Science and God

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Science and God

Post  steve on Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:08 am

Gentlemen;

Why argue over the Bride for the son of a barren woman?

In a sense, if we look at quantum mechanics and the role of consciousness in altering the effects of so-called matter, it could be that the in the near future that science will affirm the role of consciousness in modern physics.

My point being that consciouness and the phenomenal world are connected and interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. Each perspective has its own merits, and amuses, but reality exists a priori before the belief structure of each subscriber.

A bit of an existentialist myself.

Peace
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Kenny on Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:23 am

Amen to that brother.

Kenny

Posts : 78
Join date : 2009-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:52 am

Steve

My point being that consciouness and the phenomenal world are connected and interdependent; one cannot exist without the other.

Do you believe in consciousness without contents? Is consciousness possible without its manifestation into contents? I get the impression that you don't by what you wrote.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  steve on Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:31 am

"Do you believe in consciousness without contents? Is consciousness possible without its manifestation into contents? I get the impression that you don't by what you wrote."

What is deep sleep but consciousness without content? Of course consciouness exists without phenomenal content: but in deep sleep there is no phenomenal 'other' and without manifestion of phenomena there is no objective experience of consciousness. This is an excellent point that shouldn't be missed as it can relate to many points in the spiritual milieu. Look at it this way, the eye that sees can see everything BUT itself - so what is experienced when the eye closes? If this point is understood, not merely intellectually, but a deep "grok", then death itself is defeated.

My compliments,

s.

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:01 pm

Hi Steve

I meant consciousness without content not in the absence of potential as in sleep but rather in the fulness of its potential. Does the following make sense to you?

Consciousness-without-an-object is.



Before objects were, Consciousness-without-an-object is.



Though objects seem to exist, Consciousness-without-an-object is.



When objects vanish, yet remaining through all unaffected, Consciousness-without-an-object is.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  stephsquared on Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:53 pm

i dont get it Laughing

But to steve's initial statement: i believe that consciousness is something science cannot assert or establish-- making it out to be something tangible, in a pragmatic way. Eckhart Tolle, Osho, Deepak Chopra, Thomas Campbell, Monks, quantum physicists would all try and make attempts in defining consciousness, so we get a basic idea of what it is. (and we're all very grateful for what they do--if not for them, I wouldn't be in this forum right now) We can describe consciousness but like in the book Siddhartha, you only really know it if you've experienced it yourself. Through experience we can know. Even if they measure the level of consciousness on a machine--science can't encapsulate consciousness itself. To be is to know. the Conscious state is the state of being in the present, when one is in tune with their Being/Soul/ grand awareness. One who is apprehensive and paranoid about the future/past and won't stop thinking and thinking isn't in touch with their essence/Being--allowing the mind to take contorl,basically . Consciousness is a state of the Being. And it really depends on the individual's experience/outlook.
My point being that consciouness and the phenomenal world are connected and interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. Each perspective has its own merits, and amuses, but reality exists a priori before the belief structure of each subscriber.

Agreed! Very Happy Very interesting by the way!

stephsquared

Posts : 56
Join date : 2009-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Limits of language

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:45 am

Nick: Yes, to all in your post.

Steph: The problem is that when discussions reach a certain point you enter into the relm of paradox, and the intellect REALLY dosen't like that. I do think that science will, eventually and grudgingly, accept consciouness as an intergal part of cosmosology and physics. I do not think it can ever be 'defined'. The definition of 'definition' is "to confine" and to bind the boundless is nonsensical.

I would say that to move on with this discourse we must consider the 'thing in-its-self' versus the symbols we use to discribe it. In other words, we move from the descriptive to the experiential. Now IMO Descarte is much malaligned within the spiritual community and shouldn't be dismissed off hand. Cogito ergo sum-I think therefore I am -only requires a change in perspective to see that "I" (an individual, seperate being) exists experientially because of thought. What is the experience of life when the thought "I AM" is absent? Reflect back to those moments of clarity and peace in your life -those peak experiences (I know you have had them or you wouldn't be on this board). Where was the "I am"? I would tell you that it was absent and that the experience faded when the "I am" returned. Is this not so?

So to be satisfied requires a step back. Intellectual discourse reaches its limits and further exploration of the nature of consciousness moves from the skillful manipulation of symbols to 'how it feels'.

We can discuss how this relates to Tolle if you like. He has a bit more depth than the others IMO.

Good discussion. Thank you both

Om Shanti,
s.

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:58 am

Descartes 's goal in meditations is to provide a secure, and lasting foundation for knowledge. He is "assuming" in his premises exactly what he is trying to prove in the conclusion.
1. Clear, and distinct ideas are reliable because God guarantees them.
2 We know God exists because we have a clear, and distinct idea that he does.
Definition: A circular argument, then, may be defined as assuming in the premises just what is to be proved in the conclusion, circularity is vicious.
Descartes is also "question begging," he assumes in the question exactly what he is trying to prove by it.
I think
Therefore I am.
It is already assumed in premise. If an argument "begs the question" it quite clearly fails. This argument should persuade only those who already share the "assumptions" - in other words, those who already agree with the conclusion!
What is a "paradox?"
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Descarte

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:58 am

You have made the point of why he is reviled in the spiritual community. My point is that if you twist his phrase then it would be acceptable to the same group. LOL

Such silliness in all these words we speak! True freedom lies in 'unknowing', not in the accumulation of concepts, ideas and beliefs. To try and find freedom with the mind is like looking everywhere for the eyeglasses pearched on top of your head.

Descarte attempts reductionism and thinks he has the first premise, but he is wrong. He never examines the first premise, the thought that precedes all other thoughts, and that is "I am". To say "I think therefore I am" is to put the cart before the horse in a manner of speaking. The only question worth asking is "who am I?" The answer will never be known by the mind and is, really, not that important. What is important is the question itself. The mass hyponosis of society, and all the ills it brings, stems from an unexamined assumption. To break the stranglehold of thought and find peace one must question the nature of our indentity. And peace is all that matters.

"Christain Consverative" or "Compassionate Conservatism" I guess is more an oxymoron than a paradox.

Great Peace
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:22 am

People who know little about philosophy, but wish to appear philosophical are extremely fond of paradoxes: "You don't know what you got until its gone": "The only true knowledge is ignorance."
Between Steve, and his paradoxes. Nick_a and his analogies. This place is full of "sophistry!"
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Yup!

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:35 am

Can't speak for Nick of course, but I my case I'm not here to show off any blazing intellect (don't have one) nor to feed an ego (mine is pretty small and doesn't need much fuel). Dharma duels and intellectual sparring dosen't interest me. Nor do I have any core beliefs which to constipate my experience in the world.

No friend, I am here because of peace. I am here because I am not troubled by concepts of heaven or hell and will meet that Grim Reaper when he comes with hospitality and friendship. My world is comfortable and without self doubt or malice. The birds in flight cross my path to confirm my anchor in Being. When walking my little dog the trees bid hello and I return their greeting.

Yes, you are absolutely correct and I will be the first to admit that my grasp of philosophical concepts is weak, and that this weakness is untroubling to me. I do not, however, speak of sophistry (which I always thought was idiotic to start with) but I can see how my comments might be taken that way. Neither do I proclaim ignorance is bliss; to the contrary, it is the person who 'ignores' his Being and life in this moment because of the prison of his mind who suffers greatly.

So peace be with you. I hope you find joy and contentment and will be untroubled by those of us less skillful. But should you not find comfort and solace with the concepts, ideas and beliefs you hold dear? Then (and this will be my last impart to you) empty your cup of such notions and seek the counsel of an uneducated, but happy man.

Namaste',
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:38 am

Hi Steve

You seem to have understood those Aphorisms. I'll show you where they came from:

http://www.integralscience.org/gsc/

Just click on aphorisms. These ideas are hard to understand. I think that is one reason why Dennett's conception of consciousness is so widely accepted. Many just are not open to this ancient idea of consciousness without contents which is the basis of universal involution.

I wanted the thread "Cosmology and Transcendence" to introduce cosmolgy as the key to understanding transcendence in a way the mystical and scientific person could both appreciate. In Jacob Needleman's book linked to on that thread, he explains consciousness:

Part Four

What Is Consciousness?

