I just want to reply to John's comments in another thread, but I thought I'd start a new thread since it's a huge departure from the original topic that was being discussed....

Who can truly say whether they (or someone else) is interpreting the world as it IS or ISN'T?

I think the height of arrogance has got to be anyone who claims they can interpret the world as it IS. Unless you're god how can you possibly say what is and what isn't?

Perhaps we can say quite a lot about what isn't. We can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that the world isn't flat and the moon isn't made of cheese and humans don't have 2 heads. But I think most people are kidding themselves if they think they know everything about what IS.

We can make what we can consider to be good judgements based on the evidence we have available - but what if in reality the evidence we have available accounts for about 1% of what's happening on all levels. What if the other 99% changes the picture entirely?

After more than a decade of reading into spiritual, metaphysical and psychic subjects, plus my own life experiences, particularly with ayahuasca, and also the experiences of many people I know personally, I can say with a great deal of certainty that there is hardly a soul on this planet that can truly interpret the world as it IS. And that certainly goes for me as well.

Let's be very clear about one thing. This universe is a complete mystery. Nobody can truly say how or why this universe came into being. I always find it funny to debate with atheists who believe in the big bang. They don't usually like it when I ask "ok, so what exactly was it that banged, and how and why did it bang?". Even they can't answer that one. The point being, is that it doesn't matter whether you're an atheist, a bible thumper, a materialist, or a spiritualist, this entire universe is a huge f-ing mystery.

However, there are people who have a greater understanding than most. These are usually not people who have read too many philosophy books, but people who are able to have direct experiences with higher worlds, with higher intelligences, with their higher self, and who are able to see or perceive the energy that makes up what we perceive to be a solid and material world. These are the mystics, the shamans, the sufis and the taoist masters of this world etc.

And I don't want to dismiss the work of scientists and philosophers as unimportant, it's certainly not, but really they're working with just a small part of the picture. Science is always limited by the available technology of its measuring devices while I think philosophy is limited by what the human mind can comprehend, which I believe is determined by the level of consciousness in a person(s).

The following video provides a very useful analogy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

At present, virtually all humans are living in a type of flatland. Most of us are unaware of our multidimensional nature and of all the information that potentially we have access to. Our 5 physical senses only allow us to perceive a small percentage of what IS. However, many people to varying degrees can perceive much more.

All your arguments are still based on how you believe the world to be. Which has not necessarily got anything to do with how things really are. Yes, from the point of view of a 'flatlander' it certainly looks like we're messing up the planet and that all the children of the world are in danger. But what if from a higher perspective that you're not able to see right now, that isn't really the case at all.

What if YOUR interpretation of what IS, really ISN'T? What if everything that is happening right now is happening for a perfectly good reason to help us all evolve into something greater? What if death is just an illusion and nobody is truly in danger of anything? What if ultimately we're all eternal souls and the 'physical' universe is a kind of game we play to amuse ourselves?

What if this article is an accurate description of how things really are?

Unless you absolutely know that those ideas are untrue, and that your ideas about the world are true. How can you accuse anyone of seeing the world in a way that's faulty or that they're confusing what IS with what ISN'T?

Some people don't see a difference between worldly and spiritual matters. Who can truly say they are wrong? Or who can say that one is more important than the other? Whatever one says can only be an opinion. Nothing more.

While I wouldn't describe your latest posts as verbal diarrhoea, I have to say that most of what you have said lately hasn't made much sense to me. It seems to me that you're not trying very hard to articulate some (possibly) complex ideas in a way that a 'layman' can understand. I guess some people have that gift while others don't. I'm not sure whether you do or not, but if you have that ability you're certainly not making much use of it.

I'm sure everything you've said would be perfectly clear and understandable in a forum for philosophy majors, but for almost everyone else... - well let's just say you've confused quite a few people lately. It's not possible to have meaningful discussions here unless we can understand each other.

Quote

Namaste Andy,

You bet me to the punch! I was thinking of posting a similar response, though I doubt I would have put it as comprehensively as you did. I was also wondering if I should open this can of worms! LOL Plus, after my several debates with John I didn't want to seem like I was just having a go at him.

I think I agreed with practically 100% of what you said, so no disagreement, but a few points I wanted to reiterate in accordance for what it is worth.

Andy quotes:-
Perhaps we can say quite a lot about what isn't. We can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that the world isn't flat and the moon isn't made of cheese and humans don't have 2 heads. But I think most people are kidding themselves if they think they know everything about what IS.



I for one didn't interpret John as saying he knew about what everything is - he most certainly is not arrogant (even though I know I'll be accused as being biased!)

