Is There a Fail-safe? A Way to Know If You're Wrong?

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MoonSage
Just butting in to say that I am totally enthralled by this thread. So many mind blowing concepts & nerdy words...but I love it!

I am just an old crone...but my gut instinct tells me when I am wrong, although it is not verifiable to anyone else.

So, nevermind me, but I am following...

Yes....nerdy words. My wife has gotten me into watching reruns of the Big Bang Theory, and I have discovered my inner Dr. Sheldon Cooper as a result. In fact, as I write, it's his voice that is ringing as internal dialogue lately. It's kind of fun and kind of annoying, all at the same time.

Nope...not hearing Sheldon Cooper, here....... Although I have gotten my husband into the Big Bang reruns as well. This definately feels a bit deeper......

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by BlueApple

But you are using your mind to try to figure out the nature of reality. Everything goes back to your mind. You cannot escape it, even if you'd like to.

And yet, as I did prove within this very thread, there are factual basics that can be known by way of what is true and can't be responsibly dismissed. Like the fact that you exist and that you observe. There are ramifications that exists due to the fact that you do exist. These ramifications can be examined and inferences can be established. They must be responsibly drawn, but they are knowable, and they can lead one to further knowledge concerning what is real and objective. It's not an easy effort, but it's not impossible.

You haven't proven anything?? Let's say 5 people are in a room and they watch a ball drop from the ceiling to the floor. Assume all these people are healthy and their senses are in tact. yes they will all see the ball drop, and hear it drop. So did the ball really drop? Well yes, from the perspective of the human mind. But the very word "ball" is an invention of the human mind, and you are simply seeing light reflected off the ball and hearing sound waves created by its fall... without your human eyes or ears, who knows what you'd experience - your human eyes and ears are DEFINING your reality, they are not simply experiencing it.

And you are trapped by this. Your mind is self-limiting and did not evolve to learn any particular Truth, it just evolved to help you survive... and in fact that's WHY your mind is so self-limiting and even lies to you (to help you filter out information that doesn't help you, practically speaking).

I don't think anyone is suggesting to choose ignorance over information. I personally think there aren't many more thrilling things than learning about the Universe.

But to separate the argument of "what is the mind? what is Self? what is the purpose of all this?" from "what is reality?" is impossible!!! They are completely intertwined. "Mysticism" as you call it isn't any different than science... mysticism is the pursuit of higher knowledge, the pursuit of the mystery and science is some of the more practical, earthbound ways we can go about that pursuit. There is a place for meditation, for exploring your own mind (and in fact, lately science has been hinting to us that we have memories stored in our minds) and imagining the future, AND a place for experimenting and studying.

Saying that, education is overrated. Science is overrated. With all the progress we have made, we are still completely clueless as to what is going on. Belief systems, scientific facts, whatever you want to call them, ALL fall short in the face of this. All of them.

reply to post by BlueApple
What is unfortunate is that it seems people either take a materialistic standpoint in which everything must be scientifically proven or provable to even be considered - and furthermore, that anything that is simply self-evident is scoffed at because science cannot prove its existence - or - someone advocates a position in which material matters are inferior, even negative in terms of real spiritual growth. The problem here is, of course, both positions tend to wrongfully exclude one another.

Given I have been accused of being a "kid" twice on this thread alone, I should probably give a little personal background. I have a degreed formal university education in the sciences, specializing in physiology, neuro-physiology, and psychology, so I am very aware of scientific methodologies, the reasons for them, and their value. I have also been a spiritual practitioner for over 45 years and directly recognize as self-evident that unconditional Consciousness is the case, is prior to conditions, and is our actual nature. So when I speak of what is self-evident to me, I do so to not only learn more myself, but to also inspire others and/or to help others consider something from a different standpoint, etc.

I am certainly not expecting to have anyone simply believe anything I am saying - because words are only at best indicators of what may be true. Just like words do not tell us what anything actually is in reality, but only at best describe that thing in some limited way.

