The Mystery of Life: Unveiling the Essence Within

[Iacchus32]

The mystery is that which lies within. And yet the mystery is none other than the essence which gives rise to form. Whereas all mysteries are pretty much one and the same, in that they lead to the one true mystery, The Mystery of Life ...

 

[wuliheron]

All mysteries together form a context or continuum if you will that extends from the mystery within to the mystery of existence. Many argue their is no distinction whatsoever between any of these and the mystery within is the mystery without.

 

[Iacchus32]

What is the difference between history and mystery? Besides one being factual and the other subject to interpretation? Which would be more correct? You can have the history with all the facts, but what's the point without understanding the mystery? (i.e., why it happened).

It's the same thing when people read the Bible, they can take it in the literal sense or, if they're versed in what the symbolism means, they can take it in the spiritual sense. In which case you're likely to get two completely different--if not contradictory--meanings. Which would be more correct? The literal sense which, may be enough to send somebody to prison or, the spiritual sense, which may warrant a reprieve and a better outlook on things?

Where's the mystery, if it's all a matter of not understanding something in context? And why should we allow this to invalidate an experience which may otherwise be real?

 

[wuliheron]

Where's the mystery, if it's all a matter of not understanding something in context? And why should we allow this to invalidate an experience which may otherwise be real?

The mystery may be the context.

Mystery

Looked at but cannot be seen
It is beneath form;
Listened to but cannot be heard
- It is beneath sound;
Held but cannot be touched
It is beneath feeling;
These depthless things evade definition,
And blend into a single mystery.
In its rising there is no light,
In its falling there is no darkness,
A continuous thread
Beyond description,
Lining what cannot occur;
Its form formless,
Its image nothing,
Its name silence;
Follow it, it has no back,
Meet it, it has no face.
Attend the present to deal with the past;
Thus you grasp the continuity
Of the Way,
Which is its essence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Mystery can be likened unto the "living substance" or food. While history can be likened unto the wrapper it comes in, to be discarded once we partake of the mystery.

Why would you settle for the box? when you can have the chocolates instead?

Isn't that kind of what the problem is with religion? They get all caught up in the history and formality of it, while losing sight of the mystery and the essence which enlivens the soul. Whereas science steps in and takes it a step further and says, Where is the substance behind all this dead formalism? and drops the whole thing entirely deeming it unworthy to investigate.

It's too bad science can't acquire a taste for chocolates? But, that would all be in the mind of the chocoholic now wouldn't it?

 

[wuliheron]

Isn't that kind of what the problem is with religion? They get all caught up in the history and formality of it, while losing sight of the mystery and the essence which enlivens the soul. Whereas science steps in and takes it a step further and says, Where is the substance behind all this dead formalism? and drops the whole thing entirely deeming it unworthy to investigate.

It's too bad science can't acquire a taste for chocolates? But, that would all be in the mind of the chocoholic now wouldn't it?

Science has developed a taste for chocolates. Quantum Mechanics is perhaps the best known example. They just had some bad experiences with foods in the past and are now about the pickiest and most reluctant eaters you can imagine. Getting them to try something new requires a great deal of patience and understanding not to mention trust building. Don't worry, everybody grows out that phase eventually. :0)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Mystery can be likened unto the "living substance" or food. While history can be likened unto the wrapper it comes in, to be discarded once we partake of the mystery.

Why would you settle for the box? when you can have the chocolates instead?

Isn't this kind of what the deal is about society as well? Where we go through a tremendous expense to insure the packaging has appeal, to where we practically lose sight of the contents inside which, have either been pumped full of hormones or preservatives or, has little nutritional value. Whereas all this "fancy" packaging goes directly into the trash, and from there into the local landfill. What a waste!

Neither does this apply only to our food but, to our whole whole market driven economy as well, where everything is set up for the "easy sale," in a continual bombardment of glamore, glitz and sales appeal. There's that ol' Madison Avenue Whore again! Yep, one never ending distraction, in a parade of materialistic enticements we thought we could never do without. Reminiscent of the original enticement way back when? (in the Garden of Eden).

No wonder there's a great lack of introspection in our society nowadays. We're so busy caught up with our quick "material fix" that we don't have time to marvel about things such as "the moment" or, the mystery of life ...

