I have been rambling on here at the forum for some time now. It seems the more I post, the less everyone else does. I get the impression that the different ways I connect things (and I am aware of how far out there I can be) is having an adverse effect on the interactions here.

If this is so, I do sincerely apologize.

My goal is to introduce perspectives that cause others to question some paradigms that (I think) we tend to just accept.

I would like to ask (at this point) for two things (if I may).

First: Ask questions. If there are perspectives that anyone thinks I may benefit from, please ask, or point them out to me. That is why I visit sites like this one. I am actively looking for those "golden bullets" (what I call them) that rock my world and present new perspectives. It is at those times I stand to learn the most.

second: Being introverted, and given my communication skills are so weak, I tend to miss hints, or subtle things. So if I miss your point, write it on a bat and hit me with it if necessary. I really do want to understand that much. Because it would be so difficult to offend me, I tend not to realize when something I say may be offensive to others. I have no desire to offend anyone in any way. so don't be shy about telling me to shut up and listen. I will thank you for it.

Views: 105

Comment

You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net


Moderator
Comment by John on February 8, 2015 at 1:28pm

the normalized wave form in QM is dimensionless - not energy!  If not normalized it is a probability density only.  just fyi.  (Einstein was the first to see matter and energy as one).

Comment by David Allen on February 7, 2015 at 3:31pm

Mark,
I completely agree that quantum mechanics tells us that energy and matter are the same thing. It is perspective that changes the way it appears to us. This strikes at the heart of my disagreement with science. Science says that before the singularity (representing the physical) that expanded into our universe and then evolved into us, there was nothing. My understanding is that there was one thing, a singular truth, a perspective.

If we consider that energy requires two potentials to flow between, then a second potential had to "exist" before the singularity could have manifested. That second potential is another perspective. To me this is the story about "the war in heaven" or "the battle between good and evil" or however you may perceive those initial fundamental perspectives, or potentials.

The story of the fallen angel describes the result of a "difference of opinion" from that singular truth that existed first. The actual fall of that second perspective (or lie) tells us of how the vibrational frequency of that original singular truth, slows to become the physical. Given that the second potential came from the first, then that original truth still exist within the physical. That means that within that second perspective there is choice. A choice between the original truth (which is "hidden" within the second potential) and the second potential. That choice is described to us in the story of adam and eve, the garden, and the tree of knowledge. So the choice is between faith (in the "hidden" original truth) and understanding of the second (the physical)..

The rock, lacking the ability to even try to understand or chose is then an accurate representation (not corrupted) of the original truth within the perspective that is the second potential. That is why I say it is determined.

It appears to me that you are attributing our ability to perceive the rock from different perspectives, to the rock, to give it an illusion of participating. (of course this is my opinion)

Again we agree in that esoteric and esoteric are the same thing looked at from different perspectives (why then would we give them separate names, later generations could confuse themselves into thinking we meant two different things)

Thank you for making the point of it works both ways. It is my contention that we start out in this universe as infants looking out at the world, we define the things around us in relation to our understanding of ourselves. This is how we discover and gain control of our hands and feet, even our tongue. Then we go to school and that changes, suddenly we are told to describe ourselves through what we see out there (thats our society dictating to us).

This I think is the origin of mask and roles, and sets up the conflict within us that results in abhorrent behavior.

I have heard of Jung, but am far to unfamiliar with what he said to participate there.

I don't see authenticity as an option. To me, not being honest to myself is the only sin. In my understanding, if we remain true to ourselves and represent that accurately (no mask or roles, no secrets), then everything else seems to either fall away, or fall into place.

Just showing up is enough, as long as that authenticity is there. The truth exist within me, it is when I try to control or guide it that I corrupt it and became a false prophet. If I remove my judgements and allow that truth to speak to, and through me, then I am part of the solution.

That requires either faith in that singular truth, or complete understanding of the second potential (which as we have seen, maybe be impossible to achieve)

Comment by Mark Kusek on February 4, 2015 at 1:29am

Hi Again David,

>> I had to spend some time reading and re-reading your post in an attempt to include all the connections presented in it. I do hope I address them adequately.

LOL. No worries. In the interest of attempting building something constructive from our shared understanding, let me bond one or two ideas to some of the things you said and see how you want to respond. Like tinkering with a mental erector set to form mind scaffolding.

>> I consider the physical aspects of our universe (to include our bodies) as statements. A rock (lacking the ability to think or choose) is a determined thing, and as such, accurately represents the truth. 

