To Bring Fulfillment to Consciousness. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » To Bring Fulfillment to Consciousness. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 12:36 pm:   

To Bring Fulfillment to Consciousness.

This discussion continues on Naive's post of the new year, 2007: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2984#POST2984 , where he said:
Why are we here? To bring fulfillment to consciousness. :-)

The question is universal, but the answer is universally profound. What is Consciousness? Why are we here? Perhaps this discussion can flesh out these questions with a greater examination of what do these things mean?

There are many levels to human consciousness. For example, there is negative emotional consciousness:
1. consciousness of pain, both physical and mental pain, such as from abuse
2. pain from sexual abuse, such as child molestation, or abuse of women, or homosexuals
3. political abuse, where our rights are taken away wrongly, imprisoned or beaten because we are different, so we suffer from such abuse, such as our loss of freedoms
4. emotional response to abuse, where even the sight of such abuse and pain causes one to have a strong revolting feeling inside

We may have experienced these negative emotional states of personal consciousness in ourselves at times, where even watching a film of such abuse taking place is so uncomfortable that we cannot watch it, and get up agitated and walk out. At what level of our consciousness was this emotional response?

Then there is the level of consciousness of beauty, of truth, that which rather than drags down in emotional distress instead raises up to a state of wonder and appreciation, a positive emotional consciousness, a fine appreciation. For example:
5. watching a flower blossom, which makes springtime a special season, or the beauty of a sunrise or sunset, or water, fire, or color
6. all the beauty of nature, some given by reality like the play of light on a mountainside, or ocean swells, while others recreated by human hands, and minds, in the arts to capture beauty, is real
7. music is elemental to the universe, where music scale harmonics exist right down to the atomic electron shells, so the macro manifestation of this in sound is pleasing to the ear
8. the sight of a loved one's face, a child's innocence, a family relation, or lover, a smile

Why are we here? Consciousness, such as both positive and negative consciousness expressed right down to our emotional basic selves, whether with joy and pleasure, or pain and suffering, we are who we are: we are conscious beings. Why? Why should we be so privileged to be conscious beings in this world? For what end, what purpose?

We are aware of ourselves, in that all of us can say "I am" universally. This is as natural a state of being as the smile on our face. But it goes deeper, because we have minds that let us understand that we are conscious. Our brain has evolved to the point where our consciousness is able to observe and think of itself as conscious, in a kind of "consciousness of our own consciousness" as well as an awareness that others share the same. We are thinking beings, so our consciousness is raised to the abstraction of ideas on consciousness. For example, we can think:
9. I am aware that I am aware, a beautiful idea
10. we can theorize ideas that are abstractions, and be conscious of our ideas as separate abstractions, something created of our inner selves, that we can think
11. we can relate our ideas to others, and to things that are separate from us, universally
12. our consciousness can even theorize a grand "idea of everything", some call it God, or the Universe, so our consciousness can reach for an infinity of possibilities, both inside ourselves as well as external to ourselves

So the question "Why are we here?" can have many levels of consciousness inside ourselves. But even more dramatic is that we can project our consciousness "out there" into a reality of existence, that in which we in our body and mind, and emotional states, and ideas, that we exist within a greater "being" that is external to ourselves. We are aware that we are, abstractly, a part of a whole infinity of being. Why should this be so? What drives us internally to connect externally with all of life and universal being?

Life has consciousness, I believe, at all levels of existence. Even the tiny ant will have some self worth to want to survive and avoid being killed. All life is "aware" of itself enough to want to survive as living things, which I suspect is a quality of living things right down to the cellular level. When I watched an orchid open its blossoms recently, I could not help but wonder about its beautiful existence, though our ability to understand a plant's volition is limited by their slow response to stimuli. Yet, plants will grow towards light, even towards music, and watching any group of plants in a garden shows how competitive they can be, jostling and pushing each other for space. At the level of mobile animals species, this elemental seminal consciousness is more evident, though they may not have the capacity to dwell on it. They all want to survive, and flee from danger. We human beings can dwell on it, so our level of mental maturity gives us a special privilege, one which one may suspect we are not appreciably always conscious of. Our consciousness, that inner self generated idea that we are conscious of ourselves and existence, is a special gift from our total being alive in this existence. Where can such consciousness come from? Why did it manifest itself in us? What is Consciousness?

I hope in these pages we can find some expression of what all this means. And why is it important to us, as conscious human beings? Is our universe perhaps a "conscious being" in ways we had not yet thought of? One wonders, is God-consciousness universal? Our distant ancient ancestors thought so; they all worshipped it in their own way, to their own "God". Where are we now? More recently a kind of nihilism and existentialism had taken hold of our thinking. Are we conscious of this, that we had in effect negated our own consciousness, philosophically, by theorizing an "unconscious" universe? But if we are to "bring fulfillment to consciousness", is this not a paradox, that the universe is unconscious? Perhaps the universe is consciousness itself? Where are we in all this today? Let us explore: How do we bring fulfillment to consciousness, not only in ourselves, but in all reality? Is this a philosophical question, or is it theological, or seminal to our being? Let us explore, and bring our consciousness to this very fine idea.

See also: Universe of Life

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 03:32 pm:   

Thanks for the kind words Ivan.

To me the concept of fulfillment is indeed subjective. Sometimes I believe a more profound way of looking at humanity is its desire to bring fulfillment to our collective consciousness. Can we accomplish this without sacrificing our individual fulfillment? How can we reconcile both? Your guess is as good as mine.

In reality this is more of a quest, both personal and societal. Couple this with ethics and spirituality (whatever your faith or philosophy) and you've got a decent recipe for human improvement.

As a teacher of young people, I have pretty much pinpointed where our society fails. It has failed in its ability to give individuals lofty goals for fulfillment. Education should be enlightening. Instead our society has a school sytem designed to keep the status quo, and thus maintains a safe economy. Every human has overwhelming potential. The educated among our society know it, but so too they fear the economic collapse that would accompany the stimualtion of enlightenment in all individuals.

Thus we have what we have. Thus the fulfillment of consciousness is a subjective process directly correlated with the level of education, knowledge, and enlightenment of the individual. This should be the real crusade. This is where the real change must occur . . . worldwide. Equal and advanced global education will lead to human improvement and a more advanced fulfillment of collective and individual consciousness.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 11:37 am:   

Can we accomplish this without sacrificing our individual fulfillment?
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 03:32 pm: Naive


The aspect of nurturing the individual while being part of the collective is built-in in Islam.

In a prayer, during the Fajr, Maghreb, and Isha prayers performed before sun rise, after sunset, and before going to bed respectively, the Imam recites the Holy Quran loud. He always by rule recites the very first Chapter of the Holy Quran. To this recital the members of the congregation intone their participation by saying 'Ameen.' Then the Imam remains silent for a short time during which each and every member of the congregation recites the first Chapter silently.

In the other two prayers - Dhuhr offered just after the sun has crossed the noon and Asr offered when the evening is approaching - the Imam does not recite loud. All the recitations are done quietly by the individuals.

Does this not demonstrate being part of the 'collective consciousness' and also retaining the individuality?

Further at the end of the prayer the Imam supplicates for all the members of the congregation while the individuals too supplicate. The supplication by the Imam is loud while that of the individuals is silent.

Have I understood the notion of 'collective consciousness' and 'individual consciousness?'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:02 am:   

'Collective consciousness' is culture, myth and religious beliefs, group global awareness, a sense of belonging, a sense of social responsibility. etc. But! These are all felt at the 'personal' level of consciousness, not at some parameter of consciousness wrapped around a people, but individually inside each and everyone of the people. The individual is who has consciousness, not the group, but each and every 'individual consciousness' within the group of collective consciousness. What does this mean? It means that each and every individual may choose to belong to a group consciousness, of their own free will (as long as that belonging does not harm others outside or inside the group), but that this collective consciousness cannot be imposed on the individual. This is regardless of whether or not the individual is part of the group or not; collective consciousness cannot, may not, should not, ever be imposed on the individual against his/her personal choice, against his or her individual consciousness, against their agreement.

