Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 11-06-2008

The Gebser Conference is in Melbourne this Thursday to Saturday. I’ll be there on Saturday, batting for the Daily Grail and looking very confused.

Much thanks to Greg and Kat.

Quote of the Day:

[O]ne can only wonder how the seemingly subtle process of transforming the inner sphere of consciousness — no longer squandering ‘free time,’ but using it to attain ‘time freedom’ — could provide any defense from the catclysmic ravages and global meltdowns to be expected when our “superannuated spatial world” crashes and burns, “as everything that becomes lifeless and rigidified breaks apart,” a collapse that appears to be approaching us at high speed. Gebser’s answer to this is similar to Sri Aurobindo’s, Jung’s, Goswami’s, and Steiner’s: If “mind-stuff,” rather than matter, is the fundamental ground of being, then a transformation of consciousness has, potentially, far-reaching effects — not just in the psychic world, but in the one we perceive to be physical, as well.

Daniel Pinchbeck, 2012: The Year Of The Mayan Prophecy p. 217 (Amazon US or UK),

  1. Pinchbeck
    Has it right.

    If enough people were to genuinely understand the role of thought and consciousness within themselves, they would discover and begin to live at a higher level of conscious existence. The effect of this would be far reaching, but those effects cannot be anticipated from the perspective of the level of consciousness that predominates today.

    If we reach a critical mass of humanity that experiences an inner shift, I suspect that what are perceived as impending global crises would simply dissolve. Pratchett’s realization of the perfection of the moment would be widely shared and understood, and would become manifest in the physical world as well.

    Everything is now, always has been, and always will be in an absolute state of perfection. The degree that any given individual is aware of this is an indicator of their own particular level of consciousness, and nothing more. The secret to healing the world lies in healing the self.

    1. Therein lies the paradox!
      Because in order to regular folks to be aware of this, they must first be free of the daily worries of survival, brought upon them by the current state of the world—aswell as their perception of the world I suppose.

      Sure, we can ponder on these ideas because we have the luxury of a roof over our heads and food in our refrigerators, but what would the people who lost their posessions and family by the recent quake in China think of the idea that they must change their perception of the world in order to change their reality? They would probably spit in our faces for “mocking” their pain.

      It’s not that I’m criticizing Pinchbeck, I think his ideas are elegant and worth discussing, but what bugs me is that we can’t seem to find a way to bring these ideas to the vast majority of struggling men and women; they are only being discussed by the privileged westerners, much of whom are not really that interested in seeing a global change in the first place, because the current state of affairs put them on top of the pyramid. I mean, do you really think people like Paris Hilton and Bono want to stop being part of the elite?

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. I’m not sure
        That these ideas are only being discussed by the privileged in the West, Red.

        Because we live in the West, we are exposed to Western discussions of these ideas, but the ideas themselves are quite common to the Eastern faith traditions. The idea of consciousness holding the key to existence is made explicit in Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist thought.

        You do touch on what I see as a misunderstanding of these concepts, exacerbated by publications such as The Secret, that seem to present raising consciousness as a road to instant wealth and prosperity. Only a giddy, ego-driven “I create my reality” type would consider suggesting to a survivor of an awful tragedy that they only needed to change their perspective to see that everything was alright.

        What Pinchbeck is pointing to is much deeper. The increased level of consciousness that he’s anticipating is not a change of perception that’s brought about entertaining new thoughts at the level of the ego, but rather by recognizing the role of thought from the perspective beyond the ego.

        It is knowledge and a newfound respect for this perspective that appears to be gaining momentum and news coverage in the past few years. From Terry Pratchett’s brief experience to reports as diverse as Edgar Mitchell, Jill Bolte Taylor, Eckhart Tolle and Sydney Banks, to the work of Andrew Newberg and other neuroscientists (as recently discussed by David Brooks in the New York Times), to the wide coverage of the NDE experience – there is a quickening of both reports of higher levels of conscious experience, and of a willingness for the public at large to see these reports as legitimate and as part of the natural human potential.

        I think there are many more people who have had momentary glimpses of the deeper reality over the past few decades, and I think the pace is accelerating. I suspect that this is a worldwide phenomenon, too – though we would necessarily be limited to those reports given prominence by Western media sources. As Pinchbeck suggests, if a critical mass of humanity were to reach a significantly higher level of consciousness, we may very well witness direct effects on the physical world.

        It makes perfect sense if mind-stuff itself is the ground of being, because if that is indeed the case, then what we describe as the physical world has it’s source in consciousness itself, and is, in a very real sense, a direct reflection of the collective consciousness of mankind.

