I versus i

[romansh]

38 minutes ago, thormas said:

A beginning is a boundary for what was not.

It is also as far as we can see or perhaps understand

38 minutes ago, thormas said:

I imagine .........nothing, because it is not. To see or imagine nothing as blackness is to imagine .......something.

Nothing could literally be a figment of our imagination.

39 minutes ago, thormas said:

I imagine .........nothing, because it is not. To see or imagine nothing as blackness is to imagine .......something.

Then we can accept the possibility that nothing does not exist.

The closest to nothing I get is when I am in a deep sleep. The blackness and me appear as I become awake. When I am deep asleep there is no I or "i", but the universe keeps on ticking in my absence as it will when I die. The nothing you imagine is totally in your imagination. 

[thormas]

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

Nothing could literally be a figment of our imagination.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

a figment could also be something, so it wouldn't be nothing

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

Then we can accept the possibility that nothing does not exist.

to imagine nothing does not exist is to suggest there is a nothing to consider ............and there is not 

or, perhaps something is 'not as it seems' and it appears to be nothing - but in reality, it is something - so no nothing

In my house there is I and i and the latter is sleeping but the i and the I ........are. 

I don't imagine nothing because if I did , it would be something: this has been clearly stated above.

 

I feel we are getting nowhere which I assume is appropriate when we are talking about nothing  :+}

 

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

21 minutes ago, thormas said:

a figment could also be something, so it wouldn't be nothing

Could be ... but we don't know. So again why would nothing be a default position? 

22 minutes ago, thormas said:

to imagine nothing does not exist is to suggest there is a nothing to consider ............and there is not 

Not sure of your intent here ... but I agree with the final phrase.

23 minutes ago, thormas said:

or, perhaps something is not as it seems and it appears to be nothing - but in reality, it is not something - so back to nothing (if one can go back to what is not)

great fun yet informative. 

Yes ... lets be agnostic about it. And talk about things we can actually point to. 

[JosephM]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Snip

The closest to nothing I get is when I am in a deep sleep. The blackness and me appear as I become awake. When I am deep asleep there is no I or "i", but the universe keeps on ticking in my absence as it will when I die. The nothing you imagine is totally in your imagination. 

I would say when you are in deep sleep the i vanishes but the I is all that is present . You still exist but you have shed your ego. That you can't consciously bring back remembrance is because it is formless and beyond time and space. Great discoveries come as intuition from that state.

[romansh]

7 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I would say when you are in deep sleep the i vanishes but the I is all that is present . You still exist but you have shed your ego. That you can't consciously bring back remembrance is because it is formless and beyond time and space. Great discoveries come as intuition from that state.

I agree here Joseph (sort of) ... it is just that we have multiple I s here, "i", I the physical - my arbitrary boundary, and I the universe  that unfolds.

The I is in a deep sleep not beyond time and space in some way, at least as far as I can tell. When I die, I will fade: my local entropy will increase. I will continue to unfold quite nicely thank you.

 

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

I agree here Joseph (sort of) ... it is just that we have multiple I s here, "i", I the physical - my arbitrary boundary, and I the universe  that unfolds.

The I is in a deep sleep not beyond time and space in some way, at least as far as I can tell. When I die, I will fade: my local entropy will increase. I will continue to unfold quite nicely thank you.

I would differ as the I is not the body. The i has a physical body but it is not the i or the I in dualistic terms. It is merely phenomenon.

Perhaps you cannot tell .... but why is it when you wake you see time has passed but you had no rememberance of it nor of space or location in that state you call deep sleep. That is the nature of the formless. The state exists and can be entered into and out while awake whereby  it can be subjectively experienced as ones true identity/home and core of existence. All mentations stop and realizations arise spontaneously and not as a consequence of thought processes.They arise in awareness if coming out of intuition. One suddenly knows.

[thormas]

15 hours ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

The problem with questions and our words such as context, content , reality, meaning of life ,  Unmanifest, why , I, i , etc is that they need  so much more elaborate defining and even when this is done for every answer 2 more questions will pop up. It may be interesting but It seems to me one could spend a lifetime trying to understand what we are trying to convey and still not get a subjective glimpse of reality . Perhaps we would get only concepts that keep us in the same illusion of perception. The thinking mind seems to loves  to get bogged down in thinking and concepts. It may make one feel more alive as an i but mentations such as these reinforce attachments to the the i as ones identity making it more difficult for seeing that which we have created concepts for.

Yet these problems and questions are part and parcel of life and certainly part of what (and why) we signed up for on this site. Plus, with all the words you have presented, I'm getting a handle of them but  it does raise additional questions and, more importantly, forces one to have to explain to an audience:  to be clear (or at least try, especially when trying to get the most our of words) or go at it a different way considering what another has said. I always felt that you never know something as well as when you have to teach or give it to another. Plus, the thinking mind is part of who we are and what we do - and given the state of the world, we would be better if more used this part of themselves. The same mind the gets bogged down can also open (or be opened) to new possibilities. 

For what it is worth here is a bit of what seems to me wisdom. Truth / Reality is always present with each of us, just as in allegory , the sun is always present but may not be seen if it is obscured by clouds, the earth, trees , mountains or any other obstructions to its light. Truth is in my experience like light in many ways. Christ (not a man) is that light that lights every man/ woman that comes into the world  (John) You can equate that with Life and Truth. But to know it  at least in a radical subjective manner, you need to see it clearly.

For man to gaze into the full light of the sun would be too much. So too, the Beatific Vision or Absolute Reality could not be fully revealed or presented to man - so we 'see' Reality in a way that 'seems to be,' so we are not overwhelmed and so we have the 'freedom' to give ourself to it or not. The 'Sun' does draw us though: always before us, always 'returning' so we can live in its light and warmth. 

The biggest obstacle to seeing is in my experience the ego ( identity with the thinking mind as self ) . You have to lose your life (self ) to find it. Most major religions speak of this although one has to dig deep to find it among that which has been corrupted of the original teachings. To me, these are the biggest axiomatic positionalities of the thinking mind that obscure us from such a seeing. They all are positions/opinions/beliefs and represent attachments..........

I always took this as losing self-centeredness - not losing or forgoing what has been given: self. For me the 'trick' is to lose ego (understood in the worst way) and retain self as you become a truly Human Being. It is not a losing or throwing off, it is the transformation of what is given. 

Your list is too long to go into but there is greater nuance possible in them all - & that would make a difference and free us from certain attachments.

The good need to be rewarded and the bad punished

People can be different than they are

Things are either good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair

The mind is capable of recognizing and comprehending truth from falsehood 

Life is unfair because the innocent suffer while the wicked go unpunished

As you can see it involves letting go of all cherished positionalities because nothing one believes is true. These axioms are illusions that create suffering and destruction. They are to an extent barriers to Reality because they create a multitude of dualities that arise from linear perception which is flawed. None of the axioms above are true. All these beliefs are wishful thinking of a make-believe world. Absolute justice is intrinsic to creation but invisible to human perception. In my experience, surrendering such axiom positions as well as the fate of the world to God results in an experience whether briefly or permanently of clarity of vision that resolves all questions and illusions.

Sure some of what we believe is true: just because we see through a glass darkly (illusion), does not mean we do not see;  just because the Sun is obscured by clouds, trees or mountains, does not mean that what we experience (warmth and light) is not true or not an experience of the Sun. The axioms you listed might create suffering and destructions but not all human statements or beliefs do: actually, many elevate or ease suffering, create lives and life and, do so, because they symbolize Reality and make present the Absolute in the conditional and the unfinished, that longs for Fulfillment. The axioms you listed might be the product of make believe worlds but a Jesus, a Buddha, a Ghandi, a simple man or woman whose love creates and enhances the life of child - these are lived statements that not only reflect Reality but are ITs embodiment.

Christians have been accused for ages of diverting their eyes from this world and only having eyes for God and his world, the next world, heaven. At times, and I suspect it is due to the difficulty of language, my sense is that your 'position' longs for a direct vision of Reality rather than 'perfecting' the vision we have, by which we can, having glimpsed Reality, transform and make new - now, here and ourselves.

We do not stare directly into the sun, we are drawn to it, we bask in it, we want it but we receive it in the way we can. So too, we do not, can not know Reality in Itself -  illusion or 'seeing as it seems to us,' is our way of knowing now and getting a glimpse of IT, having another draw back the curtain to let us know IT IS, or simply basking in IT and living 'what is given for now' are all possibilities: all are a 'knowing' - not just of, but an experiential knowing in which and by which we become (Reality).

We are not asked to surrender the world to God, it is not an either/or, God or us. It is Oneness that is offered, yet it is a Oneness that depends on two (or the many).

The One is accomplished when man embodies Reality. There is a risk in creation, God, Absolute Reality, is 'vulnerable' because Reality has been 'shared.'  It cannot Be accomplished without God but it cannot be Realized without man: man (and all creation longs with him) is given the possibility, the responsibility, the choice to embody and be (experiential knowing) Reality........until ALL is ONE. 

I suspect we are not far apart, not that we have to be in agreement, but still..................perhaps not far apart.

 

 

[romansh]

11 hours ago, JosephM said:

I would differ as the I is not the body. The i has a physical body but it is not the i or the I in dualistic terms. It is merely phenomenon.

I was describing how I use the word I … My physical body is doing the proximate typing. Phenomenon seems to have two meanings … in juxtaposition to noumenon and the more scientific observation. Not mutually exclusive … but?

12 hours ago, JosephM said:

Perhaps you cannot tell .... but why is it when you wake you see time has passed but you had no rememberance of it nor of space or location in that state you call deep sleep. That is the nature of the formless. The state exists and can be entered into and out while awake whereby  it can be subjectively experienced as ones true identity/home and core of existence. All mentations stop and realizations arise spontaneously and not as a consequence of thought processes.They arise in awareness if coming out of intuition. One suddenly knows.

This reminds of the three weeks I spent in Mexico in February. For those weeks I was blissfully unaware of Trump's actions, but I was not outside (independent) of his shenanigans during this time. Being deeply asleep is not being outside of time and space. I am not independent. It is simply not being aware. 

[possibility]

Joseph, thormas and Rom,

On 10 June 2018 at 12:01 AM, thormas said:

I suspect we are not far apart, not that we have to be in agreement, but still..................perhaps not far apart.

I'm reminded of the blind men surrounding the elephant.

Rather than comparing and discarding different positions in search of the one truth, you at least recognise that we're attempting to integrate limited, sometimes contradictory and/or overlapping subjective experiences - communicated from different positions - into one holistic understanding.

If what at first thought couldn't possibly be flat, broad and solid as well as long, cylindrical and hollow can eventually be conceived of as two limited experiences of one large elephant, then there is certainly hope for these discussions yet...

In the meantime, you have all provided plenty of food for thought, and the fact that I more or less agree with so much of what each of you have said at any one time is not only rather confusing for me, but also suggests to me that, yes - you are perhaps not far apart at all.

Certainly much closer than those blind men...

Cheers 

[romansh]

Thank Possibility … that is very kind of you.

The blind men/elephant analogy gets a bit interesting though when one blind man says, "I think it feels like an elephant", and the others disagree.

?

 

[JosephM]

On June 9, 2018 at 12:01 PM, thormas said:

The One is accomplished when man embodies Reality. There is a risk in creation, God, Absolute Reality, is 'vulnerable' because Reality has been 'shared.'  It cannot Be accomplished without God but it cannot be Realized without man: man (and all creation longs with him) is given the possibility, the responsibility, the choice to embody and be (experiential knowing) Reality........until ALL is ONE. 

i personally don't see God as vulnerable nor with any other human characteristics that  seem to me as mere projections of our ego. The ego may think in relationships and conceptualizes a relationship between 2 separate beings. The reality of the I is the manifestation of God as the very core of ones existence. There is in my experience no otherness in the presence of God.

   

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

i personally don't see God as vulnerable nor with any other human characteristics that  seem to me as mere projections of our ego. The ego may think in relationships and conceptualizes a relationship between 2 separate beings. The reality of the I is the manifestation of God as the very core of ones existence. There is in my experience no otherness in the presence of God.

I agree, thus the ' ' around the word vulnerable. Also this is from the human perspective in that Being shares itSelf and their is a risk because man can say, No! - again from our perspective. The value of the human characteristics is an argument from the negative, what God is not: for example, contingent, limited, dependent, moving from potentiality to actuality, etc. 

Also and therefore, not two separate beings, although at times the limitation of language lends itself to that, but being 'in relation' to Being. 

I agree God is 'the very core' but, my experience is that there is a 'transcendent' element to man in that he reaches beyond himself 'to' the Other who is immanent.

However whereas I agree that it is 'a manifestation of God' it cannot be for God's sake for that would suggest need, therefore I opt that it is 'creation' or a 'letting be' of that which is 'other.'

[possibility]

No problem, Rom.

I had gone back to an interfaith site recently, and it struck me how well most posters here negotiate differences in beliefs by comparison. I felt I needed to say so.

As for the analogy, you assume that one has an 'elephant' in one's experience to simply name and have everyone go "Hey, yeah - you're right - it IS an elephant, isn't it?" I don't know if this is the case here. Perhaps if he swings one arm in front of his face and makes trumpet noises, someone else might get a clearer picture of what he's saying. Sometimes precision of language can be more of a hindrance than a help. When you achieve a recognition of the subjective experience that lies behind the words, that's when you get mutual understanding.

Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.

[possibility]

Of course, if they're all blind.... 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, possibility said:

As for the analogy, you assume that one has an 'elephant' in one's experience to simply name and have everyone go "Hey, yeah - you're right - it IS an elephant, isn't it?" I don't know if this is the case here. Perhaps if he swings one arm in front of his face and makes trumpet noises, someone else might get a clearer picture of what he's saying. Sometimes precision of language can be more of a hindrance than a help. When you achieve a recognition of the subjective experience that lies behind the words, that's when you get mutual understanding.

Great point on assuming that the 3 in our analogy have an elephant in their experience.

[romansh]

5 hours ago, possibility said:

As for the analogy, you assume that one has an 'elephant' in one's experience to simply name and have everyone go "Hey, yeah - you're right - it IS an elephant, isn't it?"

Yep it is an assumption of the analogy that there is an elephant. But in our case blind men are feeling the universe and some are claiming they are feeling things that might not be there. In my case, I don't feel these things and I think I can understand how one might be tricked into these imaginations … so to speak. 

I am quite happy to accept that pantheism as potentially true, or at least some versions of pantheism. 

[thormas]

33 minutes ago, romansh said:

Yep it is an assumption of the analogy that there is an elephant. But in our case blind men are feeling the universe and some are claiming they are feeling things that might not be

Praise God ;=] that we are not blind men and women and 'see' that there 'Is' - in all the things that are.

[possibility]

I'm going to try and describe my perspective on the 'I' versus 'i' - not as two sides of the same coin, as Rom suggested, but more like the way we 'experience' the world - as a function of consciousness (I know, Rom - bear with me).

With the human brain bombarded by so much data through our senses every second, our consciousness can process only a small part of it by comparison - even in those rare moments when our awareness is fully in the present, as opposed to pulling up data from memory, imagining possibilities or manipulating abstract concepts. So the mind manages a seamless awareness of the universe by focusing only on a small section at a time, and then generically renders the periphery with memory, knowledge, guesswork, systematic grouping and gross simplification. 

If we think of our awareness or consciousness as a camera lens on a satellite, then we can focus in as the 'i' (the experiencing self) or focus out towards an experience of the 'I' (the experiencing universe) - but not consciously experience both simultaneously, because in order to fully understand or experience the unfolding 'I' as it is, the mind must let go of a number of concepts as illusion, including language, thought, time, objective reality and the 'i'. When the mind or consciousness returns from this experience to regain its 'control' of language, meaning and a concept of 'self' (illusory though they may be), any communication of this subjective experience is going to be insufficient. This is because thinking and writing/talking about what is a holistic experience of the unfolding 'I' must rely on simultaneous recognition of subsets of the 'I' that have been compartmentalised by the mind or defined by language, but appear to overlap, coalesce, contradict and disappear in the holistic experience of the 'I'.

As an example, the notion of 'decay' is irrelevant when you consider that there is no loss experienced in the unfolding 'I' - 'decay' is a term defined by the illusion that each subset exists independent of each other: that a decaying apple or a body in a casket, including the 'life' that was once evident and the , is not simply an illusory subset of the 'I' but 'something' or 'someone' 'existing' in its own right, leading to the thought-defined experience that the 'person' who has 'died' is lost and their body decaying, instead of 'living' eternally as a subset of the unfolding 'I' that exists as a 'person' only in the communication of our shared subjective experience....

The 'I' that is conceived as I write this - that each 'i' conceives mentally - is also incomplete in that the subjective experiences we each have of the universe (including our first hand and second hand knowledge or understanding), are limited by the 'i'. We can imagine or speculate on the experiences of others based on the information we currently have, but even the most observant, imaginative and empathic human being cannot fully experience the pinpoint focus of every 'i' that has ever experienced the universe. 

And so it helps me, at least, to recognise that a complete awareness of the 'I' remains beyond the 'i', but its potentiality exists in every interaction with the universe - that I can approach a more complete and accurate awareness of the 'I' through my connection with others, my attempts to understand their subjective experiences and my recognition that, within that diversity from my own experiences, lies the experience of the 'I' that is missing from my own.

[romansh]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:41 PM, possibility said:

With the human brain bombarded by so much data through our senses every second, our consciousness can process only a small part of it by comparison

Just a thought … what form is that data in, from a brain's perspective? It is in the form of electrochemical pulses … from all our senses. From those pulses the brain constructs what we call consciousness. Some of us reify, if not deify that consciousness. It gives us a an illusory sense of free will, and whole host of other emotions that are considered positive and/or negative. It gives us an "i" or ego, it give some of us an everlasting existence that will outlast a deep sleep.

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:41 PM, possibility said:

the notion of 'decay' is irrelevant when you consider that there is no loss experienced in the unfolding 'I' 

This might be true from a First Law of Thermodynamics point of view, but from the Second, I am far from sure. Do you think the universe winds down as it unfolds? SLoT would seem to indicate that it does. When we examine systems in a beaker it certainly does. 

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:41 PM, possibility said:

The 'I' that is conceived as I write this - that each 'i' conceives mentally - is also incomplete

My physical body (which for me is "I") includes things like our supposed consciousness is a product of the universe unfolding. We certainly are not aware of the details and components and that is fine or OK. We have a sufficient education to see that. If in actual fact there is a "more", then that too is part of the universe assuming this "more" has an effect. 

Just some thoughts on a couple of bits and pieces.

Edited June 17, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Just a thought … what form is that data in, from a brain's perspective? It is in the form of electrochemical pulses … from all our senses. From those pulses the brain constructs what we call consciousness. Some of us reify, if not deify that consciousness. It gives us a an illusory sense of free will, and whole host of other emotions that are considered positive and/or negative. It gives us an "i" or ego, it give some of us an everlasting existence that will outlast a deep sleep.

I give you Hart: "the difference in kind between the material structure of the brain and the subjective structure of consciousness remains fixed and inviolable, and so the precise relation between them cannot be defined, or even isolated as an object of scientific scrutiny." And, "in the end, there will always remain that essential part of the conscious self that seems simply to stand apart from the spectacle of material causality."

The brain does not construct what we call consciousness. It is not reified, it is not deified, it is acknowledged as different and cannot be defined by science. Hart adds: "consciousness as we commonly conceive of it is quite real."

3 hours ago, romansh said:

If in actual fact there is a "more", then that too is part of the universe assuming this "more" has an effect. 

The 'more' by definition means 'more' than the universe - ontologically prior and logically necessary for the universe to be. 

Just wanted to offer the non-materialistic position - even though on vacation ;+)

[romansh]

Nice assertions by Hart … thanks.

Do things like Being, Love, One require "more" or are they the "more". 

Enjoy your vacation.

[thormas]

16 hours ago, romansh said:

Do things like Being, Love, One require "more" or are they the "more". 

 

what's the difference, for you?

 

16 hours ago, romansh said:

Nice assertions by Hart …!

they are indeed and he continues - a great read. enjoy

[romansh]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 5:54 AM, thormas said:

what's the difference, for you?

I don't have a clue … that's why I am asking.