I realize that our task would be much easier if from now on we could be working with a precise definition of the word "consciousness." But it is important to stay flexible toward this question of the nature of consciousness. The word is used these days in so many different ways that out of sheer impatience one is tempted to single out one or another aspect of consciousness as its primary characteristic. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that our attitude toward knowledge of ourselves is like our attitude toward new discoveries about the external world. We so easily lose our balance when something extraordinary is discovered in science or when we come upon a new explanatory concept: Immediately the whole machinery of systematizing thought comes into play, Enthusiasm sets in, accompanied by a proliferation of utilitarian explanations, which then stand in the way of direct experiential encounters with surrounding life.

In a like manner, a new experience of one's self tempts us to believe we have discovered the sole direction for the development of consciousness, aliveness or--as it is sometimes called --presence. The same machinery of explanatory thought comes into play accompanied by pragmatic programs for "action." It is not only followers of the new religions who are victims of this tendency, taking fragments of traditional teachings which have led them to a new experience of themselves and building a subjective and missionary religion around them. This tendency in ourselves also accounts, as we shall see later, for much of the fragmentation of Modern psychology, just as it accounts for the fragmentation in the natural sciences.

In order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.

This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These layers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

In all that follows in this book, we shall continue to speak about levels of consciousness and intelligence within man and within the universe, for this idea is crucial in any attempt to reach a new understanding of science. But I wish, for the reader and for myself, that this more inner, personal meaning of the idea be constantly kept in mind.

Again there is this remarkable idea of the distinction between consciousness and its contents and how Man is at a place within relative universal being that allows him to receive from above as he consciously witnesses below. It clarifies what is meant in the Gospel of Thomas:

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Conscious man is a potential "middle" that consciously unites above and below. Lacking consciousness, we are not a middle but just a self justifying union of imagination.

It takes real humility to be open to this idea of our nothingness in relation to human meaning and purpose. But for those willing to become open, it explains a great deal not possible any other way.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Wonerfull!

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:21 am

Very good! I flipped to the link and will have to read it, but we seem to have found a common ground or framework. I disagree only in one small but important aspect:

"Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness."

This may be just the wording, but it is the 'searching' itself which prevents the experience of a better state of consciousness and one from fully being in the present moment. This is a tricky point but very, very important. You see, if you were to learn a new skill (say a computer application) or want to body build, you would gage progress by accumulation of knowledge or muscle. Spirituality dosen't work that way. You are full and complete in this very moment. Nothing can be added to or subtracted from your original nature as unbounded consciousness. I prefer to use the term 'Self-Realization' because it carries less (but still a lot) connotative baggage than 'enlightenment' and it is a closer term to the actuality of the experience.

You don't find a better state of consciousness by looking for it. You simply stop covering up what is already present. Consider this: How does a dog catch his tail? He simply sits down and stops chasing it -then it naturally and effortless curls toward him.

I love that you quoted the Gospel of St. Thomas.

Digest this post and then reply, if you will.

Much Peace,
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:02 am

Hi Steve

"Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness."

Prof Needleman is referring to something I've experienced. When I've become self aware, at the same time I try to align with something I know is greater than me. This aligning with is what I believe he means by search.

Plato referred to this in Book 4:

But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to do the work of others, --he sets in order his own inner life, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he has bound together the three principles within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals --when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of politics or private business; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance.

Plato is referring to what I know of as "presence." It requires conscious attention to align our parts. Lacking conscious attention, we don't have presence.

But the idea is the same for Man on a larger scale and its levels of reality. Being in the moment doesn't mean being oblivious but rather serving as a conscious middle that is connecting the higher and lower. The more we are self aware, the more we feel this presence of something greater than ourselves. When we are just imagining ourselves, there is no connection.

"Purity is the power to contemplate defilement" Simone Weil

Typical laconic Simone. Her knowledge is experiential so there is no BS. It is simply a wonderful description of conscious purity as a level of reality above defilement. It is what allowed her to change from an atheist to a Christian mystic. She experienced the results of this quality of consciousness.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:54 am

You, just made yourself look like a complete, and utter fool. This was meant for Steve.


Last edited by Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

From the desk of the Fool

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:19 am

Bob, I AM a complete and utter fool. Get over it. Very Happy

Nick,

Lets focus on those moments when you say you were self aware and the nature of 'presence'. (note: 'presence' is just fine and it would be OK to use "Being, Budda Mind, Original Mind, Holy Spirit, Natural Mind, Field of Being "-and my favorite, the "Unborn" -among others.)

