iain

come day of the dead
nought hallowed but me & my
in debased nature.

... And therefore the earth goes around the sun and the moon goes around earth.

 

Does the moon go around the sun?

Yes, but it is the angle between the Sun and Moon that is most interesting; this is the foundation of both the Indian and Chinese calendars.

Oh, but we do. On one of the missions to the moon a reflector was placed on the moon and they can actually measure the distance using a laser beam sent from earth, reflected off the moon and returned to earth. The time for the full cycle is used to determine the distance.

 

Well, if a woman misses her cycle something dramatic has happened. I suppose it would be dramatic too if the moon missed one of its cycles.

The sample time period used is so small that we really have no idea; the angular velocity (speed) of the Moon varies enormously also. I think due to the effect of the mass of the water on earth.

I am sure that the Higgs Boson can quite feasibly alter the calculations here; when it finally seeps into the general conciousness.

Ummm...

 

Such as...?

Silly Billy;

 

Indisputable proof of Occidental superiority ...

 

Or was that:

 

Indisputable proof of an Occidental superiority complex?

 

 

 

Okay.

 

Distance of Earth from Sun: 149,597,870,700 meters

Average distance of Moon from Earth: 384,403,000 meters

Current ratio: 389.169,363,~ to 1

 

The distance between Earth and the Moon is increasing by 3.8 centimeters per year.

 

The distance between the Earth and the Moon is significant because the Moon moderates Earth's orbital wobble thereby allowing for the seasons to be what they are. Without the Moon Earth's wobble would be much greater and it is likely that the wobble would be too great for life to have formed on Earth.

 

The Moon also controls the oceans' tides and although I have forgotten what that means it is important.

 

Ratio between distance and diameter, not between consecutive distances; Please let me demonstrate if maths and science are not your forte:

 

Distance to Sun from Earth: 150000000000m

Linear diameter of Sun: 1392000000m

 

150000000000 / 1392000000 = 107.8

 

Distance from Moon to Earth varies between: 363104000m & 405696000m

Linear diameter of the Moon: 3474000m

 

363104000 / 3474000 = 104.5

405696000 / 3474000 = 116.8

 

We do not know if the Moon is oscillating or moving away from us, the value given is over a very short sample time period.

 

The lunar month is the same length as the average length of a Woman's menstrual cycle.

(Curve ball added for effect and fun).

It seems there are two questions here. I will speak to both.

Are you suggesting the universe did not exist until there was someone to observe it?

No.

 

That it may exists so that some can observe it is another matter, but not my suggestion above.

 

The entire universe was objective (and still is) before there were any plants or animals on this planet. The universe did not need humans to place their value judgements on it in order for it to exist.

 

See remark on universal conciousness ...

 

 

The house I am living in here in Florida didn't need me in order for it to exist. I was living in Augusta, Georgia when it was built and had no knowledge of it being built.

 

With all due respect this is quite irrelevant to the current discussion, please reread my first response to the nature of conciousness, as existing before humans; Ego is the delusion of free will, it is a product of conciousness but it is not not conciousness; we have grown into a shoe that fits.

 

 

I did answer the question in a 'round about way but you apparently missed it.

 

Where?

But I cannot read it the way you want me to because I do not hold to the concept of any consciousness beyond what is experienced in a conscious brain or nervous system (this includes plants to a certain degree).

 

Well, that's why we speak with each other. To test our own understandings.

 

“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.” ... Bruce Lee, Enter the Dragon.

The glue was hypothetically holding the scientific axioms together; CERN has found that Glue its called the higgs boson, observed whilst colliding Hadrons.

In vedanga jyotish we call it Akash tattva and have done for a very long time.

Are there really any results from the work at CERN? I think that all they have done is collect data and submitted hypotheses. There is still a lot of work to do in order to test the hypotheses.

 

That is all science can ever do.

 

 

Yes, glaring at the sun will cause blindness of the eyes. Believing in illusions and delusions will cause blindness of the mind.

 

 

Quite, objectivity is highly illusory with out knowledge of subjectivity, the sky is not solid blue object, it is glare from the sun.

 

 

 

From Wikipedia: ... dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.

 

Higgs had nothing to do with it.

 

 

Ok, I stand corrected, so Higgs postulated a subjective glue to make that standard model fit that which was observed.

 

 

I seem to have forgotten your simple question. Would you please present it again?

 

Post #108

 

The second question; I will propose a 3rd response:

 

c). That this is insignificant and has had no effect at all upon events on planet earth.

 

Else, please do feel free to explain this phenomenon how you see fit.

Oh, yes, I'm not suggesting that there is no underlying objective stuff. I guess I am suggesting that we never experience the whole of it -- that our experience is incomplete.

 

And if our perceptions are incomplete / subjective, our language is subjective, and our use of and understanding of numbers and language is subject to subjectivity.... almost all of what we think and say and do is subjective.

 

 

 

We see the moon, but not (necessarily) in the same way.

 

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=30670#.VFi0PslaaZQ

 

Part of a fascinating documentary, well worth a watch.

Great documentary; thank you for posting.

 

Give it your best shot.

But the moon used to be much closer to the earth than it is now. Its distance from the earth is gradually increasing and it won't be long when it will be far enough away so that we will never again see a full solar eclipse.

Oh, it goes much deeper than that. Our moon is likely a result of a collision of early earth and another mini-planet. The result of the collision sent parts of earth and the mini-planet into space where they were drawn together by gravity and created the moon. (That's the best guess right now.)

Says who; are they not familiar with the latest results from CERN?

 

 

If you are gazing at the sun you should wear shades.

It is my opinion that the Higgs Boson has been given more significance than it deserves.

The arms are held in place by Dark Matter. (Best guess right now.)

I study the sky at night it is far less illusory, and the angle between the Sun and the Moon; Observation of the Sun is for those who worship the Gregorian calendar.

You might consider re-reading the maths and hypothesis, the Higgs Boson is that which implied the existence of Dark Matter.

You have avoided answering my simple question ...

My, My, you put so much importance on the human animal. Hehehe

On conciousness not on humans, you misread the above; did you read the rest?

 

Actually I must thank you, as I have just realised quite an interesting hypothesis whilst writing that ...

Objective reality is a given. It existed before man began walking the earth. Our planet has had a moon for about 4 billion years. Then man came along and started defining what the moon is. These are mostly subjective opinions. Later we gained enough knowledge to properly define it is objective terms.

 

I agree with you that all too often we, humans, classify the objective in ways that make us feel good. They are lies but that doesn't matter.

 

All physical experiences, unless premeditated, are objective experiences until we start thinking about the experience. This is when they become subjective.

 

We view the moon in the sky and say, "Look, there's the moon." The other person says, "Yep". Totally objective. But then another person comes along and says, "The moon is bright tonight." Subjective.

Hello Marbles,

 

How is it objective if nobody is there to observe it?

If I might ask a simple question here, to highlight why or how subjectivity can be and, I believe is, universal:

 

Why does the moon have the same distance to diameter ratio as the Sun from Earth, if the "Newtonian" odds are close to infinitely stacked against this happening?

Is this more likely the result of:

 

a). An exterior force, that of mass relativity and gravity; an objective force.

 

or

 

. An interior force from the energy from the void or within; that we might chose to call subjective energy.

 

love the shades; they were not intentional ...

Buddha's booming laugh.
Heard from far a yonder was,
a game of whispers.

Thank you for the links; What a beautiful tradition, I was unaware of the relevance to yin and yang in the series generation of the I-Ching.

Similar in some ways to the generation of prashna (question) charts in vedic astrology, though much simpler, divine.

Are there any similarity's between I-Ching and the formulation of Chinese astrology?

Highlighting the importance of understanding the transcendental nature of knowledge; how words change over time so does understanding. The very language and alphabet that we use, effects the way that we perceive the world.
Our conciousness is inevitably structured by our language; to more or less of a degree.
Visual thinkers perhaps less so than grammarians.

Ok so I will have to resort to Sanskrit; English is far to linear a language for this to make any sense what so ever ...

How to know if all parties can even differentiate all of the sounds?

The musicians will do fine, but the others well, they will have to skip the bits that they don't understand ...

 

 

Rember its a aural tradition and language, it loses something when written down; rather like a pastry recipe. I can almost smell the butter cooking; it's an old family secret.

 

Objective enough for you?

I like to think of Subjectivity, objectivity as different types of people; some with in wards pointing personalities; some with outwards pointing personalities.

Rather like belly buttons if you will humour me that. Dictionaries are detrimental to understanding this as they are all written by outies!

Hello Dark Night,

 

Sounds like you are having a rough time, sorry to hear that. I find that it is key to learn to ignore the high; become aware of ones state; it is in riding the high ever higher that we set our selves up to then fall so low. If you can break away from the experience and become an observer of it rather than being swept by it you can observe that there is a 3rd axis; their is not only high or low; a place to rest also exists, but it can only be found in awareness of one's energetic state, in self awareness.

The whole process is driven by desire, though it takes time to know our selves well enough to know exactly what they are and why they are pulling us around so much.

A few more musings on this one, it is a fascinating topic ...

I think IQ is is a key factor in that which makes for either heard or lone wolf character types ...
No need to measure it, or know what your is, this phenomenon just emerges as such from the status quo regardless of the quotient. As such, those predisposed to a heard mentality, like to compare penis size/Brest firmness, strength and intelligence; all as key factors for sexual and long term partner selection; whilst the person being wooed is quite possibly sneaking of round the back for a quickie with a lone wolf passing through. Alternativly a lone wolf couple may pair for life to form a new pack.
What is relevance any way and am I really comparing human nature to that of a dogs?
What is the retention of sexuality in those of higher conciousness, and its relevance to intelligence?
Lots of questions on this key subject.

Is intelligence perhaps a rather practical feather, in the tail of a bird; As a quotient it becomes an ornate earring of sorts and no more useful than that ...

More questions than answers, sorry for that.

hoards tons of turnips.
in noble regent kitchen,
It's Baldrick's delight.

Likewise!

 

Youve got it backwards. at least by Kashmir Shaivite standards. He is called the 'supreme subjectivity' because he is the knower not the known. The KS folk would more happily call the world objective, because it is known. But Also the world is Shakti which is energy and change, so to me, that is still pretty 'subjective'

 

 

That was not a Kashmire Shavite view and I'm not strictly śavite; that perspective was of another principle which recognises the need for duality to exist for Narayana to be universal, the principle is "shabda brahman".

Rather like a Klein bottle if you are fond of topology.

 

 

Page 115-116 in Mishra's KS work, second paragraph in chapter 'Siva is subject-consciousness': Consciousness always remains the subject, or the knower, and never becomes the object, or the known.

hell no, I studied KS for nearly 20 years, and while Its no longer my tradition, I still have a great Love for it.

 

 

I have been studying the shavite text for 2 or 3 years, but my understanding is based in direct experiences of Śaktipāta. Which have happens now twice over a 20 year period, first at 19.

Only last night I have learnt of the meaning of an Aghora mantra that was particularly dear to swami Lakshman Ju:

 

aparā - inferiour - ghoratarī energies.

parāparā - medium - ghora energies.

parā - supream - aghora energies.

 

These energies are the cause of the them of this thread.

 

Which explain the 3 states of sivas energy in trika shavism; Swami Ji clearly states that sattvic practise should be maintained so as to ease the transition when one is lifted by aghora energies. I can confirm this from experiance; though rather than easing, I would stress that it saves your life in the worst case and your sanity and lifes path in the rest ...

