Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[YmirGF]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[godnotgod]

No. I am highly interactive.

And how do you know that?

 

[godnotgod]

Little Mr. Big just has to get that last lip-smackin' morsel of godnotgod's wonderful teaching down his gullet. Real stick to the ribs nourishment.

 

[godnotgod]

No. I am highly interactive.

So there is this 'I' that is 'interactive'. Who, or what, is this 'I'? Or maybe there is only interaction, without an inter-act-er?

 

[Runewolf1973]

And how do you know that?

Evidence.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So there is this 'I' that is 'interactive'. Who, or what, is this 'I'? Or maybe there is only interaction, without an inter-act-er?

The "I" is unimportant. There is only interaction. A leaf on the ground is not separate from the tree which shed it. The universe itself is the inter-act-er...the Animating Factor.

 

[YmirGF]

The "I" is unimportant. There is only interaction. A leaf on the ground is not separate from the tree which shed it. The universe itself is the inter-act-er...the Animating Factor.

It's a minor quibble, and I do understand the context you mean this in, but having raked up more than my fair share of leaves this fall, I can utterly assure you they have separated from the trees that bore them. I do like your idea of "the animating factor" though as it dovetails well with my thinking that we are action personified.

 

[Unification]

Honestly, it doesn't change a damn thing because that is a point where even science faces uncertainty. Therefore I can speculate all I want and it does not break any fundamental laws of science that are already in place.

I'm going to give just my opinion... you are very worried about breaking the "laws of science" when science knows little about the "laws of nature." While Nature and the Universe break and defy many scientific laws, you are stuck in the scientific frame. It's a form of mental conditioning. Science knows very little about Nature. I think you are making the mistake that Science is closely the same as Nature. Science isn't everything and all that there is. The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the fundamental laws of "Science." The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the human "mind." Science is so hell-bent on its laws that it doesn't know what's what, it can't go beyond a scope. It is stagnant, slow, and limited. Self-inflicted wounds scientists have placed on science. Natural life is well beyond that scope. The natural and abstract evidences runs circles around scientific evidence. Science is just fine, but I prefer to not live my free life and free mind within a scope and a box, nor care what others think, or trying to please men and only science.

Whereas with Shamanism, they are about nature. They know that they can only know true Nature by knowing their own nature. It's how they are aware of things beyond what science already knows. It's how they already knew things thousands of years ago that science is still short of knowing and have just recently discovered. It makes strict scientists jealous. The mystic and the Shaman share much in common. They go beyond the mind and science to discover more complex interactions(to know more complex energy/light and matter) of Nature than the limited complex interactions of the average mind and science.

When others speculate and go beyond science and it's limitations, there is heavy scrutiny. Nature owns science. Science doesn't own nature. Nature owns the human mind also, not vice versa. Scientific laws are just a very tiny frame within the ginormous frame of Nature/universe and cover the physical with knowing little about the abstracts of nature.

You have this unique talent of seeing energy patterns, this is WAY beyond science. It falls in line with your use of "delusion of grandeur" or what others call "selling snake-oil." Yet it is naturally evident to you. This breaks the fundamental laws of science and when you say that you are sure there is a "natural" explanation for such... it is further evidence to what I am saying. You see what others can't see. What I'm saying is to not be a hypocrite, what is beyond your current awareness/things seen... someone else may see. There are "natural" explanations and there are "scientific" explanations. I think that you're correlating the two as the same.

It's pretty much the same thing as saying, "what's natural to Nature is supernatural to Science."

You also have your own use of words and language while someone else has their's. Scientific terminology isn't all that there is. I don't think that Nature is a respector of words. Scientists and human's on the other hand... they love to be respectors of certain people and certain words.

 

[Unification]

There is no evidence to give any credibility to the mystic view.

No "scientific, physical evidence."
But perhaps "natural, abstract evidence."

 

[Unification]

And of course the rest of us are just deluded, not enough mushrooms.

Neither is deluded. You both just think the other is selling snake oil. If it's not in line with your beliefs, or certain terminology and definitions, it will always be seen as snake oil and vice versa. Maybe not enough snake oil.

 

[Unification]

All is the Animating Factor, but the Animating Factor is not conscious, it is interactive, ever-changing and omnipresent.

You just ran into a contradiction then, if you claim the Animating Factor is part of all interaction in and of itself, that same Animating Factor would be within the human also. The human is conscious/complexly interactive.

