to anecdotal evidence. What do you know that I don't that forces you to believe theres something such as psi? What am I missing in my experience?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Great thoughts. Good job.

Thanks, I appreciate that from one body-mind to another.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I have thought long and hard about myself thinking, a very difficult task. I do get caught up in thinking, this I’ll readily admit, but I don’t see that as a bad thing, as someone like Eckart Tolle would have us believe, because silencing something about ourselves is essentially limiting oneself.

Yes, I agree that thinking is not a bad thing, and does not need to be silenced by some kind of concentrative exercise(s) to kill the thought process for the sake of some kind of spiritual ascent through the brain-core, or whatever experience is the goal of such exercise(s). That only works temporarily at best, and to what avail? To feel some quiet and/or to go experience the limits of various mind-worlds?

Besides, it is not the endless train of thoughts that arise that are our limit - it is our tending to identify ourselves as the one thinking those thoughts that is the limit. Is this actually the case? Are we really thinking those incessant thoughts or are they just arising? This is important to discover because many people fundamentally identify themselves with the thinking mind. The process or activity of such identification with the thinking mind is a fundamental clenching into a "point-of-view" or self-reference generally felt in the head, and is usually called "I" or ego.

We can simply notice thoughts as they arise without feeling identified with or as them. Doesn't that tell us that we are not the thinking mind nor those thoughts?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And because I see thinking as another sense or emotion of myself as entire organism, I choose only to rest them when I sleep—silencing them the natural way.

Who is the one doing that very seeing of "thinking as another sense or emotion"? And do you consciously only choose to rest them when you sleep or can you simply notice them arising moment to moment and thus not be just caught up with them, as though they have precedence for some reason. And let's face it - most of the train of thoughts the body-mind generates is hardly worth getting caught up with - though generally we do. This can be noticed especially when we suspend all other activities, and do the simple exercise I outlined earlier.

Also, when you see yourself as the entire organism, does this allow you to participate in life more fully - in terms of not just the mind and all of its great thinking possibilities, but also participating emotionally and physically? I am not looking to get too personal here, but seeing that one is the whole body-mind actually is a powerful insight that can also be FELT whole-bodily - and thereby releasing real energy to the whole body-mind, rather than keeping it trapped in the head, thinking incessantly, etc.

And do we take the time to really feel with our heads and not just with our hearts and physical body parts?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
And yes with your Cartesian doubt and simply “noticing” the goings on around me, I can confirm through every sense, through my apparent context, that I am this organism and all it contains.

Yes, again I agree that the body-mind is best looked at as a whole and it does tend to provide a convenient basis for us believing we are it in some kind of "self-evident" manner. But this must be fully inspected, just like it can be noticed that we are not thoughts, nor the thinking mind - are we the body? Are we really simply the body-mind?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I know this doesn’t answer your questions, but I appreciate you bringing up points to ponder further.

The import of the exercise I described earlier is not so much to notice what is arising, but to see what the only constant is - awareness. It is awareness, not the changing body-mind - so this consideration would best be profoundly inspected, not just assuming we are the body-mind because that is what has always been assumed by most people and it may even seem that way.

Why doesn't awareness ever seem to age whereas the body-mind does? Is awareness simply a product of the body-mind or is that "product" (generally thought to be awareness) simply the "observer" function of the mind, which is clearly a dependent function of the whole body-mind? The observer function can also age just like the body-mind does. The observer function generally gets less active, perhaps even less clear, less observant, etc. over the course of a lifetime.

But does one's awareness also go through such an aging process? In my experience, I can say no it has not aged. This consideration is a fundamental difference between the materialist and many "spiritual" types - though the truth can only be discovered on the basis of full whole-bodily participation in reality itself, beyond all idealism.

Can a prickle be changed into goo?

reply to post by bb23108

Besides, it is not the endless train of thoughts that arise that are our limit - it is our tending to identify ourselves as the one thinking those thoughts that is the limit. Is this actually the case? Are we really thinking those incessant thoughts or are they just arising?

If these thoughts arise from ourselves, then yes it is us doing the thinking; much like if our lungs move in and out for air, it is us doing the breathing. To say it is not us doing the breathing is to say we are without lungs. Do thoughts arise from anywhere beyond our epidermis?

We can simply notice thoughts as they arise without feeling identified with or as them. Doesn't that tell us that we are not the thinking mind nor those thoughts?

That's what the "thinking mind" thinks. It assumes it is only the conscious aspects of the whole organisms. We can also notice when we are hungry, angry, tired. These emotions also "arise" by their own accord, but if we were to ignore them or say we are not them, we would be doing ourselves a disfavour.