Can this be accomplished, to fulfill collective social consciousness without damaging our individual consciousness? I believe it can, but I also know it is the greatest challenge of our present humanity. Why? Because as a collective consciousness, a planetwide global consciousness, we are not yet cued into feeling the sanctity of each and everyone of us as an 'individual consciousness' that represents already a much greater consciousness, and that this 'individual consciousness' is free to be Who they are, what they feel inside themselves as a consciousness of themselves, because that is how the much greater universal consciousness has expressed itself in him or her. That is the beauty and the power of human freedoms. Once that consciousness is global, part of our planet's collective consciousness, then the individual consciousness rises to a new level, where committing crimes and wrongs against others becomes unthinkable.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 06:33 am:   

Once that consciousness is global, part of our planet's collective consciousness, then the individual consciousness rises to a new level, where committing crimes and wrongs against others becomes unthinkable.
Posted on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:02 am: Ivan


How do we achieve this aspect? Which is easier: behavior modification or learning new behavior?

I believe behavior modification where each modification is a small imperceptible change would eventually result in the global consciousness devoted to peace.

Could we explore minor behavior modifications in different religions and cultures instead of advocating a new philosophy?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 07:54 am:   

Here is an example of a minor modification in behavior.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-12-19T124927Z_01_L 19249915_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ITALY-FASHION-ANOREXIA.xml&type=entertainmentNews
===
The agreement signed on Monday between the city and its powerful fashion industry bans models under 16 and those with a body mass index of less than 18.5 from Milan's shows.

... This month Brazil launched a campaign to ban under-age, underweight models from shows in response to the death of a Brazilian model from complications due to anorexia.
===
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:17 am:   


quote:

Could we explore minor behavior modifications in different religions and cultures instead of advocating a new philosophy?



In my opinion, no. If there is an error in thinking, reason gets fouled, and the resulting ideology is foul. Better to have a clean reason based upon reality than upon faith in mythical stories. Behavioral modifications, no matter how well intentioned, can only reflect the underlying reason. If the philosophy is bad, then the modified behaviors are bad too.

Public or private opinions modifying behaviors are still within the framework of the philosophical belief system. So if we believe skinny is beautiful, or that fat is beautiful, or healthy balance is best, they only reflect what we had come to believe, which is a belief, rational or mythical, based upon the ideology we had come to accept.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:54 am:   

Living Comets?

Comet 81P/Wild-2
081p_19970407bw.jpg
http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/science/wild2.html

Note this comet has a large elliptical orbit, from near Uranus in the outer solar system, into the inner solar system near Earth and Mars. The ejecta forms a coma at the inner solar system, where it becomes visible.

My idea, generated by a variable gravity (Newton's G not a universal constant but grows with distance from the Sun), is that the comet in the outer solar system (higher G) accumulates space particles, some of which are remnants of the solar wind, or space dust; when it returns back into the warmer (lower G) regions of the inner solar system, this compacted material starts to fizz out and ejects a coma. The visible tail should be already evident closer in than Jupiter, with good instrumentation.

Here is a recent BBC science article describing the findings from materials recovered from Comet Wild-2 by Nasa's Stardust Mission:

Comets hold life chemistry clues
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5173992.stm

I think of comets as 'messengers' collecting 'organic information' and dropping it off on occasion through collision with planets - what may be the first messages of life - even conscious life, ultimately, like us. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:29 am:   

I do not know whether this thread would close soon. If so, I sign off. Please read
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/168.html?1169477952#POST3082
for my sign-off statement. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon
Posted on Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 11:47 am:   

He Calls Himself God
A Puerto Rican minister says Christ 'integrated' with him. Others call him a cult leader and a charlatan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16840066/site/newsweek/

I post the following here as an example of what I have been discussing with regards to the rise of Cultural-Economic-Military-Political-Religous leaders.

In the case posted above, a man claims to have become, through a process, the incarnation of Jesus Christ himself. In doing so through his belief, teachings and charasmatic personality, coupled to economic frustrations of the poor Puerto Rican and hispanic masses that support him, he has become the leader of a world wide movement.

His claims have changed from being a disciple of Jesus, a new Paul, to becoming Jesus and then becoming the incarnation of God himself. His latest statements indicate that he now believes that he is the Anti-Christ marked with 666 to bring the destruction of the Christian Churches that have failed to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In performing my analysis of the mind of such men, as part of my analysis of the workings of Osama Bin Laden's mind, I explored the conditions that would give rise to such a belief in a man and what he would do when given power.

In his belief system he believes that he is the fulfillment of Prophecy and is destined to bring an end to the world in order to bring it to another higher level of conciousness. His ego is such that he believes that he is one that he knows as much as god himself and is choosen to bring people to him. Born out of frustration at his soci-economic circumstances he has sought to wrap himself in the mantel of religion, partly as a way to justify his selfworth and achieve status that he feels was denied to him. In many respects he is the embodiment of the anger and frustration the hispanics feel at the way they have been treated in this country.

The danger of such a mind is that it will turn self destructive when frustrated. He has almost complete control over his followers and a global broadcast capability. One hopes that he does not fall and take his followers with him.

In my posting here I have explored in detail the conditions that give rise to such thinking and the behavior that comes from it.

It is one of the reasons that my wife and I can walk into any mainstream church and among the people. Our families have long faced men and women like the man in the article posted above.

Centuries ago my wifes ancestor fought the fighting withdrawal against the forces of Joan of Arc. As commander of the English forces he stood on the bridge and faced Joan and looked her in the eye and rejected her enforcement of Catholic Doctrine. In the make up that is my wife's DNA is a legacy that leads directly to that bridge so long ago.

In my case on the wall of my study is copy of the painting of the Mayflower Compact. In my DNA is direct link to the wet decks of the storm tossed Mayflower that cross the dark waters of the Atlantic so long ago. Further back in time our ancestors stood before the gates of the Holy City and contested with Saladeen the Great. In latter years we faced the so called Mahdi in Sudan and the leader of the Taiping Rebellion in China. In us is something that instinctly rejects and opposes such men as the one posted above. We understand these men and women well for we have both served and fought against many of them, trusting in the bible and our love of freedom to guide us through such contests. trusting that should we be wrong god will sort it out for us.

In my wife and I confirmed by historians you have two people that love freedom, respect all religons and believe in God, that are descended from the men and women that shaped western civilization and the history of the world. We are the legacy and culmination of western civilization and as much symbols as we are people.

In the glass case on my wall I look at the patches of the combat and training divisions and units I have served with honor and distinction in over the years. The YD of the Yankee Division, Indian Head of the 2nd Infantry Division, The Thunderbolt of the 1st Armored Division, The Helmut Sword and Lighting bolt of the 513 Military Intelligence Brigade, Arrows of the Training and Doctine Command, Eagle of the United States Pacific Command, Crossed Bayonets of the 10th Mountain Infantry Division, and all the coins and plaques of recognition given to me by the Men and Women that lead and direct the companies and government of this nation.

Then I look at the bbile on my desk and the copy of the painting of the Mayflower Compact on my wall. They saying of the compact echoes in my mind as I read the words of the self proclaimed son of God, incarnation of Christ posted above:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland king, defender of the faith, e&
Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just & equall lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye .11. of November, in the year of the raigne of our soveraigne Lord King James, of England, France, & Ireland ye eighteenth, and of Scotland the fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom. 1620.[2]

In this compact men and women of good faith established the beginings of a system of governance of and for the people in this new land. One that promoted common submission to the rule of law and just governance based on the collective good as specified by the people.

I compare that to the teachings of the Man in the article posted above and leave the readers to judge him as to the nature of his beliefs and teachings and whether or not they reflect what a kind, loving and gentle god would want for his people.

I also post this here to stimulate the discussion of what and how such men as the one in the article above should be treated and what we should learn from them and if we should fear men shuch as this.

Ed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 09:18 am:   

Suffering is doing God's work.

We suffer inside our being because something is incomplete. This is an incompletion within God's work, that we are human receptors of some psychic incompletion inside ourselves causing us to suffer. This is not the same as stupid suffering caused by our coercions against each other, which is something easily corrected once we become conscious of it, and understand it. Rather, this is suffering inside ourselves not through any fault of ours, but because it is a burden given to us. We carry it to do God's work.

To relieve suffering in each other, in all living things that suffer, that is the most sublime form of doing God's work. When we heal and lift suffering, we are then a proxy for God's work. This work is our getting closer to each other. We help each other, and we are both closer to God. Love, and you are closer still. Have the courage to do this, for all life. The love is inside.

With love and healing we are then doing as agents a completion in God's work.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:43 pm:   

Think about this, next time you wake up!

Ever wake up, like from a nap, and something pops into your head, usually a fully formed idea? It happens to me sometimes, now and then, and now there is some reason why. In this NewScientist article: While you slumber, your brain puts the world in order, it says:

quote:

Bob Stickgold from Harvard Medical School and his colleagues found that people were better able to recall lists of related words after a night's sleep than after the same time spent awake during the day. They also found it easier to recollect themes that the words had in common - forgetting around 25 per cent more themes after a waking rest. "We're not just stabilising memories during sleep," says Stickgold. "We're extracting the meaning."


So we not only remember better after sleep, but also conceptualize better, like as if the brain was working away in solitude while we were unconscious to the world. Neat trick, wish I could do it on call, or more often! :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 12:58 pm:   

Who answers to 'who'?


We know science and informational input can answer to the questions of 'what' or 'how', and we know geographers and astronomers can answer to the questions of 'where', and surely philosophy or religion can aspire to answer the big questions of 'why'. But who answers to the question of 'who'? Each one of us as a living being knows who we are inside ourselves. Unless mentally damaged somehow, even a person suffering amnesia, we will still carry inside ourselves that self awareness that we exist, that we all are a 'who'. But who answers to that? Who put that 'who' inside ourselves? By what process of elimination can we narrow down who answers to this question of 'who'? If no other discipline of human knowledge can answer to 'who', nor from our five senses, then the question must default to something much higher than ourselves, and higher still than all the knowledge amassed by us in answer to all other questions. Billions of light years away cannot answer this, nor is the answer in the quantum physics of split atoms. The universe remains silent to our question of a personal identity. We can learn of our outside world ad infinitum, but the question of 'who' remains unsolved, except that we feel it deep inside ourselves. We know 'who' we are profoundly and axiomatically. Yet, no one else can answer that question of 'who' for us, since it exists only in ourselves. All the risks and rewards of life are experienced only by our internal 'who', and not by some external force to ourselves. To seek our 'whoness' outside ourselves, even through the neuro-sciences, is a fruitless exercise. Cut out a portion of a person's brain, and perhaps that 'who' ceases to exist, but undamaged, it does exist of necessity, if that person feels intimately in themselves 'who' they are. So there can be only one answer: God is 'who' in us. Each one of us alive is conscious of a 'who' inside ourselves. And that is from God.


This question came up during a discussion at a Baha'i fireside with friends. I get invited to these, and on rare occasions go to meet with my Baha'i friends, so we talk. Though I am not Baha'i, being essentially not a religious person. (When I first met my friends, some ten years ago, and they wanted to know if I would join them, I answered that I would love to join such a delightful group in a social context, but that I could not confess that Baha'u'llah is a 'manifestation' of God, though his teachings had certainly appealing ideas; they answered that this cannot be, so we remained good friends.) At some point during the discussion, we sometimes go off track in talking about the revelations of 'God's manifestation' and the 10 principles of the faith, and thus we drifted off into the principle of religion's idea of God as being a universal overview of all the things that are true about human existence, morality, proper conduct between human beings, and so on. Another Baha'i, Annie, asked if we can know when someone beneath us, who thinks they are above us, is actually either. But the limiting factor presented was that this idea of 'God' can only be known to us through His representative on Earth, the manifestation of God, in essence God's prophets who revealed themselves as God's manifestation on Earth. This point was not made by my friend Paul, who was guest speaker, but by another Baha'i, Shahid, who grew up in Jordan (and who by the way chanted a beautiful Baha'i prayer in Arabic at the commencement), who said that we are unable to know God directly, but only through His manifestation, such as Baha'u'llah, or Mohammed, or Jesus, or Moses, or even Adam who was the first teacher to humanity of the concept of God (metaphorically, in Paul's view). In effect, it is not for us to seek God personally, to question deep into the universe of existence and philosophy to find God, because He is an unknowable essence beyond human capability to know. A very dear friend of mine, Cinzia, countered that we already have God in ourselves, in every cell of our being, so that God is not something infinitely distant from us, but inside us already. But he persisted that we cannot know God, except through God's chosen manifestation, and that it is actually wrong for us to even question this premise. I had to answer here, because this really was nonsense, so spoke up that perhaps this is an 'eastern' philosophy of acceptance, but that we in the 'western' mindset will of necessity continue to seek and question, because it is our right to do so, no matter how elusive the answer. When the debate got heated, that was when I asked the question: Who answer to 'who'? And to make my point, I said in fact that there is no answer to 'who' except inside each and every one of us, inside ourselves, where God is already manifest with our being. To become conscious of this is then our duty, to find 'who' we are to the best of our ability, even if our ability, as Shahid had said earlier, is likened to a table trying to understand the carpenter who made it. But that is false reasoning, since the table does not have a sense of internal 'whoness' while we humans do. The metaphor of the table and carpenter is misleading, and the idea that God is something remote to us is not the same as God being in us, so the guiding universal principle that only a manifestation of God's chosen prophet is the only proper channel to God is not true. In fact, each one of us is a conduit, through our 'who' of that universal principle of God's guidance for humankind, because in us rests the responsibility of 'who' we are.

The point being made, however unsuccessfully by me, was that all universal principles exist a priori of us, that they existed before Adam's first teachings of God to mankind, if it is true, and that this universal principle will exist long after humanity no longer needs religious instructions from the line of prophets to help us in our human interactions towards the good, rather than through evil deeds. One participant, Marcel, a non-Bahai, said that we cannot be judgmental towards others, but only 'observational', and that all such observational conclusions, what gives us judgment, can only be interpreted through the person making the observations. A very valid point, in my opinion, because to apply some universal observation onto others of necessity means transferring one's personal judgment onto another being, which is a form of trespass against the 'who' of that being. We can seek universal principles to live by, what we accept inside ourselves, what gives meaning to us for our 'who', but we cannot make the same argument that such meaning is now universally applicable to all other human beings, as if our personal observational judgment is right for them. It is only right for our 'who', but not necessarily right for them, unless they too agree to it inside their 'who'. So 'whoness' is the guiding principle here, for all human beings conscious of who they are, provided that who is not some wooden artifact, but are in actuality a living being within God's universe, or even godless universe, if that being is conscious of who they are. That 'who' is the filter through which all observational judgments come through as it applies to others. To then act as if that judgment is now universal for all others is simply an error in thinking, because no one can become a 'who' for another conscious being, no matter what their manifestation of God tells them. Hence, why I can never become a religious person, because in religious understanding of God, we are suppose to impose our values of what is God's universal principles onto all others, which is erroneous, and to me unacceptable. Only individually as mindful beings of ourselves can we come to some understanding, and belief, of what is for us God's guiding universal principles, but we cannot force this understanding on another. Even the God's chosen prophets are still human beings, just like us, and though they may have assumed to speak for God, they are only speaking observationally for themselves. So this is a critical point, that our 'who' is the only intermediary between God and ourselves, not someone else's 'whoness' of necessity. Faith is a personal thing, of necessity.

The Golden Rule came up, to do onto others as you would have them do onto you; as well came up the Ten Commandments of God, handed down by Moses; and as well came down Jesus's teaching that we forgive and love one another as God loves us. All these are valid teachings, what we all had come to accept as true for humanity; but the criterion is that we each 'individually' came to recognize these as valid teachings, that each one of our 'who' came to understand and accept this, that we agree with it, but not that it is necessarily true because someone of a higher authority, a God's chosen, had said this to us. That in itself is not relevant, the who said it, but the truth of the message is what is relevant. If Mohammed had said that the Golden Rule applies to all humanity, not just his believers, or if he had said that to love one another applies to all mankind equally, to both men and women, including those not of the faith, the so called 'infidels', then he would have spoken in universal terms that applied to all humanity.** Each one of us then is free to drink from this well of knowledge, not some exclusive well offered only to those who accepted his faith, but to all humankind without exclusion. But if a teaching of God's prophet creates a barrier of exclusion, and thus divides the world into believers and unbelievers, then the message delivered (allegedly from God) is in error, because God cannot be exclusionary for anyone who has a 'who' inside themselves as a living and conscious being. The level of consciousness demanded here, from each and everyone of us, is that our observational judgment be elevated above our personal ego, above that of thinking that what we know is what should apply to all others, but rather that our ego surrenders itself to the universal principle that each one of us is already a 'who' in God, and that this 'whoness' is what makes us unique beings in God. That consciousness is what defines for us our Freedom. Who we are is from God. Who we are, equally and universally, is God's 'who'. Only through our 'who' can we bring fulfillment to God consciousness. It is Who we are.


The evening ended friendly, despite our at times contentious debate, and the Persian food along with tea was excellent as ever. Meeting with our Baha'i friends, who are gracious to a fault, very forgiving and accepting of others not of their faith, is always a most enjoyable experience. So we once more parted friends, good friends with love for one another, and especially a kind thank you for our hostess, Fariba, who made the evening possible. Great chicken, and raisin rice with eggplant casserole, once again. :-) But good friendship, our love of 'who' to 'who', is priceless.


Ivan

**[Please note, that everyone present 'assumed' that Mohammed must have made such statements, though no one present knew of any sources where this was so. Were the first Caliphs remiss, after his death, in failing to write this down in their early attempts to recreate what Mohammed had taught them? We did not pursue this idea further, since it was off topic then, but it may perhaps be pursued at some point again, here on these forums, another time. --IDA ]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 10:36 am:   

feel the love

roman love bridge locks love
agf98640432702110104_big.jpg

the world titters on the brink of war
j.c. turned bread into fishes to feed the hungry
mo turned wine into water to quench thirst in the desert
all else is what else..

so many false prophets of history
so many cruelties of reason
who are we in this life..
love is all there is

feel the love.. there is only love


le chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anoym
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 12:06 am:   

Okay, so it's only a book!

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/introducing-the-book-p1.php

some body had trouble with it once upon a time... :-)

M.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:36 am:   

some body had trouble with it once upon a time
Posted on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 12:06 am: Anoym


I have a DSL connection. The video kept on downloading for more than 5 minutes. I seem to have trouble with even knowing about somebody's trouble!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 05:47 pm:   

Who speaks for Mohammed in Islam?

Bear with me, this is not a criticism, but I do have a valid question for a Muslim here.

Who presumes to speak for Mohammed? If God spoke to Mohammed, and he spoke to his followers, some of whom wrote it down and then compiled it into a holy book of the Quran, then who speaks for God in Mohammed's testimonials in the Quran? Shouldn't God's words go directly to the reader's heart in this case, since God carefully laid out the path of His message through his prophet? Or should the interpreters of the faith then coerce its believers with punishments, threats of punishsments, or death for apostasy and heresy, to make sure God's word is understood as Mohammed dictated it to his followers? Who speaks for Mohammed here? No doubt this is the real question: Who speaks for God here?

If a group of men got together and decided to speak for Mohammed by compiling their collections of his sayings into a holy book, then that should be that, and no more. Any interpretation of the word of God, through Mohammed, then means a group of men have taken upon themselves to speak first for Mohammed, and then for God. That is the ugly truth of it all. And if they then decide that after they had taken this authority for themselves to speak for God that they may now go and punish their own, or war on the infidels, then that group of men had usurped God to act on His behalf, which is an inherent evil.

A true believer reads and understands, and feels in his or her heart. A false believer tells others what to believe. Which is dominant in Mohammed's Islam? False believers cause untold harm to humanity. True consciousness comes from within, not fasle prophets and heretic believers. If God spoke to humanity through a prophet, nothing else need be said or done. All else is in one's heart, directly, and not politicized by false believers.

Who speaks for Mohammed? Nobody. Who speaks for God? Nobody. That was said, period. Now one either reads and accepts or not, as is their free choice.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:13 am:   

Ah but the mob mentality . . .

Those who have used religion to enforce their perspective of God's desires understand that humans feel stronger when they feel a part of something. The message is not even important . . . just membership in the pack. You are right - the ultimate in faith is the faith that an individual will choose his own interpretation of the word . . . previous explanations should have no part in a persons understanding of faith. Thus, if a person needs someone else's guidance to understand the word of God, they are simply choosing someone else's perspective and that is not faith at all. That is called being unprepared to make your own decision. That is called religion.

Indeed it is quite evil to "teach" a child religion. They have no perspective of life, but get tainted by someone else's previous ideas. What about self discovery? Would we turn our progeny into self-replicating drones? Ethics and morality can be taught independent of any notion about God or religious rules. Let the individual choose for himself, within himself, and keep his perspective to himself.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:40 am:   

Ethics and morality can be taught independent of any notion about God or religious rules.
Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:13 am: Naive


Who codifies ethics and morality? Once codified does it also not become a religion?

True freedom is given by Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. It is a pity that it is ignored.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:50 pm:   

Ethics are guidelines, not to be lived by in route fashion!

True freedom is never given by words, but rather by internal desire to escape tyranny, put into action and thought. Verse 256 is YOUR version of true freedom, not mine. It should be kept within you . . . since it is not for some, you should not expouse its wonders.

The best question you asked is "WHO?" is responsible for choosing ethics and morality. In an advanced society, the people choose the laws that they wish to follow, and the punishments that come with disobeying those laws. Interestingly, the old reliance upon religion has hindered this same process in terms of ethics, morality, because people assume those ethical codes are enough to sustain proper functioning of individuals in society. When we progress as a culture of human beings, we will also set down new "codes" of ethics and morality of our choosing (not of the choosing of the ancients from long ago, although some of their ancient wisdom will be incorporated as well!). This does not and should not be considered religion; simply human progress!


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 03:04 pm:   

When we progress as a culture of human beings, we will also set down new "codes" of ethics and morality of our choosing (not of the choosing of the ancients from long ago, although some of their ancient wisdom will be incorporated as well!).
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:50 pm: Naive


What is the mechanism for this: consensus, majority, random choice, or some other way?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 07:37 pm:   

What is the mechanism for this: consensus, majority, random choice, or some other way? - Mohideen


Good question! Education seems the first step. How can we, however, get everyone to buy into a standard of ethics? People already like their beliefs and opinions on what is moral. In addition adherence to law doesn't necessarily equate to ethical behavior. The fact that religion answered the problems associated with your question, is what made religion so appealing, useful, and necessary . . . once upon a time. But that only worked in a relatively homogenized world. Same faith, same culture, same cultural responses. It was easy then and there. Now we have a multi-faceted, cultural world. The solution will also be multi-faceted . . . an ongoing process. Suggestions?


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 12:34 am:   

Not all 'multiculturals' are created equal.

Multiculturalism is a sociological ideology that all societies and their social groups should be given equal cultural and political status. This, however, is patently false. In fact, cultural 'relativism' is a spin-off from the idea that there are no 'preferred reference frames' when it comes to human cultures, and that all such cultures are therefore 'relative'. That is not true. The observer's frame of reference is different from that of the observed, not of equal value. In cultures, there is an 'observer' frame of reference, and an observed's frame of reference, both of unequal value to each other.

For example, are these of equal worth to the individuals who are part of cultural identity?
  • Social agreement by coercion, or social agreement by agreement of contract?
  • Social acceptance of slavery, or social rejection of slavery?
  • Cannibalism is okay, or cannibalism is not okay?
  • Beating your wife is okay, or beating your wife is not okay?
  • Freedom to marry whom one chooses, or marry who is chosen for them?
  • Freedom of belief, or no freedom of belief?
  • Freedom from coercion, or institutionalized coercions?
  • Child pornography is okay, or child pornography and prostitution is not okay but odious?

What do these questions of culturally accepted 'norms' have in common? Is it the same, in some egalitarian sociological sense, to coerce human beings as it is to have them freely form bonds and agreements amongst themselves? It offends reason and any common sense of justice to equate coercion with freedom from coercion. Yet, if all reference frames of multiculturalism are 'equal' then the distinction is confused and blurred, since coercion gains equal worth with agreement. Only in slavery is this true, that multiculturalism has equal value. In freedom, the two observations are not equal, for freedom has a voice, while slaves have none. Each human being may be created equal before the law, but there is no equality in how they interact for either agreeable benefits or coercive conflicts. Two societies, one coercive to its members, and another non-coercive but respectful of its members, are of necessity unequal.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:56 am:   

Social agreement by coercion, or social agreement by agreement of contract?
Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 12:34 am: Ivan


Isn't there a middle ground? What happens when some aspects of a socity are by coercion and other aspects by mutual agreement?

Could this be an example of the middle ground? In Tamilnadu there is extreme competition to get into the very few medical seats. The system has allocated some percentage of seats for different categories of people: scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, and the rest. Within each category the allocation is purely merit based. There is coercion in the allocated percentages. There is agreement in following merit. Where do we place the above system?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:03 pm:   


quote:

In Tamilnadu there is extreme competition to get into the very few medical seats. The system has allocated some percentage of seats for different categories of people: scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, and the rest. Within each category the allocation is purely merit based. There is coercion in the allocated percentages. There is agreement in following merit. Where do we place the above system?


This is an example of 'social agreement' within the context of Tamil Nadu society. What are 'good' middle of the road agreements? Probably those that satisfy the greatest number of participants in a way that is beneficial to society as a whole. How will they know this? The results expected, such as bright and well educated medical practitioners, is realized; failure would be where the choosing process for medical students yields a poor crop of graduates. Is there coercion in this process? Sure, for those who feel they wrongly were left out. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Depends on whose point of view: for society, if the graduates are well educated doctors, then it is a good; for individuals who voluntarily participate in the selection process, they must find it acceptable; but for those who disagreed with the social agreements that this selection process represents, they will be agrieved. Then what? Well, they either learn to live within the socially agreed upon system within which they reside, or petition for changes in the social agreement if possible, or elect to leave it, if impossible to change it. Human migrations, sometimes in very large numbers, at other times rare, is a fact of our human condition. Mohideen, why did you come to America, for example? (a rhetorical question) :-) The short answer is that for 'social agreements' to work, there are no easy solutions, a lot of give and take, including at times a lot of trial and error. Agreement is an art, not a science, for our social human condition.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 07:51 am:   

Mohideen, why did you come to America, for example?
Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:03 pm: Ivan


I answer because my experience is connected with the selection process discussed above.

I got the Government of India Backward Classes Scholarship during my BS in Electrical Engineering which gave me worry-free UG life.

Was my selection based on merit or on quota? I don't know because im my time there was just a board of interviewers - three respected professors - who gave the list of successful candidates. The current system of competitive examinations and computer generated rank was introduced much later. Possibly my selection to Electrical Engineering was a mix of merit and social standing. I secured 100 out of 100 in Mathematics and was second in my school in total marks in the qualifying examination.

In a mixed system as you have indicated there are coercions and merit based actions.

Why did I come here to USA? I did my MS in Electrical Engineering from IIT Kanpur, established by MIT and 9 other top schools of USA from 1968 to 1970. Out of a class of 18, 15 moved to USA for higher studies, one Army Officer on deputation went back to his job, one girl classmate stayed behind. I was the other one who continued for Ph.D. in IIT Kanpur.

So I did not come to USA to learn. Since I came as Associate Professor of Computer Science I believe I came to teach. Even that was cut short by 9/11. So why did I come here?

The short answer is: God has moved my food here and thus I came here to eat my food!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 09:29 pm:   

All things happen for a reason, conscious or not, in our great search for 'food'.

When we look back upon events or how ideas form there appears almost to be a pattern of sorts. We can almost glean reason from it, like it does not happen by accident. This was a thought that formed when I looked at the above post by Mohideen:

quote:

The short answer is: God has moved my food here and thus I came here to eat my food!!!


The questions was "why did you come to America?" And the response, in the tradition of human migrations for all time, was in search of food. How insightful an answer, though perhaps the greater patterns of this answer was lost in the details of the migration. We all at one time or another migrated in search of food, whether tribal pastoral migrations, or hunting expeditions that took us deeper into the frontiers of wilderness, or crossing from one continent to another. If we followed game, we were moving in search of food. If we were moving of our own free will, not taken captive and shipped, then we all moved in search of food at one time or another. Some were to get to better grazing lands, others to better hunting lands, and still others to better farm lands. The great frontiers of humanity were always opened up, such as the land hungry migrations into the West, to find opportunity in Indian settled lands, and farm or mine there. The real reason is always at heart the same, in search of food.

However, there is a bigger picture here. Physical sustenance is not the only food we seek. Sometimes that sustenance is more mind than body. We are always on the move, whether climbing hills and mountains to gain a better view, or moving around a social gathering to speak to people, or exploring new vistas in books and study, or merely finding conversation with like, or unlike, minds, we are migrating. Some of this migration can be purely mental, more like an exploration of ideas, social or personal ideas, so we find ourselves, often unconsciously, in a new milieu, and wonder: what is this all about? New food, not for nourishment of body, but of mind. How do we know this is not for feeding our consciousness? Even if approached in our unconscious, we may still be seeking greater understanding, or consciousness, in search of mental and spiritual food. Do we find it? Sometimes, yes, other times no; and still other times it comes in ways unexpected, perhaps even unwanted, that we gain some level of consciousness. The search goes on, there is no final resting point, except in this life when our soul leaves the body, but the search which started millions of years ago, in search of food, continues; but now it continues at another level, in another realm of existence, so we never stop.

We never expected to have a heated exchange of ideas, like some overly loud party stimulated by drink. No, to the contrary, on a philosophy forum as this we expected a quiet exchange. But it became heated, contentious even, though in and of itself that is unimportant. What is important is the migration of mind in search of food. We hope food was found, though it may have tasted bitter at times, but in the end it proves sweet, and nourishing to body and mind, and soul. Many who came to America found that, for in her freedoms though bitter at times, the end is rewarding and sweet. The 'food' found on her shores and through her great lands is one of freedom of thought, and of being, not as we wanted to be, but as we became guided to be. By whom? Call it mind, or God, or happenstance, it is all to bring us into a higher consciousness. It was for us. And that 'food' is divine.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 09:18 pm:   

After nearly 9 years and a 1000 pages of Humancafe, what have said, or learned?

Humility is freedom; dogma is arrogance.

It is that simple, yet how puzzling. What kept us? How is it we did not see this so long?

This is the high standard we must carry into battle to fight for preserving what others would take away from us. Our freedom is our right, not with arrogance but in full humility. It had been a very long walk in the wilderness.


Thank you for all who helped bring this simple truth about, Naive, Mohideen, Ed, Chef, and so many others who wrote here over the years. The idea reached fruition in these last, here and here, as it had started here. Let us hope this will bring us into a higher consciousness, and a better world. There is hope.

Ivan


(We will be closing the discussion forums for the summer, about June 1st to reopen September 1st, while we put the forums into 'maintenance' mode for safing purposes.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/?lies
Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 01:15 pm:   

How conscious is a liar?

A million years of human mind evolution, and we still lie...

?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/veil
Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:40 am:   

The 'veil conundrum', a more real issue than we know.

If a western woman who is in every way free to follow her conscience should be in a position where she is traveling in a world where women veil themselves, should she veil herself too? Perhaps she wants to do this out of respect for the local customs? But what if her husband who is also a free western man finds such veiling offensive because it betrays that local custom's of women's subservience to men, and this offends his sense of freedom? Should he be offended by his wife's desire to veil herself, in deference to the subservience women must display in that culture? There's the conundrum. Should she veil or not?

If she feels strongly that her veiling herself is her freedom to do so, is there a contradiction where she is honoring with her actions the repressiveness of women? Is this a contradictions of actions, where on the one hand she is free to veil if she wishes, but on the other hand the other women who must veil themselves are not free? Does this by her action validate the non-freedoms the women must endure in this culture, by a free woman? And what if her husband is offended by this honoring of non-freedoms with her veil, is her action then disrespectful of his wishes, that as a free woman she should remain unveiled? Which culture is this free born wife to honor, the repressive culture's demand women veil, or the freedom culture's demand she not veil? Which will she choose? Should a married woman who is free obey that culture's repressiveness, or her husbands rebelliousness against it?

As a free woman, she can choose, but which way will she go? As a 'slave' of men, because she must obey her man, a woman in that culture does not have the right to choose, so she must veil herself in the presence of men. But a free woman who chooses to veil herself against her husband's wishes is not a slave, yet she may choose to be a slave at that time, to her husband's chagrin. Because she is rebelling against his sense of freedom by obeying the cultuire of female slavery, he becomes offended. Should this free woman care about offending her husband, or should she care more about offending the men who oppress women? What is her freedom worth? If not worth much, perhaps the oppressors of women are right?