Quantum mechanics shows us the importance of the observer and the instrument of observation in determination. It is a participation that effects manifestation: is it a wave (i.e a form of energy) or a particle (i.e., a form of matter)? This implies that matter and energy can transform into one another or manifest depending on the participating observation of a human being. There is an interdependence there with the attention of the subjective factor as a cause and condition. You say that a rock is a statement, a determined thing and an accurate representation of truth. I would say rather that “the statement” is a participatory description, the “determination” is your observation and the “representation” is interdependent with that or you would not become aware of it at all. It’s a recognition, a categorization of essential characteristics. The whole process is interpretive in that sense. We interpret mystery as rock. We manifest truth into observed (or remembered or conceptualized) rock and ourselves as participating “rock observer” all at the same moment.

Whether we then feel about it positively, negatively or indifferently, think further about it in some elaborative way, or name and speak about it to others in some sensually encoded symbol of language is secondary to that act of interpretive apprehension in which both rock and we mutually come into being interdependently (i.e mystery as participating subjective observer).

>> It is the esoteric or abstract that describes our understanding of them, and, is subject to change as our understanding changes.

In my view esoteric and exoteric are two sides of the same coin, like the crown and the root are two positions on the same spinal axis. Opposed in relationship to one another, like yin and yang in tao, but not mutually exclusive or irreconcilable, Depends again on participatory view (i.e. observation).

>> I do agree we are "required", by our current society, to wear masks or adopt roles. In my opinion, any breakdown in our ability to function can be attributed directly to them.

It works both ways, or in both directions, IMO. IOW, the roles also provide us with functional utility, skill and means. As an “artist”  I have access to all the lore of that role’s tradition and the body of knowledge of the cultural inheritance that comes to me along with it.

As a “hunter” in a primitive culture, for example, i would be initiated and empowered into that role, taught the requisite skills, etc., and tried into stewardship of them.

They are not mere roles, IOW, they are cultural or traditional empowerments to perform them in what ever rules and ways  that are being upheld by that particular social order. 

But I agree they are a two edged thing, there are both liberties and restrictions inherent in assuming them.

>> I have said that it would be difficult for someones description of themselves to offend me, and that is true. What does offend me is that "requirement" of our current society. 

Social pressure to conform to particular expectations of roles is a contrary pressure to any particular individuality in expressing them. Conformity vs self expression.

>> In my opinion, it is the lies (i see them as excuses or justifications) of those masks and roles that allow our children to see themselves in such a way that shooting each other in school can even begin to manifest itself. 

I agree, there is a moral problem to be resolved, a lack of understanding consequence and the effects of unwholesome action, a lack of virtue, compassion and basic humanity, and it breeds senseless violence, ignorance and suffering.

>> If not for those masks and roles for them to "hide" that kind of "abhorrent" thinking, it would be apparent to us at a much earlier stage, and allow us to make adjustments to our society that would prevent those connections from ever manifesting.

Ignorance, hatred and desire hiding behind masks of innocence and civility is the cause of the whole mass of suffering.

>> An interesting concept here is that truth exist in every lie.

Because of that there is hope for the future, hope for transformation and the possibility of liberation and awakening.

>> In your example of assembling these different roles, I would say we were disassembling to create them. 

Yep. That seems to be how it occurs, we assemble, disassemble, reassemble. Transforming appearance. That’s what I meant by saying they weren’t rigidly permanent. Again, in my view creation and destruction are two sides of the same coin. Picasso used to say when he was sculpting a pigeon out of clay that he had to “wring it’s neck to bring it to life.”

>> That it is this disassembling that that maintains the mystery (confusion) about us, and by extension, everything else. 

Mystery (as confusion) is one way Jung used to talk in alchemical terms about the unconscious. Using a description in an interpretive way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo_(alchemy).

It is the roles that we consciously know ourselves as (including our ego as well as our various social personas) that we spin out of that “massa confusa” into conscious “orders” “ide tities” and ‘forms” of some sort that make up our respective views, like building island nests out of twigs that float on top of  the waters of the deep. The familiar is only so to the degree that we are familiar with it, then we inevitable come to the fuzzy edges where we once again encounter the mystery of our own being in the unknown of our experience. When we disassemble our roles, if we are mindful and paying attention, we can catch a glimpse of those waters within us which support us, from which we emerged, and can begin to understand that there are relative limits to our consciously constructs of knowledge.

>> If we continue to misrepresent ourselves, how could we expect to understand our relationship to anything else?

There is always the option of authenticity. You still have to show up somehow and perform the roles. That was Jung’s whole point about individuation process, for example.

>> As an added note: I admit to having the feeling this response is, lets say, lacking something. It has not "flowed" as well as I would like, but given this is a discussion, lets discuss it.

No sweat as I said, I’m just also showing up, throwing out girders and beams and connectors.

Comment by David Allen on February 3, 2015 at 11:57pm

Mark,
Thank you so very much for your reply!
I had to spend some time reading and re-reading your post in an attempt to include all the connections presented in it. I do hope I address them adequately.

I consider the physical aspects of our universe (to include our bodies) as statements. A rock (lacking the ability to think or choose) is a determined thing, and as such, accurately represents the truth. It is the esoteric or abstract that describes our understanding of them, and, is subject to change as our understanding changes.

I do agree we are "required", by our current society, to wear mask or adopt roles. In my opinion, any breakdown in our ability to function can be attributed directly to them.

I have said that it would be difficult for someones description of themselves to offend me, and that is true. What does offend me is that "requirement" of our current society. In my opinion, it is the lies (i see them as excuses or justifications) of those masks and roles that allow our children to see themselves in such a way that shooting each other in school can even begin to manifest itself. If not for those masks and roles for them to "hide" that kind of "abhorrent" thinking, it would be apparent to us at a much earlier stage, and allow us to make adjustments to our society that would prevent those connections from ever manifesting.

An intersting concept here is that truth exist in every lie.

In your example of assembling these different roles, I would say we were disassembling to create them. That it is this disassembling that that maintains the mystery (confusion) about us, and by extension, everything else. If we continue to misrepresent ourselves, how could we expect to understand our relationship to anything else?

AS an added note: I admit to having the feeling this response is, lets say, lacking something. It has not "flowed" as well as I would like, but given this is a discussion, lets discuss it.

Comment by Mark Kusek on February 3, 2015 at 1:21am

Hi David,

Well said and I agree.

In a very interesting way, the whole world is a kind of description, especially what we can name, think and speak to one another about. You could say that we each construct a certain kind of view of reality, of the universe and of our particular views of it, including who and what we think we are, through such description.

Our particular take or "certain kind" of description or view or 'understanding" of ourselves and of the "world" (i.e. or of the cosmos, the universe, the "all that is",  even esoteric categories or abstractions like the "truth", etc) is what I like to call our respective "interpretations."

We each create them, have them, and continually develop and transform them. IOW, they are subject to change, are in flux and not rigidly permanent. That's why they can grow and evolve as we do. In a way our interpretations reflect us and become reflective of the world and in the ways that we apprehend. We all do it.

I also think that in order to function together as social beings in a social context where we are each asked by the society to wear certain masks and play certain roles, that we develop a variety of social descriptions or personas that we inhabit and wear. We put them on and take them off as required. They are necessary conveniences.

For example, you assemble your self description one way as say, a "father" or a "husband", another as an "ill patient of a doctor", and another as "a student taking an exam" or an "executive giving a business presentation."

It's not to say we are necessarily lying when we perform those roles that are demanded of us, but rather that we are playing the roles required of us at the moment. 

While we are somewhat familiar, almost habitually so, with certain levels and presentations of ourselves, we are also at our cores deep and utter mysteries. In that we share in the outer mysteries of the cosmos, although that doesn't stop us from using words like "the universe' as if we definitively understood what was meant by it. They are mere conveniences, conventions of language, designations that we impute upon complete and utter mystery, which is the mystery of each of us and the wonder we find ourselves in when we wake up each morning.

All we can do is try to show up and try to creatively express and communicate our respective interpretations. That is the genesis of all the arts and cultures.

Speak your heart. What you have to say is welcome. We are all doing the same. You are among friends in that.

Best. Mark

Comment by David Allen on February 2, 2015 at 2:37pm

Thank you, John, for your reply.

To me, all I can do is describe my understanding (or myself, because that is all I am). So to me "argue" has no meaning. I can not do or say anything that is not a description of me. This is why it would be very difficult to offend me, how could anyone's description of themselves be offensive?

Anything/everything, I say or do, is a description of my personal experience. I don't see how it can be any other way. The only thing I can do that varies, would be the accuracy of my description. For me to have "private" aspects (secrets) requires that my description be incomplete (or a lie), this would only serve to mislead others (the only "sin" in my opinion).

If it were possible to compare what I am trying to say, with what you (or anyone) sees or hears in my description, it would be easy to see how poor my communication skills truly are.


Moderator
Comment by John on February 2, 2015 at 6:28am

Hi David -

your posts are good. We want you to continue and you are in no way hindering the site. People get busy and hence the traffic may drop (my excuse).

Most people will stop arguing when it is clear that two points have been made adequately and there is just a difference of opinions (perspectives). We all have opinions others just do not share that are based in personal experience.

I say: keep up the good work!

note: your communication skills are fine as well!

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service