What hold Primacy?

[bernee51]

What holds primacy – consciousness or existence?

There are two opposing position which I believe are exclusive and exhaustive.

"Existence" - i.e the phenomenal universe holds primacy (is ontologically independent of) consciousness. This is the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of consciousness holds the opposite; the universe is somehow dependent upon some form of consciousness. This consciousness the theist calls ‘god’.

Is it possible for consciousness to exist independent of existence? If we consider the world and our awareness of it we discover objects in our awareness such as a mountain, a lake or another person, we do not experience these objects as "coming into" existence with our initial awareness of them. We experience them as stable parts of reality, as unalterable facts of reality that exist independent of our awareness, but still perceivable by a means of perception. It would appear then that for consciousness to exist it requires something to be conscious of – consciousness is the awareness of existence.

Can consciousness be aware of itself? For any individual x, is it possible for x to be aware of nothing but its own consciousness? FWIW my personal experience with meditation would suggest not. It is not possible to observe the Witness because any observation is an object in awareness. Consciousness cannot observe itself for it would then be an object in the awareness of itself.

Consciousness, in my view, is an evolutionary development our of physical existence.

[Nick_A]

Goat

Sarcasm is a negative response. There is no such thing as positive sarcasm. Sarcasm is a result of negative emotional states.

It seems like gobbledygook to you but does that make it so? Levels of materiality are like levels of paint. Would it be so hard to imagine a wall having seven layers of paint on it and the color defined by the one at the surface? It is the same idea except that layers of materiality are defined by their densities. The most coarse density is on top. You've never been exposed to such ideas or ever had the opportunity to study them. Your ignorance is completely understandable but this doesn't make it gobbledygook but only appear as such to you. Can you see the difference in defining something as gobbledygook and saying simply that you didn't understand it and it appears as gobbedygook to you?

You speak of unsupported assertions but have you ever seriously desired to understand or rather become content to find satisfaction in denial? I have over six hundred dollars worth of books by highly intelligent human beings that understand my path far better than I do. People are unaware of these things from being so content in denial. I have gratitude for these people since their efforts help me.

I have a choice if the world doesn't make sense to me yet feel that meaning does indeed exist on some level. I can just deny or I can seek others having the same questions and ponder the depths of their answers which lead into a quality of thought more suitable for these questions than our normal associative thought. I choose to admit my ignorance and try to become more open to such depth so as to experience the reality of it inwardly if it does indeed exist. I know what I've verified and it helps me. What more can be asked?

[bernee51]

Lets see what is sarcasm and what is negativity...

The galaxy as a whole is composed of a fine quality of materiality with a high vibratory rate that stars have in common. Their individuality consists of more coarse level of materiality.

Lost me in gobbledygook.

gobbledygook: language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand

No sarcasm there.

"fine quality of materiality" - " high vibratory rate" - "coarse level of materiality" - all describing the galaxy as a whole!

No clarification from you on this one.

Each cosmos or level of reality one existing within another, is governed by mechanical laws. The higher the cosmos or its closeness to the source, the less it is governed by mechanical laws in relation to consciousness. The further a cosmos is structured from the source, the more mechanical laws support it and the greater the plurality of "things" within it.

And on what do you base this belief?

No answer to this one?

Involution is the process of the division of "being" existing as a whole into plurality of actualizations, smaller wholes but lawfully reflecting the larger whole or of unity into diversity. Once the skeleton is created and involution has been actualized, evolution occurs both within a cosmos as within organic life on earth, or conscious evolution which connects cosmoses.

So who beamed you down this information?

Obviously knowledge of other cosmos can only have come from other cosmos. One assumes that knowledge had to be sent to you somehow.

I note there was no answer.

Why would you say that?

Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak.

No it doesn't..so to speak.

An unsubstantiated opinion got exactly the same in return. No sarcasm there.

No answer either.

So Nick...ya know what I think. Your claims of negativity and sarcasm were diversionary tactics.

You have no answers to back up your theories so you divert the conversation. What you have is your beliefs and your beliefs have as much evidential substance as the christian god.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

gobbledygook: language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand

No sarcasm there.

Circumlocution is defined as:

The use of unnecessarily wordy and indirect language.
Evasion in speech or writing.
A roundabout expression.

There is nothing wordy, indirect, evasive or roundabout about that simple statement. Nor is it jargon defined as:

the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon.
. unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing; gibberish.
. any talk or writing that one does not understand.
language that is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax and is often vague in meaning.

What has to be clarified about relative density of matter? Do you deny that a solid is one density, a liquid is another and a gas is still another. Leaving aside that each category has material of different density, one category can exist within another because of relative density. What needs to be clarified about the concept?

You must have experienced relatively fine matter such as in air and dense or coarse matter such as lead. Science has documented that matter vibrates. I didn't know I had to prove it. There is a level of materiality all stars have in common as part of a galaxy. There are also qualities of materiality that comprise individual stars. The relationship of the level of existence of individual stars to the nature of the galaxy self is a relationship based on the axiom of the included middle.

Essential Laws are the same regardless of what level of reality. They are more easily documented on the quantum level but they determine the nature of higher levels of reality as well. The difference is only in scale.

These concepts can be explained in great depth which requires efforts to learn like I am struggling with. They can be explained superficially. For example Prof. Needleman explains it superficially in his book "A Sense of the Cosmos" People interested go deeper if they sense something and those uninterested just continue arguing the same things over and over again. It is our choice. to proceed as we will.

Nick_A wrote:

Each cosmos or level of reality one existing within another, is governed by mechanical laws. The higher the cosmos or its closeness to the source, the less it is governed by mechanical laws in relation to consciousness. The further a cosmos is structured from the source, the more mechanical laws support it and the greater the plurality of "things" within it.

bernee51 wrote:
And on what do you base this belief?

No answer to this one?

It is a hypothesis. The vertical cosmological skeleton of the universe asks us to fill in the details and verify its truth for ourselves. I believe it is worthy of study since it is the most sensible explanation for the meaning and purpose of the universe and of Man within it. I've verified enough for me to believe the concept is a profound three dimensional description of a six dimensional reality. It is personal for me.

Obviously knowledge of other cosmos can only have come from other cosmos. One assumes that knowledge had to be sent to you somehow.

I do believe that knowledge of the vertical cosmological structure cannot arise from the earth or mechanical evolution that it sustained on a horizontal reactive perception of life but must come from above People having awakened to it than record it sometimes in books that help those like me in our search to gradually awaken to understand the meaning and purpose of existence.

An unsubstantiated opinion got exactly the same in return. No sarcasm there.

No answer either.

I cannot substantiate for you what you deny and are unwilling to be open to experience; a natural result of denial.

So Nick...ya know what I think. Your claims of negativity and sarcasm were diversionary tactics.

You have no answers to back up your theories so you divert the conversation. What you have is your beliefs and your beliefs have as much evidential substance as the Christian god.

The satisfaction of my path is that it answers questions like nothing else ever has. Things like diversionary tactics are all attributes of the secular humanistic paths and exoteric religions arising from our egotism. My path requires verification and teaches one how to verify.

The Christian god is outside time and space and beyond the limitations of our collective perception and comprehension. I think you are referring to the Hebrew personal God. If this is the case than you'll have to argue with secular Jews since that God has nothing to do with Christianity but only exists in facets of Christendom which has little to do with Christianity.

[HughDP]

Nick A,

I have been following this thread with interest, but where does it go next? Can the theory make predictions that would prove of falsify it?

We also need to be sure that complementary logic isn't simply being used to express vagueness (or "I don't know", if you like). What I'm saying is: how do we determine whether the use of complementary logic (included middles and such) is actually applicable rather than just a handy tool that fits? We have to justify the abandonment of classical logic.

I can see how one might think that quantum mechanics provides a good excuse for included middle logic but we have to be careful. Applying included middle reasoning to QM assumes that both A and not-A are simultaneously true - for example, that things are simultaneously waves and particles - but that's not necessarily the case.

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

I have been following this thread with interest, but where does it go next? Can the theory make predictions that would prove of falsify it?