He does not think he is above anyone - quite the opposite in fact - I can't count the amount of times he's kept me waiting in the supermarket while he has long conversations with the check out assistant or the cleaner at the clinic! He's keen to know whats going on for everyday working folk.
Also in all the time I've known him he hasn't even picked up a 'philosophy' book!
Its more likely to be a book on American Indian history and Shamans.
However I think it can be difficult putting things down in the written word though and this is probably why people sometimes 'miss' each other and quotes can be taken out of context.

Speaking as the ultimate Layman ( not brainy enough to go to Uni !) I don't have a problem understanding him - he's been able to clarify lots of stuff for me........but then I must have been brainwashed!

Last edited: 8-12-2008 06:18:19 AM

Quote

Often in print people come across as being more arrogant than they actually are. I'm sure that can be as true of myself as much as anyone else. That's always the problem with communicating in discussion forums. A study at UCLA indicated that up to 93% of communication effectiveness is determined by nonverbal cues. So it's probably fair to say that forum discussions are not the most effective way to communicate, however given that we can't all invite each other round for a cup of tea and a chat, it's all we have available right now.

So I'm not certainly accusing John of being an arrogant person in general, but some of his comments have certainly come across that way lately - or at least from my perspective.

Andy

Quote

Point taken Andy I think this quote from William Blooms web site is also helpful

To put into words, however, a reality that is made of dancing energy is a dangerous task, for there can be no guarantee that these static printed symbols on paper can properly tell the truth about a phenomenon that is multi-dimensional.

Quote

Precisely!

Quote

This is a great article:

The Primacy of Consciousness

I still don't fully understand DM, so I'd be interested to know whether DM agrees with the idea that everything is consciousness and that all matter is derived from consciousness. Or does DM oppose that view? If I can get clear on that then I might be able to understand it better.

Thanks

Last edited: 8-12-2008 11:26:45 AM

Quote

Namaste Andy,

As I understand it Dialect Materialism, not completely unlike many forms of materialist philosophy with regards to the material aspect, holds matter as the primary agent (though not necessarily in a gross sense as such). But basically in materialist philosophies consciousness is ultimately dependent on matter and thereby limited by it. Concepts discussed in the article you linked such as chitta run opposite to materialist philosophy and generally oppose the idea that everything originates in the spiritual concept of consciousness/Self/spirit/whatever name one gives That.

If interested in concepts such as those discussed in the article (e.g. chitta) you might find these pages of interest - 36 Tattvas and Sadadhvaa These are concerned with the process of consciousness "descending" to matter (and therefore also the reverse).

Om Shanti
Neil

Quote

Thanks for the clarification Neil, that was my basic understanding of it as well, and for that reason I could never embrace DM, or any other materialist philosophy. I just know that consciousness is primary and there's a great deal of reseach (both scientific and otherwise) that is starting to prove that. I'd go as far as saying it's self evident!

Thanks for the Tattvic chart too, I'm surprised I haven't seen that before but that's interesting. I've read a couple of books about advaita philosophy which I think is an interesting and ultimately correct philosophy, but I find it a bit absolutist. Right now I'm more interested in exploring all the other levels of this great illusion, rather than going straight to the top!

Andy

Last edited: 8-12-2008 01:45:07 PM

Quote

Hi Andy and Neil

Thanks for taking this up and moving it into a tidy new space!

I hadn't realised Joh had replied and taken offence, I thought I was having a nice natter with Suzanne. Sometimes the ego needs to jump right in there (sorry John! Whatever a Glasgow kiss is - I'm guessing it's not nice - I wasn't deliberately aiming one at you! )

It was great to read some clarification, I actually understand the concept of DM now and I'll leave it right where it is, I think. For me dualism of any sort is a human construct and, as such, of limited use.

Can we let that particular thread rest in peace now?

If you're near Perth, you're welcome to drop in for a cuppa and a chat!

Anna x

Quote

Not necessarily so, Andy. Quite ordinary people have these life changing experiences too - in fact, a lot more of them than you may think. And without the aid of ayuasca! I'm one myself, and I've come across many others, some of them the most unlikely persons imaginable. The difference is, we take the experiences very personally & don't try to change the world because of them. David Icke - I am quite convinced - had such experiences...and look how they crucified him because he didn't know how to verbalise it properly.

And also....should we be trying to change the world? Is it not up to each & every one of us to change? And when that happens, the world will change automatically?

Quote

Hi Helen, I'm fully aware that many ordinary people have spiritual awakening experiences to varying degrees, many of which are life changing. David Icke certainly had a spiritual awakening experience which he wrote about it in his book Tales from the Timeloop.

However for most people it's not a consistent or permanent state. I do think there's quite a big difference between people who have 'tasted' these heightened states of awareness and the mystics and sufi's etc who have dedicated many years, often decades, to truly mastering themselves and their energy bodies, and who are able to enter higher states of consciousness at will. However don't get me wrong, I'm not putting these mystics on a pedestal and trying to say they're special or above everyone else. I'm just saying that they have access to much greater knowledge and awareness than probably 99.9% of the population.

How did we get on to the subject of changing the world? You lost me there.

Last edited: 8-12-2008 10:44:43 PM

Quote

Hi Andy

Gosh ..!! where do I start ....and what have I got myself into here !!

Perhaps I should start with apologising for not making myself clear .Yes there can be a problem with language and meaning and it might be better if I,d said '' what IS or ISN'T in the world ...as opposed to '' world as it IS or ISN'T .''
because there is alway a relative aspect to truth...and yes that could convey possible confusion now that I read it back.

However if you have any intuitive sense of what I've been saying regards DM on the other blogs then this would be apparent .

Again let me apologise for not being able to convey the principles of DM very well to you... however I think you'll will find that thats about as simple as it gets, along with the example of Wifeswap. I suggest otherwise you try reading Marx ...near impenetrable ...or Engels ....alot easier ....but still a book full .

However Andy ...and I mean this respectfully ...I cant be responsible for what might be limiting your ''ability to understand ''. As David Icke says ..'one is programmed to think in a particular way' ....and University is the school of ...'' the managers.''

DM is very often in my experience understood very easily by the layman for the simple reason that it reflects the way the brain is less 'compromised' in its '' wiring than 'academics .' where the prevailing'' thought system'' is Cartesian and linear and full of boxes...not holistic....( or more dynamically correct)' not dialectical.'

A very absolutist and if I might say a somewhat ''arrogant'' statement to make....'' Let's be clear about one thing this universe is a complete mystery'' ..... hooooow!! ..I think astronomers and physicists alone would definitely argue quite strongly against that one .... Einstein would be certainly miffed .

I think what escapes you is the''specific '' within the general ...and the question of of what the universe is ....is in 'some' sense qualitatively seperate from...''how this universe came into being ''.

I don't think the Buddha will be too enamoured with that proposition either ....

Also I take it that these ''higher beings'' have told you the best of a '' bad bunch'' solution begins.... with Ron Paul or perhaps UKIP.......but then I never got an answer..... despite the obvious adoration...

Hi Neil .... I take it then the above reply will do for you as well then .?

''after my several debates with John I didn't want to seem like I was just having a go at him.''.....

.....No worries Neil.......go for it! .......just don't '' bottle it '' this time

Last edited: 10-12-2008 05:10:18 AM

Quote

Not so actually. I remember quite clearly reading an interview (in the last few years) with probably one of the UK's most respected astronomers/scientists about the origins of the universe and what came before the 'big bang'. (I'm pretty sure it was Sir Martin Rees).

He was talking about the latest theories about universal origins such as membrane theory and the idea that there have probably been multiple 'big bangs' and multiple universes.

And I also remember him saying that the 'question of why is there anything at all?' will likely be always be beyond the comprehension of human beings'. Or words to that effect.

Here's a quote from him here I just found. It's not the same interview I remember reading, but he's talking about similar things:

HM: So here it comes Professor Rees, my favorite slumber party question: What happened before the big bang?

MR: (laughs) People always ask, "What happened before the big bang?" We certainly can't answer that question, because we have to worry about what the question might actually mean. One of the most popular ideas by physicists is that when you extrapolate back to the very beginning, we have to jettison many of our common sense ideas about space and time. Maybe it's no longer the case that space has just three important dimensions and time just ticks away.

That makes the early universe more complicated to analyze. If you don't have a clear idea of clocks ticking away, the idea of a direction of time - a "before" and "after" - doesn't have any clear meaning.

There are lots of ideas of what might have happened at the very beginning, but we can't say whether there are other big bangs apart from ours. If there are, we can't say whether they are before or after or alongside ours, because to make such a statement implies that you can have a single coordinate system covering them all and a single clock that can be coordinated and synchronized between the different universes. So we can't trace things right back to the beginning, we can't say whether our universe is the only one, and we can't even say whether there are only three dimensions of space.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1373.html

Science can explain a lot of things, but I seriously doubt it's ever going to explain how an entire universe came out of nothing. But I could be wrong...

You almost always find that even the most advanced metaphysicians, spiritual gurus and holy men, all proclaim the origin of the universe is a mystery. The trick is to be OK with that

Quote

The following is from William Bloom's Holistic Spirituality course book

REFLECTION – UNKNOWING

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein

"Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged." Rumi

Mystics of all cultures and traditions want to go deeper into sublime consciousness and understand it more fully. Historically they developed tools and strategies for repeating and maintaining their experience. Usually they retreated from the mainstream world and then used these strategies – meditation, mantra, posture, fasting, dance, music and so on – to take them deeper into the altered state of consciousness and Connection.

It is these people, the mystics of all cultures and traditions, who are the experts on spiritual consciousness and the true nature of ‘God’. Almost without exception, when asked about the nature and reality of a supreme being, they assert that it is all a mystery.

When mystics are asked to explain the ultimate source and meaning of the world; they have no pat answers: The more I know, the less I know. Human consciousness is incapable of comprehending this mystery.

In Qabalah, the Jewish system of mysticism, the universe was drawn as a tree of life. At the very top of this tree were three half circles, like hats one on top of the other. The first was labeled The Unknowable. The second, The Completely Unknowable and the third, The Absolutely Completely Unknowable.

One of the greatest Tibetan teachers, Djwahl Kuhl, described the source of life as
the one about whom nothing can be said.

For mystics, the word ‘God’ is simply shorthand for the indescribable or, in the fourteenth century Christian phrase ‘a cloud of unknowing’.

Last edited: 9-12-2008 05:18:09 PM

Quote

Hi Andy ...

Yes I,m sure that is the case but what I,m referring to is '' what is known of the Universe ..of matter'' ...not what is ''not '' known''...or still in a state of speculation .

Thats why I said you need to qualify the ''specific '' from the within the'' general''...and more specifically to the point you've now made the qualitative seperation that is the' Universe'....and its being born from'' something ''.

Hope that clear it for you ...

Quote

Hi Andy....

.....God your quick with the old finger pressing and you obviously know your quotes and stuff

I'm actually fine with all that ...I wouldnt seek to assert what '' IS'' of what is ''not known.''

I'm just concerned with what IS known..... and ......how you get to Ron Paul.

john

Quote

Actually John, I have no great love for Ron Paul. In fact I'd be interested to understand how you interpret my words of

"He may not have been the perfect candidate in all areas, but he was probably the only candidate to actually have a good understanding of what's causing the economic crisis and was prepared to abolish the federal reserve. He seems like a pretty decent fellow to me. Have I missed something?"

into an "obvious adoration" of him. That doesn't quite compute.

In all honesty I haven't looked very deeply into the policies of Ron Paul (something I would probably do if I adored the guy).

I agree with many of the things he has said. Probably more than any other politician I know about (and I don't know that many as politics is not a big interest of mine).

However just because I agree with many of his policies certainly doesn't mean I have to agree with everything and 'adore him'.

Quote

Hi Andy .... just as you say them.....that'll do for me ........ as the quality of ''adoration''' is not really important here ...its '' identification '' with that matters .....so lets call it ''identification''.

But hang on .......''.I have no great love for Ron Paul''......doesnt really go with .. '' He seems like a pretty decent fellow to me'' .. either !!......

Sounds like a bit of the old back peddling to me ......( just like I've heard it elsewhere not so long ago..in an email from Neil ).

Also rather than reply to me... you post Mr Molyneux and his theory of Animal Farm ....who also makes his case for ........yes you guessed it ...Ron Paul, and you didnt answer me then !.... after all the time I took to give you a reply....so much for discussion !

Oh yes ... ..... and lets not forget the one about' Obama being a nazis.'........Jaynes still waiting for a reply on that one

Hmmmmm .... not bad for someone who claims..''politics is not a big interest of mine ''..

''.thought is action and action is thought ''...

But hey!... don't be ashamed ..its not a dirty word ....

Last edited: 9-12-2008 11:02:58 PM

Quote

It must be getting late over there John. I'd suggest coming back to this tomorrow when you can think a bit clearer

For someone who seems very concerned about interpreting what IS from what ISN'T you sure do make a lot of assumptions about people.

I don't see any back pedaling at all and I would love someone more neutral to jump into this and say what they see.

Are you telling me you don't agree with Ron Paul about anything?

I'm sure that's not the case because if it was then that would mean you would support the war in Iraq and you would also support the existence of the Federal Reserve and fiat money.

So I think we can both agree that Ron Paul has spoken some sense on some issues which is more than we can say for the majority of politicians.

Like I said, I've never looked too deeply into the policies of Ron Paul and considering that I'm never ever going to be able to vote (or not vote) for the guy I didn't think that was very important.

If what you say is true about him that he thinks that protecting the environment is less important than the economy then I would have to disagree with Mr Paul there.

On the subject of Mr Molyneux, when I posted that video I hadn't read any of his writings or any of his other videos. After looking into him a bit more deeply then I have to say I disagree with him about a lot of things.

So let me be clear. Just because I might agree with people on some issues, doesn't mean I agree with them on ALL issues.

And just because I might disagree with people on certain issues, that doesn't mean I don't think they have anything valid to say about anything at all. Wouldn't that be what's called throwing out the baby with the bath water?

Last edited: 9-12-2008 06:53:55 PM

Quote