I know that science cannot prove that Consciousness exists. Consciousness is prior to, though not separate from, all arising conditions. But does that mean it cannot be considered, even in the context of this thread, given the op is about developing a way of deciding if what one has discovered is real and or not?

Science certainly has its place, but its limits are obvious to me and others here, when it comes to Consciousness. To be scoffed at, called a "kid", etc., is uncalled for - especially when several of us have spent a fair amount of energy considering these matters of science, and what is beyond science.

Too bad the twain does not seem to ever meet around here - at least that has been my experience so far. (However, I have only participated here for a few months.) Instead there seems to be a pattern of various angry, even unsubstantiated, retorts and withdrawal when certain questions are asked that get under the skin of anyone's assumptions of what is actually knowable in the case of science, and what is provable in the case of those advocating Consciousness.

If we are all here to share, to learn from one another, to question and inspire each other, etc., I would think this twain could be met. I love talking about scientific discoveries, theories, etc. - these do not conflict with Consciousness whatsoever as far as I am concerned. Nor can any consideration of unconditional reality or Consciousness Itself simply ignore conditionality altogether.

I understand that scientific methodology generally need not assume Consciousness exists, but to be so set in one's belief structures relative to scientific methodology and materialism, to absolutely exclude unconditional Consciousness as a possibility, and then scoffing at such considerations, followed sometimes by name-calling, is often simply reflective of an emotionally-based close-mindedness. Kind of like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory - a genius in his area of expertise but very tactless, even clueless, otherwise - the head divorced from feeling and body - a common ailment with some "super-nerds", it seems. Funny enough on television, but usually not so funny in reality.

Anyway, that being said, I suspect I have little more to say of use on this thread - although I could be proven wrong about that.

reply to post by NorEaster


I constantly investigate conspiracies and other stuff like that, and quite often I can't know what is right and what is disinformation. My fail-safe is, a bit like in Orwell's 1984, maths. Maths are always constant, and so are some laws of physics. I simply expand this to psychology and metaphysic and I can feel what is right.

And of course, love is always the right path. Never forget that. Love is the right path. Everything which dwells in hate or attacks is the wrong path. Everything which unites in harmony and loves is right.


BTW it's good to see you back.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by BlueApple

 

What is unfortunate is that it seems people either take a materialistic standpoint in which everything must be scientifically proven or provable to even be considered - and furthermore, that anything that is simply self-evident is scoffed at because science cannot prove its existence - or - someone advocates a position in which material matters are inferior, even negative in terms of real spiritual growth.

I have a degreed formal university education in the sciences, specializing in physiology, neuro-physiology, and psychology, so I am very aware of scientific methodologies, the reasons for them, and their value. I have also been a spiritual practitioner for over 45 years and directly recognize as self-evident that unconditional Consciousness is the case, is prior to conditions, and is our actual nature. So when I speak of what is self-evident to me, I do so to not only learn more myself, but to also inspire others and/or to help others consider something from a different standpoint, etc.

I am certainly not expecting to have anyone simply believe anything I am saying - because words are only at best indicators of what may be true. Just like words do not tell us what anything actually is in reality, but only at best describe that thing in some limited way.

I know that science cannot prove that Consciousness exists. Consciousness is prior to, though not separate from, all arising conditions. But does that mean it cannot be considered, even in the context of this thread, given the op is about developing a way of deciding if what one has discovered is real and or not?

Science certainly has its place, but its limits are obvious to me and others here, when it comes to Consciousness. To be scoffed at, called a "kid", etc., is uncalled for - especially when several of us have spent a fair amount of energy considering these matters of science, and what is beyond science.

Too bad the twain does not seem to ever meet around here - at least that has been my experience so far. (However, I have only participated here for a few months.) Instead there seems to be a pattern of various angry, even unsubstantiated, retorts and withdrawal when certain questions are asked that get under the skin of anyone's assumptions of what is actually knowable in the case of science, and what is provable in the case of those advocating Consciousness.

