cosmology and spiritual ontology

[Gunter]

do we as individuals come to specific conclusions, or rather do we share perceptions?

are our spiritual concepts, beliefs and their inherent structures and relations deductions or are the perceptions?

what is your spiritual cosmology

that is to ask:

how do you see the structure of the universe relating to spirituality?

where do you fit into your belief structure and as what?

is it teleology?

tel·e·ol·o·gy (tl-l-j, tl-)

n. pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.

3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

 

what i mean in this question is, do you see purpose, as a means to an end, in your existence and or in the existence of the universe itself?

in terms of ontology, what is the structure of your belief system, how does it fit together and relate and in this where do you fit into it?

How does your ontology evoke itself in your experience?

What is your evidence for it?

what is your experience of it?

I can state that i believe in a higher power, a symmetry to existence that is after a manner crystalline, this symmetry might be inferred as having purpose as that it has arrangement, but is not about an end or a result and as such does not correlate to purpose, in my way then i am as a molecule in a crystal, be it as part of the structure or as an impurity, so to speak, and thus while i fit into the structure of nature it is not about me or about any purpose that i serve in any specific manner, nor is it about a result, it is not goal oriented but rather is as is, that is to say that there is no destination, nor journey, that cause and effect are the same thing and their distinction is an artifact of my functionality.

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied towards the purpose of mental function

that self exists only in mind, that progression of self is merely the perception of accumulated experience is what is indicated to me

this is my ontology, this is my cosmology

what is yours?

[nabraxas]

how do you see the structure of the universe relating to spirituality?

where do you fit into your belief structure and as what?

is it teleology?

Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.”

— Alan Watts

[Gunter]

does that mean your ontology is informed as opposed to experiential?

[nabraxas]

A bit ov both really i guess. From my awareness ov the "energies" coursing through the universe & life, while tripping & through Chi Kung; & from my experience ov love, the information contained in the quote neatly defines the ontology i suspect to be closest to "reality".

[CβL]

A machine can never know its own workings in entirety. If you are sound - can you hear yourself? If you are light - can you see yourself?

To observe is to unite. Everything I observe then must be a part of me. And I must be a part of everything.

The underlying unity of everything cannot be perceived completely. To perceive it, a subject is needed. But then the subject has excluded himself, and there is now duality.

Without death, life cannot continue. Without life, death cannot continue.

I will never die. I will just life again, into the bacteria from whence I came and what I'm made.

The being who cannot be deeply surprised, is enlightened.

You are standing in a desert, and all you have is the clothes on your back. To your right is someone else, facing forward. You notice they're not moving at all, they are perfectly still - everything is existing in an instant, as time has been stopped for you. Further up ahead, there is a dollar, in this place - it's quite valuable, you can buy everything you need and want with it. Next to the dollar, there is a black hole - a singularity where existance is instantly erased. Now you receive a choice:

You can send the other person into the black hole and they will blink out of this existence, and you can keep the dollar and buy everything you needed and wanted.

Or you can split the dollar, and give him 50c and take 50c for yourself. With your 50c you will not be able to buy everything you need or want.

Now you have a decision to make. Nothing will happen until you make your decision.

What do you choose?

There's only one more thing though. The other guy has been given the same choice.

[Gunter]

throw the dollar into the black hole

[CβL]

The dollar is a metaphor for the Earth. So, probably not a good idea to throw it away.

[Gunter]

lol

really?

[Distracted]

There's only one more thing though. The other guy has been given the same choice.

 

Ugh, that particular sentence gave me chills.. like that is every instant, and every instant we've both chosen to throw each other in the black hole, but all time periods don't spawn from the instant but rather are brought to the instant and then revert back to a previous time...

It's just a memory of a feeling... of unavoidable dread.

Sorry it doesn't have that much to do with your thread, it's just that theoretical really struck me, ugh :/

[CβL]

No, you're perfectly correct Distracted. That was the exact response I wanted to elicit. I could explain more, but I think the charm of that scenario is that it explains itself with enough contemplation.

lol

really?

Is that sarcasm? I can't tell. :/

[∂an]

I feel that given the most economical situation would be nothingness, there must be some purpose to existence.

And if you pay attention, you can see purpose everywhere.

[Gunter]

i find the idea that the dollar represents the earth offensive insofar as it being something here for us to use, to spend, a resource etc

i see it the other way around, we are a resource of the earth and we are here for her, not her here for us

is it not our nature to perceive meaning?

to perceive purpose?

even where none exists?

is not the central trait of our species in essence arrogance and vanity? a feeling of self importance and selfishness?

how can you divide a sense of purpose and meaning from vanity and selfishness?

[CβL]

i find the idea that the dollar represents the earth offensive insofar as it being something here for us to use, to spend, a resource etc

i see it the other way around, we are a resource of the earth and we are here for her, not her here for us

You're too kind calling us a resource of the Earth. Plants regulate our temperature, provide us with oxygen, and give us all of our food. What do we do? I'm struggling to find an answer to this.

But that's not the point. The point is that a metaphor is used to abstract away details which would skew the question. It's easy to visualize how 50c is exactly half of a dollar. But it's much harder to visualize an equal split of Earth and it's resources.

is it not our nature to perceive meaning?

to perceive purpose?

even where none exists?

It is our nature to find patterns. There are many examples of people who do not perceive meaning, yet utilize patterns. The tribe without numbers (whose name escapes me now). They also firmly believe that there is no purpose to anything. I suspect that too.

is not the central trait of our species in essence arrogance and vanity? a feeling of self importance and selfishness?

No. It is the central trait of all civilizations to date however.

how can you divide a sense of purpose and meaning from vanity and selfishness?

There's not much difference whatsoever. I'm assuming you mean divine purpose though?

[hutch]

A machine can never know its own workings in entirety. If you are sound - can you hear yourself? If you are light - can you see yourself?

To observe is to unite. Everything I observe then must be a part of me. And I must be a part of everything.

The underlying unity of everything cannot be perceived completely. To perceive it, a subject is needed. But then the subject has excluded himself, and there is now duality.

Without death, life cannot continue. Without life, death cannot continue.

I will never die. I will just life again, into the bacteria from whence I came and what I'm made.

The being who cannot be deeply surprised, is enlightened.

Nice...

I like to consider myself the pilot of this body....but none of this body is really me. I am a consciousness that is devoid of any physical matter. If you were able to travel from one atom to another atom at will and at speed then you could start off in my arm and be in your arm in seconds because all atoms are connected so we are all connected. You would just need to find the right route. Down my leg, through the ground and up your leg. I don't know if I am making sense here....let me try it from another angle. I just recently lost a pet that was very dear to me. I have buried him on my property and given him a grave stone. When I visit with him I hold on to the the grave stone and to me it is just like holding on to his head because all the atoms are touching, and we always are...as long as my feet are on the ground or anything grounded. Sounds silly but for some reason it gives me comfort.

You are standing in a desert, and all you have is the clothes on your back. To your right is someone else, facing forward. You notice they're not moving at all, they are perfectly still - everything is existing in an instant, as time has been stopped for you. Further up ahead, there is a dollar, in this place - it's quite valuable, you can buy everything you need and want with it. Next to the dollar, there is a black hole - a singularity where existance is instantly erased. Now you receive a choice:

You can send the other person into the black hole and they will blink out of this existence, and you can keep the dollar and buy everything you needed and wanted.

Or you can split the dollar, and give him 50c and take 50c for yourself. With your 50c you will not be able to buy everything you need or want.

Now you have a decision to make. Nothing will happen until you make your decision.

What do you choose?

There's only one more thing though. The other guy has been given the same choice.

 

Sounds like the script for the next in the horror movie series "SAW".....what would you do because you don't know what he will do....what a conundrum.

[drugo]

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied towards the purpose of mental function

that self exists only in mind, that progression of self is merely the perception of accumulated experience is what is indicated to me

this is my ontology, this is my cosmology

what is yours?

 

Hi Archaea. Great thoughts and questions.

The logos of existence and the cosmos in reference to the experiencing subject is big stuff--- no easy answers there hey! Thanks for offering such deep contemplation and clear articulation. I found your thoughts creative and much of it inspiring.

For me... I personally don't completely buy-in to the appropriated Eastern ideas of emptiness, nirvana and non-dualism as the telos and salvation or drive of my life. In fact, it appears to me that spiritual practices which attempt to completely do away with the self (i.e. anatta, non-dualism, world as illusory etc.) denote forms of pathological world-escapism; the ignorant by-passing of everyday life, up-and-out fleeing, dissolving of self to dissociate from the realities of human embodiment. I can see how such ideas may be so appealing... it isn't easy being embodied and facing the challanges of life (family, friends, work, health, purpose etc.).

It makes so much more sense to MY experience (not the 'holy' truths i read in teh Rig Veda, Bible, or Shipibo myths, but MY immediate and primary being) to see the given world as REAL, including my self, body and intitmate relation to all there is. To say that the world is an illusion sounds utterly propostrous to me. In contrast, to see the world (including me) as made of God, to divinify the self and the relational fields I have with other persons, allows reality air to breath.

So for me and my dealings with reality, it appears that I am at once world-unified and world-seperate , a human node participating in a unique self-disclosure of spirit, in collaboration with other nodes or selves. Last time i check I was here, writing on a computer, drinking tea, listening to the wind blow outside, as A REAL PERSON in a REAL WORLD.

It tend to see myself as an agent that is produced by and creatively participates in cultural-linguistic frameworks (language, beliefs, symbols) and multidimensional sensualities (sight, hearing, intuition, imaginal, erotic, aesthetic, poetic) to co-enact reality with my peers. I do indeed think that interpersonal action is the real juice of spiritual life (not individualised and narcissistic self as nothing, self as illusion, dissociation from world). If the self is illusion, then it follows that the other is illusion. It is such a far-out and detached position and seems to increadibly fragment and mutilate the potential harmony and divine presence which the REAL persons around you may provide. I much prefer to peek into a friends REAL eyes, hold the hand of my REAL beloved, hear a story from a REAL friend, than to negate my self from the world to dodge suffering. Toughen up, I say. Keep chopping wood, or better yet, carving your life's wonderous sculpture, yet try not to get too carried away worrying about the splinters and wounds of embodied labour. A little bit of ointement now and then should do the trick... and there are many different 'ointments' on offer ;)

so my telos is here and now, in the REAL arena of spontaneous creativity that is born 'between' persons... or through interpersonal action. That is, the transpersonal, or divine, is in the interpersonal (though with the notion of person extending to other-than-human domains).

below is an excerpt from a peice i am writing on particiaptory spirituality. I'd really love to hear your opinions. The participatory turn is based on notions of religious pluralism (multiple truths and multiple religious ultimates) and the co-created nature of reality as disclosures that are born from different types of participation in the ultimate and dynamic eternal mystery.

By exploring spiritual and religious activity yet acknowledging the role of nonlinguisitic epistemological variables (e.g. somatic, imaginal, contemplative, emotional, erotic, energetic etc.) participatory thought synthesises and moves beyond the ‘linguistification of the sacred’ (Habermas 1987:77) typical to twentieth century scholarship on religion. In response to Derrida’s claim that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ (1967) and that there is no religious truth of any ontological value beyond language, participatory researchers hold ontological weight on intersubjectively tested insights that emerge from participating in heightened states of awareness characteristic of spiritual and religious experience.

Religious metaphysics tends to be approached by participatory thinkers as types of transrational epistemic phenomena. Studies have demonstrated that the content of spiritual revelations often relates to the linguistic and cultural contexts of the experiencing subject (James 1902); however, in some cases subjects appear to transcend cultural-loading all together. Psychiatrist and philosopher Stanislav Grof (1985, 1988) discovered that in certain circumstances persons undergoing profound shifts in consciousness—occasioned by such things as entheogens or methodical hyperventilation—report accessing rich varieties of ‘religious cosmologies, revelations and even ultimate religious principles’, that were previously unknown to the subject (cited in Ferrer 2002:149-50). Grof’s evidence raises questions about the nature of encountering transconceptual religious phenomena (spiritual entities, landscapes, symbols, energies etc.) and provides a certain type of ontological validation of spiritual provinces.

In order to invite understandings that concern the place and role of nonlinguistic religious variables greater research abilities are inevitably warranted. In response to these challenges participatory thinkers are attempting to overcome neo-colonial positivist assumptions of a perennial ‘ready-made ultimate reality’ by viewing the diverse cornucopia of mystical and religious worlds as different domains that may disclose different transconceptual realities (Ferrer 2002:33-57). Decolonising typical modernist research epistemologies (Kremer 2003:8) by dropping the Kantian-Cartesian framework of a single pre-given noumenal ultimate reality (Heron 1997:276) enables key access points for researchers to better integrate and attune to different religious happenings, thus honouring the subject material in question and opening further space for critical inquiry. The ethics and irreducibility of notions such as religious pluralism and multiple truths, alongside phenomenological methods, therefore support participatory inquiries into the often contradictory cartographies of differing religious realities.

Edited April 29, 2011 by telepathogen

[Gunter]

By exploring spiritual and religious activity yet acknowledging the role of nonlinguisitic epistemological variables (e.g. somatic, imaginal, contemplative, emotional, erotic, energetic etc.) participatory thought synthesises and moves beyond the ‘linguistification of the sacred’ (Habermas 1987:77) typical to twentieth century scholarship on religion. In response to Derrida’s claim that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ (1967) and that there is no religious truth of any ontological value beyond language, participatory researchers hold ontological weight on intersubjectively tested insights that emerge from participating in heightened states of awareness characteristic of spiritual and religious experience.

As an autistic person i cannot help but agree, the language emphasis strikes me as ignorant of the non-linguistic aspects of being and experience that themselves give language meaning.

Religious metaphysics tends to be approached by participatory thinkers as types of transrational epistemic phenomena. Studies have demonstrated that the content of spiritual revelations often relates to the linguistic and cultural contexts of the experiencing subject (James 1902); however, in some cases subjects appear to transcend cultural-loading all together.

certainly common perceptions exist that transcend cultural and environmental information, rather than appeal to an archetypal explanation i consider that there is a common cosmology that is perceived and experienced by many cultures, including a spirit world, specific entities and deities and a host of other related phenomena. Sort of like the sky itself insofar that every culture perceives it, yet has different names for it and the colors they contain, as opposed to the idea that the sky is an archetype i believe that it is a thing existing beyond our subjective perception and that we see it not because of what we are so much as because of what it is. The cosmology of the universe strikes me as no different.

Psychiatrist and philosopher Stanislav Grof (1985, 1988) discovered that in certain circumstances persons undergoing profound shifts in consciousness—occasioned by such things as entheogens or methodical hyperventilation—report accessing rich varieties of ‘religious cosmologies, revelations and even ultimate religious principles’, that were previously unknown to the subject (cited in Ferrer 2002:149-50). Grof’s evidence raises questions about the nature of encountering transconceptual religious phenomena (spiritual entities, landscapes, symbols, energies etc.) and provides a certain type of ontological validation of spiritual provinces.

 

I saw this documentary about ayahuasca recently, Grof was in it and was one of the only so called westerners in the documentary to not have a theory alternative to what the Shamans explained, you see all the other people had theoretical explanations about the experience that served to discredit the shaman in a polite manner, only Grof and a couple of artists were willing to explore the notion of 'what if the Shaman isn't ignorant? what if the shaman is telling the truth?" so to speak. I was deeply impressed with Grof and left with a disgust for the other researchers who wanted to consider anything but the cosmology and ontology of the shaman as real and experienced.

In order to invite understandings that concern the place and role of nonlinguistic religious variables greater research abilities are inevitably warranted. In response to these challenges participatory thinkers are attempting to overcome neo-colonial positivist assumptions of a perennial ‘ready-made ultimate reality’ by viewing the diverse cornucopia of mystical and religious worlds as different domains that may disclose different transconceptual realities (Ferrer 2002:33-57).

Amen. But how to overcome this mindset? I think we have a chance as individuals but collectively? I am uncertain that consensus is worth even attempting to change.

Decolonising typical modernist research epistemologies (Kremer 2003:8) by dropping the Kantian-Cartesian framework of a single pre-given noumenal ultimate reality (Heron 1997:276) enables key access points for researchers to better integrate and attune to different religious happenings, thus honouring the subject material in question and opening further space for critical inquiry. The ethics and irreducibility of notions such as religious pluralism and multiple truths, alongside phenomenological methods, therefore support participatory inquiries into the often contradictory cartographies of differing religious realities.

 

I am not so sure that we can't have it both ways, that like the sky there is a singular entity or cosmos, which is experienced differently due to the parameters of cultural contexts and relevant ontological information, that the contradictory aspects are themselves artifices of symbolism and that like with the night sky, two constellations can involved real stars and yet seem to conflict. We western cultures seem to see two different constellations involving the same stars as a conflict, that they can't both be right, and yet as you mention pluralism and multiple truths are required to honor the subject material, i view the symbolic conflicts as secondary to the symbol content and that the underlying aspects are themselves objective but must be subjectively defined as that language itself is a confinement of meaning based on exclusion of concepts outside of the meaning, sort of like blue is a term defined as much by everything that isn't blue as it is defined by what blue is. Because of this type of exclusion, which is a fundamental aspect of symbolism and language, conflicts inevitably occur, in the case of the constellations because each constellation is defined by what is not the constellation, and when you have two distinct constellations involving the same stars the conflict of exclusion occurs as an artifice of the defining of terms. So while i agree we must honor and participate in what appears to be contradictory cartographies i also view the contradiction as a quality of the map(s) and not the landscape itself.

Thanks for your stimulating reply.

If i missed the point of it please let me know.

[Gunter]

To say that the world is an illusion sounds utterly propostrous to me

I believe that it is illusory, not an illusion per say, but that there are fundamental aspects of nature beyond the limitations of our perception and that as such we cannot ultimately come to understand or comprehend in entirety but must either come to accept our limitations of perception and thus focus on our subjective domain or rather remain forever searching for information that will put everything into place.

However I am religious, i am a daoist and a devotee of Shiva (after a manner) and have specific views and experiences both informed by vedic teachings and my own experiences of life. In a manner there seems to be illusory aspects to experience, for example to the best of our detection all of everything is made of fundamental particles or elements, yet this is not detectable to the naked eye, that is to say that if we accept that such things as molecules exist then we must recognize something of our experience of reality as being limited to a narrow spectra of perception as that we do not experience molecules in a direct manner in and of our own existence.

The distinction between events in terms of cause and effect also seems to imply illusory qualities to causation, what distinction exists between cause and effect that is not an aspect of the language and structure used to measure and observe? Cause is ultimately effect and effect is ultimately cause and in the perception of time, even in the measurement of time we must occupy the moment of Now, regardless of what or how we measure and consider. Transcendence of temporal perception is among the most interesting of common experiences to transcend cultural and linguistic borders.

As to the appropriation of eastern philosophy, this seems to have been done with a potent disregard for the contexts of the philosophies themselves and as such I cannot expect that our understanding of these philosophies is anything but a spectacle. the appropriation of shamanism into our own culture is the same in my own understanding, which is certainly limited and naive, the ethnocentric aspects of our culture and the so called discoveries never cease to amaze me, in this way peyote is said to have been discovered about a hundred years ago, despite being used for thousands of years. In the same light our perceptions of eastern philosophy and shamanism are contextually new things, as opposed to continuation of those traditions, to me this implies that the appropriation of such philosophies comes at the great cost of undermining their ontological legitimacy and relevance. We toss around terms like shaman, karma and nirvana in such ways that they become new terms that are as distinct from their traditional contexts as a Chihuahua is from the wolves it ultimately it descends from.

This is largely why i posed the questions i did in this thread, i wanted to see what the experiences and beliefs of others were in relation to their cultural contexts, i find that few people question their spirituality and the cosmological structure it implies. Herodotus said that all men tend to believe in the fashion of their fathers or their culture. To identify our culture in this information age is to realize that perhaps our father is no longer biologically defined, in a sense, but is a facet of the information context of interpersonal consensus in terms of validation. Our family, our tribe, has become a structure united by our technology and ability to seek out comfort and appreciation in a dynamic way. It is as if a new social order has formed and goes largely unrecognized, one which informs experience in a whole new way. Culture becomes more voluntary than ever before and validation of perception through peer interaction is now able to transcend nearly ever aspect that previously limited it.

The world will never get smaller than this.

[drugo]

So while i agree we must honor and participate in what appears to be contradictory cartographies i also view the contradiction as a quality of the map(s) and not the landscape itself.

 

There is a lot there. I'm not entirely sure what to respond to but I'll try and choose the major things that come-up for me.

The view that there is a 'landscape' of real reality which each culture or person perceives in cotnridiction to THE ULTIMATE REAL reality of things, aligns with the Cartesian-Kantian vacuum that I critiqued in the previous post. I think that 'maps' are dynamic realities. Cultural-linguistic maps appear to be constantly co-created through consensual interplay with an always undefinable pregnant mystery. We participate with interfaces of embodied sensitivities (sight, hearing, movement, memory, speculation, dreaming, desire, ethical, aesthetic) and it appears that our 'maps' are REAL yet peculiar or specific dimensions of this overall experience of embodiment.

I guess that broadly speaking, I am actually really interested in rationalising the structures and dynamics of life by participating in philosophical and theurgical dialogue, yet I do try not to get too carried away with intellecual bondage when it comes to the big questions. I think that the pragmatic (or practical) dimensions of belief often reveal greater truths than the intellectual-rational dimensions.

So like William James and other pragmatists tend to push, I like to consider, 'well what does this or that belief DO to the process and experience of my life, including the life of my peers and the worlds I inhabit'. World as illusion makes me shrivel up and hide, or bolster with grandiosity above and beyond the world, both forms of narcissism if you ask me.

Back to my initial critique of 'map' vs 'real reality'. Such a belief leaves me feeling like the world is not quite real, nearly true, but ultimately just a map of a real terrain that I will never truly know. It makes much more sense to see epistemic landscapes (thinking) as real yet subject to peculiar dynamics, including particular relationships to embodiment and interpersonal becoming. Rather than primarily separating the cogito (Cartesianism), as an alien artefact that can't REALLY relate to the world, that cannot ever be in TRUE accordance with other dimensions of embodiment, that is, in interbeing agreement, I prefer to see thinking as a faculty of existence that is born intimately in relation to the broader phenomenon of experience, and thus the experience of given reality itself--- of things appearing REAL in any given moment.

The findings of quantum physics and the inseparable relationship between perceiving and perceived suggests that we are harmonically attuned in a reciprocal bipolar symmetry to the world. It seems that the world is being constantly made real by the experiencer (and this 'making real' is subject to embodied experiences, interpersonal action, thinking, contemplating, dreaming, and a whole gammat of other dimensions which include yet are not separate from forces of 'nature'; gravity, wind, heat etc.).

I therefore think that the cultural-linguistic 'maps' are vital forces in the construction and manipulation of our dynamic realities, including what tends be called material phenomena. Once, as an organism, humans couldn't see colour. Yet what is colour without an eye to see?

Surely there is an intimate interplay between the psychic geometric gases of thought and the physical structures of life. We do not generally listen to music with our eyes nor paint pictures with our olfactory system (smell). Our eardrums resonate with TRUE sound, our eyes resonate with TRUE light. Sometimes we might hear things or see things that no one else present perceives but they are simply true sensitivities particular to the laws of different dimensions of being.

Thinking is played out in a unique dimension of being, one that traverses past and future, space, and dabbles in the illustrious imaginal plane. Sensitivities (including thinking, or devising 'maps', and not simply hearing, seeing, smelling, intuiting, erotic feelings; aesthetic, ethic, imaginal etc.) are all part of this world, may influence and be influenced by each other, yet are each peculiar to certain non-fixed laws, a la, the multidimensional relativity of co-creative participation.

Truth, or truths, therefore appear to me as relative points that may reveal transconceptual realities (excite other dimensions of experience). We might not 'see' the ALL in ALL due to organic partiality, yet we are indeed nibbling on true slices of the cake. Try smelling the wind at the beginning of spring and tell me that it ain't completely real?

Edited April 29, 2011 by telepathogen

[FancyPants]

Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.”

— Alan Watts

Read that post yesterday morning, and I'm still turning it over in my mind. Makes more and more sense the longer I think about it. The Living are the Universe's conscience playing an ineffable game of Sims.

That said, I can't imagine I'll ever decide utterly what I think is true and right. The idea of there being multiple Truths only makes sense in my mind if we as individuals shape what is and isn't; otherwise how could it (Multiple Truths) be true? Unless there's multiple realities as well; and if that's true, then surely the possibilities are potentially infinite?

[niggles]

I think I might understand whats going on a bit better when my body dies.

I feel like 'everything' is moving towards a singularity.

I dont know wether that would be a personal experience of singularity - which I imagine would make the event my physical death, or a singularity shared in experience by all of us.

Maybe both.

In any case, its very interesting

[devance]

do we as individuals come to specific conclusions, or rather do we share perceptions?

are our spiritual concepts, beliefs and their inherent structures and relations deductions or are the perceptions?

what is your spiritual cosmology

that is to ask:

how do you see the structure of the universe relating to spirituality?

where do you fit into your belief structure and as what?

is it teleology?

what i mean in this question is, do you see purpose, as a means to an end, in your existence and or in the existence of the universe itself?

in terms of ontology, what is the structure of your belief system, how does it fit together and relate and in this where do you fit into it?

How does your ontology evoke itself in your experience?

What is your evidence for it?

what is your experience of it?

I can state that i believe in a higher power, a symmetry to existence that is after a manner crystalline, this symmetry might be inferred as having purpose as that it has arrangement, but is not about an end or a result and as such does not correlate to purpose, in my way then i am as a molecule in a crystal, be it as part of the structure or as an impurity, so to speak, and thus while i fit into the structure of nature it is not about me or about any purpose that i serve in any specific manner, nor is it about a result, it is not goal oriented but rather is as is, that is to say that there is no destination, nor journey, that cause and effect are the same thing and their distinction is an artifact of my functionality.

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied towards the purpose of mental function

that self exists only in mind, that progression of self is merely the perception of accumulated experience is what is indicated to me

this is my ontology, this is my cosmology

what is yours?

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well not, as to if the mind influences quantum biophysics.

I had the same outlook as a somewhat of buddha concept.

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism - and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

With quantum biology that might be true as well but more of a matter of probablity and information transfer as opposed matter and energy

So a different life form as biological development and especially if taught.

[devance]

do we as individuals come to specific conclusions, or rather do we share perceptions?

are our spiritual concepts, beliefs and their inherent structures and relations deductions or are the perceptions?

what is your spiritual cosmology

that is to ask:

how do you see the structure of the universe relating to spirituality?

where do you fit into your belief structure and as what?

is it teleology?

what i mean in this question is, do you see purpose, as a means to an end, in your existence and or in the existence of the universe itself?

in terms of ontology, what is the structure of your belief system, how does it fit together and relate and in this where do you fit into it?

How does your ontology evoke itself in your experience?

What is your evidence for it?

what is your experience of it?

I can state that i believe in a higher power, a symmetry to existence that is after a manner crystalline, this symmetry might be inferred as having purpose as that it has arrangement, but is not about an end or a result and as such does not correlate to purpose, in my way then i am as a molecule in a crystal, be it as part of the structure or as an impurity, so to speak, and thus while i fit into the structure of nature it is not about me or about any purpose that i serve in any specific manner, nor is it about a result, it is not goal oriented but rather is as is, that is to say that there is no destination, nor journey, that cause and effect are the same thing and their distinction is an artifact of my functionality.

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied towards the purpose of mental function

that self exists only in mind, that progression of self is merely the perception of accumulated experience is what is indicated to me

this is my ontology, this is my cosmology

what is yours?

that being said i interact with the structure i am part of in a responsive manner, both it and i affect each other and ultimately there is no distinction between us other than in my mind, the concept of self to me is ultimately irreverent, there is no I in me, so to speak, the function of my mind does not mean that self exists in an independent manner but indicates that self is a dependent concept, that subjective experience has an objective foundation. that for my perception of self to exist, self must be an illusion, a creation of my perception, that my perception of my experience is not the same as independence from the experience but rather indicates the opposite, that identity is a perceptive illusion and as such is a concept to be applied

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well not, as to if the mind influences quantum biophysics.

I had the same outlook as a somewhat of buddha concept.

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism - and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

With quantum biology that might be true as well but more of a matter of probablity and information transfer as opposed matter and energy

So a different life form as biological development and especially if taught.

[that self exists only in mind, that progression of self is merely the perception of accumulated experience is what is indicated to me]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a quantum physics mental model there are living as beings but as with fallen angels, just not a connection [empathy].

Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another sentient or semi-sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. The English word was coined in 1909 by E.B. Titchener as an attempt to translate the German word "Einfühlungsvermögen", a new phenomenon explored at the end of 19th century mainly by Theodor Lipps. It was later re-translated into the German language into "Empathie" and still in use there.[1]

Empathy is the key cornerstone in genuine human relationships. Sociopaths do not experience empathy as those who do not fall under this category. Empathy is conscious. It means one with empathy feel compassion, while those without do not take into account other people's affect emotions.

Psychopathology reveals that people with an absence of empathy can be defined as a sociopath or psychopath. A person who has empathy understands another.]

So with a quantum biology theres a 30 percent they don't care even born.

So a different biology which every will know even after death.

But everyone who in God's family [100 percent] won't be left behind, so as a not knowing or even believing or religious].

I seen TV series about with a short segment at the end [african bushman [about 4 foot tall] in about the bizarre foods [\which was cooked porcupine.

What was funny they walked into the camp with a large branch as mimicking the TV microphone crew member who holds up the sound mike called the gripper on a long pole in front of does in a TV [MADE THEM HUMAN FOR ME]].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarre_Foods_with_Andrew_Zimmern

[Andrew samples the traditional Tanzanian breakfast called supu, soup made with goat lungs, heart and liver, as well as cow stomach, intestines and tongue. Andrew also travels to the famous Mount Kilimanjaro and Ngorongoro Crater. Visiting a local tribe, Andrew tries such delectables as fresh cow's blood and the coagulated form of it. The blood is obtained by shooting an arrow at close distance into the jugular vein, however, the wound heals quickly and the cow is not harmed.

http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/teleology

[The question of whether teleology is a basic feature of the universe is unresolved. It looks as if such ultimate "scientific" questions go beyond the realms of verifiable fact to questions of the ultimate nature of reality, questions traditionally regarded as philosophical in nature. Consideration of scientific facts is relevant to such questions, but in the end the interpretation of the facts seems to depend on evaluations and on basic attitudes to a materialistic philosophy, both of which go beyond the scientific evidence.]

I like the article.

Edited June 17, 2011 by devance