        1. Internet
          Could the internet be used to quicke or coordinate this consciousness shift? Maybe it can’t, but it is an interesting possibility.

          He! It’s almost as that old urban myth that if all the population of China would jump at the very same time, the Earth would change its axis. What we are pursuing now is a mind jump 🙂

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Consciousness shift
            I’ve thought about the possibilities of consciousness shift on a global level quite often, and I wonder what causes it – if, of course, it’s happening at all.
            One possibility is changing EM activity in the atmosphere caused by changing weather patterns. If we take global warming – No, this isn’t an invitation to discuss the merits, or not, thereof – could increasingly violent weather patterns be causing EM activity, thus causing the known changes in brain chemistry?
            I keep thinking of the growing trend towards alien abduction, for instance. Could it simply be a cultural experience caused by such activity? Evidence suggests abductees become more environmentally/spirtually aware.
            The planet fighting back?

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          2. A possible mechanism
            [quote=anthonynorth]I’ve thought about the possibilities of consciousness shift on a global level quite often, and I wonder what causes it – if, of course, it’s happening at all.
            One possibility is changing EM activity in the atmosphere caused by changing weather patterns.[/quote]

            There may be a correlation to EM, though I’d be more likely to consider that the cause may relate more to the orientation of the planet and solar system within the galaxy than to terrestrial weather patterns.

            These ideas are explored to some degree in Walter Cruttenden’s film The Great Year, and book The Lost Star of Myth and Time. Cruttenden’s premise is that human history is cyclical, with ages of enlightenment followed by ages of decline and subsequent ascension to enlightenment again. I think Greg has the video imbedded here on this site.

            Cruttenden suggests the mechanism involves our sun’s position relative to a yet-to-be-discovered binary companion star, but setting this premise aside for a moment, I do seem to recall reading that our solar system will migrate beyond the plane of the galaxy (in . . . 2012!). It could be that there is an effect on individual consciousness that is related to the position of our solar system within the galaxy. Subtle effects from EM could very well have something to do with aligning larger segments of the global population with the underlying consciousness.

            Who knows? It sure appears to me that reports of transcendent experience (of varying types and to varying degrees) are rapidly increasing, and are occurring in segments of the population far removed from the esoteric traditions that have reported these experiences for centuries. Whether this is due to some sort of external influence like EM or simply the next step in the evolution of consciousness (as Richard Bucke speculated a century ago), it appears something’s happening.

          3. Ready, Set . . .
            Mind Jump!!!

            Seriously – I think the Internet is playing a critical role in opening many minds to ideas and concepts that were inconcievable even a decade ago. I mentioned in a previous thread that both David Brooks’ column on Neural Buddhism and the profile on Jill Bolte Taylor were the most emailed articles on the entire Times site for two or three days following their initial publication.

            Not to disparage Greg, but I suspect there are a lot more New York Times readers out there than us Daily Grail types! 🙂 These two articles alone must have hit tens of thousands of inboxes over those few days. And who knows what percentage of the recipients’ subsequently forwarded those same emails to their address books? Exchange of information with this sort of speed and breadth would have been impossible prior to the Internet.

            It’s showing up everywhere – The widely respected Pew Forum (of all places!) has a fascinating transcript of a round table between Newberg, Brooks and other prominent journalists discussing How Our Brains are Wired for Belief, as part of their biannual Faith Angle Conference. It’s worth checking out just for some of Newberg’s mind-bending graphics. I’m sure that his piece on ‘Neural Buddhism’ was an outgrowth of Brooks’ participation in this conference.

            I’ve come to believe that we are living at a particularly exciting point in history. There are a tremendous number of doomsayers out there, but I’m also perceiving a growing sense of hope, and a widening consideration of the idea that perhaps humanity’s potential goes far beyond what anyone currently imagines.

            But then, I’m a heretic! 🙂

          4. Consciousness shift
            Good morning Michael,
            You’ve got me thinking deeply on this subject for the first time in ages, and consequently ideas flow – I’ll no doubt get an essay or three out of it in the near future.
            Apart from the EM possibility, and the other correlations you mention, we mustn’t forget other possible impulses that could affect a collective unconscious. Our ability to properly look spacewards today could play a part. But there is another important possibility.
            We are presently experiencing the death of the Enlightenment. From the 17th century onwards, a revolution of thought occurred in the western world, sparked by people like Newton and Locke. As it played out, we developed modern science, but also a split in the way we think.
            Enlightened thinkers forged the modern world, but centred around English speaking empiricism/pragmatism and Continental European rationalism/holism. This led to a split in thought patterns, and even a split in the latter as fascism and communism arose.
            These three systems (the English speaking outcome being capitalism) clashed violently in the two world wars, and then Cold War, with capitalism being the clear winner. Our present globalisation is due to this, but in winning, did it invalidate itself, thus the excesses in the system we find today?
            If so, we are clearly approaching the end of a thought path, with obvious unconscious repercussions. This does, of course, explain why a possible consciousness shift is western oriented, too.
            Now, put all these things together – EM, space, end of Enlightenment – and you have the type of ‘syndrome’ that I feel is behind most of these types of things – i.e. never one cause alone. But I then argue that a syndrome’s various factors build to something more than the sum of its parts.
            What could that be? Maybe a kind of Global Synchronicity – a change above the components that caused it. I wonder what Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin would think of that?

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          5. Don’t Forget
            Hi Anthony!

            I think it’s fair to say that Descarte’s contribution in articulating dualism played a hugely important role in freeing reason to investigate the natural world while leaving matters of the spirit in the doctrinal control of the church. The dominant religions of the West (the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition) are still reliant on the acceptance of philosophical dualism to support a monotheistic worldview.

            As science continued to progress throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, it became more and more difficult to justify the validity of this worldview with any sort of reason whatsoever. Many rational thinkers, overwhelmed by the demonstrable advances of science, soon abandoned the concept of spirit entirely, which led to the domination of materialism and scientism that may have reached it’s zenith in the late 20th century – though this view remains prominent in the thinking of many today.

            As science has advanced though, there have been many puzzling discoveries that require revisiting of fundamental assumptions. The work that continues today in quantum physics reminds us, to paraphrase Ulrich Mohrhoff, that all of the matter that occupies space is composed of elementary particles that occupy no space. The work that continues in consciousness itself – from Dean Radin to Andrew Newberg to many others, reminds us that we don’t have the slightest idea of what consciousness actually is, yet alone what capabilities or limitations (if any!) are inherent to it. And we’ve now reached the point where there are reports of mystical realization, from NDE research, to spontaneous realization events, to studies of meditating monks, that involve conscious perception – not of an external God in the tradition of the monotheistic faiths, but of profound unity of existence, in the sense of the neutral monist suggestions of a Spinoza, or the idealism expressed in the Eastern traditions.

            Whether we witness this in our lifetimes or not, I’m as certain as I can be that the next dominant paradigm will arrive in concert with the near simultaneous collapse of both materialism and dualism. I’m also certain that the new paradigm will involve a much deeper understanding of consciousness itself, and most importantly, an understanding of how individual consciousness relates to existence. If I were to guess, I’d suggest we’re heading towards pantheistic idealism.

            As for Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, and many, many others – at least as far back as Plotinus in the West – I think they would all approve of where we’re heading. Or is it where we’re returning to?

          6. Consciousness
            Hi Michael,
            I tend to make it a rule not to theorise too far ahead of existing knowledge – a small step into the dark, as I put it. This is not to say I disagree with you – far from it – but we cannot rationalise it in a way that could be easily understood in our present paradigm.
            This said, your words, ‘or is it where we’re returning to’ hold the key, I think. For instance, the rise in mysticism you speak of in terms of wholeness, I’d ask, is this actually new, or is the way it is expressed in modern language new?
            By this, I mean, in the past was the holism automatically appreciated, with no need of explanation, because it reflected experience, whereas today, we are specialised, thus making the experience ‘different’ to the everyday, and in need of explanation.
            I agree about the inherant materialism today. We are living in half a world. Mindst you, I theorised here that we maybe had to become materialist in terms of global consciousness in order to learn the ability of physical communication.
            Such an ability would allow an evolving planet to become consciously aware, through space travel. So maybe the paradigm shift you speak of may not be a total abandonment of a materialist paradigm, but its placing alongside a wider consciousness.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          7. Rise of Mysticism
            Well, Anthony, I’m breaking your rule of stepping into the dark by writing this, but what the hell – it’s your rule, not mine. 🙂

            It appears to me that reports of wholeness and unity are actually increasing exponentially. And it is interesting that Richard Bucke identified a gradual increase of reports of this nature over the centuries in his classic Cosmic Consciousness, compiled over thirty years, and published in 1902. He speculated that we would see a quickening of these experiences into the future, and it appears to me that this is precisely what is happening.

