what are you?

[chilli]

"yep, it raises a few questions like that though. i think we are connected to our body in all phases and perspectives, or else we aren't 'we'. so maybe there's a different vibrational energy field associated with the body, that isn't conventionally detectable yet, but i've never seen evidence or good basis for the idea of an identity-thing that is totally separable from the body."

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for lack of true individual identity if the 'ghost in the shell' scenario was true, but I do think the idea of the energy being inseparable from the body is valid, and wasn't suggesting a spirit-mind that was 'totally separable' at all, this is why I said "another dimension fundamental to our own" and "manifesting itself as this particular individual mind-body"... I didn't mean to imply this was a temporary or transient connection, more like a necessary interface or extension... like 3D is to 2D.

[No_One]

"People they come together, People they fall apart, No one can stop us now,'cause we are all made of stars"...Moby

Stars have a centre, the higher consciousness/field/force/law enforcer/etc. that imposes it's laws i.e the laws of the universe on stars can be heard loudest at the center of the star i.e. on the planck scale. Getting your mind/consciousness to operate from the planck scale let's you hear the voice of the ACTUAL law enforcer again.

Other stars can influence other stars, in the case of humans our brains record what other stars have said and told you to be true of reality hence putting more restrictions on the freedom of your star. If the influence from that other star becomes louder and louder through repition over time i.e. like a mantra or a habit, the volume of the ACTUAL law enforcers voice that actually influences your star is turned down until the destiny of your star is dependant upon the congruency of what that other star has told you in the past in relation to what the ACTUAL law enforcer has been saying since the beginning of time.

In this example the body could be seen as a heap of little crustaceans or tiny stars hitching a ride on the more powerful star, that more powerful star is the spark of life/consciousness/ki which we steer with "our" mind, the mind wants pattern and repition to feel at peace and the the trouble with this is the mind likes repeating the wrong things just as much as it likes repeating the bad things and another thing, it HATES letting go of patterns!

I reckon the spark of life/consciousness/ki of the tiny crustaceans/stars gets morphed into the more powerful star/spark of life/consciousness as it's more powerful than what they are, hence by giving up there identity to the bigger star they have a better chance of finding and remaining in some sort of order amongst all the chaos and conserving their energy so they don't burn out as quick.

Peace

[chilli]

Why crustaceans? The best connection I could come up with was star-fish.

[No_One]

Was thinking bout that while I was having dinner and the word I should've used was barnacles.

The best connection I could come up with

I could be wrong but it looks like you've developed some false confidence while I've been gone and now wanna paint me as a "join-the-dots-man" WS style?

Have you read my belated reply to your last post in the Columbine thread yet? I'm assuming you haven't and are still running with the belief that I sooked it/conceded. Here's a link to it in case you haven't checked it out yet.

Sucks to be you!

I didn't slink away so don't go putting your head too far back up your arse just yet, if I was you I'd ring up telstra and thank THEM for this false confidence you seemed to have developed while my internet connections been missing.

Mind you in saying that it's definitely good to see you're throwing your hat into the ring but I must ask you, how long are ya gonna be able to ya gonna be able to sustain it at this intensity before you start becoming dull again?

For those of you playing along at home I apologise for thread-jacking.

Peace.

[chilli]

WTF? Mate, I was asking the question earnestly... you have to admit, as it stood 'crustaceans' was pretty hard to make sense of, I just wondered what I was missing.

Why are you so defensive? And what's with all the 'false confidence' stuff? I didn't even know you'd been away, I seriously think you're being paranoid.

Chill Bo

*edit* That guy's shirt is totally wicked.

Edited June 14, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

I do think the idea of the energy being inseparable from the body is valid, and wasn't suggesting a spirit-mind that was 'totally separable' at all, this is why I said "another dimension fundamental to our own" and "manifesting itself as this particular individual mind-body"

what im picking up from the idea is that there is some 'otherness' about this spirit/mind, which then 'manifests' as a body. this does seem to be a seperation, hence the use of different terms to describe these 'parts'. how about all these 'parts' are actually here now, the body in all dimensions is us. i think dimensionality is perspective, not 'elsewhere', so the body IS our whole self, viewed from a particular perspective. there isn't some 'otherness' which isnt present in our body, its all here, right now, so we are our bodies.

[ThunderIdeal]

i'm just jumping in here, haven't been following this thread too closely.

here's a quick perspective and one that would be echoed by many who believe in 'subtle bodies'

the physical body is gross, or dense. the opposite of subtle. there are subtler bodies, such as mind, but they are still denser than the spirit. the physical body is to the subtler bodies as a shell is to a hermit crab. the crab exists without it, exists through many shells, but when it has a shell then the shell is a part of it. not a perfect analogy by any stretch. i'm just trying to convey that for me, the body is like a coating, it's the outermost part of your self, the most obvious and also the least real.

probably not going to follow up here since frankly, i'm no more interested in your belief that matter is everything than you are in my belief that it is not.

[chilli]

"what im picking up from the idea is that there is some 'otherness' about this spirit/mind, which then 'manifests' as a body. this does seem to be a seperation, hence the use of different terms to describe these 'parts'. how about all these 'parts' are actually here now, the body in all dimensions is us. i think dimensionality is perspective, not 'elsewhere', so the body IS our whole self, viewed from a particular perspective. there isn't some 'otherness' which isnt present in our body, its all here, right now, so we are our bodies."

I do think I attribute some kind of 'otherness,' because it is something unknown and mysterious to us at the moment, but not in the sense that is 'elsewhere,' because that's not how I'm using the term dimension, as indicated by my references to the differences between the second and third dimension, and also to the fact that I think I said it was integral and fundamental. Or, consider time as a fourth dimension... it is not related directly to the first three dimensions, but is integral to their existence and function.

But you're correct in you're inference that I lean towards the idea of an immaterial element to our existence, and also the idea that our existence here is not so much illusory but perhaps less real or seen "through a glass (or scanner) darkly", but I think I see it more holistically than many people with apparently similar beliefs... I don't think I used the term 'parts,' to describe spirit-mind and body-mind, in fact even the use of the words spirit and body is unfortunate but the language is restrictive and loaded... I meant them analogically though. I don't mean different entities like the 'ghost in the shell,' and rather than discrete 'parts' I would prefer the term 'elements' ... similar to the way the hormonal, vascular, nervous, lymphatic systems etc of our bodies all functioning in different but unified ways to form a single entity.

Edited June 17, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

interesting. both the last posts talk about the physical body being somehow "less real" than a more intangible, nebulous and not-fully-understood body.

are you both saying that this very clearly real, substantial, durable and non-abstract physical body is somehow, false? a trick with mirrors that all biological life forms on earth are playing on themselves, and each other, in perfect unison?

seems much more plausible to me that our bodies are in fact the one real thing in all this philosophical bullshitting we do, try not eating and see!

nb. brain - in buddhist cosmology i think those "parts" you're talking about are termed the five aggregates, 'chunks' of being which shuttle about after death

Edited June 17, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

interesting. both the last posts talk about the physical body being somehow "less real" than a more intangible, nebulous and not-fully-understood body.

are you both saying that this very clearly real, substantial, durable and non-abstract physical body is somehow, false? a trick with mirrors that all biological life forms on earth are playing on themselves, and each other, in perfect unison?

Not exactly, this is why I stopped short of using the word 'illusion'... Actually, the older I get and the more I think about it, the less real this body and physical plane seem, but i don't really mean they are an illusion, just that they are incomplete and fleeting, and ultimately are perceived and interpreted through some kind of mind, which I currently tend to think is more than an epiphenomenon of the brain. However, in some sense you might say that I do think there is a vast trick being played, and that certain elements of our life here are illusory, such as the entire structure of a modern consumer oriented society.

seems much more plausible to me that our bodies are in fact the one real thing in all this philosophical bullshitting we do, try not eating and see!

I'm quite aware of the demands of my body, and have spent long periods without food... as it happens, its in the midst of some of these experiences that I've been moved towards the idea that the body and its desires are not penultimate, and that there are other aspects to our existence than what we perceive with our physical senses.

nb. brain - in buddhist cosmology i think those "parts" you're talking about are termed the five aggregates, 'chunks' of being which shuttle about after death

Well like I said, "I don't think I used the term 'parts,'... I would prefer the term 'elements'" but yeah it is a similar concept superficially.

[komodo]

i don't really mean they are an illusion, just that they are incomplete and fleeting...the body and its desires are not penultimate

this seems to situate the body on a scale which requiring some absolutely real "aspect" by which to judge the relative unreality of physical "aspect".

how does one judge what is more or less real? if embodied reality is somehow "incomplete and fleeting", what aspect of being is not?

if you're still reading thunderideal, would appreciate your input, i find it gets unpleasant to talk with illegalbrain alone!

Edited June 19, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

if you're still reading thunderideal, would appreciate your input, i find it gets unpleasant to talk with illegalbrain alone!

I can't seem to win with you... If you find talking with me so unpleasant, the easiest solution would be to stop talking.

Are you taking issue with something particular that I've said, or are you just having a whinge again?

As for your question, it's late and you'll have to rephrase if you want an answer... although it doesn't sound like you do.

*wanders off muttering under breath, kicking stuff on the ground*

Edited June 19, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[chilli]

Oh FFS... double post.

Edited June 19, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

no brain nothing in particular, just overall tone isnt harmonious/constructive when we talk one on one, so i would prefer the discussion involved others.

[chilli]

no brain nothing in particular, just overall tone isnt harmonious/constructive when we talk one on one, so i would prefer the discussion involved others.

Then why mention it at all... "overall tone" is conveniently nebulous, seems more like I just give you the shits, but wouldn't be the first time... and harmony isn't always constructive... "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" - Proverbs. But like I said, stop asking me questions if you don't like the answers.

[komodo]

never mind, i am genuinely indifferent (edit: to you).

peace

Edited June 19, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

never mind, i am genuinely indifferent.

Do you have personal proof of this?

I'm just pulling your leg, mostly... but if there was such a thing as someone who was 'genuinely indifferent,' I doubt they would need to say it so much.

[No_One]

if embodied reality is somehow "incomplete and fleeting", what aspect of being is not?

IMO The unseen and thus far unmeasurable glue holding it all together i.e. the strings in string theory, the aether in the aether, the essence of everything, the God particle, the middle of a star, etc.

[ThunderIdeal]

no offence komodo, i respect your opinion but it's of no value to me, i don't have time to butt heads over it. i've been an atheist and i'm not one now.

[komodo]

i agree with you there shiva, that there is a universal binding agent that all things share and is not subject to change. beyond that though, i think all is impermanent.

[No_One]

i agree with you there shiva, that there is a universal binding agent that all things share and is not subject to change. beyond that though, i think all is impermanent.

Damn Straight!

Peace