The import of the exercise I described earlier is not so much to notice what is arising, but to see what the only constant is - awareness. It is awareness, not the changing body-mind - so this consideration would best be profoundly inspected, not just assuming we are the body-mind because that is what has always been assumed by most people and it may even seem that way.

I don't believe there is a such thing as "awareness". It is not a product of anything because it is not a product. No substance called "awareness" or "consciousness" has been seen anywhere. These are states of appearance. When we look for such abstractions in a quest to define them, what do we see each and every time? A fully functioning human organism, the "body/mind". The organism is the only constant; it precedes all ideas—body, mind, "awareness", etc.

If we remove an eye from the body, can the eye still see? If we remove the brain from the body, does the brain still think? Does the skin still feel when removed? "Awareness", which is only an idea about something that is aware, is dependent on the functioning organism, and begins and ends at its boundary.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I don't believe there is a such thing as "awareness". It is not a product of anything because it is not a product. No substance called "awareness" or "consciousness" has been seen anywhere. These are states of appearance. When we look for such abstractions in a quest to define them, what do we see each and every time? A fully functioning human organism, the "body/mind". The organism is the only constant; it precedes all ideas—body, mind, "awareness", etc.

There is no such 'thing' as awareness - that's the point. It is not a thing - not of the material.
Awareness has never been seen because - it is seeing.
Awareness never appears - it is what is seeing the appearance.
It is the only thing that cannot be abstracted because it is not a concept - it is non conceptual.

The organism that you are aware of named Les is constantly changing - the thoughts constantly move and change. The body is aging - is your body that of a baby or has it changed?
Is there not something there that has been there all along that is 'aware' that it has changed.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

There is no such 'thing' as awareness - that's the point. It is not a thing - not of the material.
Awareness has never been seen because - it is seeing.
Awareness never appears - it is what is seeing the appearance.

Contradictions. How can "it" be see seeing if it is not an "it"? What is this "it" you call awareness? If it is not of material, why call it an "it", a noun? Doing so implies there is a thing. Now how does this "it", which is also a nothing, see?

It is the only thing that cannot be abstracted because it is not a concept - it is non conceptual.

If it is not a thing, but also the only thing that cannot be abstracted, but also non-conceptual, then what is awareness?

The organism that you are aware of named Les is constantly changing - the thoughts constantly move and change. The body is aging - is your body that of a baby or has it changed?
Is there not something there that has been there all along that is 'aware' that it has changed.

Yes. Only the organism itself is always there and aware of its change. Nothing else. Me.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If these thoughts arise from ourselves, then yes it is us doing the thinking; much like if our lungs move in and out for air, it is us doing the breathing. To say it is not us doing the breathing is to say we are without lungs. Do thoughts arise from anywhere beyond our epidermis?

The "us" you are referring to is based on the materialistic notion that you ARE the body-mind - and from that standpoint, you are correct. Yes, if I AM the body-mind then I am the one breathing, thinking, etc. But this is the very question - are we simply the body-mind? I am not saying that we are somehow abstracted from the body-mind as many spiritual-types like to imagine being/doing - but is the body-mind truly the only existence that we are? This is what is of utmost importance.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
That's what the "thinking mind" thinks. It assumes it is only the conscious aspects of the whole organisms. We can also notice when we are hungry, angry, tired. These emotions also "arise" by their own accord, but if we were to ignore them or say we are not them, we would be doing ourselves a disfavour.

Again, I am not looking to argue that we are something else, "other", or elsewhere, somehow abstracted from the body-mind. Yes, to try and feel separate from the body-mind, etc., is doing ourselves a great disfavor and is also deluded - because we are not separate from the body-mind. We must take real responsibility for the body-mind - but this fact of our essential non-separation from the body-mind is also not to say that we are simply the body-mind.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I don't believe there is a such thing as "awareness". It is not a product of anything because it is not a product. No substance called "awareness" or "consciousness" has been seen anywhere. These are states of appearance. When we look for such abstractions in a quest to define them, what do we see each and every time? A fully functioning human organism, the "body/mind". The organism is the only constant; it precedes all ideas—body, mind, "awareness", etc.

That is right - awareness is not a product of anything because it is fundamentally who or what we are. In other words, it cannot be objectified and just thought of as part of the human organism like the body-brain-mind/observer function can be.

Awareness cannot be objectified and therefore looked at as an object - whereas the body-mind and all of its functions can be noticed as arising objects, functions, processes, etc. Doesn't this and the consideration that awareness never ages, while all the rest of it ages and dies, say something to you?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If we remove an eye from the body, can the eye still see? If we remove the brain from the body, does the brain still think? Does the skin still feel when removed? "Awareness", which is only an idea about something that is aware, is dependent on the functioning organism, and begins and ends at its boundary.