Now I have stated that this presence is your true state and your birthright. During those periods of self awareness this presence was intuited. What I would tell you is that you don't align with who you are, you just quit maligning with what you are not. Now this takes us squarely to the root of the problem, the 'orginal sin' of humanity and the cause of all suffering.

I am trying to be succient so somethings may get lost.

There really is only one freedom for us, and that is the ability to focus our attention. Just as the eye can focus on one item but peripherally be aware of other items, so our attention can have a primary focus and a secondary field.
Through social conditioning and language we have been taught to keep our primary focus attached to the movements of mind (which is just thought). Over time this attachment has solidified to the point where the awareness and experience of thought has become 'I think'. Presence, always there but unattended to, has been delegated to the secondary. The effort to align is to attempt to break this long standing and unconcious attachment of focusing attention on the mind stream and (transcendingly) bring it back home. This process is really neither easy nor hard (although at first it will seem damn near impossible) but it is SIMPLE. Unbelievably simple.

If you want, relate this to Plato's cave. I don't want to discuss it, but you can gleam the relevance. Actually Neo and the Matrix might even be better.

Enough for now,

Great Peace,
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:58 am

Philosophy rejects mystical experience: unintelligible; unreliable; and inconsistent. Unintelligible because it is not even understood by those who have had it. Vague terms are used being beyond the grasp of sensations, public observation, intellect, and reason. Unreliable because it is private, and cannot be tested, it is an unreliable basis of knowledge, no scrutiny of others, and anything goes. Inconsistent because there is no consistency, as the vast majority of religions, and spiritual fads demonstrate.
Steve you are going to have to define this what is Utilitarianism? Yes, I know it is simple to me, but what is he referring to in consciousness? Really, you are just going to have to explain consciousness to me in words that I can understand. That passage made no-sense to me. Imagination you are going to have to define it for me, o.k.?
You really don't know philosophy do you? And you definitely know nothing of the consciousness.
Do you have a conscience, I mean you have to have a conscience about something. O.k., you must read books, I don't know your educational level, but do you understand what you are reading? You can sit in front of a keyboard, and type, but do you even understand what you are typing? Come on man consciousness is not what you wrote. Sitting here, and trying to refute what you write takes a while, because you don't have the concept, or an idea of what you are writing. Your ability to speak, does not make you smart. I guess in this case write, but damn! I mean you must know something of morals, conscience, and virtue. You write about it, but do you grasp the concept? Or, even have an idea that is intelligible?
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:33 am

HI Steve

I don't see why you would call presence the Spirit. The state of presence can invite the Spirit since the consciousness required for presence frees one from imagination. When we lose presence we drift into imagination. The void created by consciousness invites the Spirit.

Now I have stated that this presence is your true state and your birthright. During those periods of self awareness this presence was intuited. What I would tell you is that you don't align with who you are, you just quit maligning with what you are not. Now this takes us squarely to the root of the problem, the 'orginal sin' of humanity and the cause of all suffering.

I would agree that original sin is the hereditary and culturally conditioned loss of presence. It is also foolish to malign it but rather just witness it.

A person with a broken leg that cannot walk properly is not an evil person. It just needs to heal. The human condition isn't evil either but just needs to be healed.

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Paul doesn't call himself evil but just the "Wretched Man." We need inner healing just as a person with a broken leg needs physical healing. the difference is that healing our scattered being requires consciousness we don't have as of now. So we need the help of the Spirit.

As usual, Simone lays it on the line. No cutsey pooh here:

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him." Simone Weil

This is the human condition normal for the results of original sin. But it does not make us evil; only "fallen" with the potential for awakening.

I agree that attention is the only thing we can call our own. the trouble is that we don't have it. Attention is attracted by everything and is pulled through us. it isn't ours but just moves through us. OUR attention is "conscious attention." Lacking consciousness we don't have it. Consciousness is something we can develop but how many either want to or have the will for it? Who could do what Simone Weil could do. Granted she is an exception but still as you say, it is our birthright. she wrote:

"Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty and ready to be penetrated by the object. It means holding in our minds, within reach of this thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with it, the diverse knowledge we have acquired which we are forced to make use of. Above all our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything, but ready to receive in its naked truth the object which is to penetrate it."

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "

We hardly know what it means much less be capable of it. Yet if people had conscious attention, everything would be different. We don't so even engage in wars which is the highest form of stupidity.

What we call thought is just associative thought which lacks consciousness just like a tape recorder lacks consciousness. Conscious thought or an attribute of presence is explained well by Father Sylvan:

It is extraordinary to think how much of the intellectual activity of man is actually a beginning contact with this force, this third person of the Holy Trinity. All efforts to think, being the call for confrontation between levels, are a first step towards the prayer to the holy reconciliation of presence. Thought begins with seeing, but ends, unfortunately, with the slavery to the mechanisms of conceptualization. Out of these conceptualizations, which are only the records left in the nervous system by moments of seeing, and which are needed as instruments of the energy of the spirit existing in the world, or the lower reality - out of these neural results of the spirit man erroneously tries to imitate the work of the spirit. but only the spirit can do the work of the spirit.

Thought, which means in essence seeing, exists on these many levels. There are no esoteric thoughts or esoteric ideas, as such; but there is esoteric thinking, an inner action which carries the energy of harmonization and reconciliation between levels........................

Man's "being" connects levels of reality and it is conscious thought that supports it. We've grown as you say, to glorify "I think" which doesn't require presence but just conditioned memory. It is the contradictions though of associative thought that can awaken conscious thought and feed the seed of the soul within which lies our transcendent potential:

Father Sylvan writes as recorded in Jacob Needleman's book: "Lost Christianity."

The principal power of the soul, which defines its real nature, is a gathered attention that is directed simultaneously toward the spirit and the body. This is attention of the heart, and this is the principal mediating, harmonizing power of the soul. The mediating attention of the heart is spontaneously activated in the state of profound self-questioning. God can only speak to the soul, Father Sylvan writes, and only when the soul exists. But the soul of man only exists for a moment, as long as it takes for the question to appear and disappear.


So we are in the middle of Plato's cave with the potential to be more if we can awaken to the reality of the human condition rather than glorify imagination and escapism. Easier said than done.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Still a Fool

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:45 pm

Hey Nick,

Actually I don't use that term, (spirit) but some do. Personally I have no idea what it spirit is. Here is my point: Dismiss every single thing you have read and don't believe a single word I say. Check things out for yourself, but start from an empty slate. Go with what you know to be certain - and the only thing you know for certain is that you ARE. So start there. Sit quietly, comfortably, and try, try, try to discern what it FEELS like to be Nick. What does Nick feel like to you? Ignore thoughts that come and don't hook up with them. If you do hook up, let them go and return to what it feels like to be Nick.

When I say that the only problem is that you aren't who you THINK you are, I mean this literally not figuratively. But find out for yourself -who are you beyound that thoughts and identities that society and you yourself have given you? You say attention is fleeting and runs willy nilly toward any shiny object it encounters and I wouldn't disagree -but it dosen't have to stay that way. Just change the focus and see. Turn to face yourself. Find out for yourself what is there. I swear to you (but don't believe me, see for yourself) that each time you do the chains will loosen. You can do this.

Blessings,
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:21 pm

Hi Steve

I was just closing down the computer for the night and saw your post.

I've already done such experiments. It is part of the effort to consciously and impartially "Know Thyself" or have the conscious experience of oneself.

If I didn't think conscious attention and what it could lead to were possible, I wouldn't bring it up.

A person can take such efforts of trying to feel what they are wrongly and lead them to think they are God or some sort of spiritual being living under the illusion of materiality normal for some modern New Age thought. I've been fortunate to have the experience of my plurality and relative nothingness in comparison to human potential not to become enticed into that direction.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Yup, still a fool

Post  steve on Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:44 pm

So what if you ARE God? Or no-thingness. New Age, old age, middle age -go beyound these concepts to that which witnesses creation in this very moment. Why fear truth? What is there to fear or worry about? Your body will find the grave sooner or later, so why not find the truth of your being? Only you can do this. Every spiritual utterance, every sutra or scripture is about YOU. Aplogies to Dr. Phil, but it is all about YOU -find out with finality what that means.

Great Peace,
s

steve

Posts : 29
Join date : 2009-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:49 pm

You people are nuts! I mean complete, and utter nuts! What the Hell do you mean by Peace, I have understanding, but I want you to write it, and see if you understand it. Let me give you a hint, it is Christian word. Doing experiments, I would like to see those. You cannot even define the term that is intelligible to educated individual. I knew you were nuts, and now you are starting your own religion by
"brain washing" whoever reads this, but not someone who is educated enough to tell the difference. Whoa big words for a person who is getting laughed at this moment. Both of you are using terms that are defined, and then changing them to what you want. You don't have the education to be doing this, and personally I don't think you understand it. You two are complete, and utter non-sense. Do you even have a grasp of what you're talking about the two of you? They have a place that is material for you "two" it is called the "happy room." All you have to do is call your local hospital, and ask to see a psychiatrist, and tell him, or her that you have been doing experiments, and know more about a text that has been lost through the ages of translations, and meaning, and you can tell the "future." Bing, bam, boom, you are now in a "happy room."
Nut balls, I just fear whoever reads what you wrote, and takes it serious. Because you two need some type of psychiatric help, and I mean soon as in today, and now!
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:54 pm

Flat out, you two do not have a conscience! You know they inner conviction to know right from wrong! But, then you think you talk to your god, or at least can do this. It is lower case g because I'm not sure you understand the Abrahamic God.


"Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards." - Robert Heinlein
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Bob on Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:13 am

steve wrote:Gentlemen;

Why argue over the Bride for the son of a barren woman?

In a sense, if we look at quantum mechanics and the role of consciousness in altering the effects of so-called matter, it could be that the in the near future that science will affirm the role of consciousness in modern physics.

My point being that consciouness and the phenomenal world are connected and interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. Each perspective has its own merits, and amuses, but reality exists a priori before the belief structure of each subscriber.

A bit of an existentialist myself.

Peace
s

I have just got to know, and have for a long time what is a priori?
avatar
Bob
Banned

Posts : 39
Join date : 2009-06-19
Age : 48

View user profile http://www.philosophytalk.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Nick_A on Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:31 am

Hi Steve

So what if you ARE God? Or no-thingness. New Age, old age, middle age -go beyound these concepts to that which witnesses creation in this very moment. Why fear truth? What is there to fear or worry about? Your body will find the grave sooner or later, so why not find the truth of your being? Only you can do this. Every spiritual utterance, every sutra or scripture is about YOU. Aplogies to Dr. Phil, but it is all about YOU -find out with finality what that means.

So we agree to disagree. Anthroposophy isn't my path but Rudolph Steiner did make several astute observations. His descriptions of Lucifer and Ahriman are realistic IMO and if true have great implications for a lot of New Age concepts like Scientology and A Course in Miracles for example.

Where this is primarily the time really of Ahriman which is the pull of our being into materialism, the Luciferic attraction is to the beautiful light which for us is La La Land. It is what invites us believe we are God. The majority of New Age thought is really some form of Luciferic attraction.

This attraction gives an illusion of unity we simply don't have. We are a plurality as expressed in Buddhism while God is unity. The plurality of our being contains parts that are capable of consciousness but the majority of our being is conditioned animal and lacking consciousness. The fact that we have this capacity to consciously witness our conditioning doesn't make us God but rather the beginning of a potential. It can be perverted when it denies our animal nature rather than reconciling it.

Christianity refers to the body as being the temple of the Holy spirit. It does so for a purpose. It provides a necessary facet of human purpose. To deny it just feeds the Luciferic attraction.

In this day and age when the dominant influences are materialism, secularism, and La La Land, what I am describing seems foolish. Yet coming to understand cosmology and the value of the "middle" that unites above and below in man as a "microcosm, reveals that part of our being that is capable of human transcendence in the form of a developing soul capable of nourishing our lower parts by receiving from above which enters our higher parts and touches the soul.

Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil.... Gravity and Grace

We have the potential to connect levels of reality sometinmes referred to as heaven and earth but as we are, we are pulled towards and become attached to either materialism or La La Land denying our potential for human meaning and purpose beyond the secular.

Nick_A

Posts : 68
Join date : 2009-05-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science and God

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum