Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra

[godnotgod]

Nothingness cannot be a background, it cannot be anything. There is only change. The background to change is more change.

You're not using logic very well. Think: for change to occur, it must have a beginning. What is prior to the beginning of change? C'mon now. Think.

Looking at the question another way: how do you know change is occurring?

Again, please think before posting.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're not using logic very well. Think: for change to occur, it must have a beginning. What is prior to the beginning of change? C'mon now. Think.

Looking at the question another way: how do you know change is occurring?

Again, please think before posting.

So in other words, realization requires thinking which is another form of interaction. It requires a change in my way of thinking. Like I said...change/interaction is everything. Where does it originate? Probably from within that theoretical, interactive, ever-present field some call the Unified Field.

 

[godnotgod]

So in other words, realization requires thinking which is another form of interaction. It requires a change in my way of thinking. Like I said...change/interaction is everything. Where does it originate? Probably from within that theoretical, interactive, ever-present field some call the Unified Field.

Man, oh man.

Let's return to the figure/ground image:

The figure is seen against....what?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Man, oh man.

Let's return to the figure/ground image:

The figure is seen against....what?

You think I don't already get this? I understand exactly what you are saying and I understand exactly the point you are trying to make, but I still do not agree with your position. You are saying that change is the illusion as seen against a background of changeless and nothingness. I disagree. I say there is no such thing as nothingness. I say all there is is change and interactive forces. I say the forms created by change/interaction are illusory and temporary because the forms come and go, but change/interaction is the universal constant.

 

[godnotgod]

You think I don't already get this? I understand exactly what you are saying and I understand exactly the point you are trying to make, but I still do not agree with your position. You are saying that change is the illusion as seen against a background of changeless and nothingness. I disagree. I say there is no such thing as nothingness. I say all there is is change and interactive forces. I say the forms created by change/interaction are illusory and temporary because the forms come and go, but change/interaction is the universal constant.

Regardless, there must be a reference against which you can determine that change is occurring. You are saying only the foreground of existence exists, and there is no background. For some strange reason, you seem to be fixated on this thing you call 'interaction', while excluding all else. 'Everything is interaction', you keep saying, while ignoring that which interaction occurs against. When asked about this, you claim the background is simply more interaction. Can't you see how looney this position is?

All things exist against some background. Stars, planets, and other celestial bodies exist within the matrix of space, without which there can be no such bodies. I think the problem is partly that you are trying to conceptualize 'nothingness', as you say: 'there is no such thing as nothingness'. There isn't. It is not something that the mind can encapsulate.

You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of consciousness.
Consciousness does not move; it is just a state. Only mind moves.
Consciousness is before mind. It is limitless and infinite no-thing-ness.
Without it, nothing exists: no thing, no change; no interaction; no universe.

Maybe you just don't see this, but you still have not answered the question as to the beginning and end of what you call 'interaction', so I will answer for you: all interaction, or change, begins and ends against a background of that which does not change. That is the ONLY way there can be any change at all. This should be obvious to anyone.

edit: re the figure/ground image. You do see that there is an implied moving figure against a non-moving, figureless ground, do you not? And that without that non-moving ground, there can be no moving figure?

 

[Looncall]

Regardless, there must be a reference against which you can determine that change is occurring. You are saying only the foreground of existence exists, and there is no background. For some strange reason, you seem to be fixated on this thing you call 'interaction', while excluding all else. 'Everything is interaction', you keep saying, while ignoring that which interaction occurs against. When asked about this, you claim the background is simply more interaction. Can't you see how looney this position is?

All things exist against some background. Stars, planets, and other celestial bodies exist within the matrix of space, without which there can be no such bodies. I think the problem is partly that you are trying to conceptualize 'nothingness', as you say: 'there is no such thing as nothingness'. There isn't. It is not something that the mind can encapsulate.

You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of consciousness.
Consciousness does not move; it is just a state. Only mind moves.
Consciousness is before mind. It is limitless and infinite no-thing-ness.
Without it, nothing exists: no thing, no change; no interaction; no universe.

Maybe you just don't see this, but you still have not answered the question as to the beginning and end of what you call 'interaction', so I will answer for you: all interaction, or change, begins and ends against a background of that which does not change. That is the ONLY way there can be any change at all. This should be obvious to anyone.

edit: re the figure/ground image. You do see that there is an implied moving figure against a non-moving, figureless ground, do you not? And that without that non-moving ground, there can be no moving figure?

