Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is a complex form of interaction. It is not the background to everything. If you lost all consciousness, the universe would still be interacting/changing regardless, as would whatever remained of your physical body. Therefore, the universal constant is change/interaction, not consciousness which is the result of change/interaction.

When I say that consciousness is the background to Everything, I am not referring to any personal consciousness, but Universal
Consciousness, which is the issue between Chopra and Dawkins. UC is the consciousness of the Universe itself, or rather, the consciousness which manifests itself AS The Universe. IOW, there is not consciousness over here, and the Universe over there; the Universe is not an object of consciousness, because in the state of Higher Consciousness, subject and object are always merged as One Reality. Your view is that of a mechanistic universe, sometimes referred to as the Fully Automatic Universe. It is important for a materialist such as yourself, to understand how his view came to be what it is. Here is a critique of both the Ceramic and the Fully Automatic models of The Universe:

 

[godnotgod]

Which is irrelevant as the methods and result are different. More so the quote is not convincing as it is useless tripe unless one already subscribes to Christianity.

I am wrapping up my part of the discussion with the following, and will no longer comment on this topic.

Unless there is more than one divine nature to gain union with, there can only be one result. Union with the divine nature is the same for everyone. As the Hindus tell us: 'The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere'. There is not a Christian saltiness over here, and a Hindu saltiness over there. You are still clinging to the description of Reality, simply because you are attempting to define it via the intellect and Reason, and Reason, as we now both know, is what Cusa himself tells us must be vanquished before divine union can be attained. Reason can only provide a personal view; divine union shows us a universal view. That 'Jesus' is what the Christian requires to take him to the threshold of the experience of divine union is completely besides the point I am making by quoting Cusa. You are still in the realm of belief and orthodoxy and cannot fathom the mystic's view, which is the view of Cusa. Cusa is a mystic, not an orthodox believer, and what he is saying about Reason is that of the experience of a mystic.

What I quoted from Cusa stands on its own. It is true in and of itself, and is in perfect accord with the view of the mystic:

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa

Interjecting the mediator 'Jesus' into this has no effect on the veracity of the statement.

That is all that is important as regards my point and the use of Cusa's statement. The rest is excess baggage.

Story end.

 

[Shad]

I am wrapping up my part of the discussion with the following, and will no longer comment on this topic.

Okay.

Unless there is more than one divine nature to gain union with, there can only be one result. Union with the divine nature is the same for everyone. As the Hindus tell us: 'The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere'. There is not a Christian saltiness over here, and a Hindu saltiness over there. You are still clinging to the description of Reality, simply because you are attempting to define it via the intellect and Reason, and Reason, as we now both know, is what Cusa himself tells us must be vanquished before divine union can be attained. Reason can only provide a personal view; divine union shows us a universal view. That 'Jesus' is what the Christian requires to take him to the threshold of the experience of divine union is completely besides the point I am making by quoting Cusa. You are still in the realm of belief and orthodoxy and cannot fathom the mystic's view, which is the view of Cusa. Cusa is a mystic, not an orthodox believer, and what he is saying about Reason is that of the experience of a mystic. End story.

Again you base your views on parallelism. Many people talk about "reality". However you keep making the basic mistake that since Nicholas or Plato are talking about "reality" their views are similar to your own. Keep in mind Plato did not say not to use reason thus is in direct conflict with your view and Nicholas' view. These views are not the same as complete ideas. You attempt to frames various religious tradition and philosophy as pluralistic ideas but these ideas are often exclusive with other competing ideas. Nicholas, Cusa is a place not his name, does nothing to help your argument. He is not talking about Deepak's ideas or HC but about a religious view point which is not compatible with your own. You are demonstrating nothing more than selection bias by counting the hits and ignoring the vast amount of misses in order to fulfill you confirmation bias. You have provided no reason for me to accept your view, you have no evidence for you view, you have no logic behind your view. You take common concepts such as God, assume because X and Y talk about "God" it is the same exact view. Again if you read Nicholas' work it is about a specific God not some pluralistic view. You have nothing, zero, nadda to convince someone that does not already subscribe to your views to entertain your views. The more you talk about vanquishing reason the more irrational you appear. Your only argument is "Accept my empty assertion. If you do not you are X, Y, Z"

 

[Runewolf1973]

When I say that consciousness is the background to Everything, I am not referring to any personal consciousness, but Universal
Consciousness, which is the issue between Chopra and Dawkins. UC is the consciousness of the Universe itself, or rather, the consciousness which manifests itself AS The Universe. IOW, there is not consciousness over here, and the Universe over there; the Universe is not an object of consciousness, because in the state of Higher Consciousness, subject and object are always merged as One Reality. Your view is that of a mechanistic universe, sometimes referred to as the Fully Automatic Universe. It is important for a materialist such as yourself, to understand how his view came to be what it is. Here is a critique of both the Ceramic and the Fully Automatic models of The Universe:

The universe is not conscious, it is interactive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Change/interaction is a relative value. That is to say, it has a relative opposite value, that of no-change; no-interaction. Therefore, no-change is essential to change, is it not? The way you have it, there is only day without night, solid without space, etc. The only way you can know that something is changing is via of the background of no-change. But no-change is passive, and you are not aware of its presence or influence because your focus is on what is changing in the foreground. In the figure/ground image I posted, its as if you are saying that only the figure exists, and that it is self-referencing. That is impossible. Ground is absolutely essential to figure. The Changeless is absolutely essential to change. Therefore, The Changeless is the fundamental reality, not change.

You deny change and interaction, yet that is all you can do in this moment. Change is self-referencing because it creates its own background. Everytime the forms within this universe change, a new background is created and new forms appear against that everchanging background. Here is a challenge for you....

Stop interacting.

 

[godnotgod]

Again you base your views on parallelism. Many people talk about "reality". However you keep making the basic mistake that since Nicholas or Plato are talking about "reality" their views are similar to your own.

The point is that I am in accord with both Plato and Cusa.

Keep in mind Plato did not say not to use reason thus is in direct conflict with your view and Nicholas' view.

I am not saying not to use Reason either. I, like Cusa, am saying that Reason must be put aside before divine union can be achieved, and as for Plato, I agree that Reason is employed after the Sun is seen, but seeing the Sun comes prior to the use of Reason. I understand them perfectly. There is no conflict here other than the one you are fabricating in your head.

These views are not the same as complete ideas. You attempt to frames various religious tradition and philosophy as pluralistic ideas but these ideas are often exclusive with other competing ideas. Nicholas, Cusa is a place not his name, does nothing to help your argument. He is not talking about Deepak's ideas or HC but about a religious view point which is not compatible with your own. You are demonstrating nothing more than selection bias by counting the hits and ignoring the vast amount of misses in order to fulfill you confirmation bias. You have provided no reason for me to accept your view, you have no evidence for you view, you have no logic behind your view. You take common concepts such as God, assume because X and Y talk about "God" it is the same exact view. Again if you read Nicholas' work it is about a specific God not some pluralistic view. You have nothing, zero, nadda to convince someone that does not already subscribe to your views to entertain your views. The more you talk about vanquishing reason the more irrational you appear. Your only argument is "Accept my empty assertion. If you do not you are X, Y, Z"

I am not asking you to accept my personal view; I am referring to Cusa (his name is Nicholas of Cusa, so I call him Cusa).

The only question for me is: is the following statement true:

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa

It is true as a universal statement of the mystical view, because I see the same thing, and that same thing is the same everywhere, which others also confirm as true. There is only One Reality, whether you call it God, Tao, Brahman, Unified Field, etc, etc. Once again, because you have never had a mystical experience, you are still within the mind of Reason and cannot possibly know what I, or Chopra, or Cusa are pointing to. The only way you will get a glimpse is to pop the bubble of Reason, awaken from your hypnotic state, and go see for yourself, just as the prisoners in Plato's Cave cannot possibly know what 'Sun' is unless and until they leave their dancing cave wall shadows they only think is reality behind and venture topside. You, like so many others, still cling to a materialist paradigm that is slowly dying. Having said that, when you return to the world of Reason and Logic, it will be transformed for you so that instead of seeing Reality the way you think it is, you will actually see it as it actually is. It is then that you will understand the proper use of Reason, because you will no longer be attempting to define Reality in terms of Reason, but will instead understand Reason in terms of Reality.

Vive la difference.

 

[godnotgod]

You deny change and interaction, yet that is all you can do in this moment. Change is self-referencing because it creates its own background. Everytime the forms within this universe change, a new background is created and new forms appear against that everchanging background. Here is a challenge for you....

Stop interacting.

Stop making crap up!

There is no agent of interaction that can start or stop interaction, just as there is no river that flows that can begin or end its flowing. There is only flowing water, which is an illusion. There is no 'I' that is interacting; there is only the illusion of change, without a 'change-er'. The world is a magic place which convinces you that it is real and interacting. You are still asleep, in the grip of maya.

I can only tell you this:

From the POV of conditioned awareness, the material universe is real and changing all the time.

But from the POV of awakened, unconditioned consciousness, the material world is an illusion of the fundamental, absolute Reality that is The Changeless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Stop making crap up!

There is no agent of interaction that can start or stop interaction, just as there is no river that flows that can begin or end its flowing. There is only flowing water, which is an illusion. There is no 'I' that is interacting; there is only the illusion of change, without a 'change-er'. The world is a magic place which convinces you that it is real and interacting. You are still asleep, in the grip of maya.

I can only tell you this:

From the POV of conditioned awareness, the material universe is real and changing all the time.

But from the POV of awakened, unconditioned consciousness, the material world is an illusion of the fundamental, absolute Reality that is The Changeless.

You cannot refute empirical reality because, quite frankly, there is no evidence against it. So I would say it is you who is making up crap.


Btw... Stop interacting.

 

[godnotgod]

The universe is not conscious, it is interactive.

The 'material' universe is virtual in nature. It behaves AS IF it were real. The mystical view confirms that this universe is completely empty; that from the very beginning, not a single thing exists, and science now confirms that there is simply nothing there, when it goes as deep as it can go. The universe, being a phantasm, is no more 'interactive' than the illusory snake is that is actually a rope, 'snake' being a metaphor for 'material universe'. It simply does not exist. However, unlike the 'snake', which vanishes upon realization of it's rope nature, the universe does not vanish, making the quality of its illusory nature even more difficult to detect. But once you catch a glimpse of this, you will see that the only important thing is Consciousness, which is all that remains, and which is the same as The Changeless. IOW, YOU are THAT, hiding from yourself, pretending to interact with yourself, playing the cosmic game of Hide and Seek with yourself. It's all a dream, and none of it is real.

 

[godnotgod]

You cannot refute empirical reality because, quite frankly, there is no evidence against it. So I would say it is you who is making up crap.


Btw... Stop interacting.

Empirical reality is just a construct based on the assumption that the material universe is real. The fact that it is not real does not change empirical findings. That remains the same. The illusion that is the world still follows certain patterns that can be predicted. But there exists something within the illusion that points to The Absolute, because it is The Absolute that is manifesting itself as empirical reality. Awakened consciousness is the key to detecting this queue, because it is awakened consciousness, The Absolute, that is subtly prompting the rational mind toward awakening.

There exists no 'I' that is either relatively interacting, or relatively not-interacting. There is no clinging to the world of duality.

You are making up crap when you state that change is self-referencing because it creates its own background. That's plainly ridiculous. You haven't learned a thing, and are regressing into make-believe.

 

[godnotgod]

Read his book and you would realize it is about the individual, Jesus and God.

More so the quote is not convincing as it is useless tripe unless one already subscribes to Christianity.

Final thoughts:

Which 'Christianity'? Problem with what you are saying is that Cusa, in pointing toward the experience of divine union, transforms orthodox Christian belief into mystical Christianity. The orthodox Christian never ventures into the area of divine union. The closest he gets is as a submissive and obedient subject to God. Never would he say he has an inherent divine nature. Why? Because he thinks of himself as an artefact of God; a 'made' creat-ure, like a clay figurine, into which God breathes his life, and so is completely dependent upon God as a separate entity, his own nature not being divine, but of a sinful nature, flawed from the very beginning, and in need of divine guidance and correction. Only the mystic comes to the realization of his own inner divine nature, and professes his 'God consciousness' as his own. Cusa's brand of Christianity is definitely mystical, and not of the orthodox-believer's variety, and thereby transforming it completely. So no, there is no traditional 'subscription to Christianity' in the orthodox sense.

In modern psychological terms, the orthodox Christian believer is essentially an other-directed individual, while the mystic is an inner-directed individual. The difference is huge. Cusa's divine union can never be the experience of the other-directed type. It is an inner, transformative experience where the conditioned mind is transcended and unconditioned mind comes into play. This is the crux of the spiritual experience and the pathway to Higher Consciousness, 'where the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'. This is none other than Cusa's, or any mystic's, experience of divine union.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Empirical reality is just a construct based on the assumption that the material universe is real. The fact that it is not real does not change empirical findings. That remains the same. The illusion that is the world still follows certain patterns that can be predicted. But there exists something within the illusion that points to The Absolute, because it is The Absolute that is manifesting itself as empirical reality. Awakened consciousness is the key to detecting this queue, because it is awakened consciousness, The Absolute, that is subtly prompting the rational mind toward awakening.

There exists no 'I' that is either relatively interacting, or relatively not-interacting. There is no clinging to the world of duality.

You are making up crap when you state that change is self-referencing because it creates its own background. That's plainly ridiculous. You haven't learned a thing, and are regressing into make-believe.

What I meant is you cannot refute that the universe is everchanging because there is no evidence against it. Everything is change/interaction, whether there is awareness of it or not. It is you who are resorting to make believe because you are reducing the universe to something called "Pure Consciousness" or "nothingness" for which there is no evidence. You are also wrong in your assessment of science/physics. The further physics broadens our understanding of the universe, the more it discovers that the vacuum of space is NOT empty, it is full of interaction and change. Space is NOT empty, nor is it pure nothingness, nor is it "conscious". It is interactive. That is a scientific FACT. I see you presenting no facts, only your own unsubstanstiated personal views. You keep serving baloney, but I see no one here willing to eat it.

Btw...Stop interacting.

 

[godnotgod]

What I meant is you cannot refute that the universe is everchanging because there is no evidence against it. Everything is change/interaction, whether there is awareness of it or not. It is you who are resorting to make believe because you are reducing the universe to something called "Pure Consciousness" or "nothingness" for which there is no evidence. You are also wrong in your assessment of science/physics. The further physics broadens our understanding of the universe, the more it discovers that the vacuum of space is NOT empty, it is full of interaction and change. Space is NOT empty, nor is it pure nothingness, nor is it "conscious". It is interactive. That is a scientific FACT. I see you presenting no facts, only your own unsubstanstiated personal views. You keep serving baloney, but I see no one here willing to eat it.

Btw...Stop interacting.

"You keep serving baloney, but I see no one here willing to eat it.", said the prisoners in Plato's Cave to the one escaped prisoner who dared to venture topside to see the glorious Sun.

You keep slipping down the slope, after I have explained to you that, from the POV of conditioned awareness, which is the view of science and others, the world is real, composed of 'things', and in constant flux; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, which is transcendent of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, the world is illusion. That you have hard 'evidence' is only because the illusion of the world follows certain predictable patterns, and predictability is what science is all about.

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.*

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

Even behind what is in 'empty space' is Absolute Nothingness; Pure Abstract Consciousness. You're still clinging to the old materialist paradigm, trying to cling to and squeeze every last drop of blood from it, but unfortunately, the perennial problem of original material still plagues both theism and science. That the universe is illusion satisfies this problem, simply because there is no such original 'material' that needs to be accounted for.

*Science says that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. But the 'change' from a non-BB condition to the BB itself occurred prior to the BB, when Space-Time did not yet exist. Therefore, what we call the 'material universe' that came into existence (ie; 'change') at the moment of the BB cannot have occurred. Change, as Dobson tells us, can only occur in Time. Therefore, the BB was not an event in Space-Time; it was an event before Space-Time, and the only condition in which that can occur is in Consciousness, because Consciousness does not exist in Space-Time. In fact, Space-Time is still only a concept. The reality is that it does not actually exist. We do not live in Space-Time; we live in Pure Consciousness, manifesting itself as the world in Space-Time.

In terms of Quantum Physics, we live in pure potential.

It's just a dream, and you're being taken in by it. Don't take it so seriously, just because 'thience' gives you data and facts. Data and facts are not reality, any more than musical notation is the music itself.

Wake up.

 

[godnotgod]

Lothar Schafer draws from Quantum Science and Ancient Mystics ways to unleash
our creative potential.

 

[Runewolf1973]

"You keep serving baloney, but I see no one here willing to eat it.", said the prisoners in Plato's Cave to the one escaped prisoner who dared to venture topside to see the glorious Sun.

You keep slipping down the slope, after I have explained to you that, from the POV of conditioned awareness, which is the view of science and others, the world is real, composed of 'things', and in constant flux; but from the POV of Higher Consciousness, which is transcendent of Reason, Logic, and Analysis, the world is illusion. That you have hard 'evidence' is only because the illusion of the world follows certain predictable patterns, and predictability is what science is all about.

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.*

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

Even behind what is in 'empty space' is Absolute Nothingness; Pure Abstract Consciousness. You're still clinging to the old materialist paradigm, trying to cling to and squeeze every last drop of blood from it, but unfortunately, the perennial problem of original material still plagues both theism and science. That the universe is illusion satisfies this problem, simply because there is no such original 'material' that needs to be accounted for.

*Science says that Space-Time began at the moment of inception of the Big Bang. But the 'change' from a non-BB condition to the BB itself occurred prior to the BB, when Space-Time did not yet exist. Therefore, what we call the 'material universe' that came into existence (ie; 'change') at the moment of the BB cannot have occurred. Change, as Dobson tells us, can only occur in Time. Therefore, the BB was not an event in Space-Time; it was an event before Space-Time, and the only condition in which that can occur is in Consciousness, because Consciousness does not exist in Space-Time. In fact, Space-Time is still only a concept. The reality is that it does not actually exist. We do not live in Space-Time; we live in Pure Consciousness, manifesting itself as the world in Space-Time.

In terms of Quantum Physics, we live in pure potential.

It's just a dream, and you're being taken in by it. Don't take it so seriously, just because 'thience' gives you data and facts. Data and facts are not reality, any more than musical notation is the music itself.

Wake up.

I agree we live in a quantum system of pure potential...great potential, but it is an entirely interactive system. The potential arises due to those interactions. If virtual particles can blink into existence briefly and then pop out of existence, there must be a sort of non-existence from whence they originate. Perhaps that equates to a sort of nothingness, I don't know, but it most certainly does not equate to any kind of "consciousness".

 

[godnotgod]

I agree we live in a quantum system of pure potential...great potential, but it is an entirely interactive system. The potential arises due to those interactions. If virtual particles can blink into existence briefly and then pop out of existence, there must be a sort of non-existence from whence they originate. Perhaps that equates to a sort of nothingness, I don't know, but it most certainly does not equate to any kind of "consciousness".

Why not?

What, in your assessment, do you suppose the totality of the 'interaction' of the entire universe is heading toward?

Potential is before actualization, not after. That is why it is called 'potential'. The light in the light bulb is potential light, but only actualized when the switch is flipped.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Why not?

What, in your assessment, do you suppose the totality of the 'interaction' of the entire universe is heading toward?

Potential is before actualization, not after. That is why it is called 'potential'. The light in the light bulb is potential light, but only actualized when the switch is flipped.

It is headed towards continual interaction in one form or another. Things exist, change and interact despite our being conscious or aware of their existence. Consciousness is not fundamental to existence, interaction is.

 

[allfoak]

Consciousness is not fundamental to existence, interaction is.

It seems to be a paradox.
While on the one hand there can be no existence without experience (interaction), there can also be no experience without consciousness.

It is quite an interesting thought.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Think about it terms of time. 10 months. 10 months in...

I don't think I could continue to smash my face against a brick wall for 10 months. So again, kudos. This actually makes it even more amazing. 10 long months people have held on through sheer grit and internet rage. *slow clap*

 

[dust1n]

I don't think I could continue to smash my face against a brick wall for 10 months. So again, kudos. This actually makes it even more amazing. 10 long months people have held on through sheer grit and internet rage. *slow clap*

I bet that's a year one wished they could have back on the ol' deathbed.