Whereas if we did, it might be far less painful on our pocket books and, to the environment as well.

 

[kyleb]

that is exactly the case Iacchus32, i have lived on both sides of the fence on that issues so i can attest from experience that you are very much correct in what you said there. however there was a comment of your earlier that i do not agree with:

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's the same thing when people read the Bible, they can take it in the literal sense or, if they're versed in what the symbolism means, they can take it in the spiritual sense.

while spiritual things are only witnessed though symbolism, if one needs to be versed in the meanings of such symbolism; then it is becomes more a worldly experience than spiritual one.

 

[Iacchus32]

Origninally posted by kyleb
while spiritual things are only witnessed though symbolism, if one needs to be versed in the meanings of such symbolism; then it is becomes more a worldly experience than spiritual one.

All I'm saying is unless you have some idea of what the symbolism means, you won't be able to grasp what the spiritual means (which, is highly symbolic).

 

[Mentat]

Is there anyone else here who fails to see what "The Mystery Within" refers to?

Iacchus, could you please explain what you mean?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Is there anyone else here who fails to see what "The Mystery Within" refers to?

Iacchus, could you please explain what you mean?

The mystery is life. Just as everything has a beginning (cause), it also has an ending (effect). And yet when you look at the effect, without any understanding of the cause, it's hard to imagine how it all came about? Indeed this is the mystery which, can be applied towards anything.

So what does it mean? Just as there is an exterior "objective sense" to things, what we would apply to "form" (truth), there's also an interior "subjective sense," which we would apply to "essence" (i.e., wisdom, which gives rise to truth). So in this respect it's makes sense that "the subjective" (essence) be contained within and "subject to" the form? And so it is the understanding of the mystery (any mystery) can be assessed through the understanding of its interior wisdom or nature (from within).

Whereas if you were to look around, at everything you can experience through the five senses, it would apply towards the "exterior form," as it can be observed or measured somehow "objectively." So in this respect it's easy enough to acknowledge the truth (form) and put a label on it.

But what of the hidden mystery that lies beyond the forms? What are the inner-dynamics behind this incredible facade we call "objective reality?" Do we really understand what's going on underneath? For instance let's say we take two objects, one that is inanimate, like a rock, and the other which is alive, like a human being? Now the rock will pretty much remain a rock indefinitely, and still retain the energy field that defines it as a rock. But with a human being it's a different story. Granted that when we die we leave behind a corpse, and the corpse will retain the energy field of a dead corpse.

But that's just it, where does all this "conscious energy" which, defines our very existence, go? And I don't mean sometime later, but almost immediately after death? There's obviously some sort of energy pattern or field there when we're alive, but where does it go when we die? Does it just dissipate into the atmosphere? Or, as I'm inclined to believe, does it retain its pattern and return to say, the "collective unconscious?" I can hardly imagine this "living entity," which consolidates itself in a living form (my body), would just dissipate at death. There's just too much consistency about it to suggest otherwise. Or else why would it cling so steadfastly, and coherently, to my body in the first place? Except perhaps for one exception, where do we go when we dream? Now that's a strong indication right there!

I would like to speak more about this here, but I'm a bit limited by time and will have to leave it at this for now ... Thanks!

 

[wuliheron]

I thought you were talking about the mystery, but now you are talking about consciousness and life after death. Which is it?

 

[Another God]

I was lost half way through the first post.

 

[wuliheron]

I was lost half way through the first post.

That's easy to understand, its a slippery one, but really well written. It expresses a very Asian view.

The mystery is that which lies within. And yet the mystery is none other than the essence which gives rise to form. Whereas all mysteries are pretty much one and the same, in that they lead to the one true mystery, The Mystery of Life ...

Note the word "essence" is pretty much as mysterious as "mystery". All mysteries, of course, are mysteries so they are pretty much one and the same and all originate with the mystery of life. If for no other reason that if we didn't exist it wouldn't be a mystery.

As Chuang Tzu said, "Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, or am I really a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" Just as existence is a profound mystery, so too is awareness.

Hence there are several basic interpretations of these mysteries possible. Some say everything is in reality consciousness or awareness (consensual reality as s/he called it). Others say everything is Oneness. Others say change is the only constant and consciousness becomes unconsciousness, etc. While still others say infinity resolves the mystery.

