Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am, of course, aware of the mystical traditions on this, and I respect them (which is why I acknowledge some of these traditions in appropriate contexts, such as I did above). But I tend not to believe stuff just because someone says something. I look for rational arguments and evidence. Can you offer any arguments or evidence for thinking that dreamless sleep is really an experience of God-Consciousness and we just forget about it when we wake up?
I have no desire to argue anything with you.
Just pointing out that there is a part of you that already does know this (the part of you that is wise, the part of you that knows the truth of who you are)
and there is another part of you that refuses to accept what the wise part of you already knows and recognizes.
It is entertaining to watch.
Yes I observe that you regularly disown and seek to distance yourself from things that the wiser part of you knows and yes speaks, because the less wise part of you considers itself "intellectual."
You're not arguing with me you are arguing with the wiser part of your own self. A more fruitful area for you to explore is what makes you so uncomfortable about acknowledging God? Why do you so strongly resist that? Why do you consider it so beneath you?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-25-2017 at 05:35 PM..
Well, Pleroo, WHAT god do you have? It's not the Christian G-d, because Christ didn't denigrate His Father's words, He upheld them, spoke them to the enemy of our soul, spoke them in the Temple, referred to them constantly, the same words you say weren't of G-d. It's not the Jewish G-d, because you don't recognize anything there of value or attributable to G-d. So WHO is He? Peace
Rbbi, just stick with the topic here. You and I both know that we do not believe similarly. I think there is one God (not "yours", not "mine", just one Source/Foundation of all that is) with all of us having different ideas about that God. But you are offended by me saying I don't believe God is barbaric or ignorant even though others have attributed barbaric things to God in their ignorance. And you also think you are on moral high ground when you tell me that because I believe that God is love, "my" God is a counterfeit spirit and the father of lies.
Really, seriously, I'm asking you: Why are you offended? Is it merely because you and I do not have all the same beliefs about God?
And, apparently you think that saying "my" God is a counterfeit spirit and the father of lies (because I believe God is love) is somehow you taking the moral high ground, but me saying that I do NOT believe that God is ignorant and barbaric, even though some of the people who wrote about God did barbaric things and attributed it to God's command in their ignorance, is reprehensible.
Ok, we have a failure to communicate here, and I *think* I just caught on to part of it. You think that because I say something is offensive, that automatically means I'm offended. To ME, when you say I'm offended that is tantamount to you saying I'm upset in emotions, which is not the case at all.
No, what I said was your beliefs about what was written being barbaric, ignorant, ect., knowing that we believe HE breathed it, it came from HIM, IS OFFENSIVE, same as saying HE is those things.
And I said, basically, that your god of "love" bears no resemblance to what Jesus said or did, IN TOTALITY, only what you WANT to see. And once again, instead of replying to the valid points I brought up, you revert back to the mantra. Peace
Ok, we have a failure to communicate here, and I *think* I just caught on to part of it. You think that because I say something is offensive, that automatically means I'm offended. To ME, when you say I'm offended that is tantamount to you saying I'm upset in emotions, which is not the case at all.
You find it OFFENSIVE,"highly offensive", but you're not offended. Okay.
So, what is highly offensive about the fact that I don't believe the same things that you do about God and the bible?
No, what I said was your beliefs about what was written being barbaric, ignorant, ect., knowing that we believe HE breathed it, it came from HIM, IS OFFENSIVE, same as saying HE is those things.
And I said, basically, that your god of "love" bears no resemblance to what Jesus said or did, IN TOTALITY, only what you WANT to see. And once again, instead of replying to the valid points I brought up, you revert back to the mantra. Peace
And I have said time and again that I do NOT believe God is ignorant and barbaric, even if a book portrays God in that way. So, what do you find highly offensive about that?
And do you think I should find it highly offensive that you say that the God I believe in who is love and is NOT bound by the words in a book, is the father of lies?
I take my own subjective experience as not only evidence for but (for me, at least, as the experiencer) undeniable proof that Reality/"the River" consists of at least some "what-it-is-like-to-be-ness" (WIILTB) and, given that WIILTB actually exists, it also seems to follow that the potential-for WIILTB is also intrinsic to Reality. Of course the big puzzle is what "potential" is, as such, and what it means to talk of the "potential" for X. Prior to the existence of cell phones there was, presumably, a potential for them. It's harder to get a good grip on exactly what the potential for consciousness consists in prior to the actual existence of any particular conscious experiences, but I don't see why the idea should be called logically inconsistent.
We are talking about the same thing but expressing it in different contexts. Your context is as an observer in a Reality of discrete "things" including yourself. My context is a cellular component of a singular Being (Reality) that is constantly Becoming by reproducing its awareness of itself. In my context, there can be no discrete "anythings" that do NOT have a sense of WIILTB. Being is an undifferentiated state and noesis is integral to the substrate of our Reality. We really do exist within the mind of God and have the nascent abilities of the mind of God (imagination, creativity, awareness) in our developing state.
Quote:
Whenever I awaken from a dreamless sleep, I count this as strong evidence (almost worthy of being called proof) that consciousness can emerge from unconsciousness. I was not conscious, and then I was. Something about my sleeping brain served as "potential for" consciousness, and then the potential was actualized upon my awakening. Again I fail to see where there is any logical incoherence in these ideas. BTW, I said that awakening is almost worthy of being called "proof." The reason for the "almost" is this: It is logically possible that I was, in fact, fully conscious during my dreamless sleep and immediately forgot upon awakening due to some sort of powerful amnesia triggered by the process of awakening. For all I know, this fully conscious state during dreamless sleep was me experiencing "God-Consciousness". Maybe your mystical experience of God was simply a temporary breakdown of the standard wall of amnesia that generally separates the two. I see that as a logical possibility, thus I cannot simply discount your testimonial on this. I can, however, be skeptical about it because I see very little reason to believe that something like "God-Consciousness" exists. Maybe someday I will see good reason, but at the moment I do not.
I see it differently. We do NOT experience consciousness directly. It is a delayed playback of the actual creation of our consciousness which we only experience as our unconscious processes. Unconsciousness IS the actual state - the finished product - of the awareness we experience when it is in-process. Amnesia is not the operative phenomenon because we only have delayed access to what we call consciousness while it is being created. When we sleep and dream or attain altered states we are in contact with the ACTUAL consciousness we have been creating. Dreams are actually the maintenance processes to fine-tune the creation of more consciousness when we awake. Unresolved drive states, frustrations, etc. experienced during the waking state (and biological exigencies during the sleep state) are addressed during dreams. For example, if you have over-imbibed liquids prior to sleep, the biological urgency will try to interrupt your sleep. Since the unconscious maintenance processes are important, dreams will address the potential disruption by imagining you are urinating. The urination dream episodes will continue until you actually awake and take care of the problem.
Quote:
As I've been explaining, I am still failing to see the logical incoherence of my notion that the logical ground of consciousness is unconsciousness (characterized as "proto-consciousness"). To me, these ideas seem logical, and even probable. I am aware of many, many, many examples of intermittent, perspective-limited conscious experiences arising from unconscious conditions, but I can't think of any examples of eternal, God-eye-view types of consciousness aside from the claims of religious scriptures (which seem highly unreliable to me) and the testimonials of a few mystics (which I find more compelling, but not compelling enough to say I actually believe them).
Although I respect your mystical insight, I still question your interpretation of it. As I said, my own experiences of limited, intermittent conscious experiences over a lifetime count (for me, at least) as:
(1) Proof that conscious experience exists.
(2) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally limited to certain perspectives.
(3) Strong evidence that consciousness is, as a matter of fact, generally intermittent (emerging out of, and fading back into, unconsciousness.
And, based on (3) I would add:
(4) Strong evidence that "potential for" consciousness (aka "proto-conscious" conditions) exist.
Hopefully I have now addressed this. But if I have not, then perhaps you can find another way to explain where you see logical incoherence.
The "no evidence" I referred to was NOT about the existence of consciousness. (It is silly to deny the existence of consciousness by using consciousness.) It was about the existence of ANY precursor to consciousness in the otherwise seemingly "dead" physical processes of the materialist view. In my view, consciousness (that we experience as unconsciousness while creating it) IS the substrate of our entire Reality. What you want to call proto-consciousness IS the actual consciousness establishing our Reality that we are participating in reproducing. Our delayed access to it is limited to when it is being created (or in dreams or altered states).
Quote:
I am "wed" to it because I see emergence everywhere I look, AND I see lots of very good mathematical models and cellular automata that help me understand how emergence works. To me, emergence seems like a hallmark principle of the natural world. Things come into existence that previously did not exist. Quantum mechanics and chemistry help explain most of this (at least in a rough general-principles sort of way). As you know, I think some new fundamental physics is needed to really explain the emergence of qualitative subjective experience, but (based on my statements above) I don't see any reason to think that efforts to develop this physics are doomed to failure because of logical incoherence (although I admit that the subjective nature of qualia will probably force a radical change in the general standards for objective, measurable evidence).
Your discrete context for Reality is the source of your preference for the euphemisms of emergence and self-whatevers. In that regard, we are at an impasse despite being entirely consistent in our understanding of the essential role of consciousness in our Reality.
Quote:
This is correct. My "ego-I" is limited, but nevertheless every moment of my limited conscious awareness is a moment in which Reality-Itself (Holistically speaking) is experiencing "being me". So, yes, Reality as the actual locus IS me. For the religious folks, one might say that each of us is a literal instantiation of "God in the flesh" and, through this flesh that I call "my body" God experiences a limited perspective that God experiences as "being me". All I am skeptical about is the idea that, in addition to all of these particular limited, fleeting instantiations of "being me" throughout the Cosmic reaches of time and space, there is also a "God's-Eye view" perspective in which God "see's all and knows all and perhaps somehow intelligently and purposefully "designed all".
Our differences on the discrete nature of Reality probably cannot be resolved. But there is no need to include "purposeful design" in the mix though that IS a central feature of noesis, and the Omni's are always problematic. However, since each developing cellular consciousness IS essentially just part of the Oneness, seeing all and knowing all is probably true in a limited way.
Quote:
Yes. Exactly. And that is exactly why I use this analogy. It's the best way I can think of to get at this idea. Yes, except that the "discrete compositional fallacy nonsense" I'm talking about is referring to the complexity and dynamics of experience. The Oneness of Reality is ontological, but the "many-ness" of experience is "aspectival" - i.e., One Thing with many aspects or properties. One River composed of many aspects providing the ground for many whirlpools. Again, to me, the proof is in my own experiential pudding. Every moment of experience is a complex, flowing blend of many elements - colors, tastes, smells, shapes, feeling, etc. This is what I characterize as the "primordial qualitative chaos" - the qualitative epistemological many-ness characterizing the ontological Oneness.
And since that adequately explains our difference in context and perspective, I should probably leave it there.
NO, I don't denigrate HIS love, I denigrate the counterfeit spirit trying to pass itself off as HIS love, all the while bashing Him and what He spoke, which the Son would never do, and DIDN'T DO, since He said He didn't come to do away with the law but fulfill it. How much plainer can He make it, than; didn't come to do away with? That means it's VALID, else He is a liar. Do you think He lied? Apparently so.
No need to invoke lying. The law had a purpose for our species' evolution and Jesus fulfilled that purpose rendering the law moot. Now that the purpose of the law has been fulfilled for us all our responsibilities are subsumed under only two commands: Love God and each other.
Quote:
He also taught us to pray to the Father, the Father He knew wrote the scriptures He read out loud in the temple. Darn! There was "love's" chance to decry all the errors and reveal the "true" Author and He missed the opportunity.
Of course He told us to pray to the Father. That is part of loving God and evokes the state of mind of that love. All He said about the scriptures were that they told about Him NOT how to achieve eternal life. They are USEFUL (profitable) for instruction because they contain many lessons and examples of Good and Evil so that we can learn to discern the difference using love.
Quote:
It's not a question of Him being fragile, it's about lies from the father of lies being spouted in place of the truth. Jesus answered back in the wilderness with the Word, and that's no different than what those of us that believe are doing. Peace
Jesus IS the Word so of course, He answered as the Word. It has nothing to do with the scripture He cited for the benefit of His audience reading the account.
WHAT makes you think I'm offended? Why does my telling you the truth automatically mean I'm offended, would be a better question. I said G-d wasn't fragile, I didn't say He couldn't be offended.
Matt. 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of G-d, but those that be of men.
Notice WHAT offends Him. Peace
Since you believe in an actual Satan, why would Jesus call Peter Satan? It sure seems like He is referring to our indiscriminate animal nature driven by a desire for survival in this world.
No, what I said was your beliefs about what was written being barbaric, ignorant, ect., knowing that we believe HE breathed it, it came from HIM, IS OFFENSIVE, same as saying HE is those things.
No, it is NOT saying He is those things. It is saying those things are barbaric and savage on their own merit. It has nothing to do with what you believe about who wrote them.
Quote:
And I said, basically, that your god of "love" bears no resemblance to what Jesus said or did, IN TOTALITY, only what you WANT to see.
It has nothing to do with what we want. Most of us use reason, rationality, and logic and reject irrationality and illogic. When Jesus says God IS love and describes love in detail, we have the basis for using reason and logic to know what is and is not compatible with God's love. Some of the things you believe about God bear no resemblance to the God Jesus revealed, described in detail, and then demonstrated unambiguously. You believe contradictory things about God and we do NOT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
