Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Your simplification of Gestalt psychology (the "figure/foreground" stuff you have written about here for years)? Or dualism?

It has nothing to do with Gestalt psychology or dualism; it is about a conditioned view of reality that focuses on the foreground of existence while ignoring the background.

But the basic principle I was relating to St. Frankie is that by creation of a concept of The Good, one has unwittingly also created a concept of Evil, which must now be opposed as dictated by The Good, the result being to make Evil stronger.

 

[godnotgod]

Professor Norman decides to seek canine counsel (and purrtekshun) as to whether THE MOON he has just glimpsed is really real, as he cannot believe his eyes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

it is about a conditioned view of reality that focuses on the foreground of existence

"Figures" being in "foreground" or "background" (or just the dichotomy outside of art) is from Gestalt psychology and exists now as a more widely understood within the cognitive sciences, but isn't and has never been an aspect of philosophy more generally.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, if the soul/spirit/self doesn't exist or is part of some fractured hive mind, let's all just kill ourselves. It won't matter since "we" don't exist in the first place, right? So why give a **** about anything. Who cares.

I never espoused the doctrine of nihilism. I am merely saying that who we think ourselves to be, this isolated ego-self that acts upon the world, we are not.

 

[godnotgod]

"Figures" being in "foreground" or "background" (or just the dichotomy outside of art) is from Gestalt psychology and exists now as a more widely understood within the cognitive sciences, but isn't and has never been an aspect of philosophy more generally.

Thanks for that, but I was using that particular image of dancer against a black background, which is not a Gestalt image, to illustrate a point. It is intended as a kind of visual metaphor, that's all, and has no meaning in Gestalt terms.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was using that particular image of dancer against a black background, which is not a Gestalt image

It is (or is, I should say, related to and largely dependent upon it).

 

[godnotgod]

It is (or is, I should say, related to and largely dependent upon it).

Perhaps it is from a Gestalt POV, but what I see is simply an image of figure against ground, which I am admittedly using to illustrate a non-Gesltalt point, which I've already indicated. Is that permitted, or not? Please don't call the Gestalt Police, OK?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Figures" being in "foreground" or "background" (or just the dichotomy outside of art) is from Gestalt psychology and exists now as a more widely understood within the cognitive sciences, but isn't and has never been an aspect of philosophy more generally.

There is a lot of that going in this thread, trying to bang square pegs into round holes, taking ideas from here and there and twisting them completely out of shape, then trying to force them into some bizarre new-age pseudo-Hindu bodge-up. It really is painful to watch, particularly when it's done in such a patronising and preachy way.

 

[godnotgod]

There is a lot of that going in this thread, trying to bang square pegs into round holes, taking ideas from here and there and twisting them completely out of shape, then trying to force them into some bizarre new-age pseudo-Hindu bodge-up. It really is painful to watch, particularly when it's done in such a patronising and preachy way.

Let not your heart be troubled......nor your mind confused......

...LOOK! THE MOON!

 

[YmirGF]

Quite frankly, I don't want to be part of some greater entity that includes you or anyone with the same rude mindset. No, thanks!

He is certainly a lousy salesperson for the ideas he is marketing. Godnotgod suffers from an extremely limited understanding of the entity that represents an all or nothing scenario which blithely ignores the nature of probability and its resulting possibilities. I suppose when one makes such a huge emotional investment in their given world view it is somewhat natural to rubbish any dissenting view. That is why there is the ongoing drive to overrate his ideas and diminish all others. It's the sign of a very fragile ego and given the pains he has gone through to eradicate his sense of self this is not unexpected however unpleasant it is to deal with. What we see is a personality devoid of compassion, empathy and humanity. It's very sad and to be pitied, quite honestly.

 

[godnotgod]

He is certainly a lousy salesperson for the ideas he is marketing. Godnotgod suffers from an extremely limited understanding of the entity that represents an all or nothing scenario which blithely ignores the nature of probability and its resulting possibilities. I suppose when one makes such a huge emotional investment in their given world view it is somewhat natural to rubbish any dissenting view. That is why there is the ongoing drive to overrate his ideas and diminish all others. It's the sign of a very fragile ego and given the pains he has gone through to eradicate his sense of self this is not unexpected however unpleasant it is to deal with. What we see is a personality devoid of compassion, empathy and humanity. It's very sad and to be pitied, quite honestly.

Heh..heh...you're psychoanalysis is terribly flawed. If I am so invested in my ego, why am I so hell bent for leather eager to get rid of it?

You should stick to your Fake Bodhisattva calling and leave psychoanalysis to the experts.

What you fail to grasp is that there is no such ego to get rid of nor one to hold onto, as the verynature of the ego is an illusory one. Now I have given you a glimpse of transcendence beyond your dual view, a product of your silly mental perturbations.

Reality is not two or more ways of being. It is only one way, but it is not a doctrine or a belief. There exists a Western notion (inherited from the Greeks) that there are at least two sides to every story, and out of this idea, we have developed a system of thought which seeks to maintain and cherish a plethora of views as the ideal. But this plethora of views is not that of Reality. In fact, the Greek idea was that the more convincing idea in a debate would win out, and the others would throw in the towel. But while that scenario applies to Logic and Reason, the view I have been presenting is beyond Logic and Reason. Therefore , I cannot argue from a position of factual evidence, as there is none for the mystical experience. I can only point to the moon, in the hopes that some will spontaneously see, rather than attack my pointing finger.

Your post here is a good example of someone who chooses to attack my pointing finger rather than take a look at what is being pointed to. It seems to me that you are the one transfixed on me rather than what I am saying, and that is an egoic attachment on your part, not mine. I read this as a desperate clutching at straws since you don't know how to have a discussion with me.

Compassion is not the issue here, nor is it called for. So to remind you, the issue is about the debate re: universal consciousness between Chopra and Dawkins. If you want compassion, go elsewhere. There's no one suffering here. I have no interest in plunging into emotional states. I refuse to compromise the truth by indulging in such emotion.

 

[outhouse]

. I suppose when one makes such a huge emotional investment in their given world view it is somewhat natural to rubbish any dissenting view.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism due to ancient mythology is a terrible thing for humanity.

 

[godnotgod]

Fanaticism and fundamentalism due to ancient mythology is a terrible thing for humanity.

True, but fanaticism and fundamentalism due to a strictly scientific view is also a terrible thing for humanity. Luckily, the mystical view is a holistic one, which encompasses the scientific view. However, the scientific view does not include the mystical view, resulting in a limited view.

Science, like religion, has become a belief system, unfortunately, with neither satisfying the thirst for understanding.

 

[YmirGF]

Heh..heh...you're psychoanalysis is terribly flawed.

Heaven forbid it is actually your reading comprehension that is utterly lacking.

If I am so invested in my ego, why am I so hell bent for leather eager to get rid of it?

Oddly, that is not what I was saying - at all. Not surprising, really. You do understand that there is a difference between a world view and the self, right?

 

[godnotgod]

Heaven forbid it is actually your reading comprehension that is utterly lacking.


Oddly, that is not what I was saying - at all. Not surprising, really. You do understand that there is a difference between a world view and the self, right?

No, there is not. One's world view is one's self-view. What you don't get is that I have not been talking about either. I am talking about The (Universal) View that sees Reality as it is.

I cannot be attached to a world (self) view while at the same time trying to obliterate the self. Neither here is the case. There is no self to have a world view nor one to obliterate. That is the Transcendent View. But I know you already do not understand as you are still attached to duality.

Maybe you can get a job as a carnie barker in a travelling circus. You certainly fail to qualify as either psychoanalyst or Bodhisattva.

 

[outhouse]

fanaticism and fundamentalism due to a strictly scientific view is also a terrible thing for humanity

Factually false.

Science gives us an understanding of reality. The closest view of reality we have,

Luckily, the mystical view is a holistic one, which encompasses the scientific view.

No it does not.

It makes things up and uses ancient mens mythology often based on their ignorance of nature.

the scientific view does not include the mystical view, resulting in a limited view.

False. NOTHING in a mystical view applies to nature at all.


What many people believe in as far as mystical is unsubstantiated outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

But I know you already do not understand as you are still attached to duality.

There are not two sides to this.

Only one is factually substantiated in reality. The other does not exist outside mythology. It exist in faith alone due to the complete 100% lack of evidence in support.

 

[godnotgod]

Factually false.

Science gives us an understanding of reality. The closest view of reality we have,

How do you know how 'close' it is? Sure, you have factual knowledge, but that is still just nibbling around the edges, as far as the mystical experience is concerned. Factual knowledge is not understanding. Dismantling the piano to get to the music does not give us the music. To get to the music you have to listen. IOW, it is an experience, not a fact that can be proven via science.

If you still think you have gained understanding of reality, show me what you understand. I submit that you understand nothing in spite of your vast storehouse of factual knowledge.

No it does not.

It makes things up and uses ancient mens mythology often based on their ignorance of nature.

You are confusing mythology with the mystical experience. The mystical experience is simply the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality. it is not in time or space, but only occurs in this living present moment, and not in some ancient mythological past. The mystical view is a perfect reflection of nature itself. Science, OTOH, is a conceptual view of nature, and the result is what we have today: paradox.

False. NOTHING in a mystical view applies to nature at all.

False. See above. Your sources are erroneous.

What many people believe in as far as mystical is unsubstantiated outside mythology.

False. See above. The outcome of the mystical view has been substantiated independently by others all around the world throughout history. The mystical view is not mythology.

 

[godnotgod]

There are not two sides to this.

Only one is factually substantiated in reality. The other does not exist outside mythology. It exist in faith alone due to the complete 100% lack of evidence in support.

No, it is an experience, not a belief, so you're just plain wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

No, there is not. One's world view is one's self-view.

We have a profound disagreement about this one. Again you insert something more into what I am saying, as it fits your narrative. Not unexpected. You are not your world view and you enjoy existence separate from that world view.

What you don't get is that I have not been talking about either.

I'm quite aware of the fact that you do not see your own thinking as a worldview as that would assassinate your own narrative. If anything, you are consistent, somewhat like a broken record.

I am talking about The (Universal) View that sees Reality as it is.

And I am saying that that is a very dangerous assumption to make as it automatically repels any idea that would cast an iota of doubt on the claim - sort of like what you do - endlessly.

I cannot be attached to a world (self) view while at the same time trying to obliterate the self. Neither here is the case.

I know you are not used to reexamining your ideas but you really should spend a moment and rethink this little nugget. Making worldview synonymous with self is your first problem.

There is no self to have a world view nor one to obliterate.

And yet we have a sense of self and we have our little world views. Go figure.

That is the Transcendent View. But I know you already do not understand as you are still attached to duality.

and.... so..... I have to take it on FAITH that you have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

You know, blaming the audience for the short-comings of the messenger and his message gets pretty old, pretty fast.