Any and all of these can be mixed and matched according to taste and, if you want, you can say the result is ultimately ineffable. That is, it cannot be expressed.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I thought you were talking about the mystery, but now you are talking about consciousness and life after death. Which is it?

Both. I tried to begin by introducing the nature of mystery itself, in order to suggest a means by which to understand it, and hence the means by which to resolve it (i.e., based upon my own insights). And, since all mysteries are basically one and the same, in that "hidden elements" exist beyond "the facade," I was hoping to touch on both the mystery of life and, the mystery of death, which are basically "paradoxical elements" of the same mystery. This is the "big mystery" as far as I'm concerned. And yet, if people want to talk about mystery in general, that's okay too.

I also felt a bit pressed for time and was unable to take it a step further, i.e., the mystery behind the physical creation of the universe (hence the facade) and the "spriritual essence" behind it. But first I thought I should "try" alluding to the essence within us which is our soul.

And wuliheron thanks for the explanation!

 

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, "What is it about the moment?"

Originally posted by Iacchus32

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone" ... from the song, Dust in the Wind, by Kansas.

So what is it about the moment? Except that it stands outside of time and space? Or, does time and space stand within it? Ahh, could this be the origin of both eternity and infinity?

Ahh, could this be the very connection to an Eternal Creator Who, stands outside of time an space? ... i.e., through the moment? So what is it about the moment that speaks to us about such things? ... "our experience?"

Therefore it must be like they say, how can you experience God or, for that matter anything else, if you can't experience "It" for yourself?

"Be still, and know [experience] that I am God ..." (Psalms 46:10)

Originally posted by Iacchus32

If just for "one moment" we took a snapshot of Creation, everything would exist in the here and now, including time and space, which are infinite. Therefore the moment itself must encompass (i.e., stand outside of) everything. Just picture in your mind for "one moment," the universe as a bubble, and you'll see what I mean.

This is just something to reflect on for now ... it has to do with the nature of the meditation referred to in the thread, "The Advent of Color" (God & Religion section) which, involves "focusing on the moment." It also explains the nature of my new Avatar, which is derived from the meditation. Am still debating on whether or not I should try to begin discussing it there? ... And yes, this would be considered part of The Mystery Within.

 

[Iacchus32]

The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.


And here I would mention (as below) that I died and gave birth to myself, only to be rent to pieces shortly thereafter--which, happened on this very day 16 years ago--only to be reconstituted and give rise to a "New Universe" so to speak ~ http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The truth of God is without, the whole material universe. The Essence of God is within. Whereas the truth is discerned, and the essence is to be experienced. So why do we go to such great lengths to uncover the truth, when we don't partake of the experience which gives birth to it? We seek the truth in "its effect," but we don't seek the Life which leads to it?

The Mystery of Life, is also the mystery of conception and birth.

Iacchus32, what do you mean by "the truth of God is without, the whole material universe"?

Also, is this the right place to be posting about God?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Iacchus32, what do you mean by "the truth of God is without, the whole material universe"?

The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we otherwise call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The whole material world is evidence (the truth), of the mystery that lay within ..." I don't know, does that make sense? The mystery is the beginning (essence), which gives rise to the physical effect, what we also call the truth (or form).

And just as we all have a body, which manifests itself externally (and notice the external layers of our skin are considered "dead"), there's also a living entity or soul within, which dictates to the body what to do.

So why can't we address the Universe in the same fashion? In terms of that which manifests itself outwardly, in the physical sense, and that which exists inwardly as a soul? (consisting of motive, reason, etc.). In other words does the Universe have a soul? If so, then would that be God?

Ah, but you are assuming that we all have living souls within us. This is not the Bible's opinion, and is not a very respected idea within the scientific community.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, but you are assuming that we all have living souls within us. This is not the Bible's opinion, and is not a very respected idea within the scientific community

Then with whom am I speaking, nothing? Either you exist as an entity or you don't.

Sorry, wrong answer.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then with whom am I speaking, nothing? Either you exist as an entity or you don't.

Sorry, wrong answer.

I do exist as an entity, but that doesn't mean that I have something (a soul) that lives within me.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mystery

Wuliheron: What "mystery" are YOU pondering if it doesn't include consciousness or theories about "God"?