The awareness you are describing here IS dependent on the body-mind - that is the observer function of the body-brain-mind organism, and that whole complex ages and dies.

All such observing of objects subsides in deep sleep - there are no objects, no observing of anything in deep sleep - and yet awareness persists. You even know it when you wake up - you are aware you slept very well during that period of time in deep sleep. Deprive someone of deep sleep, and they say they did not sleep well.

Fundamental awareness is the only constant in all of our experience each day, whether awake, dreaming, or even in deep sleep beyond all objects. It simply witnesses all that arises in each and every moment, but is not separate from all arising. But once again, this has to be discovered for oneself.

reply to post by bb23108

Doesn't this and the consideration that awareness never ages, while all the rest of it ages and dies, say something to you?

Oneself always ages, much like the idea of oneself does. Eyes age, thus sight ages. The organism ages, thus awareness ages. The organism is damaged, thus awareness is damaged. "Awareness", or the organism, ages.There's no separation here. Senility, brain-damage, sleep, drug use, comas—all indicate that "awareness" is affected by the disruption of the functioning organism. Therefore it is organism itself that is what you call awareness.

Fundamental awareness is the only constant in all of our experience each day, whether awake, dreaming, or even in deep sleep beyond all objects. It simply witnesses all that arises in each and every moment, but is not separate from all arising. But once again, this has to be discovered for oneself.

But once it is explored further, awareness is not found to exist, and therefore is not fundamental, constant, but an illusion. It witnesses nothing because there is no "it" that is capable of witnessing. It cannot be discovered because there is nothing there to discover. Because there is no "thing" called awareness, it is an abstraction of the only thing that is capable of existing, noticing, witnessing, conceiving and finally discovering itself—the functioning organism.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope
Do you feel that your fundamental awareness, your most fundamental sense of being, has aged in the last 10 or 20 years? No matter how many birthdays I have had, I never feel like awareness has aged at all - even though I cannot say the same for my body-mind! No matter how much pain I have endured or pleasure I have enjoyed, my fundamental awareness never changes. This is not the same for you?

Perhaps the reason awareness cannot be measured or proven to you is because it is beyond the material means for doing so? Do you put any credence in your subjective tacit direct knowing?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Well this is a very interesting area to discuss.

how did the inanimate unaware material universe, create animate aware material?

I know the theories, but isnt it interesting that massive amounts of aware bodies were created, from micro organisms to insects, to every animal. So many of so many variety and this is just on one planet. If all across the universe there are planets with many amounts of varieties of aware beings (like on this one), could you deduce that it was something of the universes purpose or intention, to allow this to occur?

reply to post by bb23108

Do you feel that your fundamental awareness, your most fundamental sense of being, has aged in the last 10 or 20 years? No matter how many birthdays I have had, I never feel like awareness has aged at all - even though I cannot say the same for my body-mind! No matter how much pain I have endured or pleasure I have enjoyed, my fundamental awareness never changes. This is not the same for you?

Perhaps the reason awareness cannot be measured or proven to you is because it is beyond the material means for doing so? Do you put any credence in your subjective tacit direct knowing?

I perhaps still don't understand what you mean by awareness. The common definition of awareness, human awareness, depends upon the the appearance of an awake organism. When we see someone in a coma, there is little sense of what is going on for that human because he is unresponsive and without complete function, so we say he is without awareness or consciousness, he is without the appearance of being awake. Nonetheless, the organism is still alive, despite it being unaware of it. Awareness is merely a state of appearance, or an idea about something—the organism—appearing awake.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Well this is a very interesting area to discuss.

how did the inanimate unaware material universe, create animate aware material?

I know the theories, but isnt it interesting that massive amounts of aware bodies were created, from micro organisms to insects, to every animal. So many of so many variety and this is just on one planet. If all across the universe there are planets with many amounts of varieties of aware beings (like on this one), could you deduce that it was something of the universes purpose or intention, to allow this to occur?

All we can know is that the universe is capable of astounding things. Massive amounts is quite a relative term, considering aware beings only populate a minuscule speck as far as we know.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I perhaps still don't understand what you mean by awareness. The common definition of awareness, human awareness, depends upon the the appearance of an awake organism. When we see someone in a coma, there is little sense of what is going on for that human because he is unresponsive and without complete function, so we say he is without awareness or consciousness, he is without the appearance of being awake. Nonetheless, the organism is still alive, despite it being unaware of it. Awareness is merely a state of appearance, or an idea about something—the organism—appearing awake.

This is what your mind says from a logical, materialistic viewpoint. What I am asking you is what is your actual tacit recognition of your sense of being (or most fundamental awareness) - does it age in your direct experience?