This is how a human knows nature by knowing their own nature. The Animating Factor rests within the human. By knowing themselves, they know nature. The deeper someone is aware of their nature, the deeper someone knows Nature. They would know/experience deeper complex interactions beyond the the ordinary complex interactions.

A knower/experiencer of nature is vastly different than having "knowledge of" science. A knower/experiencer of the fundamental laws of "Nature" is vastly different than having knowledge of the fundamental laws of "Science."

 

[Unification]

I understand Ben. What I just don't get is why Godnotgod insists that the Animating Factor must somehow be separate from the universe, or that interaction must be separate from the universe. It is all one and the same...a total action of the universe.

It also wouldn't be separate from the human. The same exoteric Animating Factor interacting in the Universe would be the same internal Animating Factor interacting within the human.

 

[Unification]

Yes. Please provide evidence. Mystical experience falls kinda short. I will not accept anything as factual if it is beyond reason or logic.

How do you define "mystical experience?" Mystical is rather vague with no concrete definition.

You've also stated that you believe that the unexplained, which can also be mystical... will "eventually" be able to be explained by logic and reason.

 

[Unification]

I've been working with the traditional four elements or properties for a while, those are earth, fire, wind and water. I was mulling over how the theory of interaction would work with those. Elements interacting seems to make more sense than properties interacting. What do you think?

If you want to stay within the scope of science... perhaps:

Earth:solid
Fire: plasma
Wind:gas
Water:liquid

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm going to give just my opinion... you are very worried about breaking the "laws of science" when science knows little about the "laws of nature." While Nature and the Universe break and defy many scientific laws, you are stuck in the scientific frame. It's a form of mental conditioning. Science knows very little about Nature. I think you are making the mistake that Science is closely the same as Nature. Science isn't everything and all that there is. The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the fundamental laws of "Science." The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the human "mind." Science is so hell-bent on its laws that it doesn't know what's what, it can't go beyond a scope. It is stagnant, slow, and limited. Self-inflicted wounds scientists have placed on science. Natural life is well beyond that scope. The natural and abstract evidences runs circles around scientific evidence. Science is just fine, but I prefer to not live my free life and free mind within a scope and a box, nor care what others think, or trying to please men and only science.

Whereas with Shamanism, they are about nature. They know that they can only know true Nature by knowing their own nature. It's how they are aware of things beyond what science already knows. It's how they already knew things thousands of years ago that science is still short of knowing and have just recently discovered. It makes strict scientists jealous. The mystic and the Shaman share much in common. They go beyond the mind and science to discover more complex interactions(to know more complex energy/light and matter) of Nature than the limited complex interactions of the average mind and science.

When others speculate and go beyond science and it's limitations, there is heavy scrutiny. Nature owns science. Science doesn't own nature. Nature owns the human mind also, not vice versa. Scientific laws are just a very tiny frame within the ginormous frame of Nature/universe and cover the physical with knowing little about the abstracts of nature.

You have this unique talent of seeing energy patterns, this is WAY beyond science. It falls in line with your use of "delusion of grandeur" or what others call "selling snake-oil." Yet it is naturally evident to you. This breaks the fundamental laws of science and when you say that you are sure there is a "natural" explanation for such... it is further evidence to what I am saying. You see what others can't see. What I'm saying is to not be a hypocrite, what is beyond your current awareness/things seen... someone else may see. There are "natural" explanations and there are "scientific" explanations. I think that you're correlating the two as the same.

It's pretty much the same thing as saying, "what's natural to Nature is supernatural to Science."

You also have your own use of words and language while someone else has their's. Scientific terminology isn't all that there is. I don't think that Nature is a respector of words. Scientists and human's on the other hand... they love to be respectors of certain people and certain words.

Of course science is not above nature. I never said that it was. Science is about finding facts to achieve a better understanding of nature. Primitive animistic cultures understood nature so well because they lived so closely with nature. Science understands nature so well for the same reason...by how closely scientists work with and study nature. That is why I respect both primitive man and modern day scientists. They both share that same connection with nature.