            That being said, I’ve written before that I have serious doubts about our current concepts of evolution and history, both human and cosmic. I just posted a blog entry this week expressing my disdain for the Big Bang theory. I’ve come to the conclusion that humanity is still largely gripped by the ideas we have about who we are, what we are, where we’ve come from, and where we’re going.

            I have serious doubts about the entire view of the past as a long, linear affair. I suspect there’s probably more truth to an eternal physical universe and a cyclical view of human history – it may be that the mythology that recalls a golden age may very well represent a cultural memory of a past age of enlightenment that we are in the process of returning to, and that the increasing reports of mystical realization are the early signs of this. It may be that in the distant future we will return to what was the case in the distant past, when as you suggest, “the holism (was) automatically appreciated, with no need of explanation, because it reflected experience”.

            Now, after spinning off in that direction, I’ll also suggest that if one considers consciousness as the ground of being, which is the understanding common to mystical realization, it’s also likely that different orders of consciousness exist within the physical cosmos itself. I not only think that Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis is a first step towards understanding this, but that there are likely higher orders as well, from the organization of the solar system to the galaxy to galaxy clusters to the cosmos itself. And I suspect that it’s also consciousness that manifests downward as well, operating on the level of migrating birds and butterflies as one example, then further down to the molecular level in organic matter, and continuing on to the world of elementary particles. And perhaps beyond that.

            It’s all one elegant dance, and it all arises from a greater consciousness that we are each connected to. I’d suggest that the reports of a realization of deeper reality, that we call mysticism, are actually reports of a ‘realer’ real, the understanding of which is encapsulated perfectly by Plotinus when he wrote, “we stand in the immediate presence of the Infinite, who shines out as from the deeps of our soul”.

          8. So close
            Hi Michael,
            In many ways we are so close. I share your concern for Big Bang, arguing that we are infatuated by the linear, and our need for a beginning and an end could lie behind the theory.
            Linear history was born out of the Judaeo-Christian mind-set, throwing out the cyclic, yet, to me the only change is in culture. If you strip away any one culture, underneath you find repeatable, and cyclic, mechanisms behind socio-political urges.
            Mysticism is constant throughout all religions, again, if you strip away the culture. I see this as ‘universal psychology’ which will always repeat because religion is our mind at large in the world, made different only by particular environments, and the cultural layer placed on top, suggesting differentness.
            And I, too, think this ‘mind’ is only a lower layer of universal consciousness. To give a touch of credibility to this, I apply the ‘law of large numbers’ which states that the more ‘things’ involved, the greater the order. Hence, a clustering such as a person is of a lower order than a clustering of a species, rising through planet, solar system, galaxy, island universe, and the universe itself.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          9. You’re a mentat, Anthony 🙂

            Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts & specialists lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit-picking, the ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should bring to decision-making a healthy common sense, He must not cut himself off from the broad sweep of what is happening in his universe. He must remain capable of saying: “There’s no real mystery about this at the moment. This is what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we’ll correct that when we come to it.” The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert looks backwards; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. The generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that such principles change, that they develop. It is to the characteristics of change itself that te mentat-generalist must look. There can be no permanent catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. You must look at it with as few preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: “Now what is this thing doing?”

            —The Mentat Handbook from ‘Children of Dune’, by Frank Herbert.

            …I just finished reading this passage a few minutes ago, and instantly thought: Anthony 😉

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          10. And to think …
            And to think I’ve never been a Dune fan. I think I’ll have to take Herbert a little more seriously.
            I suppose, at heart, what I try to do with P-ology is resurrect philosophy. We have science and religion in today’s world. Philosophy has been buried in No Man’s Land. But this is where it should all be happening.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          11. hierarchies
            I think you may be making an intuitive mistake here. Namely that moving up in the hierarchy means greater intelligence or competence of some sort.

            My guess is that you can lose intelligence going up the hierarchy. A village is not more intelligent than the inhabitants.

            An anthill is intelligent to some degree, it has purpose. Individual anta don’t have that. Certainly the cells making up ants don’t have anything close to intelligence. But the species of ants (or anthills) have no intelligence, no purpose.

            A culture (think China, Persia, the US) has some purpose and persistence, but the decisions made by a culture are much less conscious than the decisions made by individuals.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          12. Not quite
            I’m not sure you’re quite grasping this, Earthling. You’re perhaps thinking too specialised. I’m not talking in terms of intelligence as we understand it, but a mathematical predilection to cause greater order – i.e. what we would class as coincidence.

            Reality, like time, isrelative to the observer

            Anthony North

          13. no
            I do understand that you don’t equate your concept or “order” with what I called “intelligence”.

            I am saying that each of a the big pile of atoms and cells making up a biologic individual follows no particular purpose, but the individual does. Aggregations of individuals sometimes exhibit purposeful behaviour, such as anthills, Cities or cultures. The purpose of these aggregations is often more persistent than the (different) purposeful behaviour of the individuals. But it is not necessarily of a higher order of organization. China and Persia have long term purposeful behaviour. The earth does not, much less the solar system.

            I do grasp what you say, I just think that you are wrong 🙂

            As another example, large collections of crystals do not behave like a bigger, more organized crystal.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          14. Cosmic Synchronicity
            Good morning Earthling,
            To begin with, let’s look at your statement here:

            ‘China and Persia have long term purposeful behaviour. The earth does not, much less the solar system.’

            I’d disagree. Many theorists have placed ‘intelligent’ and evolutionary principles upon the Earth, as I have myself. You may decide to ignore such theories, but unless you can disprove them, you’re dealing with a belief. But that is a side issue, mentioned purely to show what I mean by ‘specialised’ thinking.
            Now, what do I mean by ‘order’? In a way it’s a reinterpretation of ‘chance’. If you have a number of people in a society called Smith, the prevalence of a Smith will rise the more people you place in a sample.
            Now, if a universal consciousness exists, then it will have information on all those Smiths. Infact, it will have all the information that has ever been produced in the universe.
            Think of it like the internet – this mass of information with no apparent purpose. Now, part of that society – a lower order, as it were – wants to access something. So along comes the mighty search engine, which, with just a little information inputed, such as a key word, throws up information of similar.
            This is what I mean by ‘order’, with the difference that, rather than throwing up ‘information’, it throws up events – and a string of coincidences occur. In terms of higher order, it is not necessarily intelligent. The purposefulness has been placed by the input at a lower order. Rather like a ‘basic design function’ that allows simple computer programs to evolve bigger and better ones.
            The upshot of this is vital for understanding ‘knowledge’. Think of a scientific theory, or a religious belief even, as an input to our metaphorical search engine. The belief throws up coincidences that shape the world you see. Thus, a scientific theory becomes, not so much explanatory, as creative. Hence, a paradigm that is sceptical of anything that is not individualistic, materialistic, or atheistic will actually live in a reality as if this was so.
            This is the form of order I’m talking about.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          15. Intelligence
            [quote=earthling]I do understand that you don’t equate your concept or “order” with what I called “intelligence” . . . China and Persia have long term purposeful behaviour. The earth does not, much less the solar system.[/quote]

            It seems to me that what earthling states here is what leads to the confusion and the conflict. There’s a tendency to equate “intelligence” with “reason”.

            As I wrote earlier, I’m as certain as I can be that consciousness is the ground of being, and if someone chooses to entertain this as a possibility, it can explain many observations and phenomena that continue to confound.

            On the biological level, we see behavior that suggests a connection with a deeper consciousness, but not something that would imply the application of reason. From the organization of flocks of birds and schools of fish, to the migration of birds, salmon, whales and Monarch butterflies – if we assume that what is explained by currently accepted theory as “instinct”, is actually representative of a connection with a deeper consciousness, these phenomena become much easier to explain.

            On the planetary level, Lovelock and others have shown that it it the interaction of organic and inorganic matter that maintains the salinity of the oceans and the composition of the atmosphere. This suggests that rather than life randomly emerging on earth because conditions were idealized for such an event, life itself operates in conjunction with the inorganic matter of the earth to create the conditions that allow us to exist. Gaia theory doesn’t imply that the earth is engaging in reason, but it can again be interpreted to suggest a deeper level of consciousness at work.

            The discoveries of quantum physics have continually suggested the operation of a deeper intelligence. David Bohm’s work with plasma shocked him when he observed that electrons appeared to exhibit organized behavior, (once stating, “we have something that is mind-like already with the electron”) and the fact remains that no one has been able to explain the mechanism at work on the quantum level. The predictions of quantum physics are most accurate in the history of science, yet no one working in the field can explain why that is the case. Bell’s theorem demonstrating non-locality appears to suggest that everything in the universe is interconnected on a level that horrified Einstein, who decried “spooky action at a distance”.

            Prominent physicists have resorted to terms from psychology to explain observations. James Jeans once commented that, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine”, while Arthur Eddington had this to say:

            “The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind… To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by “mind” I do not exactly mean mind and by “stuff” I do not at all mean stuff. Still that is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to feelings in our consciousness… Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of world constituting ourselves occasions no great surprise; it is known to us by direct self-knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be — or rather, it knows itself to be.”

            When we consider these examples, it’s not such a stretch to speculate that a deeper intelligence is also behind higher orders of oganization, such as the solar system, galaxies or cosmos itself. Yet the mainstream presents the cosmos as the consequence of random gravitational forces – all the while ignoring that gravity is the weakest of the physical laws we know of, and muttering about the anthropic principle.

            Taken together, increasing reports of an understanding of interconnectedness, the “unity” aspect of mystical experience also imply a deeper level of consciousness at the core of existence.

            The difficulty most have in grasping any of this is that we assume that we can arrive at perfect understanding through human reason, which does serve us very well in our interaction with the physical world. We also assume that human reason is the highest order of intelligence that exists. What no one sees is that we are all also connected to the deeper intelligence, but that human reason is itself a construct of that underlying intelligence.

            To quote Plotinus again:

            You ask, how can we know the Infinite? I answer, not by reason. It is the office of reason to distinguish and define. The Infinite, therefore, cannot be ranked among its objects. You can only apprehend the Infinite by a faculty superior to reason, by entering into a state in which you are your finite self no longer – in which the divine essence is communicated to you. This is ecstasy. It is the liberation of your mind from its finite consciousness. Like only can apprehend like; when you thus cease to be finite, you become one with the Infinite.

            (Truth) is not to be investigated as a thing external to us, and so only imperfectly known. It is within us. Here the objects we contemplate and that which contemplates are identical – both are thought. The subject cannot surely know an object different from itself. (Illumination is) absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known.

            What Pinchbeck is envisioning is a critical mass of humanity not just understanding this, but realizing it. If we assume that there is an underlying intelligence that we are connected to, the consequences of the alignment of humanity with the underlying intelligence would be profound, and absolutely impossible for us to envision from our current perspective.

            The implication here is not that there is a “God” spinning creation into existence from some far off realm, but that what we call reality itself is entirely imbued with the divine life force, and that each of us is an individual aspect of that. It suggests that human potential goes far beyond what we currently accept as possible.

          16. Again, very close
            Again, we’re very close, Michael. There is, to me, a connective trend not only through Bohm and Lovelock, but Campbell, Jung, Vallee, Kammarer, Hameroff and Penrose, to name just a select few.
            Putting their work together with the observational and probabalistic qualities of quantum theory, we can come to the conclusion that the universe is probabalistic consciousness, which works with lower level consciousness to sculpt the realities we experience through what we would term coincidence and, basically, our creativity of thought.
            Whether we are rising to higher consciousness, though, I’m not so sure. Could it be that a higher level – planetary, for instance – is in some way directing us? In other words, higher consciousness is coming down.
            Indications are that we are learning to communicate in the abstract in order to explore space. In a philosophical sense, I’d argue that Planet Earth is reaching a stage of evolution that suggests a new form of physical connection with the universe. In other words, consciousness could be moving into a system of connectiveness at the level of our interaction with reality.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          17. counter-examples and bad weather
            Gentlemen, I give you counter examples. And you give me snow jobs.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          18. !
            Earthling, I give you counter examples. Don’t try to demean. Disprove it!

            Nite, nite

            Anthony North

          19. specialists
            I give counter examples to your general theories. It only takes 1 counter example to cast serious doubt on a general theory, if not disprove it. You respond by saying that I don’t understand what you are saying. You are not demeaning, you are evading.

            But on a calm day or night, think about this:

            you are working towards a world where the narrow minded mistakes of the specialist can be compensated. Me too. These mistakes cannot be avoided, and we need the specialists.

            But we need to compensate for those mistakes.

            I am looking for generalist methods myself, we have debated this a few times. It is not “if” we need to do this, just “how”. I have some ideas, how some methods could be used to help. Again we discussed that.

            But I feel you fall into the same trap as the specialist – being a specialist at being holist. And ignoring criticism from outside your field.

            There is much work to be done, very much.

            I just do not believe that a general hierachical view of order makes any sense. If does not work, there are exmaples when it doesn’t. And again, you only need 1 single counter example to disprove it.

            Don’t disrespect.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          20. Cheers for the thought-provoking discussion
            I missed the Gebser conference due to illness, and I’ve barely kept up with this brilliant discussion between Michael and Anthony. For now I’ll just say thank you for a thought-provoking discussion, and a wink-wink to Greg that this is why a Daily Grail forum would be wonderful. 😉

            Cheers,

            Rick

          21. Consciousness
            Good morning, Rick, I’m blushing. Earthling, I’m red faced for another reason, too. Exasperation. Now, where do I begin?
            At the heart of P-ology is the only definite statement I make: ‘P-ology can never offer truth.’ I say this because I accept the absolute need for specialists to approach that. I take their almost proven ideas at face value. Where, in that, is there disrespect, or hints of me being a ‘specialist’ holist?
            I disagree with them when they manipulate the facts to try to disprove anything contrary to their paradigm. Hold out, and they then become quite nasty. The word ‘religionist’ sticks out a mile!
            Now, you argue that to counter one part of my theory can disprove it. Now, let us apply this to science in general. Why do we still harp on about Newtonian gravitation? It was disproved by Einstein. Evolution still has not gathered any real physical evidence in the fossil record of moments of change. It should have been disproved through lack of evidence if we take your methodology into account. Big Bang theory continues to fail to validate its claims through lack of dark matter or energy, or any attempt to theorise at the moment of Big Bang. Disproved.
            Do you see how ridiculous your statement was? Infact, the very heart of the validation process is to throw up relevant counter-arguments in order, not to disprove, but usually to modify.
            Now, did you disprove my theory? I don’t think we’re even talking about the same thing. You’re talking about intelligence and purposefulness of a higher clustering compared to a smaller one. You are talking about the actions of ants, people, crystals, particles, cells. I am not. What you say about these things is, in general, true, but this is irrelevant.
            Okay, lets play snooker. My white hits a red and the red goes off in a direction at a velocity decided by the impact of the white. Now let’s look at this as the well used metaphor for a particle colliding with another. Probability strikes. The laws we experience break down. What I am talking about in cosmic consciousness has as much relation to ants, people, particles, cells, etc, as the probability of a particle collision has to a game of snooker.
            I am going underneath what we see as reality to the construct from which reality arises. Yet to do so, it must bear SOME relation to what we can know, or it is simply belief. So I apply the simple, and well accepted idea that a predilection towards order exists as the number of things, events, etc, grow. It is at the heart of risk assessment, the half life of a radioactive isotope, and even, according to one study, the prevalence of dog bites in New York.
            It has nothing to do with intelligence, purpose, intentionality, or any of the other things you have put up to counter it. China, for instance, may or may not have a higher intelligence in its hierarchy than the individual. It may or may not have increased purpose. There IS no relation between higher hierarchies here. But the predilection towards an accident in any particular street remains totally chaotic and random. Yet a well organised ambulance service in any country can rely on the order of a pretty much statistically accurate number in the higher hierarchy of numbers. This is the form of order I’m talking about. Totally and absolutely different to the argument you’ve put forward to disprove my theory.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          22. large numbers
            All you are talking about here is statistics.

            On the level of the number of dog bites in New York City in any given year, sure you can make predictions. But that means nothing about why any particular dog bites.

            Knowing the number of things does not mean there is order to them. On the contrary, statistics ignores why and how things happen. The assumption is that for counting purposes, the why and how are not relevant. Counting will suffice, that is the assumption.

            Thermodynamics, for example, is just statistics.

            But calling this “order” is using the wrong word. You are specifically ignoring structure and purpose, and assuming that events are random. “Order” ? No, you are saying that we are observing disorder.

            As for counter-examples, emphatically yes, they do disprove a general theory. If I say that all rectangles are square, and you show me one single rectangle that is not square, my thesis was wrong. I you say that all dogs have 4 legs, I can prove you wrong by showing you one dog with 5 legs (which is hard to do), or with 3 legs (plenty of those).

            And as for Big Bang – I do consider this to be wrong, since the predictions seriously disagree with measurements, done by the very same people who propose Big Bang. Not a few percent, but 1 or 2 orders of magnitude (base 10). How they come up with a better theory, now that is difficult, I don’t have a better one.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          23. Large numbers
            Earthling, you are throwing up observable facts to counter conceptual ideas. This does not work. An object falls with the repeatability of your 4 legged dog. The concept as to why these things happen cannot be countered by the observation at this level of reality. The outcome is not in doubt here. It is the reason that has to be proved or disproved through concept.
            As to large numbers, it is far more than statistics. It is the reality of a random event in small numbers displaying increasing order the more numbers involved. It is a well attested and thought through principle. Somehow, order manifests. It is a universal.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          24. order manifests ??
            You are saying that when large numbers are involved, someone or something wants average behavior? That there is a global consensus, or some universal force that does not like non-average behavior?

            So you prefer conceptual ideas to observable facts. Interesting. Observable facts stand in the way of your concepts.

            Having disagreements with reality, are you ?

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          25. Oh dear
            Oh dear, we’ve finally got to that stage again, Earthling, have we? I don’t play your games. The Law of Large Numbers has been around since 1713, complete with observable facts to maintain it. You’re not disagreeing with me, but with a whole host of specialist, and brilliant, mathematicians.
            This is the observable fact behind the starting point for the theory you obviously dislike, but that is your problem, not mine.

            Wise people usually begin as stupid ones

            Anthony North

          26. reality
            It is not a game brother.

            You are disagreeing with reality, in preference to your conceptual ideas. You basically said that yourself – I present observable facts, you don’t like it when said facts disagree with your conceptual ideas.

            It is a good thing to dream about new things, and to imagine about things that nobody else has considered. But every now and then, you need to go out into the real world, and consider that real world too. Everyone can do it.

            I will buy you air transportation to somewhere cheap. London – Munich and return. Or something of comparable price. NYC is cheap too.

            Hey even better, you can fly to Hamilton, Ontario or to Toronto. My treat for the airplane tickets, and I will pick you up and drop you. I know places to stay here, nice views of Niagara Falls and things.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          27. Reality
            Earthling, as I’ve made clear, my starting point is not disagreeing with reality. Now, here’s disagreeing with reality for you. We have discussed, before, my medical condition, and you know damned well that, at present, I am unable to travel. Maybe this reality is difficult to comprehend for you. Otherwise, the taunts are not nice.
            Previous to my present situation I lived in cities, the countryside, I’ve worked in factories, played in a rock band, done time in armed forces, run a business, had a whole wealth of experience of the real world you could only dream of.
            Leave the personal stuff out of this!

          28. not a taunt
            It was (and is) not a taunt. It is an invitation, if and when you can manage.

            I just think it would be refreshing for you.

            The offer stands, whatever disagreements we have.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

          29. Warning
            ‘But every now and then, you need to go out into the real world, and consider that real world too. Everyone can do it.’

            Earthling, when you lose the discussion, you revert to the personal. You do it very cleverly, designed to annoy people into a response without stepping over the mark yourself. You’ve tried it many times with me before, and I haven’t risen to it. You’ve caused at least two people I know of to rise and end up leaving TDG.
            In my opinion it has now got to the stage that I’ve lost all respect for you. And the way I consider you have just patronised me is quite sickening. I cannot see how I can continue to debate with you. Shadow was perhaps right about you many months ago.
            There, I’ve maybe stepped over the mark too. Should Greg decide to take action against me, then I’ll reluctantly have to bid the many friends I’ve met here goodbye. But I cannot stand back any more and let you get away with this method.

          30. so sorry
            It really was is not about winning a debate or losing it, for me.

            It is about the subject. We cannot come to a conclusion that we agree on, ok that is fine.

            No disrespect for you or anyone else.

            I don’t know why Greg would take action against you, I don’t see how you did anything wrong.

            You and me can’t come to agreement on the subject, that is ok. The whole world can’t come to agreement on these things. We are just 2 people.

            Let us relax, and think another day.

            —-
            The large print giveth,
            The small print taketh away.

          31. Bull
            Bull! I’ve thought about this enough many times. No way out. You always go to the personal. It is not acceptable. Full stop!

          32. again sorry
            I never meant any disrespect Nor do I mean disrespect now.

            —-
            The large print giveth,
            The small print taketh away.

          33. Maybe we should take a break
            Maybe we should take a break here guys, I’ve been reading the last threads and seeing how the discussion has degenerated from the original purpose. Maybe we should take a few steps back and let things chill out a bit, don’t you?

            IMHO both of your input in this website is invaluable, and it would hurt me deeply if a rather silly misunderstanding would bring about an irreparable grudge; but I’m confident that the two of you are much too intelligent to let things come to that.

            Yours truly,

            RPJ

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          34. yes
            yes Red you are correct. I will put some ice on my still-hurting foot.

            and in any case, there is no reason that we need to come to a conclusion soon – the original subject is a very old problem, we won’t fix it this weekend.

            —-
            The large print giveth,
            The small print taketh away.

          35. No misunderstanding
            There is no misunderstanding. It is not about the subject matter. It is about getting personal. No fluff. No getting round the issue. If we are to continue debating at all, do NOT bring up the personal.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal