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
In a message dated 8/20/06 10:15:29 PM, email@example.com writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> 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
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism .
> 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism 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
> In the universe of Guru Glacio (see http://www.geocities.com/Glacio_Sapiens
> ) 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, email@example.com 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
> http://www.geocities.com/bioterrorism_in_vancouver/SPIRITUAL_BIOTERRORISM and ask, O' Great Guru, why am I here?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application