Btw...I don't tout off my abilities as being factual. There is no evidence for those energy patterns which I see or manipulate. I'm not in the business of selling any snake oil. However, these things are not out of the realm of reason, logic, or possiblility. I am not breaking any fundamental laws of science by sharing my beliefs. Beliefs are just that...beliefs, they cannot be passed off as fact. Yes, Godnotgod's views present another possible reality. However, it is that he presents his views as absolute factual truth that I do not agree with. I absolutely do not have that box-frame mentality you refer too. I believe there are things out there...natural things...which science doesn't understand, but I will not pawn those beliefs off as fact.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No "scientific, physical evidence."
But perhaps "natural, abstract evidence."

There is something to be said about personal experience. I believe many people have genuine paranormal experiences for example, which is evidence enough for them perhaps, but that type of evidence is not evidence enough to proclaim to the world "Hey, this is a matter of fact!"

 

[godnotgod]

I'm going to give just my opinion... you are very worried about breaking the "laws of science" when science knows little about the "laws of nature." While Nature and the Universe break and defy many scientific laws, you are stuck in the scientific frame. It's a form of mental conditioning. Science knows very little about Nature. I think you are making the mistake that Science is closely the same as Nature. Science isn't everything and all that there is. The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the fundamental laws of "Science." The fundamental laws of "Nature" are well beyond the human "mind." Science is so hell-bent on its laws that it doesn't know what's what, it can't go beyond a scope. It is stagnant, slow, and limited. Self-inflicted wounds scientists have placed on science. Natural life is well beyond that scope. The natural and abstract evidences runs circles around scientific evidence. Science is just fine, but I prefer to not live my free life and free mind within a scope and a box, nor care what others think, or trying to please men and only science.

Whereas with Shamanism, they are about nature. They know that they can only know true Nature by knowing their own nature. It's how they are aware of things beyond what science already knows. It's how they already knew things thousands of years ago that science is still short of knowing and have just recently discovered. It makes strict scientists jealous. The mystic and the Shaman share much in common. They go beyond the mind and science to discover more complex interactions(to know more complex energy/light and matter) of Nature than the limited complex interactions of the average mind and science.

When others speculate and go beyond science and it's limitations, there is heavy scrutiny. Nature owns science. Science doesn't own nature. Nature owns the human mind also, not vice versa. Scientific laws are just a very tiny frame within the ginormous frame of Nature/universe and cover the physical with knowing little about the abstracts of nature.

You have this unique talent of seeing energy patterns, this is WAY beyond science. It falls in line with your use of "delusion of grandeur" or what others call "selling snake-oil." Yet it is naturally evident to you. This breaks the fundamental laws of science and when you say that you are sure there is a "natural" explanation for such... it is further evidence to what I am saying. You see what others can't see. What I'm saying is to not be a hypocrite, what is beyond your current awareness/things seen... someone else may see. There are "natural" explanations and there are "scientific" explanations. I think that you're correlating the two as the same.

It's pretty much the same thing as saying, "what's natural to Nature is supernatural to Science."

You also have your own use of words and language while someone else has their's. Scientific terminology isn't all that there is. I don't think that Nature is a respector of words. Scientists and human's on the other hand... they love to be respectors of certain people and certain words.

Thank you for a very excellent and clarifying post!

You are saying in your own way essentially what I have been saying all along.

But to add a short comment: people who are hypnotized by science (and I mean this in the sense of being a mental conditioning, even an indoctrination) forget that it was an intuitive sense, an awakening, that first caused them to seek further using the methodology that is now called science. Others who have had this primary experience choose the path that caused the awakening in the first place: that of the intuitive mind, which leads to a different kind of knowledge we call Enlightenment. When this is attained, the discursive mind stops. Then there is only a pure kind of seeing into the true nature of things. What science 'discovers' is only an addition in the form of factual knowledge to that of the enlightened mind. Here, the cart is placed properly behind the horse. But scientists make the mistake of putting what they discover about nature ahead of nature itself, thereby providing only a skeletal framework, and not the essence of Reality, since the tools of science, Logic, Reason, and Analysis, are methods of dissection and reduction, unable to detect what Reality is all about, and therefore dismissing anything it cannot find factual evidence for as being valid.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You just ran into a contradiction then, if you claim the Animating Factor is part of all interaction in and of itself, that same Animating Factor would be within the human also.

Where is the contradiction? The Animating Factor is not part of something, it is everything including that complex form of interaction we call consciousness.


"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all came forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas.

To me that epitomizes what I call the Animating Factor. It is not a duality. It is totality.