We also need to be sure that complementary logic isn't simply being used to express vagueness (or "I don't know", if you like). What I'm saying is: how do we determine whether the use of complementary logic (included middles and such) is actually applicable rather than just a handy tool that fits? We have to justify the abandonment of classical logic.

I can see how one might think that quantum mechanics provides a good excuse for included middle logic but we have to be careful. Applying included middle reasoning to QM assumes that both A and not-A are simultaneously true - for example, that things are simultaneously waves and particles - but that's not necessarily the case.

The axiom of the included middle makes it possible to have a working theory as to the quality of "NOW." It is ironic but the only reality exists in "now" but our lives our lived both in memory and anticipation of the future. If our lives are experienced as a continuum along the horizontal line that connects "past and future," we don't experience "NOW" The experience of now is a conscious experience impossible for organic life that lives in reaction along the horizontal line.

The axiom of the included middle along with Pythagoras law of octaves provides a working model in the form of cosmology that allows for a description of the relative quality of "now."

Take for example this paragraph from Bernee's OP:

Can consciousness be aware of itself? For any individual x, is it possible for x to be aware of nothing but its own consciousness? FWIW my personal experience with meditation would suggest not. It is not possible to observe the Witness because any observation is an object in awareness. Consciousness cannot observe itself for it would then be an object in the awareness of itself.

Now for me familiar with both involution and the axiom of the included middle, I can see Consciousness begins with every-thing within it as potential but at the same time being no-thing. Creation in time and space begins when ONE divides into three and the three is no longer on the same level as the ONE. They exist simultaneously as the line of "being" comprising the quality of "Now."

Involution continues on the same basis where a holon becomes three. Everything in the universe is a result of the unification of these three essentail forces dividing and reblending at different levels of vibratory qualities. The East refers to these forces as Yin, Yang, and Qi.

Buddhism asserts that the universe is continually becoming which just means that involution becomes detectable for us at some point. We cannot see the laws themselves because they occur "now" which is only comprehensible for us as a conscious experience. The trouble though is that consciousness is a potential for man on earth. It is something we must evolve into and acquire what was initially lost.

Time is relative. This is why we can distinguish something in QM that doesn't exist for us in relation to time as an aspect of a galaxy. Consider how time is measured in Buddhism:

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/buddhacosmo.html

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

The whole cycle of involution and evolution is longer than the life of a galaxy. So as you can see documentation of anything other than the levels of reality within which time is experienced quickly, documentation is difficult.

Time as the quality of NOW as opposed to linear time is measured in repetitions of the moment. Consciouosness is possible for us because existence begins in time as the repetition of the moment. Nietzche actually got close to that in his theory of Eternal Recurrence.

I don't see any other reasonable way to reply to Bernee's question. It can neither be proven or disproved by our classical logic.

Don't forget that even though this is ancient knowledge, it is only recently that scientists are beginning to remember it with enough courage to write about it. But I feel confident that given time, men like Dr. Nicolescu will clarify the relationship between waves and particles.

[HughDP]

Nick A,

Thanks for the explanation. It's very interesting but, as I see it, what you have there is a 'way of looking at things'.

How does that move towards being proved as the 'way things are'?

This is the bit that particularly interests me:

But I feel confident that given time, men like Dr. Nicolescu will clarify the relationship between waves and particles.

If that happens and it stands up to scrutiny then it may be moving forwards.

Also:

Creation in time and space begins when ONE divides into three and the three is no longer on the same level as the ONE.

Something such as the above should eventually fit into a coherent theory of the universe out of which the reality we experience today emerges, and if it does so we would expect a broader uptake from the scientific community and, hopefully, some sort of empirical evidence.

I guess I'm looking for the testable predictions such a theory would make.

Thanks for taking the time to present the theory (and associated interesting links) though.

[Nick_A]

Hugh

Thanks for the explanation. It's very interesting but, as I see it, what you have there is a 'way of looking at things'.

How does that move towards being proved as the 'way things are'?

This is the bit that particularly interests me:

To do so requires the conscious attempts to know thyself and verify this relativity of being within ourselves first. The attempts to do this Prof Needleman calls "Inner Empiricism?