I am blessed to be sattvic naturally (very rajasic it times but then aghora is rajasic in nature) which has saved my life.

 

Refer to ch 11 of the BG for further explanation. We should have no fear of this, but if it occurs with out master a then it can be devastating.

 

 

Tattvas are a top down model. The organs of cognition do not feed 'Maya' they are a result of her...

hmm you have a strange approach to the teachings or am I misunderstanding your meaning?

May I ask where you study?

 

 

The real world is very real, else śiva is not.

The teachings I am in accordance with are those of swami lakshman jū, I am particularly impressed by his explanation of the śiva sutra's.

 

Are aware that kundalini can be perceived in different ways?

I study in Bhim Tal in India. Though not Kashmir Shavism their I study Vedanga Jyotish which starts with the abc; I do not like to limit my studies to one school although my experience with God conciousness in the universe give me a very strong affinity with the philosophy.

 

Yes it is a beautiful philosophy, I am glad that you have found such harmony there; do you sing any of the mantras after such long study?

Hello Seth Ananda, it is a pleasure to meet you.

Well, since you mentioned Kashmir Shaivism earlier, ParamaShiva is called the supreme subjectivity, while everything else is hmm, just subjective?

parāmaśiva's will to experience his own nature is achieved by way of sakti or I-ness; for this he must be objective. If only one dimension exists, subjectively a dot or bindu, then time will not manifest. where as visarga implies an inherent need for duality.
Rather like the polarity of a battery.

Infact the subjective and intersubjective perception is inherently relational in nature, yet does not blur into homogenization as it is utterly diverse.
Mystical experiences, regardless of whether it describes an accurate map of the universe {everything floating in one big superconsciousness for instance} is more easily achieved and integrated, as the ego softens and gains more flexibility

I do agree fully but though from a state of ignorance or darkness, it will tend to happen spontaneously often violently.

I don't really see that way. The experience mystics describe is still subjective. As is any foundational consciousness. One might argue that a 'supreme consciousness' could be objective if it literally was everything, and was experiencing everything from every possible point of view, but to me that still seems subjective

Perhaps you feel more drawn to the advaita philosophy, rather than Kashmir shavite; We all have our own perspectives of that I have no doubt.

No one has ever been emerged in objective experience, and no, believing in objectivity causes only pain, separation from our inner beings, distance from nature and environmental destruction. It does not have a single redeeming or positive feature.

You are quite right, I meant immersed not emerged, in kashmir shavism this is the tattva or sheath known as māyā it is a śakti of parāmaśiva, thus my previous reference to objectivity it is an "apparent" objectivity in the illusion of individuality.

māyā tattva is one of six coverings or sheaths. The illusion of individuality fed by the five tattva that are organs of cognition.

oh I love these philosophies!

To my mind IQ is like the temperature scale; nodal and irrelevant to one who studies the different states of matter them selves as elements and not the scale its self or its cause. The differing states of matter in relation to temperature for example are much more tangible that temperature scale its self.
You might assimilate the IQ quotient in this light, to the different states of being defined by the "cast" system in India, but nothing more conclusive than that.

To my mind, It is the inter state periods that are most interesting; those of change.
When, for example, a Bhramin of ksatrya decide to leave their cast.

If a genius builds a bomb that destroys the world, where is his IQ on a scale of practical Darwinian success, at the top or the bottom?

Perhaps it is an average IQ of 108 that gives the most successful and stable rate of reproduction ...

IQ and EQ seem to me to be to strongly interrelated to be taken into account separately, very misleading to do so.

through strawberry fields

children run away from trust,
and the farmer's greed ...

.

 

Those who believe in levitation, raise my hand.

Kurt Vonnegut

 

I know that levitation is possible, in fact I have made several take-offs, it is the crash landing that has been difficult; I am hoping that on my next attempt I might remain elevated.

It is in interpretation that I no faith.