Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

How To Overcome Human Suffering

Recommended Posts

Progress is made with an open mind, open to new possibilities. No one is talking about tea leaves or chicken bones that is absurd, but

discoveries are made if a hypothesis is investigated, researched and if promising experimented.

 

Einstein revealed to us that matter does not exist in the form that we observe. We sense and are of the opinion and the impression that matter is solid, but it largely consists of space creating an illusion of perception. Matter turns out to be just fluctuations of energy with different frequencies in a symphony of vibrations forming a unified field. The entities and gadgets that make up our world thanks to science and technology become visible and appear to be pure energy at some level. The “Quantum Entanglement Theory” states that there appears to be an eternal inter-connection between all elements. If two electrons are created together, they are forever “entangled,” much like two people in love. Regardless of the distance between the two electrons, a change in quantum spin in one electron immediately causes the other electron to change spin as well. Leon Balents, senior author published in the journal Nature Physics an article where he explains that Quantum Entanglement Theory expresses the magnitude to which measurement of one part of a system affects the state of another. In our example, measurement of one electron influences the state of another that may be far away. Scientists have acknowledged that the entanglement of electrons is present in varying degrees in solid materials. This insinuates that information is being transmitted at speeds faster than light in this entanglement of particles. Some scientists claim that Quantum Entanglement substantiates that there is no such thing as space, and that everything in the universe is in touch. I would suggest that this space or subtle energy containing information is similar to the consciousness that Carl Jung referred to as the collective unconsciousness. He stated that the religious experience must be linked with the experience of the collective unconscious. Consequently, a possibility would be God may be experienced as a psychic experience on a path that leads one to the realization of his/her psychic wholeness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not suggest that scientists "should" do anything. No wait. I don't mean that. What I think they should do is not pass judgment if they are not ready, willing and able to utilize their tools of "empirical authority" about subjects they have no desire to know anything about and what they cannot prove or disprove. Now, those other fundamentalists who are spiritual can do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not suggest that scientists "should" do anything. No wait. I don't mean that. What I think they should do is not pass judgment if they are not ready, willing and able to utilize their tools of "empirical authority" about subjects they have no desire to know anything about and what they cannot prove or disprove. Now, those other fundamentalists who are spiritual can do the same thing.

 

I must I read this with a sense of irony ... bearing in mind your recent post

 

It may be absurd to you but that is just you demonstrating your ignorance. That is scientism in a nutshell.

 

Having said that, you erect (I think) your straw man and give it a good pummeling. Science does not prove anything and by extension neither do scientists. For example theories about the luminiferous aether cannot be proven, but good experiment like the Michelson Morley experiment leaves it shreds. Einstein comes along and gives relativity a framework to understand things like the experiment and the precession of Mercury around the Sun. Yet relativity is in contradiction with our most accurate theory yet ... quantum mechanics. Scientists fully realise this.

 

I think many people have a strange view about science, in that they have a short term view of it. While we can see the impacts science over short periods of time, overnight, years decades ... science should be measured in centuries ... and it only has been going formally for half a millenium or so. Remember there was no end statement.

 

I am not saying we can't get ideas heuristically. Take Kekulé's apocryphal snake dream for benzene. Science did not take this carbon ring proposition at face value ... it went and measured the bond lengths and came to the conclusion that the electrons are delocalized around the ring and not quite what Kekulé had in mind.

 

If I am demonstrating my ignorance so be it.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress is made with an open mind, open to new possibilities. No one is talking about tea leaves or chicken bones that is absurd, but discoveries are made if a hypothesis is investigated, researched and if promising experimented.

 

The question remains ... How much research must we do before we give up on a hypothesis when we can find no evidence to support said evidence? I gave the Blackmore as an example. She started off as true believer, because of a personal experience. After twenty five years of research she gave up on the field because she could find no evidence for it.

 

For the paranormal ... we are not arguing about how it might work, we are looking for evidence of its existence.

 

I would suggest that this space or subtle energy containing information is similar to the consciousness that Carl Jung referred to as the collective unconsciousness. He stated that the religious experience must be linked with the experience of the collective unconscious. Consequently, a possibility would be God may be experienced as a psychic experience on a path that leads one to the realization of his/her psychic wholeness.

 

Being a Joseph Campbell fan, I am willing to cut Jung some slack. My main criticism would be to my knowledge no one has intentionally driven themselves to near psychosis ... to try and examine their unconscious. As far as i can tell people have accepted Jung's hypothesis, say yes that fits with my world view and run with it. I can buy the collective unconsciousness as a more subtle metaphor, but as written I need a bit more evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman Actually don't bother answering the question because it's a waste of time for both of us. You believe what you will and vice versa it seems that you haven't really thought about one thing I've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you haven't really thought about one thing I've said.

Funnily enough that's what I thought about your replies.

 

that is the reason when I reply I quote the person and give my thoughts on what they have said. So plainly I have thought about what you have said. That you you disagree with my thoughts is clear. You have yet to produce a person that says science is the only way to evaluste stuff. I agree there those that think following a scientific method is the best method. While agree this is not possible on every occasion. For example if i need to make a really fast on-the-spot decision then I can't use the scientific method.

 

I have listened carefully to what you have said Matte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is we are comparing philosophy and science. Science is debating philosophy and vice a versa when they both have their purpose and are valid. One discipline does not eliminate the other and make it not relevant. Science is concerned with the physical and philosophy the spirit. Alan Watts says the scientist has the same relation to the philosopher as the grammarian has to the poet. The grammarian classifies the various words in a poem, identifies them and their syntactical relation to one another. He judges the poems grammatically, but he does not presume to say whether it is good or bad in respect to the beauty of the words or in respect to what is conveyed. Therefore it is an abuse of science to attempt to make it produce a philosophy of life. To cite Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, a German theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918, “"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." That does not mean that scientist don’t have a soul because he also said,” "Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

 

Quantum entanglement is one of the central principles of Quantum physics. It says that multiple particles are linked together in a way that the measurement of one particle’s quantum state determines the possible quantum stats of the other particles. I think this theory stands on the shoulders of Einstein and pushes his envelope that called it “spooky action at a distance,” now, known as entanglement.

 

There is not a lack of things to investigate or problems to solve so scientist prefer to investigate the probable rather than what they consider slightly possible so they do not investigate the paranormal. I don’t blame them as I am not interested in that either. Saint Augustine says, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” Scientific knowledge is theory and hypothesis or as some might say ingenious guessing. Science does not make or attempt to produce a philosophy of life. It is concerned with the grammar and not the expressed meaning of the words. Philosophy or poetry is not so much concerned with the grammar as the meanings. Science and philosophy are both theoretical disciplines, but science can apply experiments to the physical world. Good philosophy is grounded in knowledge and knowledge of a spiritual or mystical experience, which only some beliefs have a connection to that experience. I think that is the problem with modern religion in that it is not rational, but emotional. It neglects the mystical or spiritual insights and the scientific knowledge that is prevalent today, and it only gives us the ethical and symbolical representations of science and philosophy. Back to St. Augustine’s quote, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” I can only speak for myself, but the faith I have in a universal consciousness that works for the whole and is the whole has helped me manifest a philosophy in my life where I work to help others, but at the same time able to experience the peace of relaxing in the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some brief comments on your thoughts Soma

 

1) Philosophy and science are one in my book. Philosophy underwrites the basic logic science uses. And philosophy calibrates itself against the real world that science observes and describes. It is not a problem.

 

2) While entanglement is an interesting subject, I am not sure how relevant the subject is macro objects and from my understanding not all fundamental particles are entangled. Now if you wish to point to a monistic description of the universe, I have absolutrly no problem with this.

 

3) That scientists do not investigate the paranormal (your words) is plainly false. I provided you with a reference to Blackmore who dtudied it for twenty five years. The reference cites other research ... there are journals on the subject as well. Now I would agree that mainstream science does not hold the subject in high regard ... disdain perhaps. I can't help wondering why. I suggest you take a look at the two links I posted Soma.

 

4) While science might not and develop a philosophy of life per se, it might suggest the causes that lie behind our various philosophies. I am thinking of evolutionary psychology in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right I participated in those experiments in the 60's and at that time a book was written "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain" about Pychic research in Russia. What I meant was that not a lot of money, interest or time is or was spent on paranormal research unless it is in secret. My car broke down outside Las Vegas this summer and the tow truck driver that picked me up had a clearance for the army base on highway 51. He told me it was connected to Yucca Mountain and that was where we had to turn around. He said watch as soon as we hit the exit security will be heading our way because of the sensors. He went on how the buildings were huge and had guards at every entrance. He said he could drive around to pick up things and drop them off, but couldn't get close to those huge structures.

 

I like both philosophy and science and I base my personal philosophy on science, but many philosophers don't. They seem to appeal to rational thought and personal experience. I still like to follow their train of thought and can see how it pertains to me personally and my connections. I think religion is afraid of this because people will investiage their own being and make their own connections and discoveries. This is where Buddhism has an advantage over other religions, but living in the East I noticed many practice Buddhism by just praying for objects and forgeting about the internal investigation.

 

The Entanglement theory has captured my attention because scientist are observing the physical connections and the possibilities that are there. I am now trying to encorporate it in my personal philosophy of everything united in a unified field of consciousness. I accept biological evolution, but want to make a leap to human evolution. I feel our inner drives come from a deep source that keeps the animals, the plants and humans under its influence. Even primitive men felt these forces and called them spirits, demons or gods. We as civilized men and women have acquired a certain amount of will power over this control and can apply our influence wherever we please. We can do our work efficiently and we can manifest our ideas into action without too many obstacles or problems. In practical terms this means that our existence as human beings will never be satisfactorily explained in terms of isolated instincts such as appetite, survival and procreation of the species. I don't think our main purpose in life is not to eat, drink, sleep and have sex, but to be human. Above and beyond these drives of our inner reality there manifests a feeling of pure existence. I think everyone has accumulated their own experiences in the sense-plane that sinks down into the depths of the subconscious mind and becomes there an impression. These impressions seem to awaken or revive in the mind through external stimuli so everyone has to tend to their own evolution and solve their own dilemma having discovered that they are impaled with their own paradox. I think science and philosophy helped free and direct my mind to a Holographic Universe that needs to be investigated some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some sympathy for Chopra's position of the universe and its contents being conscious. If rocks are conscious (or have consciousness) then we need to take a closer look at what passes for consciousness for us. We have an alternative take on this position from Blackmore in her book Ten Zen Questions. The relevant bit is reproduced here Am I conscious now?

 

And DeGrasseTyson ... on the paranormal

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the poem. You can't have light without darkness so with that in mind you can't be conscious without not being conscious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the poem. You can't have light without darkness so with that in mind you can't be conscious without not being conscious.

 

What about the one one where you can't have light without photoreceptors and a signal interpreter?

 

Also what about the hypothesis that bats "envisage" echolocation pretty much as we see light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the one one where you can't have light without photoreceptors and a signal interpreter? I like that.

My new essential question is Are you in your body and mind or is your body and mind in you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the one one where you can't have light without photoreceptors and a signal interpreter? I like that.

My new essential question is Are you in your body and mind or is your body and mind in you?

 

Neither.

They are one. Also there is no intrisic me. Slowly moving to the title of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no intrisic me can also mean that one is not the body and mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no intrisic me can also mean that one is not the body and mind?