Man as a microcosm means that he is structured with the same levels of being as the macrocosm. It is through these efforts towards conscious experience that we verify scale in being or the relative vertical qualities of "now."

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

I've read and it seems logical that the more one is advanced in conscious self knowledge, it becomes easier to experience cosmology in the external world. I'm still relatively new in all this so my experiences as yet are minimal. Yet I have had these distinct experiences that the life of a forest for example is different than the lives of individual trees. The essence of the life of the forest necessitates the destruction of trees to avoid overcrowding

Something such as the above should eventually fit into a coherent theory of the universe out of which the reality we experience today emerges, and if it does so we would expect a broader uptake from the scientific community and, hopefully, some sort of empirical evidence.

I guess I'm looking for the testable predictions such a theory would make.

I do also and I believe it will eventually be found. It just requires a new scale of measurement. Take the line that stretches between hot and cold for example. Draw similar lines extending vertically to it from each pole so that they intersect at the middle forming a triangle. This is the ancient symbol of the unity of three forces. The duality of heat and cold is reconciled at the apex of the triangle. Since we live in duality we can only experience it as luke warm. But where and how do the extremes of hot and cold exist as "one" in conscious potential?

Thanks for taking the time to present the theory (and associated interesting links) though.

I appreciate pondering these deep vertical concepts and ssssshring on them. Most hate them and I'm glad that you are at least open to them.

[bernee51]

It is a hypothesis.

Is it?

As I understand it a hypothesis (A,erican Heritage Dictionary) is tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

The vertical cosmological skeleton of the universe asks us to fill in the details and verify its truth for ourselves. I believe it is worthy of study since it is the most sensible explanation for the meaning and purpose of the universe and of Man within it.

You have an a priori assumption that there is meaning and purpose of the universe and of man which needs an explanation.

On what basis is can this assumption be justified - other than faith (i.e. wishful thinking)?

I've verified enough for me to believe the concept is a profound three dimensional description of a six dimensional reality. It is personal for me.

Yep - your personal cave replete with its own shadows.

I do believe that knowledge of the vertical cosmological structure cannot arise from the earth or mechanical evolution that it sustained on a horizontal reactive perception of life but must come from above

So from whence the 'knowledge'?

People having awakened to it than record it sometimes in books that help those like me in our search to gradually awaken to understand the meaning and purpose of existence.

So in addition to your own shadows you look at those of others as well asnn take them for reality?

may I suggest some deep contemplative practice and self inquiry.

An unsubstantiated opinion got exactly the same in return. No sarcasm there.

No answer either.

I cannot substantiate for you what you deny and are unwilling to be open to experience; a natural result of denial.

You may recall I was addressing this comment of yopurs "Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak."

I am not denying anything - I am asking for some logical substance to your faith based statements.

So Nick...ya know what I think. Your claims of negativity and sarcasm were diversionary tactics.

You have no answers to back up your theories so you divert the conversation. What you have is your beliefs and your beliefs have as much evidential substance as the Christian god.

The satisfaction of my path is that it answers questions like nothing else ever has.

And that is exactly what I would have said. The reason you are following this path is because it provides meaning and purpose in you life. It translates the unknown in to what is for you a coherent belief system.

That has been the nature and function of religion since man first asked the question 'who am I?", While early man satisfied himself with animist beliefs and then moved through the stages to the mythic you (and others) and moved onto what you might call a 'rational' god. Al part of the evolutionary process Nick.

The Christian god is outside time and space and beyond the limitations of our collective perception and comprehension.

I always get a laugh when that special plead - 'outside time and space' is used.

Quite a convenient dodge really.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

As I understand it a hypothesis (A,erican Heritage Dictionary) is tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

As I said, cosmology is a hypothesis which a person is invited to verify both in the external world and within themselves.

You have an a priori assumption that there is meaning and purpose of the universe and of man which needs an explanation.

On what basis is can this assumption be justified - other than faith (i.e. wishful thinking)?

It doesn't interest you so don't bother with it. You wouldn't understand.

Yep - your personal cave replete with its own shadows.

On what evidence do you base this on other than habitual denial?

So from whence the 'knowledge'?

It cannot come from below so must come from above.

So in addition to your own shadows you look at those of others as well asnn take them for reality?

may I suggest some deep contemplative practice and self inquiry.

You can suggest it but do you have any concept of what it means?

You may recall I was addressing this comment of yopurs "Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak."

I am not denying anything - I am asking for some logical substance to your faith based statements.

This cannot be explained in a post. You deny so don't worry about it.

And that is exactly what I would have said. The reason you are following this path is because it provides meaning and purpose in you life. It translates the unknown in to what is for you a coherent belief system.

Yes it makes logical sense and can be verified through inner empiricism and scientifically as is being done now.

That has been the nature and function of religion since man first asked the question 'who am I?", While early man satisfied himself with animist beliefs and then moved through the stages to the mythic you (and others) and moved onto what you might call a 'rational' god. Al part of the evolutionary process Nick.

Yes, evolution is a rational process and studied currently as Intelligent Design.

I always get a laugh when that special plead - 'outside time and space' is used.

Quite a convenient dodge really.

If you tried contemplating instead of laughing you may get somewhere but for now, be content with laughing in denial. I prefer to contemplate what Meister Eckhart is saying. It is deeply Christian:

"The course of heaven is outside time--and yet time comes from its movements. Nothing hinders the soul's knowledge of God as much as time and space, for time and space are fragments, whereas God is one! And therefore, if the soul is to know God, it must know him above time and outside of space; for God is neither this nor that, as are these manifold things. God is one!"

You laugh and I try to understand. It is a difference between us. Enjoy your laughing.

[bernee51]

You have an a priori assumption that there is meaning and purpose of the universe and of man which needs an explanation.

On what basis is can this assumption be justified - other than faith (i.e. wishful thinking)?

It doesn't interest you so don't bother with it. You wouldn't understand.

It obviously does interest me seeing I asked. How do you know I wouldn't indertsnd?

Why do you beleive their is an objective meaning an purpose to tteh universe and what do you beleive that purpose is?

Yep - your personal cave replete with its own shadows.

On what evidence do you base this on other than habitual denial?

Which denial?

You staed 'I've verified enough for me to believe the concept is a profound three dimensional description of a six dimensional reality. It is personal for me."

It is you who claims it is personal. Why is it NOT shadows in your cave.

So from whence the 'knowledge'?

It cannot come from below so must come from above.

IOW you do not know. There IS no source for the knowledge. it is all pure speculation.

So in addition to your own shadows you look at those of others as well and take them for reality?
may I suggest some deep contemplative practice and self inquiry.

You can suggest it but do you have any concept of what it means?

ya reckon...I have spent the many many hours in contemplative practice. For self inquiry i can suggest the words of Ramana Maharshi for some inspiration. Those of Nisargadatta Maharaj are also worthwhile.

I have asked you before Nick - what contmplative practice are you experiened in? I am beginning to get the impression you are all talk (and books) and no action.

"That in whom reside all beings and who reside in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being--I am That."

Amritbindu Upanishad

You may recall I was addressing this comment of yours "Because before mechanical life can become self aware it has to be "in the image" so to speak."

I am not denying anything - I am asking for some logical substance to your faith based statements.

This cannot be explained in a post. You deny so don't worry about it.

you're ducking and weaving again. What have I denied.

And that is exactly what I would have said. The reason you are following this path is because it provides meaning and purpose in you life. It translates the unknown in to what is for you a coherent belief system.

Yes it makes logical sense and can be verified through inner empiricism and scientifically as is being done now.

For the science we wil wait and see. But tell me - are you verifying anything at all using 'inner empiriciasm' or is it just a neat phrase you have read about.

That has been the nature and function of religion since man first asked the question 'who am I?", While early man satisfied himself with animist beliefs and then moved through the stages to the mythic you (and others) and moved onto what you might call a 'rational' god. Al part of the evolutionary process Nick.

Yes, evolution is a rational process and studied currently as Intelligent Design.

The 'rational' god I was refering to is the moving towards using the rational mind to justify beleif as opposed to the blind belief in mythics.

You comments regarding the christian god indicate that you have not yet quite rid yourself of the mythic belief system.

In order to find god you must first lose god.