Questions for the scientists in our midst

[Marblehead]

What a lovely topic for discussion. Okay. As in, it's alright, I guess.

 

We can go through life thinking that everything is okay. But if I had my preferences would the present conditions still be okay?

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

You never did tell me what you think about Ben's statement. Do you think he is on track or did he get derailed?

[Stosh]

I think he may have said it out of the arrogance with which propertied folks considered the unpropertied folks, it could be a self serving statement that the well of have often used to defend why they have and others do not,, that being said , the statement can also be seen as potentially compassionate because its true that without personal motivations gifts are little appreciated and do nothing to fix the situation of povery long term, cash may be a panacea which trains dependence or leads to even worse situations as does the hummingbird feeder left out too late in the autumn. Additionally leaving folks to the choices they wish to make, is often what is really compassionate, they literally may say , "mind your own business I can do it myself" or they just want a tiny push or point in the proper direction.

 

We can go through life thinking that everything is okay. But if I had my preferences would the present conditions still be okay?

 

I suppose there have been times that were really great and times not so great, and yet ,in this time and place you can be OK with what is, So your OKness already is precedented. even so One can still keep an eye on what might be , so long as you dont get pulled away from your peace thats not a problem as I see it.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay.

 

 

Hehehe.

 

 

Fair response. Yes, it could be looked at from either of your two points of view.

 

From you first consideration I would say that compassion is totally lacking.

 

And even to your second consideration, we can generalize and say that most people would rather fend for themselves than to have to rely on governments or other people. But then, there are some who are perfectly happy (they think) living off the efforts of others.

 

But in my opinion, even compassion can go only so far. There comes a time when the person you are trying to help has to do something on their own to improve their condition.

[Stosh]

Yep

Have a nice weekend if I dont check in.

[Marblehead]

Yep

Have a nice weekend if I dont check in.

Thanks. You too. I have no plans to go anywhere so I will likely be in and out of this place over the weekend.

[manitou]

ZYD said:

 

"Contrary to common belief 'Golden Rule' ethical injunctions are not 'religious' in origin, but are common to both ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy and can be viewed as a normative precept involving self-knowledge and empathy rather than a religious 'revelation'. Often invoked as an ideal of conduct, what Axelrod and Rapaport did was to demonstrate that this was also a practical strategy as well as a an ideal, with the implication that it would evolve naturally in living systems."

 

 

This certainly rings true. Whether we're talking about metaphysics, the Dao, Shamanism (of the Castaneda variety), Vedanta, Freemasonry and the 33rd degree, Islam, Kabbalah, or mystic Christianity - they all go to self-knowledge and Empathy. Or, as I see it, the Golden Rule, or Love your Brother as Yourself. Every person on earth is our brother. When we come to the Self Realization (or self-knowledge as you said above) we have gone beyond the religious 'revelation', imposed from the outside. No amount of reading will find it. We can read about it, but until the experience happens it is just words. Once the inner gulps of Awareness are realized, it becomes the flame of kundalini, the inner awareness, the alchemy of spirit which changes everything. And to talk about it just sounds, well, crazy.

 

To tap into this principle is to tap into the naturally evolving dynamic (or strategy, as you say above, if done intentionally, such as wu-wei) is to allow this principle to happen by getting out of the way. The universe in and of itself will unfold in a perfect way, ultimately - and it is the interference of man as the projector (if he is a contorted projector) that makes it otherwise. From the inside to the outside. Not the other way around.

 

How can we possibly put words on this stuff? It's ineffable. Such folly to even try

 

 

[Marblehead]

Well, if it is ineffable then we could just say "eff it!".

 

But we won't do that.

 

And then, I have a question to someting you said above: If it are humans in the way of the universe unfolding in a perfect way, and all humans were to disappear from the universe, would anything matter? There would be no one for it to matter to. And besides, I think the universe is doing just fine. Yes, even with we animals on this rather insignificant planet in this rather commonly small galaxy.

[manitou]

I've sometimes wondered if the rocks weren't the original witnesses.

[Marblehead]

I've sometimes wondered if the rocks weren't the original witnesses.

Well, if you want to personify rocks (the heavier elements) then, yeah, they would have been the original witnesses.

 

BTW Has your question in the opening post been addressed properly yet?

[manitou]

I say that about the rocks because Dr. Emoto has shown the awareness of water. why not rocks?

 

Yes, the magnification thing has been pretty well understood (thanks to you in part!); I still think the mutual attraction / magnetic / love (in the human metaphoric sense as to the microcosm / macrocosm) is something that can be further harnassed for energy production. I just think this was the original Cause.

[Marblehead]

I think that if we looked really hard we would find that "awareness of water" is a simple chemical/electrical reaction but to believe what Dr. Emoto suggests is fine if one wishes to go there.

 

As to "original cause", I watched a program concerning that just last night. The question was: What was before the Big Bang? So the Theoretical Physicists presented their theories. I still prefer the theory of a Big Crunch. This allows for my understanding of "reversion" and "cycles". Continuous universes - no beginning, no end; just repeating universes endlessly.

 

Yes, I understand that you hold that "love" was the original cause. That's okay.

 

I blame Tzujan. The universe just being its natural self - doing what the universe does.

[Stosh]

_{Religious revelation seems to me to be a societal heritage rather than a natural fallout of the human conditon.}

_{Both empathy and the ability to lie are natural consequences of the imagination, so , would that make both traits virtue?}

[Marblehead]

_{Both empathy and the ability to lie are natural consequences of the imagination, so , would that make both traits virtue?}

Nice trick question. A comet smashing into Earth is the Virtue of Tao. (I had to say that first.)

 

The virtue of man is something that is based in duality - good virtye / bad virtue. We can't do the same with the Virtue of Tao.

 

Empathy is a good virtue; Lying is a bad virtue. But wait! What if telling a lie results in less stress for everyone? Is it still then bad?

 

The answer is an individual thing. Some would say no, others yes.

[Nungali]

'Telling lies' ( just a certain type of lie ) is apparently necessary for certain healthy social arrangements.

 

Someone, in some book somewhere (?) lists it as one of the 4 'psychological truths' (if I can remember them off the top of my head)

1. Stick to Reality (Review the Internal Map)

 

2. Delay Gratification (Practice Sublimation of Desire)

 

3. Witholding Truth

 

4. Combine and balance the above.

 

Withholding truth; modification of our own truth in communication to the level that the other is able to handle. Not to do this can

cause trouble for the self and socially. (E.g. It might not be appropriate, YET, to tell little Johnny that there is no Santa, even though it is a ‘truth’.)

 

I think the WAY we reveal truth should be a virtue.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

ZYD said:

 

 

"Contrary to common belief 'Golden Rule' ethical injunctions are not 'religious' in origin, but are common to both ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy and can be viewed as a normative precept involving self-knowledge and empathy rather than a religious 'revelation'. Often invoked as an ideal of conduct, what Axelrod and Rapaport did was to demonstrate that this was also a practical strategy as well as a an ideal, with the implication that it would evolve naturally in living systems."

 

 

Since empathy has been introduced by me as part of the discourse, I think that I should bring everyone up to speed on modern neurology and empathy, just in case someone here has not been following the most recent developments.

 

Here they are in edifying videos everyone will understand: Empathy Central

 

Enjoy.

[manitou]

I think that if we looked really hard we would find that "awareness of water" is a simple chemical/electrical reaction but to believe what Dr. Emoto suggests is fine if one wishes to go there.

 

As to "original cause", I watched a program concerning that just last night. The question was: What was before the Big Bang? So the Theoretical Physicists presented their theories. I still prefer the theory of a Big Crunch. This allows for my understanding of "reversion" and "cycles". Continuous universes - no beginning, no end; just repeating universes endlessly.

 

Yes, I understand that you hold that "love" was the original cause. That's okay.

 

I blame Tzujan. The universe just being its natural self - doing what the universe does.

 

I'm not sure that because we can label it and say it's 'just a chemical reaction' makes it any less awesome. We have a tendency to think that because we can label something, it's mastered. No argument on the Big Crunch thing - (as I'm still reading that damn Freemasonry book - it goes on forever!) even the 28th degree of the Scottish Rites describes (from the ancient knowledge) a void that is created prior to thought or idea due to a recession of some sort. And as we are the microcosm to the macrocosm, if you go along with that - what other than love bursts your seams in a creative sense? Not anger or ire, certainly. That's a destructive force, not a creative one.

 

Yes, our current cosmic manifestation is a pearl on a string. It will revert to the One, and then to the Void, and then probably do it all over again. If we want to stay linear. Or we can understand that it's all happening Now in separate realities or universes if we really want to get boggled.

[manitou]

 

Since empathy has been introduced by me as part of the discourse, I think that I should bring everyone up to speed on modern neurology and empathy, just in case someone here has not been following the most recent developments.

 

Here they are in edifying videos everyone will understand: Empathy Central

 

Enjoy.

 

Sorry, ZYD - just can't do the homework. I'm a Seer, and I don't understand things like this along traditional lines. All I can see is that it all goes back to the black spots in the eyes - we see each other, we see animals, with Awareness because that little black dot of awareness in the middle of their eyes is Us too. When great masters tell us to Know Thyself, it's because when one knows themselves, they know others as well. Huge argument from Marbles here. Here...I'll even leave you space........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."

 

 

I can See that there is a huge web of Awareness that extends from eye to eye, regardless of whether the animal is a human, a monkey, or a worm. Some awareness are of different caliber than others, obviously - but I maintain that when a dog barks at you, he generally doesn't look at your knees when he's barking, although he's only knee high to you. He'll be looking at your eyes (unless he's going for your cuff at the moment!) Somehow this huge web of awareness keeps this whole boat afloat. I've seen on some program or the other that an elephant on one side of the world can feel the stress of an elephant on the other side of the world. I don't know if this is true or how they measured this - but if it is, it reiterates the Oneness connection of all.

 

Does not awareness even extend to plants as well? Hasn't it been shown that the will bend to a type of fear, that they will dance to music? To label this as merely a chemical reaction is to be really, well, physical. It's the Why that the seeker seeks. The big question under the phenomena.

 

And honestly, why not rocks and crystals? If Dr. Emoto's water crystals behaved differently depending on the type of emotion contained within the word emitted prior to the freezing, why wouldn't crystallized rocks have reacted to the original 'word' as well? Or bang, if you prefer. Or Ohm.

 

All I'm saying is that it's all alive, we're part of it - and in fact we're the eyes, ears, and thinking organ of it. Wow. Labeling only serves to compartmentalize the phenomena and relegate it to measurement. Once we've measured, we think it's mastered. But the essence is not.

[Brian]

I agree with that assessment about "just a chemical reaction," manitou. Our own totalities are nothing but an assemblage of chemical/electrical reactions, too, from a scientific standpoint -- and we have no good handle on what "awareness" is or even what it means to "be alive."

 

A virus is an interesting case in point. A virus appears to be "not alive" until such time as it "becomes aware" of proximity to its designated target entity at which point it "comes to life" and attacks. All this with no brain, no heart, no "third-eye," no central nervous system, no muscles, no bone marrow, etc.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Brian

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure that because we can label it and say it's 'just a chemical reaction' makes it any less awesome.

First, I'm staying with the linear. Easier to explain.

 

I didn't mean to reduce the awesomeness of the water thing. Some things are still awesome when we fully understand what makes them what they are.

[Brian]

First, I'm staying with the linear. Easier to explain.

 

I didn't mean to reduce the awesomeness of the water thing. Some things are still awesome when we fully understand what makes them what they are.

 

One of the most important things I learned from a life of scientific pursuit, MH, is that we don't fully understand any of it. That recognition was eye-opening.

[Marblehead]

 

One of the most important things I learned from a life of scientific pursuit, MH, is that we don't fully understand any of it. That recognition was eye-opening.

Yeah, it depends on how deeply we want to go in our understanding. If we go too far we realize that we really understand next to nothing. That's why I keep to what my senses can detect and my brain can sort out.

 

Watched a program last night called "Your Bleeped Up Brain" where they talked about how our brain makes up for missing data and it tells you that you understand but in reality what you understand is not true reality.

 

But we can make some pretty good assupmtions that prove true 99.9~ percent of the time.

[Stosh]

"in San Diego, Vilayanur Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at UCSD, offers, "We used to say, metaphorically, that 'I can feel another's pain.' But now we know that my mirror neurons can literally feel your pain." "Mirror neurons dissolve the barrier between you and someone else," says Ramachandran. He calls them "Gandhi neurons.""

 

Ummm, I think not. I can express signals which you respond to, but if I dont convey it , you wont have sympathy, and even if you have empathy, it just aint the same as breaking your own arm in intensity or duration or duress.

Also since 1, Its no surprise to me that people have neurons are in their brain, and 2, its no surprise either, that rowdy fans are caught up in a voyouristic experience involving the neurons in their brain, his claims are way overstated to the extent of implying that which is technically unfactual or really amount to bombast.

Its like saying I have neurons in my brain to play tennis.

I dont think so!

[Stosh]

I agree with that assessment about "just a chemical reaction," manitou. Our own totalities are nothing but an assemblage of chemical/electrical reactions, too, from a scientific standpoint -- and we have no good handle on what "awareness" is or even what it means to "be alive."

 

A virus is an interesting case in point. A virus appears to be "not alive" until such time as it "becomes aware" of proximity to its designated target entity at which point it "comes to life" and attacks. All this with no brain, no heart, no "third-eye," no central nervous system, no muscles, no bone marrow, etc.

Coming to life and attacking ? really now. Isnt that a bit umm creative? it compares what living creatures do closely and grossly with that of virions or prions and cell membranes and the like. If one believes in free will of humans they reject that autonomaton view, as I do , if for no other reason than the apparent lack of neccesity for experience in clockwork existance,, and it seems a bummer.

[manitou]

I agree with that assessment about "just a chemical reaction," manitou. Our own totalities are nothing but an assemblage of chemical/electrical reactions, too, from a scientific standpoint -- and we have no good handle on what "awareness" is or even what it means to "be alive."

 

A virus is an interesting case in point. A virus appears to be "not alive" until such time as it "becomes aware" of proximity to its designated target entity at which point it "comes to life" and attacks. All this with no brain, no heart, no "third-eye," no central nervous system, no muscles, no bone marrow, etc.

 

 

My point is that the chemical reactions are the vehicle used by the Absolute as it thinks its way back to the void. It's all one living thing. Someone mentioned religious revelation above. I think spiritual revelation is more accurate. No structure to it - just a result of an experiential set of experiences. If the experiences haven't been experienced, it can't be understood. Those who have experienced understand that these experiences do catapult one into the realm of the unexplainable. Like healings, extrasensory phenomena, things which give us our individual 'proofs' that we are indeed tapped into something unexplainable. Because there is a wall between this and science, those of us who have experienced will always be viewed as the crazy ones. No measurement, no prediction. Just the realm of the weird. The realm is there. Digging in one's heels against the possibility renders the possibility impossible. It is an incredible and unfair Catch-22, if you ask me. We can search for it with all the initials in the world after our names and it will never be found that way.

 

No crossing this bridge with words. Intellect vs. hocus pocus - but not really hocus pocus; really a connection with that which is spoken of in the DDJ, and the center hub of all spiritual thought.

 

But there is no way that those who have seen can help anyone else to see this. This journey is an individual one.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

A virus is an interesting case in point. A virus appears to be "not alive" until such time as it "becomes aware" of proximity to its designated target entity at which point it "comes to life" and attacks. All this with no brain, no heart, no "third-eye," no central nervous system, no muscles, no bone marrow, etc.

This is interesting Brian, could you give us a little more on this?

Coming to life and attacking ? really now. Isnt that a bit umm creative? it compares what living creatures do closely and grossly with that of virions or prions and cell membranes and the like. If one believes in free will of humans they reject that autonomaton view, as I do , if for no other reason than the apparent lack of neccesity for experience in clockwork existance,, and it seems a bummer.

Obviously you are straining the credulity of some people here, but bearing in mind what has been discovered about quantum computing in complex organic molecules and their harnessing by 'living systems', such as plants, I don't find this to be too far out of left field.

 

New Age nonsense on Photosynthesis