Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

I get the physical way that you describe the universe. We see a chair. We sit in the chair. We think its solid but its mostly empty space and in fact the chair is not a chair at all but just a bunch of atoms which in turn are made of bosons, hadrons and mesons which are in turn made of quarks. And who knows what the quarks are made of?

But that is still all physical. I don't see any spiritual revaluation so far. How does this tie into your prescribed ideas?

How do you determine their physicality, as compared to non-physicality?

 

[godnotgod]

So we're left to wonder for the rest of our days what it was he wanted to argue.

I guess you haven't been following the discussion. I have been saying that we live in an intelligent universe, compared to the view that intelligent beings live in a dead universe. Part of that discussion has to do with the foreground and background of existence. Our tendency is to see the foreground as composed of separate 'things' that are not conscious. IOW, a conscious observer of unconscious 'things'. We then superimpose that view onto the background, which is the universe. We see the world via conditioned awareness.

 

[savagewind]

I guess you haven't been following the discussion. I have been saying that we live in an intelligent universe, compared to the view that intelligent beings live in a dead universe. Part of that discussion has to do with the foreground and background of existence. Our tendency is to see the foreground as composed of separate 'things' that are not conscious. IOW, a conscious observer of unconscious 'things'. We then superimpose that view onto the background, which is the universe. We see the world via conditioned awareness.

You are so cute! He and I went off topic. I was talking about the comedy sketch. I am sorry.

 

[savagewind]

I think I agree with your theory.

 

[apophenia]

Yeah, why don't we chill out.
Anyone know any good jokes?

A duck walks into a pub and orders a pint of beer and a ham sandwich.

The barman looks at him and says, "Hang on! You're a duck."

"I see your eyes are working," replies the duck.

"And you can talk!" exclaims the barman.

"I see your ears are working, too," says the duck. "Now if you don't mind, can I have my beer and my sandwich please?"

"Certainly, sorry about that," says the barman as he pulls the duck's pint. "It's just we don't get many ducks in this pub.. What are you doing round this way?"
"I'm working on the building site across the road," explains the duck. "I'm a plasterer."

The flabbergasted barman cannot believe the duck and wants to learn more, but takes the hint when the duck pulls out a newspaper from his bag and proceeds to read it.

So, the duck reads his paper, drinks his beer, eats his sandwich, bids the barman good day and leaves.

The same thing happens for two weeks.
Then one day the circus comes to town.

The ringmaster comes into the pub for a pint and the barman says to him "You're with the circus, aren't you? Well, I know this duck that could be just brilliant in your circus. He talks, drinks beer, eats sandwiches, reads the newspaper and everything!"

"Sounds marvellous," says the ringmaster, handing over his business card. "Get him to give me a call."

So the next day when the duck comes into the pub the barman says, "Hey Mr. Duck, I reckon I can line you up with a top job, paying really good money."

"I'm always looking for the next job," says the duck. "Where is it?"
"At the circus," says the barman.

"The circus?" repeats the duck.

"That's right," replies the barman.

"The circus?" the duck asks again. "That place with the big tent?"

"Yeah," the barman replies.

"With all the animals who live in cages, and performers who live in caravans?" says the duck.

"Of course," the barman replies.

"And the tent has canvas sides and a big canvas roof with a hole in the middle?" persists the duck.

"That's right!" says the barman.
The duck shakes his head in amazement, and says . . .> >

> >
"What the f...... would they want with a plasterer??!"

 

[apophenia]

I guess you haven't been following the discussion. I have been saying that we live in an intelligent universe, compared to the view that intelligent beings live in a dead universe. Part of that discussion has to do with the foreground and background of existence. Our tendency is to see the foreground as composed of separate 'things' that are not conscious. IOW, a conscious observer of unconscious 'things'. We then superimpose that view onto the background, which is the universe. We see the world via conditioned awareness.

If we are not buying into the foreground/background duality, then the statement "we live in an intelligent universe" is questionable.

We are the universe living.

 

[godnotgod]

I think I agree with your theory.

Well, please understand the use of foreground and background is conceptual. In reality, you and I ARE the background, ARE the universe. Is this true?

 

[godnotgod]

Surely, if we are not buying into the foreground/background duality, then the statement "we live in an intelligent universe" is questionable.

We are the universe living.

Yes, exactly. I was using the phrase "we live in an intelligent universe" in the conventional sense. Background and foreground are only conceptual frameworks. In reality, they don't exist. Everything, including space, is the universe in toto.

 

[savagewind]

Well, please understand the use of foreground and background is conceptual. In reality, you and I ARE the background, ARE the universe. Is this true?

Yes! Believing something does not make it the truth.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes! Believing something does not make it the truth.

Of course not. But is the statement that we are the background itself a belief or the truth?

 

[apophenia]

Yes! Believing something does not make it the truth.

Good point.

And even believing something which is true is not the same as recognising it directly.

This is my objection to a lot of the purveyors of these ideas. They may be a hindrance, by encouraging the error of 'trying to satisfy hunger with a picture of a cake'. This is why a 'method' is taught, be it zazen or bhakti., and the practice of this method is made effective through relating with someone who understands the use of the method.

 

[godnotgod]

Good point.

And even believing something which is true is not the same as recognising it directly.

This is my objection to a lot of the purveyors of these ideas. They may be a hindrance, by encouraging the error of 'trying to satisfy hunger with a picture of a cake'. This is why a 'method' is taught, be it zazen or bhakti., and the practice of this method is made effective through relating with someone who understands the use of the method.

I am talking about direct recognition. Is this the case with the idea of we being the background itself, or does it remain only in the realm of belief?

 

[savagewind]

Of course not. But is the statement that we are the background itself a belief or the truth?

"We are the background". True or false. It must be true. Funny! My believing in God makes it true and you don't. Do you?

 

[savagewind]

Good point.

And even believing something which is true is not the same as recognising it directly.

This is my objection to a lot of the purveyors of these ideas. They may be a hindrance, by encouraging the error of 'trying to satisfy hunger with a picture of a cake'. This is why a 'method' is taught, be it zazen or bhakti., and the practice of this method is made effective through relating with someone who understands the use of the method.

I love that post! I might be afraid to 'like' it because I don't know what it means but my feather brain is saying "Do it!"

 

[godnotgod]

"We are the background". True or false. It must be true. Funny! My believing in God makes it true and you don't. Do you?

I neither believe, nor not-believe. But 'God' is invisible, while you and I and the background are visible. I think it is safe to say at this point of the discussion that we KNOW we are the background as well as the foreground.

 

[godnotgod]

Good point.

And even believing something which is true is not the same as recognising it directly.

This is my objection to a lot of the purveyors of these ideas. They may be a hindrance, by encouraging the error of 'trying to satisfy hunger with a picture of a cake'. This is why a 'method' is taught, be it zazen or bhakti., and the practice of this method is made effective through relating with someone who understands the use of the method.

But ultimately, Zen and guru must both step out of the way, which is precisely why Zen is 'a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself'

Reality is first; Zen is only the finger pointing to it after the fact, and why it is important not to become attached to the pointing finger.

 

[savagewind]

I neither believe, nor not-believe. But 'God' is invisible, while you and I and the background are visible. I think it is safe to say at this point of the discussion that we KNOW we are the background as well as the foreground.

OK. A Thought. The foreground, of course, is God and God is Father, meaning we are children, and a father never abandons his children, so that makes us WITH God in the foreground as well as in the background.

 

[apophenia]

But ultimately, Zen and guru must both step out of the way, which is precisely why Zen is 'a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself'

Reality is first; Zen is only the finger pointing to it after the fact, and why it is important not to become attached to the pointing finger.

"But ultimately" ?

Sure, ultimately - after a substantial period of diligent application of the method, which is not just intellectualising.

If you get it, then you will realise the futility and the misguided error of trying to 'storm heaven' intellectually on a forum.

By all means express your view, as we all do. But IMO, you seem hell-bent on talking yourself and others into satori.

Won't happen.

 

[apophenia]

I love that post! I might be afraid to 'like' it because I don't know what it means but my feather brain is saying "Do it!"

 

[savagewind]

1. In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō, "seeing into one's true nature". Ken means "seeing," shō means "nature" or "essence." Satori and kenshō are commonly translated as enlightenment, a word that is also used to translate bodhi, prajna and buddhahood.