I equate awareness with the fundamental sense of being - consciousness itself. It has nothing to do with whether someone is awake, dreaming, or sleeping. Your coma example is a good one. A sense of being still can be felt even by some others when someone is in a coma - whereas someone dead at least more than a few days, has no sense of being, associated with the body-mind. However, I have been to various funerals in which the dead body is not disturbed for three days - and at least for the first day or so of the vigil, a sense of being still exists that is clearly associated with the corpse.

Of course, this sense of being or awareness cannot be measured, but from my direct experience, I know that awareness (or fundamental being) is not simply a function of the physical body-mind. The awareness you are defining, I tend to call the observer function and is associated with the mechanism of (focusing) attention on objects and others - thus creating a sense of self or ego-I. This is also why it is good to ask for definitions, so thank you for that.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

 

Great points.

Surely we can all to some extent be labeled as materialistic because that forms the reality that we quite literally feel. But in the end it is my mind that registers the items I hold dear to my heart, the taste of the food in my mouth, and the overwhelming feeling of love. Is it not relevant that both the material and the mental/spiritual are bound together in a contract of exchange between materials and the mind that perceives those materials.

I can only ask this question to validate my argument and I do so in the humblest way possible. Are thoughts that manifest within an organic material construction they by product of materialism itself or the very basis for materialism to exist.

Great points, but it is safe to say that it is not only your mind that registers the item which you hold dear, which you have likely first sensed physically before even considering it. You physically interacted with it before you decided to love it. When you think about it, you think about the real physical thing and the idea you've formed of it. The taste of the food in your mouth would be impossible without the food and your mouth interacting physically. All ideas of love refer to actual things, and ideas regarding those things—not some spiritual essence or ideal called love.

Personally—and this will sound weird to most—I don't think "the mind" exists. Eliminating the idea of "the Mind" from thinking is difficult, but becomes a less confusing idea once it is seriously pondered. I also don't think the brain is the prime source of thinking, for the brain requires the rest of the body to subsist and to make sense of the world. The mind, the body, the brain are all one thing. Mind/body problem solved; consciousness solved; the soul/spirit solved—all by simply removing them from the equation. This is a sort of an eliminative materialism.

But yes, materialism—any metaphysical doctrine—is an idea, and interpretation, description, nothing else. It is an explanation, not the truth.

Yet again you make some very great points in your argument. The notion that the mind is a made up construction to interprate the physical workings of the brain makes sense. Yet I am still puzzled by this whole thought process, and the remarkable capabilities it has to manifest ideas that can be summoned to the physical world through replicating them on some form of model out of natural or physical items, like art for example.

Yes one could argue that it is the natural world that set forth the very baseline for those creative thoughts to exist, yet they come so subjectively through individuals as ideas that can then later be constructed,elaborated, or modified by group thought influence.

I often delve so deep in thought about the very notion of existence that I find myself pondering on this singularity principle and wonder if it was not thought from the very beginning of the universe that set forth the physical existence of matter and the vast distance it covers. Basically the very idea of creation and the things required to manifest the physical results of it.

I admire your intellect and beliefs none the less. After all we are merely seekers walking different roads and sometimes on our journey we cross paths to exchange ideas and then continue on our quest of personal significance.

Good things fellow human

reply to post by LesMisanthrope



Friend the reason aspirin is used began with anecdotal evidence. Aspirin is derived from the bark of the Red Willow tree and this was claimed by indigenous cultures to have those properties.

Further, when one discusses the whole process in relation to the history of how medications we commonly use today, over the counter and otherwise we are discussing the same issue. This that when it comes to interacting with indigenous cultures, anecdotal evidence resulted in the extension of life from about 48 years to what is now85 on average for death, over the last 120 years.

I am a person who spent 2 years of my upbringing taught by an indigenous culture. I can tell you without any real reservations this phenomenon is real.

I agree it would be complicated as heck to fully comprehend but from my observation quantum entanglement seems very much a factor.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108

 

I perhaps still don't understand what you mean by awareness.

I have also struggled with defining awareness. My current working theory is awareness has something to do with the short term memories. The long term memories are dormant in a sense but ready to be recollected and loaded into the short term memory. If I would be aware of a tree standing nearby the image and everything I know about trees in general would be active in short term memory. But once I leave the vicinity and no longer directly exposed to the tree, it would fade out of the short term memory and replaced by other objects which I might intentionally focus my attention on or unintentionally like unexpected things like for example the sound of a bird.

In my case suppose I would have studied psychology and subtle manipulation tactics I might become aware of those in everyday life where other people who do not have those memories might not be aware when they are being manipulated. Or if I would know about the different parts of a car, the history of cars and combustion engines, traffic rules, all those things which have to do with cars I would be aware of those when I look at a car, while a friend who has little knowledge would not be aware of those things.