IACCHUS 32: I believe the Universe is a living, conscious Entity whose natural forces tend toward ORDER. On the physical "plane" (for want of a better way to express it), matter (which is actually energy, as we "know") accretes due to natural spin and gravity. I believe similar forces are at work in the "non-physical" Universe...namely consciousness (and spirit, as well).

At the moment after the "Big Bang" all "matter" was a "soup" of elementary particles. I think CONSCIOUSNESS is within each particle, and hence was a Soup of Consciousness, too.

After thinking about symmetry for awhile, I came to the thought that consciousness accretes through a natural force corresponding to gravity, and that these "coherent chuncks of energy" -- like the disembodies spirit -- would "hold together" because, after all (and I mean that LITERALLY), the whole process if to expand -- have the Experience -- and contract... then burst forth again into the Universe's NEXT incarnation.

What say you?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
I do exist as an entity, but that doesn't mean that I have something (a soul) that lives within me.

The living entity which is "you," is your soul. Isn't this what the dictionary also refers to as psyche? Don't you believe you have a psyche?

Also, if you die, do you think you would still be in contact with your dead corpse? Where would "you" go?

 

[FZ+]

Nein!
Your psyche is made up of your experiences, instincts etc. The components make the whole. There is no one, reductionist "soul" in the middle of it all. The group exists, but a puppeteer of the players of the mind does not. You talk to the sum of existence and experience, and this is the entity, not a singularity. Nothing lives within you. You just live.

If you die, you die. The components of the whole cease to be together. They change, fall apart, stop working. While the physical parts of you still exist, the complex pattern they make up, that generate the "entity" cease to be. Where does a picture go when the canvas is burnt? Nowhere.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

IACCHUS 32: I believe the Universe is a living, conscious Entity whose natural forces tend toward ORDER. On the physical "plane" (for want of a better way to express it), matter (which is actually energy, as we "know") accretes due to natural spin and gravity. I believe similar forces are at work in the "non-physical" Universe...namely consciousness (and spirit, as well).

I believe there's a similarity between the two, except that the spiritual realm is more "fluid" and in a state of flux, otherwise it wouldn't be able to "abide" in the subconscious realm. Whereas from top to bottom, Heaven and Hell if you will (pardon me), there is a constant influx by which everything exists, both internally and externally.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

At the moment after the "Big Bang" all "matter" was a "soup" of elementary particles. I think CONSCIOUSNESS is within each particle, and hence was a Soup of Consciousness, too.

If the Universe is conscious, just as with "our soul," then that would imply consciousness resides within matter.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

After thinking about symmetry for awhile, I came to the thought that consciousness accretes through a natural force corresponding to gravity, and that these "coherent chuncks of energy" -- like the disembodies spirit -- would "hold together" because, after all (and I mean that LITERALLY), the whole process if to expand -- have the Experience -- and contract... then burst forth again into the Universe's NEXT incarnation.

What say you?

Originally posted by Iacchus32

But what of the hidden mystery that lies beyond the forms? What are the inner-dynamics behind this incredible facade we call "objective reality?" Do we really understand what's going on underneath? For instance let's say we take two objects, one that is inanimate, like a rock, and the other which is alive, like a human being? Now the rock will pretty much remain a rock indefinitely, and still retain the energy field that defines it as a rock. But with a human being it's a different story. Granted that when we die we leave behind a corpse, and the corpse will retain the energy field of a dead corpse.

But that's just it, where does all this "conscious energy" which, defines our very existence, go? And I don't mean sometime later, but almost immediately after death? There's obviously some sort of energy pattern or field there when we're alive, but where does it go when we die? Does it just dissipate into the atmosphere? Or, as I'm inclined to believe, does it retain its pattern and return to say, the "collective unconscious?" I can hardly imagine this "living entity," which consolidates itself in a living form (my body), would just dissipate at death. There's just too much consistency about it to suggest otherwise. Or else why would it cling so steadfastly, and coherently, to my body in the first place? Except perhaps for one exception, where do we go when we dream? Now that's a strong indication right there!

By the way, I did die and give birth to myself, only to be rent to pieces shortly thereafter--which, happened on this very day 16 years ago--only to be reconstituted and give rise to a "New Universe" so to speak ~ http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+

Nein!
Your psyche is made up of your experiences, instincts etc. The components make the whole. There is no one, reductionist "soul" in the middle of it all. The group exists, but a puppeteer of the players of the mind does not. You talk to the sum of existence and experience, and this is the entity, not a singularity. Nothing lives within you. You just live.

If you die, you die. The components of the whole cease to be together. They change, fall apart, stop working. While the physical parts of you still exist, the complex pattern they make up, that generate the "entity" cease to be. Where does a picture go when the canvas is burnt? Nowhere.

Where's your proof? All you have is the "dead" external facts. Also, would say the picture is alive? (before it is burnt). Or, just a compilation of "dead forms" mixed together in a way to create a "new" dead form?

 

[FZ+]

Where's your proof? You claim that the best conclusion you draw is the existence of the essence, but I show an equally, if not more probable conclusion. Dead external facts? Oh, so where are these live internal lies then?
But in this case, there is somewhat more evidence. The idea of education as being capable of affecting behaviour. The principle of brainwashing. Tons of neuroscience experiments. Mathematical models of neural networking in the brain. Tests of how your neurones function. All suggest that the mind is generated by the conglomerate of nerve cells together. We have even see it working in scans. We can even affect it with targeted magnetic fields. No evidence of soul, essence etc can be found. Indeed, it may by definition be never found.

Is DNA alive? no. Are enzymes alive? No. Are proteins alive? No. But together they make a cell, which we term living. If we grind up a cell, do we have powdered life? Our definition of life is very much subjective, and is based on what we feel, rather than an idea of inherent "livingness". It is to do with structures and patterns, not the composition. Hence the painting. To an observer, the painting has meaning. It has emotion. It has something beyond just a combination of chemicals. But once burnt, it is meaningless, just a pile of ash. The incredible structure of a human has meaning. It has life. But once it is destroyed, it no longer has it. The pattern has been destroyed. Just another pile of dirt.

 

[Iacchus32]

From PF 2.0 thread, An unbound existence ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Yes, but where do we go when we dream? Now that's a whole new world (dimension) unto itself. It's not tangible in the sense that we can see it or touch it, at least in this world, and yet we've all been there ... Is it possible this is where we go when we die?

From PF 2.0 thread, Whose Dream Is It Anyway? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.

 

[wuliheron]

Wuliheron: What "mystery" are YOU pondering if it doesn't include consciousness or theories about "God"?

The mystery of identity and, ultimately, existence again. That's pretty much what I think these guys are debating. Psychological studies provide some meaningful insight into this mystery, whereas, I think debating materialistic and supernatural viewpoints gets you nowhere fast.

John Lilly was one of the few researchers to do work in this area before psychedelic drugs were banned from research. He had two psychologists hypnotize him while he took LSD and lay down between two speakers playing classical music. Over a series of such experiments a vivid hallucination emerged.

Lilly dreamed he was a robot and the devil was pushing the buttons that made him act and react. Upon closer examination, the devil himself was discovered to be a robot as well. His nightmare then was symbolic of a kind of doubt each of us might harbor to various extents in light of the paradox of existence.

Is it live or is it memorex? Are we real or illusory? How do we find security and identity under such circumstances? Does existence create us or do we create existence? Is there any difference between ourselves and existence?

If we take the view that logic and science must answer these questions, ultimately we undermine our own identity as individuals possessed of free will and living meaningful lives. If we take the opposite tack of the supernatural, we undermine logic and science which have proven so useful. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. :0)

 

[FZ+]

Yes, but where do we go when we dream? Now that's a whole new world (dimension) unto itself. It's not tangible in the sense that we can see it or touch it, at least in this world, and yet we've all been there ... Is it possible this is where we go when we die?

A nice dream, but I think a bit of wishful thinking. Consciousness is remade each time we wake from the peices of memory that make up what we are. Are you conscious when you sleep? When dreaming you are still conscious, but that consciousness is introspective - scans show that you are accessing your imagination, your memories. Death is final.

Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

But funnily enough, that is a self undermining statement. Why do you believe in the existence of these other entities. Because you look for the precise same "electrochemical process", the same "brain". You identify the idea of human beings by the very method you shun. If you abandon it, you abandon all but the self. Then there is no experience other than your dreams.
Why do you post? Why do you talk? Because you apply your subjective view to the world. Because you think that what looks like a human is a human. Because you don't really use the idea of a vague essence, but base your decisions on the structure and patterns of material existence around you.

 

[Iacchus32]

Origninally posted by wuliheron

If we take the view that logic and science must answer these questions, ultimately we undermine our own identity as individuals possessed of free will and living meaningful lives. If we take the opposite tack of the supernatural, we undermine logic and science which have proven so useful. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

The problem is that we've become polarized in our views, which isn't to say they can't beome integrated, "as one," right?


From the thread, The Paradox of Existence ...

Origninally posted by wuliheron

This is something Asians tend to know so well, but the west has made a great deal of progress in the sciences by denying the validity of paradox so that has become the western tradition. With the advent of QM and Relativity, however, paradox is once again commanding more respect in the west.

Origninally posted by Iacchus32

This is the yin and yang of it all right? Which speaks of the duality of things, which are opposite and yet inseperable and hence, the foundation for everything ... Is this what you mean by paradox?

Therefore, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and also, 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

And from the "one mind" we have fallen, to accept "the two," and hence the "knowledge of opposites" ... regarding the fall from the Garden of Eden.

Where before the fall, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 ... and afterwards, 1 + 1 = 2 (where we don't embrace the opposites a whole, but rather as singular and "seperate").

 

[wuliheron]

The problem is that we've become polarized in our views, which isn't to say they can't beome integrated, "as one," right?

Its really the opposite. The rational and irrational are inseperable like up and down. The polarity of the west towards the rational is illusory denial of the unified reality. What is required then is not an effort to integrate the two so much as find acceptance for the reality of their already existent integration.

Again, the first serious step in this direction has already occured. Radical Behaviorists have discovered how behavioral models and cognative models can be reconciled by assuming context is more important than content. Thus, the rational approach has finally come full circle and is faced with its own irrational origins. By its own rational standards, it can no longer deny the nature or usefulness of this more integrated approach. Thus, denial inevitably leads back to acceptance, rejection leads back to inclusiveness, dis-integration leads back to integration, etc.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Its really the opposite. The rational and irrational are inseperable like up and down. The polarity of the west towards the rational is illusory denial of the unified reality. What is required then is not an effort to integrate the two so much as find acceptance for the reality of their already existent integration.

When we become polarized we go to extremes, when we become balanced in our views and accept the differences of either side we become "integrated" ... just as we have a left brain and a right brain which are supposed to act "co-dependently."

I'm not sure there's really much difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying here?

 

[wuliheron]

When we become polarized we go to extremes, when we become balanced in our views and accept the differences of either side we become "integrated" ... just as we have a left brain and a right brain which are supposed to act "co-dependently."

Balance is more of an issue for Buddhists than Taoists. This also makes sense in light of your other focuses on consciousness and consensual reality. Essentially, it is the more Pantheistic view of the mystery within. Thus, in some ways it denies it is a mystery.

As I asked earlier, which is it you wish to discuss? The mystery within or consciousness or consensual reality?

Certainly you can look at the brain as being composed of two brains, but the reality is a more complex whole. When CAT scanners first became widely established in hospitals they would scan anyone and everyone that came through the door with a head injury in order to establish a base line of scans with which to later compare others with. A popular Yale honors student came in with a volleyball related injury.

It turned out he had 13 percent of a normal human brain, mostly in the occipital and right periotal areas. Many other follow up studies of left and right brain theory showed similar results. In other words, it is a gross oversimplification to assume this kind of polarity is a dominant feature. The reality is much more fluid.

Likewise, the reality of our already existent integration of the rational and irrational provides a more complete and elegant view of the situation in general. Rather than automatically assuming a causal view of balanced opposites it provides a broader context within which these can also be found.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Balance is more of an issue for Buddhists than Taoists. This also makes sense in light of your other focuses on consciousness and consensual reality. Essentially, it is the more Pantheistic view of the mystery within. Thus, in some ways it denies it is a mystery.

As I asked earlier, which is it you wish to discuss? The mystery within or consciousness or consensual reality?

A mystery is only a mystery to the extent that we don't understand what it is. And to the extent that we do, then it's no longer a mystery. So if this can be applied to just about any mystery, then why couldn't it be applied to all mysteries? Therefore, I'm speaking about what is a mystery and what is not a mystery, and hence both.

The reason I start with the Mystery Within (I'm not sure if this has formerly been addressed as such, but it almost sounds that way according to your statements), is that it allows me to refer to the "external nature" of things and, the "internal nature" of things, whereby it's much easier to understand that which is "external" (and observable), to that which is "internal" and may indeed be termed "a mystery" by others. So it seemed like a good way to get at that which may not be readily apparent (and deemed a mystery).

Originally posted by wuliheron

Likewise, the reality of our already existent integration of the rational and irrational provides a more complete and elegant view of the situation in general. Rather than automatically assuming a causal view of balanced opposites it provides a broader context within which these can also be found.

But still, it seems like we exist in one of two camps, that which is rational (science), and that which is irrational (religion).

 

[wuliheron]

But still, it seems like we exist in one of two camps, that which is rational (science), and that which is irrational (religion).

Yes, but when we meditate, under go sensory deprevation, etc. the distinctions disappear. Many Taoists I know, for example, will talk about "Taoing down the highway" and whatnot. They start meditating while driving and suddenly find themselves at their destination. This is also what professional dancers, musicians, and others relate as their experience while performing. All distinctions are distractions from just doing what they are doing, so they often prefer to just stop making distinctions.

One way to view this phenomenon is that they become integrated on all levels, the other is that they drop the pretense of not being an integrated and whole human being. A common Asian metaphor for the mind is a Cyclone or hurricane. Around the calm center fly all of our beliefs, preconceptions, and desires clashing and crashing and generally wreaking havoc. When we let them go, we allow ourselves to instead just occupy the calm center.

Again, rather than doing something in particular, the idea is to stop doing so much. This same idea has been demonstrated in certain brain scans as well. More intelligent people, for example, have paradoxically been shown to think less. Their mind just adds A+B and gets the answer while less intelligent people tend to take more circuitious routes to derive the same answer.

 

[Iacchus32]

Origianlly posted by Iacchus32

A mystery is only a mystery to the extent that we don't understand what it is. And to the extent that we do, then it's no longer a mystery. So if this can be applied to just about any mystery, then why couldn't it be applied to all mysteries? Therefore, I'm speaking about what is a mystery and what is not a mystery, and hence both.

Then again, if the ultimate mystery is the Mystery of Life, and I believed there was a God responsible for this, then why can't I use the nature of mystery to help define what we already call mysterious, God?

So from the Mystery Within, it leads to the Mystery of Life, and hence the Mystery of God which, I believe is definable ... or at least up to a point, as I've been able to define it for myself ... which I couldn't have done if I didn't know where to begin, i.e., "within."

 

[wuliheron]

Then again, if the ultimate mystery is the Mystery of Life, and I believed there was a God responsible for this, then why can't I use the nature of mystery to help define what we already call mysterious, God?

So from the Mystery Within, it leads to the Mystery of Life, and hence the Mystery of God which, I believe is definable ... or at least up to a point, as I've been able to define it for myself ... which I couldn't have done if I didn't know where to begin, i.e., "within."

Yeah, you can do that. But with each new abstraction it looses more of its mystery and, possibly, acquires more of our abstractions rather than describing the reality which may be ineffable. Thus even a devout believer in a God might prefer instead to simply meditate and experience the mystery. You might say, surrender to God.

This is one of the areas where both Atheists and Believers can find common ground and acceptance. As Taoists like to say, "Many paths, one mountain." One doesn't convert to Taoism, it either suits who you are and your relationship with the mystery or it doesn't.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron

Yes, but when we meditate, under go sensory deprevation, etc. the distinctions disappear. Many Taoists I know, for example, will talk about "Taoing down the highway" and whatnot. They start meditating while driving and suddenly find themselves at their destination. This is also what professional dancers, musicians, and others relate as their experience while performing. All distinctions are distractions from just doing what they are doing, so they often prefer to just stop making distinctions.

See my new Avatar to the left, this is actually one of the effects I achieve when practicing the meditation I've been working with for the past number of years. What it signifies is a coming to terms of what I'm thinking about, be it past, present or future concerns, while bringing both thoughts and feelings into context with the "present moment," at which point the effect begins to occur. I go into more detail with this in the thread, "The Advent of Color" (in God & Religion section).

 

[wuliheron]

I've talked to a number of people who experience such things while meditating. Most of the time it occurs when they meditate in the dark and like sensory deprevation they experience vivid cartoons. Giant purple ants, hearts, whatever. Again, as I said before, ulitmately sensory deprevation leads to visions of pure geometric figures.

The ancient chant "Om Mani Padme Om" according to legend contains all the basic shapes within it. Supposidly according to one sandbox experiment I read about and can't varify it does. The square, triangle, circle and whatever.

Rather than sensory deprevation or sitting meditation, most Taoist meditations are moving meditations like Tai Chi and Qi Gong and Yoga. Part of the idea to remain centered in the reality of the living moment rather than getting distracted with mental stuff.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+

But funnily enough, that is a self undermining statement. Why do you believe in the existence of these other entities. Because you look for the precise same "electrochemical process", the same "brain". You identify the idea of human beings by the very method you shun. If you abandon it, you abandon all but the self. Then there is no experience other than your dreams.
Why do you post? Why do you talk? Because you apply your subjective view to the world. Because you think that what looks like a human is a human. Because you don't really use the idea of a vague essence, but base your decisions on the structure and patterns of material existence around you.

I reposted this part about dreams by the way, because when I did a cut & paste it didn't include the second paragraph here. Don't know if it will make any difference or not, but thought I would let you know anyway.


From PF 2.0 thread, Whose Dream Is It Anyway? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? I know for me there's always some sort of interaction going on, and it's hard to believe it's merely a by-product of some electro-chemical process going on in the brain. What are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? It's like I had always been there, and yet separate, as if I were a separate entity. Which, is pretty much the way I experience them.

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

And yet there are times when I become more concsious in this state and I say, "By the way, I haven't died yet." And they all look at me with puzzled faces and say, "What do mean? It's always been this way. This is it man (reality)." And it's about this time that I begin to wake up, and realize that I'm laying in bed, and there they are still looking at me! And I say, "Hey, I tried to explain it you!" Soon after they would all depart and I would go back to my being unaware of them.

Actually it's this kind of "lucid dreaming" state that I believe would account for what people term "alien abduction," for which reason I think the idea of abduction is very unlikely.

Now as for a "spiritual encounter," that would be another story. For if in indeed our dreams were like a portal to another dimension, then it would be much easier to explain the existence of God, than that of extraterrestrial existence.

 

[Iacchus32]

God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

Thus instead of going out on a fact finding mission to determine whether or not the sky is blue, why can't you just look at the sky and "experience" that it's blue? Otherwise you would have to continue to debate and argue about it in order to maintain that it's blue, when in fact all you need to do is look at it and acknowledge it for yourself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
God as "a fact" is dead. God as "an experience" is alive.

Thus instead of going out on a fact finding mission to determine whether or not the sky is blue, why can't you just look at the sky and "experience" that it's blue? Otherwise you would have to continue to debate and argue about it in order to maintain that it's blue, when in fact all you need to do is look at it and acknowledge it for yourself.

Why do you speak of God as either fact or experience? God is supposed to be a person.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why do you speak of God as either fact or experience? God is supposed to be a person.

Just for starters I have an external shell (outer layer of skin) which comes into to contact with the external world which, for all intents and purposes "is dead." Isn't this what the doctors say? If so, then when people look at me, all they really see is the "dead facts." They don't see the real person on the inside, which is me, nor "the experience" that that entails.

So in this respect everything which is external is factual, and yet dead. Whereas everything held within context of the "factual shell," which is "experiencable," is alive. Therefore when speaking of the material universe, in it's visible form, we're speaking of external dead facts. And yet, to the extent that life remains within the form, then the form becomes animate and has a sense of purpose (or soul). This is the experiece we call life. While it's also the experience that tells you you're not going to find the experience of "God the person" by sorting through the dead facts, but rather, by looking towards the "experience within."

Does that make any sense? While it's almost the same correlation I make in the other thread, Knowledge versus Wisdom. Similarly, Wisdom is to be found by maintaining the "life within."