Bah, more word salad. Consciousness, as usually understood, is clearly a process. You are using the word in some other sense. How about making that sense clear? Or, better yet, using a more suitable word?

If all things are changing, they are still changing even if there no thing that does not change.

Your writing is impressive-looking, but many of your word-combinations are meaningless. You try to make analogies do more work than they are capable of.

(Edited for spelling and punctuation)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Wow...65 pages of the same argument. I had to bow out after repeating myself like 30-40 times. I am just impressed at the sheer willpower in this thread.

 

[godnotgod]

If all things are changing, they are still changing even if there no thing that does not change.

For the moment, let's assume that change is occurring. The question is: what is the reference you are using to determine that change is taking place?

In the figure/ground image I posted above, you can determine a dancing figure because of the figureless ground.

 

[godnotgod]

I say all there is is change and interactive forces. I say the forms created by change/interaction are illusory and temporary because the forms come and go, but change/interaction is the universal constant.

If all there is is change and interaction, that is to say, that change/interaction is the fundamental reality, then change must be not only an absolute, but The Absolute. It cannot be a relative opposite. However, it IS a relative opposite to that which does not relatively change; relative change vs relative no-change. There must be some other reality that encompasses both relative values. So change cannot be the fundamental reality. The fundamental reality is already in place before change occurs.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothingness cannot be a background, it cannot be anything. There is only change. The background to change is more change.

...and the background to more change?

 

[Looncall]

For the moment, let's assume that change is occurring. The question is: what is the reference you are using to determine that change is taking place?

In the figure/ground image I posted above, you can determine a dancing figure because of the figureless ground.

The references are "before" and "after'". Your analogy is irrelevant.

 

[YmirGF]

Wow...65 pages of the same argument. I had to bow out after repeating myself like 30-40 times. I am just impressed at the sheer willpower in this thread.

Who knew that Chopra fans were so invested in his hilarious worldview. It's sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Who knew that Chopra fans were so invested in his hilarious worldview. It's sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

High def slow motion. Its almost as bad as a Tom Cruz movie.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Wow...65 pages of the same argument. I had to bow out after repeating myself like 30-40 times. I am just impressed at the sheer willpower in this thread.

LOL!!

 

[Runewolf1973]

If all there is is change and interaction, that is to say, that change/interaction is the fundamental reality, then change must be not only an absolute, but The Absolute. It cannot be a relative opposite. However, it IS a relative opposite to that which does not relatively change; relative change vs relative no-change. There must be some other reality that encompasses both relative values. So change cannot be the fundamental reality. The fundamental reality is already in place before change occurs.

I would say change/interaction is self-referencing.

 

[dust1n]

Wow...65 pages of the same argument. I had to bow out after repeating myself like 30-40 times. I am just impressed at the sheer willpower in this thread.

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

 

[Runewolf1973]

Regardless, there must be a reference against which you can determine that change is occurring. You are saying only the foreground of existence exists, and there is no background. For some strange reason, you seem to be fixated on this thing you call 'interaction', while excluding all else. 'Everything is interaction', you keep saying, while ignoring that which interaction occurs against. When asked about this, you claim the background is simply more interaction. Can't you see how looney this position is?

All things exist against some background. Stars, planets, and other celestial bodies exist within the matrix of space, without which there can be no such bodies. I think the problem is partly that you are trying to conceptualize 'nothingness', as you say: 'there is no such thing as nothingness'. There isn't. It is not something that the mind can encapsulate.

You see the hedge against the background of the hills;
you see the hills against the background of the sky;
but you see the sky against the background of consciousness.
Consciousness does not move; it is just a state. Only mind moves.
Consciousness is before mind. It is limitless and infinite no-thing-ness.
Without it, nothing exists: no thing, no change; no interaction; no universe.

Maybe you just don't see this, but you still have not answered the question as to the beginning and end of what you call 'interaction', so I will answer for you: all interaction, or change, begins and ends against a background of that which does not change. That is the ONLY way there can be any change at all. This should be obvious to anyone.

edit: re the figure/ground image. You do see that there is an implied moving figure against a non-moving, figureless ground, do you not? And that without that non-moving ground, there can be no moving figure?

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.

 

[godnotgod]

The references are "before" and "after'". Your analogy is irrelevant.

OK. What is the condition that is 'before' and 'after'? Obviously it is not change, as change is 'during'.

 

[Shad]

There is no mention of Jesus in the quote I posted from Cusa. The point of the quote was to show that apprehension of the Ultimate Reality can only come when Reason is vanquished.

Read his book and you would realize it is about the individual, Jesus and God. This is exactly what happens when you quote-mine. You are oblivious to the context of what you are quoting... The point of your quote was that you thought it supported your view but clearly in the book it does not. Different methods, different goals, different result. Read what you are sourcing...

The 'experience of Jesus' for most Christians is of a salvific nature. We are not talking here about salvation, but about divine union. That Jesus is a mediator has nothing to do with the final goal of divine union. "Jesus" is only a temporal manifestation to man of the divine nature. In actuality, 'Jesus' does'nt even exist; he is a projection of man's ego onto the invisible world as a means of getting a handle onto that world. This is known as Idolatrous Love in psychology, one of the well-known Five Egotistical States.

The typical denials of a rival experience which is a direct example of how useless such experiences are. Keep in mind who Jesus is seen as within Christianity and in Nicholas's work. Love your double-standards followed by your interpretion of JEsus rather than Nicholas's or Christianity. All due to your not reading the source of your quote.

The actual experience of HC does not include a guide, and so cannot be doctrine nor dogma. 'Guide' is merely 'a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself.' You're confusing the description of reality with reality itself.

Hilarious. Deepaks seminars and books are guides.... Doctrine provides guidance to the "truth" of dogma....

Absolutely, but your use of reason is erroneous.

Nope it is well founded just from reading your own work and continued use of "experience" rather than reason, logic, evidence, etc.

Again, you confuse the description of reality with reality itself. When I say that the experience is nothing special, I am not talking about the method used to describe the pathway to the experience. In addition, you confuse 'special' with 'rare'. While the experience of HC is rare, it is by no means special. As the Buddha stated: 'Buddha Mind is no different than Ordinary Mind'.

You missed the point. The experience is "special" since you have nothing else for your claims, again no evidence, reason nor logic is put forward by you.

The experience of HC does not eliminate the use of Reason.

Contradicted yourself since you claimed it is above reason...

IOW, this is not a situation of one or the other, as it is in YOUR conception; to the mystic, it is all-inclusive. What science finds, for example, is included in the mystic's view. It is a holistic view, not compartmentalized as with that of Reason alone. Having said that, upon the immediate apprehension of The Sun, there is first only seeing, without Reason. Reason follows seeing. The seeing itself is the realization of Reality.

Followed by typical useless sophsitry. Again you can not use reason nor reason to explain your views thus you analogy fails as Plato notes reason can be used with ideas of the sun.

That is to say, one cannot via Reason, but one can, via direct experience. The examples I provided are consistent one with the other, coming from different teachings separated in time and space. So they are far from being 'empty claims'.

Again use of experience as the only factors in which you explain anything. Your examples have failed repeatedly since most are sophistry or views that do not agreee with your own but are borrowed in a vain attempt to convince other people

The goal is divine union with God, not Jesus; 'Jesus' being only a temporal manifestation to man of the divine nature, and then only an image formed by man at that. 'Jesus' is only a mediator between man and God, and not the goal of the mediation itself. The goal of the mediation is made clear in the quote from Cusa, and it is not Jesus. 'Jesus' is merely symbolic of a divine state of mind, which points to that state also being available to man himself. Jesus himself makes this clear when he states that: 'the kingdom of God is within you'. This is a mystical statement of direct experience, not that of an orthodox belief or doctrine. Jesus is not pointing to himself as the goal, but to The Absolute; to God.

Nonsense since at no point does Nicholas claim Jesus is an image formed by man. Jesus is God-man, read your own source.... section 2.1. Jesus is a third maximum of God... Again demonstrating you do not read your own sources

In addition, when Jesus points to himself as 'the way, the light, and the truth', etc., he is not referring to his personal self, but to his essence, which is his divinity, which is also that same essence of divine nature which is universally found in all men.

Nope. Read your sources again.

The point of my original quote from Cusa is not that you get to divine union via Jesus, nor even that of divine union, but that Reason must be vanquished, ie; gotten out of the way, before divine union can be achieved, and that is also Cusa's point.

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.

 

[godnotgod]

I would say change/interaction is self-referencing.

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.