If we are all here to share, to learn from one another, to question and inspire each other, etc., I would think this twain could be met. I love talking about scientific discoveries, theories, etc. - these do not conflict with Consciousness whatsoever as far as I am concerned. Nor can any consideration of unconditional reality or Consciousness Itself simply ignore conditionality altogether.

I understand that scientific methodology generally need not assume Consciousness exists, but to be so set in one's belief structures relative to scientific methodology and materialism, to absolutely exclude unconditional Consciousness as a possibility, and then scoffing at such considerations, followed sometimes by name-calling, is often simply reflective of an emotionally-based close-mindedness.

Anyway, that being said, I suspect I have little more to say of use on this thread - although I could be proven wrong about that.

edit on 10-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

I think the problem is you have people who are at different stages of their journey. Some people who are jaded by the religions that other people tried to bully them into growing up, and who have just really discovered science (I don't mean high school classes) for the first time. You have those who are so bent on their fanatical religious beliefs, who are fearful of science. etc.

Think of the age groups on this site! I remember in high school, when I first flirted with atheism, thinking there is nothing even remotely logical about religion. is it not insane to follow a religion? But you evolve, you learn more, you experience more...

Frankly, the concept of consciousness and higher powers and all that - I guess - is SO intelligent, that until we have the science to back it up (and we may never get there), people who are new to the concept, or ignorant, or I'm afraid to say stupid, will have a lot of trouble understanding it. But experience gets you there, so even dumb people can eventually grasp it.

You just can't sum it up in a few paragraphs. Just like you can't sum up the more complicated scientific theories.

reply to post by BlueApple

Originally posted by BlueApple
Frankly, the concept of consciousness and higher powers and all that - I guess - is SO intelligent, that until we have the science to back it up (and we may never get there), people who are new to the concept, or ignorant, or I'm afraid to say stupid, will have a lot of trouble understanding it. But experience gets you there, so even dumb people can eventually grasp it.

You just can't sum it up in a few paragraphs. Just like you can't sum up the more complicated scientific theories.

I actually think pretty much anyone can recognize they are consciousness - it is the only constant in one's life. It never changes, ages, etc. It may not always be recognized - e.g., it seems "unconscious" in deep sleep - but still consciousness is always our experience. Nothing else is, and I think everyone can recognize something about this self-evident truth. It does not necessarily require a high intellect - it is more a heart-based feeling-intelligence people can instantly recognize, because it is their fundamental nature or being itself. It is beyond all seeking for it - because it is already who we are.

Originally posted by BlueApple
You just can't sum it up in a few paragraphs. Just like you can't sum up the more complicated scientific theories.

No concept will ever describe it, no scientific theory will explain it but it is the only thing that cannot be doubted.

The undeniable presentness that is never not here.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by BlueApple

 

Originally posted by BlueApple
Frankly, the concept of consciousness and higher powers and all that - I guess - is SO intelligent, that until we have the science to back it up (and we may never get there), people who are new to the concept, or ignorant, or I'm afraid to say stupid, will have a lot of trouble understanding it. But experience gets you there, so even dumb people can eventually grasp it.

You just can't sum it up in a few paragraphs. Just like you can't sum up the more complicated scientific theories.

I actually think pretty much anyone can recognize they are consciousness - it is the only constant in one's life. It never changes, ages, etc. It may not always be recognized - e.g., it seems "unconscious" in deep sleep - but still consciousness is always our experience. Nothing else is, and I think everyone can recognize something about this self-evident truth. It does not necessarily require a high intellect - it is more a heart-based feeling-intelligence people can instantly recognize, because it is their fundamental nature or being itself. It is beyond all seeking for it - because it is already who we are.

edit on 10-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

you know, I agree with you 100%. The only reason it takes experience to get to this conclusion is because of the brain washing that happens in society to lead you astray from this "Truth"

reply to post by BlueApple

Originally posted by BlueApple
you know, I agree with you 100%. The only reason it takes experience to get to this conclusion is because of the brain washing that happens in society to lead you astray from this "Truth"

Yeah, no one really wants to stop searching because it is this very activity that actually gives us a sense of separate identity. We all tend to support this endless search for union, this identification with the body-mind because we don't want to deal with the implications of being simply consciousness or awareness, ultimately that reality in which all arises. The implications are far too great, including the responsibilities - however, the non-separate love/reality we all arise in becomes more and more obvious and cannot be denied.

This impulse of identity survival as the very process that defines our ego-I is also something I was interested in speaking with NorEaster about, though that seems less likely now. This identity survival urge toward the largest holon structure available, as a means to further guarantee survival, makes sense in terms of how attention at its most subtle root also identifies with the body-mind (the largest holon structure available to attention), and this moment to moment gesture is the (process we call) the ego-I.

This gesture of ego-I is the contraction of feeling-attention into a self-enclosed knot, separating from the boundless unity we all arise in, and then calling it "I". This contraction in consciousness at its deepest root also modifies indivisible light into form. This contraction of light/energy happens at all levels of form - the most basic, and also in terms of the ego-I as the body-mind.

Originally posted by BlueApple

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by BlueApple

But you are using your mind to try to figure out the nature of reality. Everything goes back to your mind. You cannot escape it, even if you'd like to.

And yet, as I did prove within this very thread, there are factual basics that can be known by way of what is true and can't be responsibly dismissed. Like the fact that you exist and that you observe. There are ramifications that exists due to the fact that you do exist. These ramifications can be examined and inferences can be established. They must be responsibly drawn, but they are knowable, and they can lead one to further knowledge concerning what is real and objective. It's not an easy effort, but it's not impossible.

You haven't proven anything?? Let's say 5 people are in a room and they watch a ball drop from the ceiling to the floor. Assume all these people are healthy and their senses are in tact. yes they will all see the ball drop, and hear it drop. So did the ball really drop? Well yes, from the perspective of the human mind. But the very word "ball" is an invention of the human mind, and you are simply seeing light reflected off the ball and hearing sound waves created by its fall... without your human eyes or ears, who knows what you'd experience - your human eyes and ears are DEFINING your reality, they are not simply experiencing it.

And you are trapped by this. Your mind is self-limiting and did not evolve to learn any particular Truth, it just evolved to help you survive... and in fact that's WHY your mind is so self-limiting and even lies to you (to help you filter out information that doesn't help you, practically speaking).

I don't think anyone is suggesting to choose ignorance over information. I personally think there aren't many more thrilling things than learning about the Universe.

But to separate the argument of "what is the mind? what is Self? what is the purpose of all this?" from "what is reality?" is impossible!!! They are completely intertwined. "Mysticism" as you call it isn't any different than science... mysticism is the pursuit of higher knowledge, the pursuit of the mystery and science is some of the more practical, earthbound ways we can go about that pursuit. There is a place for meditation, for exploring your own mind (and in fact, lately science has been hinting to us that we have memories stored in our minds) and imagining the future, AND a place for experimenting and studying.

Saying that, education is overrated. Science is overrated. With all the progress we have made, we are still completely clueless as to what is going on. Belief systems, scientific facts, whatever you want to call them, ALL fall short in the face of this. All of them.

edit on 10-5-2013 by BlueApple because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2013 by BlueApple because: (no reason given)

(sigh)

You are confusing the act of observation with the fact that observation exists. One infers nothing, while the other infers everything.

The act of observation produces subjective perception, which is worthless to the question of "what is". The fact of observation requires the existence of an observer, which infers the existence of an entire host of objective realities to be in place to allow for the existence of that observer.

I'm not going to keep beating this poor dead horse, but I did want to ensure that any late readers of this thread were rescued from this relentless insistence (by a few of you) that I've ever suggested anything other than the existence of an objective "real" that can be determined, even if it cannot be definitively perceived accurately by an observing mind. The fact that you don't understand the basis of my own premise concerning "what is real and determinable" shouldn't result in that premise being inaccurately presented due to your efforts to redefine this thread and its basis.

I know how this Internet forum stuff works. I've posted on this board before.

reply to post by NorEaster


The observer is real.
Without awareness what could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without awareness - no thought could ever happen without awareness.
All is arising in awareness as awareness - which is always present.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by BlueApple

 

I understand that scientific methodology generally need not assume Consciousness exists, but to be so set in one's belief structures relative to scientific methodology and materialism, to absolutely exclude unconditional Consciousness as a possibility, and then scoffing at such considerations, followed sometimes by name-calling, is often simply reflective of an emotionally-based close-mindedness. Kind of like Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory - a genius in his area of expertise but very tactless, even clueless, otherwise - the head divorced from feeling and body - a common ailment with some "super-nerds", it seems. Funny enough on television, but usually not so funny in reality.

This impulse of identity survival as the very process that defines our ego-I is also something I was interested in speaking with NorEaster about, though that seems less likely now.

As for you, in a U2U you were given the opportunity to have a complete and open exchange with me concerning all aspects of this entire extended reveal, with the stipulation that we engage in it off the board and away from whatever audience exists here (for reasons that involve contractual obligations, as I stated plainly to you). Your non-response suggests that you have declined my offer, so I will assume that you actually have no real interest in the premise itself, beyond whatever value you perceive in continuing to confuse bits of it on this forum.

I am making this public to try to discourage you from this subtle trolling effort (although I commend you on your relative sophistication as a troll) and to alert any lurkers to the fact of my offer to take the time and attention to personally work with you as an invited "devil's advocate" since you seemed so intent on trying to actually understand what I've discovered.

All in the spirit of open disclosure, of course. And yes, it is far less likely now. Too bad. I haven't extended that invitation to very many people. You could have had the class and professionalism to respond to that U2U invitation with a respectful decline.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The observer is real.
Without awareness what could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without awareness - no thought could ever happen without awareness.
All is arising in awareness as awareness - which is always present.

edit on 11-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The observer IS real.
Without the objective real, what awareness could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without an objective real for it to appear within.
All that arises does so within the objective reality that must exist to host it.
All that arises as awareness arises within that which exists already to allow it to arise - that objective real that presents the "there" within which that awareness can arise.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The observer is real.
Without awareness what could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without awareness - no thought could ever happen without awareness.
All is arising in awareness as awareness - which is always present.

edit on 11-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The observer IS real.
Without the objective real, what awareness could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without an objective real for it to appear within.
All that arises does so within the objective reality that must exist to host it.
All that arises as awareness arises within that which exists already to allow it to arise - that objective real that presents the "there" within which that awareness can arise.

edit on 5/11/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Objects appear in space. If there wasn't the space - where would the objects appear?

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by NorEaster
As for you, in a U2U you were given the opportunity to have a complete and open exchange with me concerning all aspects of this entire extended reveal, with the stipulation that we engage in it off the board and away from whatever audience exists here (for reasons that involve contractual obligations, as I stated plainly to you). Your non-response suggests that you have declined my offer, so I will assume that you actually have no real interest in the premise itself, beyond whatever value you perceive in continuing to confuse bits of it on this forum.

I am making this public to try to discourage you from this subtle trolling effort (although I commend you on your relative sophistication as a troll) and to alert any lurkers to the fact of my offer to take the time and attention to personally work with you as an invited "devil's advocate" since you seemed so intent on trying to actually understand what I've discovered.

All in the spirit of open disclosure, of course. And yes, it is far less likely now. Too bad. I haven't extended that invitation to very many people. You could have had the class and professionalism to respond to that U2U invitation with a respectful decline.

edit on 5/11/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the invitation! Unfortunately, I never got an alert that I had any messages! My apologies for missing this, but in the past, I have always had a pop-up saying when I got a U2U. In fact the last 4 messages I have received from various posters never gave me an alert. I am new to the way this particular Forum's technical aspects work, and must have screwed something up about message alerts? I don't know... But I will certainly respond to your U2U shortly - as well, the other 3 who wrote me.

Again, my apologies for appearing like I was being a jerk by not responding to your U2U.

P.S. I just sent you a U2U.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by NorEaster
The observer IS real.
Without the objective real, what awareness could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without an objective real for it to appear within.
All that arises does so within the objective reality that must exist to host it.
All that arises as awareness arises within that which exists already to allow it to arise - that objective real that presents the "there" within which that awareness can arise.

The observer function of mind (or the subjective "knower") is a result of the objective real. The observer function of mind is not real in the sense that it always exists. The observer arises in response to objects being the case - so the observer is indeed dependent on objects, but not just because the body-brain-mind complex has arisen from the objective real and the observer is a function of that complex.

But because in each and ever moment that objects arise in consciousness, the separative observer function arises in response in order to "know" the object. This process of the "knower" is a conceptual/perceptual response to objects. No such observer function exists in the deep sleep state, because no objects arise in deep sleep.

We may need a definition of terms to continue this consideration. I do not for one, look at the observer function (based in attention) as the same as fundamental consciousness.

reply to post by bb23108


I am speaking of the ultimate seer - awareness. I am not talking about the observer function of mind - the mind appears in awareness. All arises in awareness.

reply to post by bb23108


Consciousness arises at the same instant that the light appears - on waking. Consciousness is the light that is present (the image). Prior to that awareness is alone - with no image appearing (deep sleep).
I liken it to:
In the beginning there was nothing (pure awareness with no things appearing). God said let there be light (eyes open and an image is seen - made of light). God saw the light and it was good.
Awareness is alone still but the light appears to divide the darkness (nothingness/awareness).

reply to post by NorEaster

So, here's the question.

How can you accurately determine whether you're wrong (or right) if no definite or authoritative basis has ever been established concerning the information or insight that you feel you've broken new ground on?

And how do you find out whether you've completely come off the rails or not? Especially in this global environment where every other person seems to have God or Jesus or Vishnu or ultimate enlightenment on speed dial.

I'm hoping that there is a qualified logician or trained theorist with the juice to comprehensively address this question who chances upon it before it slides off the front page.

Sorry I'm late!

You know that pesky voice in the back of your head when you realized (after-the-fact) you should not have (hypothetically) stolen that candy bar, because of certain or uncertain possible consequences?

Ofcourse; right and wrong being pre-established is not a good scenario...but it lends insight.

Even before you discuss anything with anyone, you've already assumed (concluded?) which side of a coin to stand on?

After discussing an item with another being, (idea blossomed from a seed), one may or may not retain the same coin-stance, may also fall to being a hind-sight corroboration- where neither individual was right with their initial assessment.

We're all at the mercy of seedling development. Hind sight is the fruit of knowledge.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The observer is real.
Without awareness what could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without awareness - no thought could ever happen without awareness.
All is arising in awareness as awareness - which is always present.

edit on 11-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The observer IS real.
Without the objective real, what awareness could ever appear?
Not even mind could appear without an objective real for it to appear within.
All that arises does so within the objective reality that must exist to host it.
All that arises as awareness arises within that which exists already to allow it to arise - that objective real that presents the "there" within which that awareness can arise.

edit on 5/11/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Objects appear in space. If there wasn't the space - where would the objects appear?

That "space" is a proximity set that exists within an objective reality confine. Where the object appears is a proximity point that exists as part of that proximity set. That observer shares that proximity set with that object, occupying a different proximity point than the object, or it would not be able to observe it as existing relative to itself. Regardless of what points are being occupied by the object and the observer that is observing the object, both exist within the objective reality confine that hosts that entire proximity set as the contextual environment that it is.