[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Fw: [Mind and Brain] More arguments in behalf of a hybrid reality where the empirical & the conceptual become one seamless unit.

Aug 20, 2006 09:47 PM
by leonmaurer

In a message dated 8/20/06 10:15:29 PM, writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
>  From:
>  To:
>  Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:37 PM
> (PtP in block letters below ... addendum on how this applies to Future 
> Cities below ...........)
>  Please excuse my generous clippings from the rest of the essays below which 
> are very interesting in their entirety too; but I want to focus on just 
> a few issues for now as I reconcile a little of what little I know about 
> Buddhism, Scientism and Christism, all of which are over-arching "belief systems". Or 
> should I say "ways of being" awkward as that is? 
> LM: Even the "Singularity" (per Kurzweil) and its future potentials of 
> extending life as predicted by some AI dreamers -- who almost religiously believe 
> in the infallibility of science and technology --
>  I retract my earlier disparagements of "Scientism" which is a fervent and 
> central belief in the theory and practice of science. Many Scientists 
> practice Scientism as a religion as surely as Buddhists practice Buddhism as a 
> religion. Both can be criticized fairly, as can any belief system or religion but 
> neither should be disparaged.
> LM:   Actually, my negative attitude about scientific materialism is based 
> primarily on the fact that it isn't these physical sciences and technologies 
> that has driven the world to its present state of near destruction and 
> possible collapse due to catastrophic ecological failure, nuclear war, economic 
> collapse, etc. -- but it is the greed and selfishness, as well as 
> irresponsibility (with respect to maintaining the natural home of all humanity) of those few 
> that profit from such scientific advances and its technologies, that are 
> determined solely by their self consciousness, and in a sense, their lack of 
> conscience on the highest level of human compassion related to all of life in 
> our continually evolving and completely interdependent Nature. Is science and 
> technology then, ready to take over the roll of the God who determines the 
> fate of all mankind as well as the Earth that gave it birth, and on which it 
> lives and is nourished by?
> PtP:   IMO that is a terrific piece of prose and I took the liberty of 
> putting a portion in block letters. It sounds like an expression of Buddhist 
> morality/ethics (eg the Eightfold Path) doesn't it? See 
> .
>  And what is the role of God in Buddhism? Contrary to a widespread belief 
> that God has no place in Buddhism, wikipedia says " ... at another instance, 
> the Buddha had claimed that 'the Supreme Reality' is indescribable and 
> inutterable". Also at we read that there 
> is the " ...ABSOLUTE TRUTH ...." of Buddhism and its "...ULTIMATE GROUND 
> ...."  More than that, Nirvana-as-Paradise is not the primary objective of 
> Buddhism but rather the primary objective is ABSOLUTE TRUTH as we read: "Nirvana, 
> then is not a place nor a state, it is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH to be realized ...."
>  If God = Absolute Truth or Supreme Reality (eg to the Christist) and 
> Paradise = the product of being at-one or at-one-ment (atonement) with respect to 
> Absolute Truth or Supreme Reality, then these two expressions are reconciled 
> across the two belief systems. What does the Scientist in the third belief 
> system try to attain? Absolute Truth or Supreme Reality. What "Ultimate Ground" 
> would ensue from success? Where will homo sapiens be after just one > 
> 200,000,000 year tour of this galactic centre, mindful that even if we date homo 
> sapiens from Neanderthal we have only been here for 125,000 years? The Scientist 
> aspires to cure all disease and attain eternal life for homo sapiens. OK, so 
> we may all just be heads in bell jars as on Futurama TV after one tour, but 
> give the Noble Scientist a few more star trekking tours and expect better 
> results under the Ministry of Eternal Health and Life.
> LM: With all this in mind, I feel that since the scientific method cannot 
> answer the hard questions of consciousness, it can never offer any solution 
> that might help us understand our own selves better ....
>  Psychologists used to say that the Weber-Fechner Law in psychophysics was 
> the only really scientific law this fledgling science had. If you consider an 
> experimental paradigm like that of flashing a light with carefully calibrated 
> increments, asking the subject to report the magnitude, what do you say 
> about scientific method and the hard questions of consciousness? The subject's 
> report is a report on consciousness. The calibrations are made. Hard data is 
> obtained from both realms, subjective and objective. As a result we better 
> understand our own selves.
> LM: If such consciousness was and is a universal aspect of fundamental 
> reality prior to and after the big bang, and in that beginning was in harmonious 
> relationship with matter, perhaps a true self knowledge of what we really are, 
> if understood by all, would begin to make each of us aware of our mutual 
> responsibility to be in harmony with the physical aspect of nature and all the 
> human and other supportive sentient beings on it. 
> PtP:   What are we really? "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" 
> (Psalms 8:4). In Lenny Kravitz lyrics, "Who we are but who we are; riding on this 
> great big star". Homo sapiens has been here for <1% of just one 200,000,000 
> year round tour in a universe which scientists say has been here for billions 
> of years. In this universe alone, the big picture is > billions of years x 
> billions of stars x billions of galaxies. Japanese scientists have put forward 
> scientific details on how one might create another universe. Most 
> physics-cosmologists (including Hawking) subscribe to the idea of multiple universes. 
> Are such multiple universes not hierarchically arranged? Do the intelligences 
> in some not come closer to being at-one with Absolute Truth than those in 
> others?
>  In the universe of Guru Glacio (see 
> ) ice is king. Those zero point energy hydrogen bonds which chemists have 
> discovered in ice are portals from the Glacio Galaxy to ours. But some say Guru 
> Glacio is a teller of tall tales and perhaps he has been smoking too much of 
> the sacred lotus dung.
>  And what do we call the Ultimate Ground from the vantage point of Supreme 
> Reality and Absolute Truth in that universe which is higher than all other 
> universes? Could we call it Paradise? Christists accept that. Why would 
> Scientists and Buddhists object? Why would we not then be "in harmonious relationship 
> with matter"?
> LM:   Since, the only way of knowing this is to know who and what we are by 
> introspective observation (directed toward our inner self or fundamental 
> subjective state of our existence) is the reason I suggested the web site of a 
> philosopher who had taken this trip that offers us a means, as well as a 
> possible answer -- which all of us can explore, to find out for ourselves what's 
> real and what isn't.
> PtP: Such a psychenaut, a master of introspective observation would 
> discover what? Guru Glacio might say "cosmic consciousness". Who said that the 
> Kingdom of Heaven is within us?
>  But what do we do with the Buddhist assertion from wikipedia, that " ...the 
> perceived reality is considered unreal ...." and we suffer under " ... the 
> illusion called reality ...."? Does that not clash with science?
>  No Scientist has ever held up an atom or an aadvark. Such entities are only 
> perceived in science and the sense-data are registered by introspective 
> consciousness. But then the Buddhist takes away even perceived reality and calls 
> it illusion. What is illusion? The Moon Illusion is consciously experienced 
> when we see the Moon overhead as small and the Moon near the horizon as big. 
> Illusion happens when GUTE (Grand Unified Theory of Everything) has succeeded. 
> GUTE is the aspiration of Scientism after "Operation Know It All" has done 
> its job, ie after a few more tours of the galactic centre, after the talking 
> heads have been liberated from bell jars. Until then, we "see through a glass 
> darkly" and we stumble along in our dis-unified and not-so-grand perceptions 
> so why not say we live in illusion?
>  In the words of folk singer Joni Mitchell, "It's life's illusions I recall; 
> I really don't know life at all".
>  What kind of life will we know having achieved at-one-ment with Absolute 
> Reality? Scientism wants us to have a life in which we know it all and have 
> access to all things; in which there is no more sickness and no more death. How 
> can Scientists have any self-respect with such puny aspirations? Why don't 
> they think like Buddhists and Christists?
>  Pursue ye first the Kingdom of Heaven .... (and first over that first), 
> Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength .... Who said that?
>  Succintly : Pursue first Absolute Truth; Nirvana will be your reward ....
>  Are these two belief systems promulgating a practical, workable, dare I 
> say "scientific", psychophysics-cosmology? Do they have a "way" to make it 
> through the rabbit holes (or worm holes) of the cosmos? Will such a way work even 
> in the Glacio Galaxy?
>  "When your dream becomes reality, living inside the imagination" - 
> Flashdance lyrics
> LM: That's all I had in mind, when I posted (and later reposted) my previous 
> letter... And my only beef is that I don't believe science and technology 
> can ever know the true nature of reality -- which, by my own logical deduction, 
> starting from the zero-point of my own consciousness (found by the 
> meditative means described on the web site, and analogously and correspondingly 
> related to the zero-point of universal consciousness) -- I was able to construct, 
> in a perfectly logically visualized 3 dimensional transparent geometry (based 
> on my experience as a pioneer in the development of 3-D computer graphics 
> systems used now in Hollywood),
> PtP:   "Operation Theodolite". What is God's geometry?
> LM: Rest assured, there is no mystical, magical, miracle, or supernatural 
> aspects to any of the ideas that I've presented with this ABC concept of 
> universal reality.
> PtP:   Guru Glacio does not apologize that his magical mystery tour is 
> coming to take you away ... call it an alien abduction if you prefer.
>  Define super-natural.
> LM: an imagined "creator" or personal God, supposedly beyond all time and 
> space, who allegedly forms this universe or produces phenomena using means 
> that are not in accord with fundamental and immutable laws of nature inherent in 
> the spinergy of the zero-point of Absolute space.   Therefore, mind 
> controlling matter through application of will guided by focussed awareness and 
> controlled imagination, since they are governed by such laws, CANNOT be a 
> supernatural occurrence.   (Guru Glacio would agree with this, I would think, if he 
> is a legitimate metaphysician and not a figment of someone's imagination. ;-)
> Leon Maurer
> ABC Home Page
> How It All Began
> In a message dated 8/12/06 6:46:51 PM, writes:
>      •     [Warning! This message is quite long; the weary and faint hearted 
> can read just the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and last couple of paras.]
> The best system for answering this question in relation to just about every 
> practical problem and situation is scientific method.
> For me, an EX Christian, the only feasible referent the word God can now 
> have is life on Earth.
> PtP: Try Buddhism. As a columnist wrote in a local newspaper, "Buddha taught 
> that all beings suffer and want nothing more than to end their suffering ... 
> Buddha said that true happiness and contentment comes from finding inner 
> peace, not from trying to arrange the world outside to suit us". Thus we read 
> about suffering in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as a remedy. In 
> Runes Dictionary of Philosophy we read that " ... all pain, suffering, 
> mental anguish and samsara cease ...." as  a result of " ... the complete 
> extinction of individuality, without loss of consciousness, in the beatific rejoining 
> of the liberated with the metaphysical world-ground".  Beatific? As in 
> Beatitudes? "Blessed are the peace makers ...." Extinction of individuality as in: 
> It is no longer I that live but Christ that liveth in me? (Galatians). Can 
> Scientism systematically examine a "peaceful state of mind"? It does so quite 
> frequently in psychology experiments all over the world.
>  Suffering people are not well people. Thus we live on a sick planet and 
> everyone is infected with this plague. Ultimate Reality and Healing ... that is 
> the teaching and preaching of "The Grasshopper", my favourite Buddhist 
> missionary in the rain forests of "Deepest, Darkest BC".
>  Buddhism is not Nihilism. It is self-destructive in a constructive way but 
> it is not suicide. Consciousness is retained. What consciousness do you want? 
> Wikipedia tells us the Buddhist seeks Nirvana even while living in this 
> world. Thus a Buddhist "City of Peace" at Whistler would have 
> _________________________________________________________________ features because 
> _________________________________________________________________
>  point-by-point and feature-by-feature. Wikipedia again: "Thus Buddhism 
> spans a grand arch from evident non-theism to mystically held mentalist 
> panentheism"; and "Especially in the West, many people who are devoutly Buddhist may 
> also consider themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or belong to other 
> religious groups".
> LM: ...Or none at all... Especially if they ascribe to "esoteric" Buddhism, 
> or pure theosophical scientific metaphysics, which makes of God solely the 
> impersonal conscious power residing in the zero-point singularity out of which 
> this whole universe emanates, involves and evolves according to the immutable 
> laws of its fundamental Nature. 
>  Either that or we can make an arduous climb to the troglodyte lair of Guru 
> Glacio and start the ultimate horror movie with its great puzzlement, 
> the material-spiritual linkage referred to at 
> and ask, O' Great Guru, why am I here?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application