This makes for an interesting conundrum, because in microcosm it reflects the cross-cultural problems we in the West must face with the importation of an alien culture which does not respect women as free human beings in our midst. What shall we do? What should women do? What should husbands do if offended by their wives' conformity to a slave like tradition of culture? Will the immigrants respect our freedoms, or will they insist we respect their repressiveness of women? Which is right, and which is wrong? The husband of this free woman may be so much offended that their marriage becomes at risk, so a wedge had been driven by the slavery of women into the freedom culture they had enjoyed together. Now, forced apart by her actions, slavery wins and freedom loses. That is an interesting conundrum, because the real question is: Should women from a repressive culture, where they are subservient to men, upon entering a free culture still be forced to veil, or not? And likewise, should a free woman in the presence of this repressive culture veil out of respect (of their coercions), or not? In effect, can a culture of freedom coexist with a culture of slavery, or not? Or is this the basis for a necessary conflict between cultures, which cannot be resolved between slavery and freedom, since they are opposites?

Finally, what happens to gender equality? Does it get sacrificed for slavery, or does is survive through freedom? How will she choose, because in the end, it is her choice.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 12:53 pm:   

Many people believe that we were created out of benevolence and love. Others feel our time here is a test, a proving grounds for our souls so to speak, and a time for our souls to recognize their true nature.

Logic dictates that if an omnipresent entity crated everything, then every possible phenomena is a part of that entity. Furthermore that would simply make consciousness an expression of that entity's desire to create or know itself. In essence it is far more likely we exist so that the universe can know itself (assuming the presence of an omnipresent, omnipotent creator). Indeed without fragmenting its own cosciousness and physical state, there would be nothing for a being of that magnitude to perceive.

I suppose we are here to bring fulfillment to not only our own consciousness, but to that of what spawned us as well.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/omni
Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 01:57 pm:   

Does God need to talk to us? No!

Hi Naive, nice to hear from you. Your comment made me think of something:

quote:

Logic dictates that if an omnipresent entity crated everything, then every possible phenomena is a part of that entity. Furthermore that would simply make consciousness an expression of that entity's desire to create or know itself. In essence it is far more likely we exist so that the universe can know itself (assuming the presence of an omnipresent, omnipotent creator). Indeed without fragmenting its own cosciousness and physical state, there would be nothing for a being of that magnitude to perceive.



Does God, if an omnipresent entity that created everything, need to involve Himself with the human phenomenon? Does he need to talk to us? Not if God is also logical, then he does not. If God is the perfection, omnipresent Being of the universe, then how can He improve on that? By meddling in human affairs? No. If the whole universal set up is already perfection, then to meddle in human affairs, by giving us the Ten Commandments, or parting the Red Sea, or whispering into Mohammed's ear through an intermediary like angel Gabriel, all becomes meaningless. It means then, if these old fables are to be believed, that God was imperfect, since He then must come and correct prior mistakes. But that does not hold water. (BTW, Jesus never reported God talking to him, though he talked a lot to his Father, it seems.) I suppose those ancient biblical scribes failed to think of this?

The set up is complete, and the only way it can be improved upon is have us join in this set up with our understanding, and betterment of ourselves as a consciously alive species. But that is not the same thing as God arbitrarily getting involved in human affairs. He set up the universe, or is the Universe of All Being, with the rules that make up reality. Why would He change that, if already perfect? If He started changing the rules, then it means what was set up eons ago to be our Universe was imperfect, not solid but weak at some point, and then it must be changed. But that defies the definition of what God is, at least as understood as a perfection of all existence, because it then betrays an imperfect God. That is impossible. God may be things we don't like, like cruelty and violence, predatory animals eating us, and so on. But these are the conditions of how is the universe. We, in our higher consciousness, can then improve on these conditions as they apply to us. We tame or restrict animal behaviors, for example, but we are not about to make life from scratch. The universe is what it is. Our role, if you choose to accept this mission, is to understand it, and if possible better our condition in it. But the idea that God is somehow imperfect enough to have to correct his creations, by talking to us or interfering in our lives, then means that God was not perfect to begin with, which negates the whole idea of an omnipotent creator. Does He even need to know himself? Maybe, maybe not, we do not know the consciousness of all things; but our existence in the universe does change things, and the more conscious of it we become, the more the universe changes with us, but only for us. The rest of God's existence may not care. Hypothetically, if we add to the universe, we make in it something that did not exist before, like all manmade things, so we are improving on the universe with our creativity. But not the other way around, to make God more perfect. Rather, we are merely better tapping into that perfection when we do this.

Thanks for stimulating my neurons, while leading an otherwise humdrum existence. :-) I was just vaccuming the house, which God's perfection did not see fit to have it clean itself, alas. Somebody's got to do it, to make my 'universe' a little less dusty.

Ivan

[Ps: an an afterthought: if Allah, or any god, needs to interfere with human affairs, that he betrays being an imperfect god, weak to start with, it defiles the definition of God as omnipotent. This is a major error in ancient monotheistic thinking, which contradicts their perfect 'God'.]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/dreams
Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:01 pm:   

What are dreams?

Petroglyph_jqjacobs.jpg (interactive)
Rock art, dreamtime images

Last night I had a very different kind of dream, where I dreamt in 'rock art', except it looked more like an animated colorful 'Mayan script' than the usual rock paintings. Inside a tableau of such rock symbols was a moving scroll of animated figures. These were stylized representations of animals, some which I though I knew like my little wolf-dog Gentle who died some months ago, all colorful and light filled, and even smiling! It was a pleasant dream, because I woke from it feeling refreshed, like I just had a satisfying experience of meeting old friends. I don't know what it means, since for me dreams are merely a reshuffling of neurons in the brain, but it was most fun to dream this, a cartoon motion rock art with Mayan symbols... I wonder what it means? :-) Past lives?

Earlier I wrote something about 'mystical writing' and I suppose it's all related somehow, but I don't know, just something bubbling up from the mind. Maybe it's time to go and visit the rock art again?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 03:32 am:   

Hi Ivan,

I also believe dreams are more than just neurons reshuffling. I believe our brains must rebalance at night. During the day we go through a full range of emotional changes, coupled with their corresponding chemical reactions. So too, dreams seem to correspond to the brain's need to "rebalance" chemically so to speak.

What I am always amazed at, is the synthesis of life experiences and accumulated knowledge into an original experience called a dream. Why must we actually have an "awareness" of the electrical activity that courses through our brains at night? In college I took several classes with Charles Tart, author of "Altered States of Consciousness" and "Transpersonal Psychology". He's a very interesting man. In fact he explores this and many other topics from both a spiritual and empirical point of view. You might like his work.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/mind logos
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 12:08 am:   

Charles T. Tart Consciousness page, in logos.

cttart_logo_name_mdsm.gif (interactive)

Thanks Naive, I'll have to explore his works. I listed his home page here (in logo) for anyone who wants to read up, as I will. The mind is a many wondrous thing. Really, what is consciousness? What is mind? Is it a biological thing, or metaphysical, or the life of the universe, or...?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Friday, February 08, 2008 - 09:40 am:   

GRAffiti ART and Le Mo' Chef


5_63_020608_Muhhamad01.jpg,
Medieval illustration of Muhammad lifting Black Stone

If the Word is good, then why not the Art?....??

They say the devil cannot stand his image.. but a loving and kind being should be happy to show his face before the world to all... by God.


Art is NOt against GOD !!!!!!


Le bon mot Chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/consciousness
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 10:49 am:   

Quantum foam 'Emergence' and the evolution of life consciousness.


250px-GFPneuron.png (interactive)
Image of pyramidal neurons in mouse cerebral cortex

The simplest way to understand Emergence is to say that any totality of complex systems is more than merely the sum of its parts, but it grows, or emerges, into something greater than itself.

In the above linked Wiki article there are examples of this, such as an ant colony, or the evolution of cities, economic market systems, or even the phenomenon of the world wide web, where the individual parts are in themselves unremarkable, but when put together into a whole system of cooperation and ideas, the resulting totality is most remarkable as to how it morphs into something quite complex and operative at levels unsuspected from the parts. Or as it says in the article:

quote:

The term "emergent" was coined by the pioneer psychologist G. H. Lewes, who wrote:

"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference." (Lewes 1875, p.412)(Blitz 1992)

It is almost as if we witness the coming together of something into more than could be foreshadowed by mere observation of structure. That 'more' represents 'growth' in all such systems, where the totality function of all its interior parts is now somehow 'redefining' itself at the greatest complexity to influence its initial state. Another example is the neuron activity of the brain, where individual neurons are not necessarily intelligent in their firing mechanism of electrical impulses, but taken together as a totality of the brain, intelligence and living consciousness result. Once conscious, or alive, the totality intelligence now gives new direction to the firing mechanism of neurons into a complete whole, which we identify with as being intelligent.

So the 'evolution' of complex systems may not be understandable from the study of its individual parts, but only understandable as an 'interrelated' totality now 'emerging' into something greater than itself. In the case of life, and all living things, the complexity of all inputs into the living being from stimuli to its existence to the progression of life from its very beginnings evolved into a self sustaining mechanism handed down through heredity, so what emerges is a living entity endowed with a nervous system morphed into mind, where even animals have been observed to have 'personality' individually characteristic for them. This 'feedback mechanism' is endemic to all life right down to its DNA, where we process life. The Sun puts out energy, and with the combinations of converting this energy through various life processes combining chemicals of matter, each living thing feeds off this energy (a product of near infinitely complex mechanisms) to sustain itself alive, and ultimately even intelligent, so the progression from simple elements and energy becomes an evolutionary process of the genetic code of life. This becomes apparent in all life, that the complexity of nature is an evolution of complexity until we humans, at the top of this evolutionary chain, can be said to have intelligence and mind of which we are actually consciously aware. But what is the origin of such complex mind, where it is more than merely a 'subjective' sensation of being ourselves, but can project itself 'objectively' into our sense or perceptions of the world in which we exist?

I had written in Habeas Mentem (chapter 3) about 'interrelationship' as an infinite totality:

quote:

Such is infinity: Through interrelationship, every point in reality is exactly as it is in its greater image, at infinity. Reality is the definition of infinity as seen there.

Then all things are at infinity as they are. It is a property of our universe that each thing within it is inscribed somehow in its vast network. The atom is not an isolated, detached singularity of our reality; it is inherent in its total meaning. At the outer dimensions of our universe is the definition of the atom focused at each point where each atom exists. It is a property of our universe that what we see in our physical reality is what the arrangement of everything else at the outer limits of our universe means. Those properties exist out there as a vast image of itself. Nothing can exist that is not inherent in the meaning of the universe.


Though I did not use the term 'emergence' at the time, it was implied in how the universe is structured through its interrelationship processes, that all things are interrelated from the smallest micro levels of the atom to the largest complex systems of macro galactic reality of a universe, where all things are interconnected to form a totality whole, which may be infinite at its greatest possible potential scale. What emerges from this complexity is a self-defining system where the totality re-defines everyone of its parts in terms of the greatest whole. In effect, even the atom is a function of this immense infinite complexity, to exist where it exists and how it interacts with all of creation to be itself. But that in and of itself is unremarkable, whereas the end product of such emergent complexity, all of life, is indeed most remarkable, especially given that the universe in its potentiality manifests as life. So this is fundamental down to the atomic level, where such complexity begins, and is carried forward through all the emerging manifestations of evolution until such life is intelligent enough to understand itself, albeit poorly, as an objective mind capable of looking back upon all creation with wonder. This observation thus brings us back to the beginning, at the most fundamental state of matter, or the Quantum state, where we are beginning to understand 'emergence' not only from vast complex systems, often what appear to us as chaotic systems because we cannot grasp the complexity in its totality, but already 'emergent' at the Quantum foam level. There the fundamental forces of complexity are already evident, where the 'foam' of all energy states becomes more complex to 're-define' itself in terms of the emergent states within which this energy exists.

This is not 'something from nothing' but rather is inherent in how complexity works, that from its interrelated parts emerges a new definition from the totality system for its individual parts. The causal relations of those parts in and of themselves are unremarkable, though Quantum states are already very complex and difficult to measure or understand, but what is remarkable is their interconnectivity into a super system with emergent properties, so that each part of itself is redefined by the whole. There is probably no mathematics that can explain such emergence, as of yet, and yet it does exist as the evolutionary processes of life demonstrate over time, that in time mind becomes manifest in living things. In humans it has manifest as a mechanism of neurons, which themselves are electrical quantum states, which at the totality of the brain thinks, so is rendered intelligent. But this does not form from a vacuum, but rather is a function of totality complexity going back all the way through heredity to the first formations of life, which... what formed this life in the first place?... Emergence! That emergence is not from nothing, but rather from the inherent structure of all the atoms and energies of the universe, in how they are interrelated from here to infinity. Therefore, there is only one conclusion the mind can find acceptable, that the universe is the totality of complexity redefined in terms of itself as a living and intelligent entity, right down to the Quantum state.

38dbbd1619200e0dfb08504f30be27d7.png (interactive)
Quantum mechanics equation, and 'entanglement'

Emergent structures in nature are therefore totally natural. From the Quantum state to the vastest complex structures of totality in the universe, they are all interrelated into what emerges, through evolution of life, into the natural world as we see it. And to 'have the mind' to understand this complexity, however imperfectly is indeed something magic, that nature has emerged of necessity by its very complexity into a living intelligence, even universal personality, of all living things to a lesser or greater degree. The fact that we are at the level of our neurons somehow 'entangled' in this vast complexity is truly miraculous, almost something magical, where the universe through its entanglement, or 'spooky action' at a distance, is instantaneously communicating with itself from the Quantum state to its largest dimensions. That is our brain. Is this not miraculous? We are privileged only in that we have the ability to look back upon nature not though the eyes of our ancestors, who thought it magic and endowed with 'souls', but as a natural structure of an interrelated universal totality, that we have indeed something magical because we have access to that universal Mind, with our minds. That we can think is itself a miracle, but also totally natural. The evolution of our consciousness, therefore, is nothing more than a universe 'conversing' with itself through Emergence in how it is structured. And that is magic! If it is a 'fulfillment of consciousness', the Who I am, then Whose consciousness? Some call this God.

Also see: THE THREE REASON(S): SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, AND UNIVERSAL - Aug. 5, 2006

Faster than light 'entanglements' and mathematical axioms - April 4, 2008

Ivan

Quantum Entanglement
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 03:39 am:   

I met a magnificient woman the other day,

She is alive with energy . . . with the energy a life seeking fulfillment has brought her. How sad that many others don't even know that there is such a path before them. Do they even want the light shined upon themselves?


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/galaxy
Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2008 - 12:09 pm:   

We are all "light filled" beings.

To find a magnnificent human being is a beautiful thing. To find any human being is a miracle. All beings are miracles, in some mysteriously beautiful way.

300px-Infraredandromeda.jpg
Andromeda

Here is a Care2 card Galaxy by Camilla Eriksson (sound please) which shows how improbably beautiful it is to find anyone, or even to be anyone oneself, as a light filled being. :-) It's all a miracle! Enjoy!


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

CC :-)
Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2008 - 09:38 pm:   

Take me to Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIBqgXaL5Ik&feature=related

default.jpg

Bride and Punishment, a great Bollywood film, sweet. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

art imitates life
Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 08:51 pm:   

Strange illusion

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - A. Einstein

get-attachment.jpeg

See the angry face and serene face? Now stand back from your screen and see which is which?

Art imitates life.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/emergent mind
Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 10:13 pm:   

Earth's 'emergent' mind of planetwide Consciousness, may be sabotaged?

BBC News: New cable cut compounds net woes

quote:

The cause of the latest break has not been confirmed but a repair ship has been deployed, said owner Flag Telecom.
The earlier break disrupted service in Egypt, the Middle East and India.



Also, BBC News: Work begins to repair two damaged internet cables

quote:

The cause of the damage has not been officially confirmed but there have been reports that the breaks were related to a tanker dragging its anchor along the sea bed.


Now, why would anyone drag their anchor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2008_submarine_cable_disruption_map.jpg (click for text) Sabotage, or accident?

Why are high speed submarine internet cables damaged in the Middle East and South Asia? The first break from map above was in Iran, the second and third, in Egyptian waters; four and five were in the UAE area, and last at Penang, off Malaysia. Is there a pattern?