 

For me it means I am the universe ... metaphorically speaking, sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you begin to question whether or not there is an “intrinsic me”, or to put it differently, “no inherent self”, then you are within sight of the gate to enlightenment, in the Eastern sense of the word. But entry is difficult and subtle; something few people are ever able to accomplish in this life. It is the difference between inferential reasoning and realization; it is the difference between the conceptual and the non-conceptual. Hence, another good reason for the Buddhist and Hindu notions of rebirth – there is just too much to accomplish in one lifetime.

 

Peace.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

romansh, I thought I was the universe, but I guess it is big enough to encompass all of us.

 

Steve I also believe our understanding of what the universe is all about changes as we proceed further along the path towards astonishment, realization or the gateless gate. Our vantage point or perspective changes and we begin to understand more and more of the Unified Field. With this greater understanding comes greater compassion, acceptance of just being and the ability to see the divine plan in everything, even in our shortcomings and the faults of others. This oneness is one of the most important detections made by modern physics and it is the highpoint of Christian Mysticism, Hinduism, Buddhism and the Sufis. This unity is apparent as one enters deeper and deeper into the subatomic universe and the field of energy. The perception of unity and common interconnections with all things and their activities in the world is not ordinary in people’s lives as they are not aware of this unity. Many Christian are ready to crucify anyone who believes this. We seem to divide the physical world into different categories and components because it us useful and necessary in order to cope with our life and environment, but it is not the primary feature of the real world. Metaphysics attempts to put back into working order the penetrating knowledge and awareness of an all-embracing oneness and unity by calming the mind and relaxing the body. The experience of peace and tranquility brings one to a condition where one can transcend the everyday mind with an inner awareness and realization .

The Tao Te Ching says,

Love the world as yourself

Then you can truly care for all things

 

Jesus says,

Love your neighbor as yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well said, Soma. I don’t doubt that you are correct in what you say. While I rather vaguely get that everything is inter-connected, I have never been able to understand the unity, or oneness of things. I guess I’m a dualist at heart! But, you are right; our perspectives change along the path, and perhaps one day I will have that realization.

 

Peace.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve I live in duality, suffer in duality and learn from duality, but when I climb into the unity cave I relax, bath and enjoy the positive and negative dancing together. I don't know if it is correct or right, but it serves me well, keeps me balanced and happy so I visit regularly. We need dualist to keep the balance too. Maybe my dualism was a little extreme when I was young. Peace to you two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds like a great place to be, Soma. When I consider duality, non-duality, unity, etc., I sometimes reflect on the follwoing Zen koan: "If everything returns to the One, where does the One return?" Just a little something to muddy the waters, and I haven't made much progress with this koan!

 

Peace.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you begin to question whether or not there is an “intrinsic me”, or to put it differently, “no inherent self”, then you are within sight of the gate to enlightenment, in the Eastern sense of the word. But entry is difficult and subtle; something few people are ever able to accomplish in this life. It is the difference between inferential reasoning and realization; it is the difference between the conceptual and the non-conceptual. Hence, another good reason for the Buddhist and Hindu notions of rebirth – there is just too much to accomplish in one lifetime.

 

I almost succumbed to these words Steve. I think enlightment is not what it seems ... what comes to mind is the phrase I carry water and chop wood. I gain enlightenment and then carry water and chop wood. Thinking about having enlightenment is like if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him. If you think you have gained enlightenment you have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve I live in duality, suffer in duality and learn from duality, but when I climb into the unity cave I relax, bath and enjoy the positive and negative dancing together. I don't know if it is correct or right, but it serves me well, keeps me balanced and happy so I visit regularly. We need dualist to keep the balance too. Maybe my dualism was a little extreme when I was young. Peace to you two.

 

How about I create my own duality, suffer because of this duality, in unity I understand duality is an illusion.

 

I agree that our very tools of our thought process create duality. Why I point to a tree in my back garden, I immediately create a class of that specific tree and everything else that is non-that-tree. When we communicate we step into that dualistic world of is and is not.

 

romansh, I thought I was the universe, but I guess it is big enough to encompass all of us.

 

Exactly and hence the illusion that we are separate .

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×