There is something awry here, these 'breaks' all happened since January 2008, a contentious year when internet blackouts had been frequent, especially in Middle East and Pakistan. Don't wish to give into 'conspiracy theories' here of deliberate sabotage. However, there had been calls lately from some quarters, especially in strict Islamic states, to censor the internet, as it may have an adverse effect on the morals of young people, with sex porno sites, anti-Islamic sites (Fitna), pro freedom discussions, etc. It could be nothing more than acts of nature, but the number of cuts in locations with places calling for internet censorship makes it more suspicious. I hope a thorough investigation (without whitewash) is conducted. It would be too bad to have the forces of darkness of the mind win such easy victory over truth. Our world is just now emerging from darkness, and the 'emergence' value of the internet is part of it, connecting all of humanity as one.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Life Universe
Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 12:20 pm:   

A Universe of Life


800px-Close-up_of_clone_war_of_sea_anemones3_2.jpg (interactive)
Close-up clone war of sea anemones


I chose this Sea Anemone as the model for what generic life in the universe looks like. (See: Sea Anemone Is Both Animal and Plant). It it mono-clonal as well as sexually reproductive, it lives in any water environment, and it is interactive with its environment in both wet and dry conditions, can go dormant and revive, and is a predator survivor. At the universal level, this sea anemone represents the top of the food chain, before more complex evolutions occur, so it is king and queen of the oceanic pools of worlds where life exists, feeding on all its pre-evolutionary predecessor life forms, from bacteria to protozoa, and adapting to feed on post-evolutionary life forms, such as fish and mollusks or crustaceans. In fact, this creature may not be the top of the bell curve for such a generic life species, but the idea of such a life form endemic to all the worlds capable of life, more advanced than microbial and pre-life proto-microbial life forms, the sea anemone fits the image of Life in all its colors and beauty. And in either direction, back towards the more primitive, or forward towards evolution of mind consciousness, this 'sea anemone' prototype will be there as a pivotal species of life.

This is a follow up to my earlier "How could Life happen?", where I discussed the simplest life forms 'emerging' from the constitution of pre-biotic 'cellular automata' conditions into microbial biotic-life endowed with its internal program of reproductive survival, in both mind and DNA. The sea anemone (dating back in fossil records to the Cambrian period) has a primitive proto-nervous system, and contractile cellular muscle system, much simpler than other animals, with a hydrostatic skeleton and one orifice acting as both mouth and anus. It is able to process energy both from photosynthesis through an internal symbiotic-green-algae process, as well as feed off living prey through its mouth. Reproducing both sexually and asexually, as clones, gives them an advantage for survival. Some have the ability to detach themselves and swim, locomotion further enhancing their survival. In total, the sea anemone is the perfect life foundation within any aquatic brine solution where energy levels and chemistry enable life to form, on any world. The resulting polyps are then 'species foundational' for other life forms to follow, should conditions for evolution allow it.

The successful landing of the Phoenix Probe on Mars, where a search for water ice and other microbial life potentials may be the key to unlocking the universality of life. If found, this may be the first step towards discovering how Life is a common factor to how is constructed our universe, from pre-biotic near-life forms to advanced species on other worlds. Perhaps some of the gas giants' moons may offer such conditions in our solar system, but it is now believed all stars have planetary systems, so this may be a universal factor for all galaxies, where around each star exist life-potential planetary and moon systems. Mars as a nearby neighbor is a good place to start this search.

300px-Terrestrial_planet_size_comparisons.jpg
Mars (far right) relative to Mercury, Venus and Earth (interactive)

Could it be Olympus Mons has a living biosphere interior? Or beneath the iron oxide rich soil of Mars there is water, and potential for simple near-biotic life forms? This will be the big question Phoenix and future probes hope to answer.

800px-Victoria_Crater,_Cape_Verde-Mars.jpg
Victoria Crater on Mars - image by Rover Opportunity - 2006

What about Terra-forming other worlds with near-life conditions? Mars is one candidate, though atmospheric conditions are not conducive at present for Earth like life forms, with no liquid oceans. But if it were possible to activate the planet's internal heat into volcanism, with ejecta of life forming molecules, such as we have on Earth, and the commensurate release of ground water into the atmosphere, such a scenario might happen. If, for example, a large asteroid were directed to strike Mars dead on, and transfer its kinetic energy into the planet's interior, a whole chain of events might follow to make Mars both warmer and geologically more active, so an ocean and larger atmosphere might be released from its interior. The volcanism might also release methane and other greenhouse gases to further stabilize atmospheric temperatures. From such warmer conditions on the planet's surface, especially if oceans form, then 'emergent' life forms might succeed.

200px-MarsTransitionV.jpg (interactive)
Terraforming of Mars, transitional phases

If conditions on Mars were to trigger vulcanism and greenhouse gases, which then releases ground water onto the surface, resulting in a warmer and stabilized atmosphere, proto-biotic life forms might take hold. The resulting chemistry and temperatures may then allow for planet 'seeding' with microbial and simple life forms. If the oceans are stable, then seeding with 'sea anemones' may become possible, laying species foundation for more advanced life forms. Once life takes hold, it then may result in the Gaia effect, where the planet's life begins a process of self-regulation to enable its continuation, with survival enhanced by improved chemistry conditions, such as generating free oxygen in both water and air.

Is Life universal throughout the galaxies? This first small step by Phoenix exploring the polar ice of Mars may be the path to understanding how living organisms can survive not only in Terra like conditions, but perhaps on all the worlds, even if conditions do not appear 'life friendly' to us. In fact, the whole Universe may be a living totality, where the end product of all Being is intelligence and consciousness. But then what? Once conscious of existence and able to explore, and manipulate reality to create more life, are we entering a new stage of our own evolution? Consciousness may be an end in itself, but still in the manner of infinity be but one more step towards some still greater 'emergence' we cannot yet imagine. The universe may be Life itself, and we may be the fortunate creatures able to participate in this Living Universe. We have the Mind.

[Also see: Lost World hints at life in the Mesozoic]


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/DNA evolution
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 08:20 pm:   

DNA evolution and genetics "Ten Commandments" explored.


DNA_orbit_animated.gif (interactive)
DNA strand

Human evolution may have many factors, perhaps even parallel lines of evolution (called Hybrid origins), but there is no real justification from a moral stand to select 'racial' characteristics in genetics as basis for medical profiling, even in medical empirical research. In fact, there may actually be an 'eleventh commandment' for the medical guidelines of DNA related evolution:

"11. All human DNA evolution is passed down from parent to child, including some of the parents' life experience while alive prior to their offspring's conception."

From the article:

quote:

Even with the human genome in hand, geneticists are split about how to deal with issues of race, genetics and medicine.

Some favor using genetic markers to sort humans into groups based on ancestral origin – groups that may show meaningful health differences. Others argue that genetic variations across the human species are too gradual to support such divisions and that any categorisation based on genetic differences is arbitrary.

1. All races are created equal

No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. Equality is a moral value central to the idea of human rights; discrimination against any group should never be tolerated.

2. An Argentinian and an Australian are more likely to have differences in their DNA than two Argentinians

Groups of human beings have moved around throughout history. Those that share the same culture, language or location tend to have different genetic variations than other groups. This is becoming less true, though, as populations mix.

3. A person's history isn't written only in his or her genes

Everyone's genetic material carries a useful, though incomplete, map of his or her ancestors' travels. Studies looking for health disparities between individuals shouldn't rely solely on this identity. They should also consider a person's cultural background.
...



The "Ten Commandments" of race and genetics are in article linked. Evolution to bring us to higher human consciousness is an ongoing process, equally for all.

Read it all.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 02:48 am:   

Yes,

But what about the cultural mores, shaped by history? That's where the differences in humanity lie; cultures devastated by history. The older the culture, the less it has been tampered with by a new invading line of thought, the more likely it is, that that culture is successful.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 10:24 am:   

To expand on my point above . . .

Even though a person's history is not written in his / her genes, what role could history play in the selection process? What role does culture play? What role will the manipulation of our environment play?

Evolution by its nature is not an equal process. It is a process of dominant over recessive, necessary over harmful (traits). I only hope that the traits we are selecting as a species are those that will lead us to a higher consciousness.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Habeas Mentem 'anagram'
Posted on Saturday, June 06, 2009 - 05:23 pm:   

The Habeas Mentem 'verbagram' - computer generated word-frequency image by www.wordle.net, full text.
HabeasMentem'image'.jpg
www.wordle.net (image interactive)


Just for fun... Mind and Reality are followed by Love, Soul, and Existence of interrelationship as One-Conscious-Universe, rich in human identity, in a Society of Free-dom by Agreement world.

That is the power that is Habeas Mentem, to 'have a Mind' Consciousness.


Ivan

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration