There is no such 'Quantum' or 'Classical' world. What we call the Quantum and Classical worlds are fully integrated one into the other. There is only one world. Everything is made of fields appearing as 'material' reality.
I never said that. I said that the mystic transcends perceptual reality, not nature. The goal of the mystic is to attain union with nature, not overcome it.
Show me the 'material' you refer to. I thought we agreed that what we think of as materiality is our perception of the world.
Try to understand that science itself is what is superimposing it's conceptual frameworks over nature in a manner that does not see the nature of reality, but only it's characteristics and behavior. The mystical view sees things just as they are, without superimposing any kind of model or belief system over reality. In fact, it removes all conceptual frameworks by dissolving the subject/object split in the mind. IOW, there is no 'other' reality; consciousness is transformed in such a way that what we thought to be the case, is not actually the case. What we thought to be a 'material' world is in reality only our perception of it as such, and the ordinary world is then understood to be none other than the miraculous world. They are not two, but one and the same. We don't see that because of how the mind is so highly conditioned to see it in 'rational' terms. But when we attempt to apply Reason to nature, we always end up in paradox, because, as I mentioned, nature is bigger than Reason. Nature will never fit into the nice neat little box of Reason because it is not a thing that can be dissected, but something alive and conscious.
Where do you see a 'self' that is aware and exists? I see only awareness and existence, but no agent of awareness or existence called 'I'.
We can only see the world as being material via perception.
Once the subject/object split is dissolved, there is no longer any such perspective. 'Subjective perspective' is just a construct of the mind.
Yes, it is the same as our everyday reality. There is not an 'ordinary reality' over here, and a 'mystical reality' over there. The consciousness which is dreaming and that which is awake is the same consciousness.
As I understand it, what we are 'touching' and sensing as 'material' is the repellant force of electrons.
The perspective of science is a highly conditioned perspective operating against the background of unconditioned consciousness. Unconditioned consciousness is no particular perspective.
Not sure what you mean here. 'Pure consciousness' just means 'clear', and clarity is infinite. Being infinitely clear, it is no-thing, out of which The Universe appears. The Universe, being Every-thing, is not just an absolute, but The Absolute, since there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. So in the Hindu (Vedantist) view, it is said that:
"The Universe is [none other than] The Absolute, as seen through the glass [ie; 'conditioned mind'] of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda
The mystical view also includes the scientific view, since the scientific view is in consciousness. So there is really no conflict here. The seeming conflict comes from the scientific side, which cannot incorporate the mystical view due to its conditioning, at least not until an epiphany occurs in the mind of the scientist, which is occurring more and more these days. Goswami, Klafatos, Penrose, Hagelin, Capra, Sheldrake, and a host of other scientists have made the transition towards a universal view of reality that sees the Universe as conscious, alive, and intelligent.
Wow!.. Do you have any idea just how disjointed, convoluted, inaccurate, and non-responsive, this cascade of mind-numbing ambiguou self-serving homonyms, sounds to rational people? Or do you even care? It is also becoming painfully obvious that you are not interested in the truth/facts. If you just want to parrot scripted rote knowledge to support your factless truth claims, I'm sure that there will always be someone to bite. But your claims are not based in science. They are based in your imagination because of your need to believe. Nothing transcends natural physical laws. Nothing. No matter how much you want it to.
You simply ignore all the reasons why the rules that apply to the quantum world do not apply to the classical world. Maybe you can solve the problems that no scientist today has. The "Theory of Everything". Maybe you can bridge the gap and connect both worlds, to create this "one world" you're talking about. You can even earn a Nobel Prize in the process. I'm afraid claiming a background of unconditioned consciousness, or an agent of awareness, or fields that are perceived as material reality, just won't cut it. When I push against a building, I say that I don't have enough force to overcome the material building's resistance. You say that I can't overcome Coulomb's force(repulsive force by electrons). Of course we are both right. However, since I am not pushing an atom over, it is the total mass of the building that prevents me from pushing it over, not the electrons. It is intellectually dishonest to use concepts and facts from the Quantum reality, and try to apply them to the classical(Newtonian) reality. Telling half-truths is also dishonest and misleading.
Pure consciousness' just means 'clear', and clarity is infinite
Sounds like "Absolute Consciousness" to me. But tell me, what would an, "Impure Consciousness" mean?
...I said that the mystic transcends perceptual reality, not nature. The goal of the mystic is to attain union with nature, not overcome it.
How do you know what the goal of the Mystic is? How could you know? You stated, "That is why the
mystic transcends perceptual reality in order to reach Ultimate Reality". What do you think perceptual reality is, if not the perception of the natural material world? Just how could our senses perceive an immaterial world, since they are material? I don't like using the word, "material", because it can have many meanings for you to exploit. So when I say material, I mean "physical".
Show me the 'material' you refer to. I thought we agreed that what we think of as materiality is our perception of the world.
Anything that is composed of atoms, has mass and occupies space, is material. The chair, the computer, the bed, your wife and children, and whatever you're smoking is material
. Material things come in basically three forms(liquid, solid, or gas). The only way we perceive material things is through our sense organs. But material reality must exist outside of our senses, or it can't be detected by our senses. Regardless of whether it is detected or not, it still exist. The people in China still exist even though my senses can't detect them. Since NO ONE has ever been born with a complete absence of sensory organs, at least their tactile perception of the three forms of matter will be objective.
Once the subject/object split is dissolved, there is no longer any such perspective. 'Subjective perspective' is just a construct of the mind.
Are you suggesting that one can create a universal or hybrid conscious perspective? I suppose in the world of "creating your own reality", anything is possible. But for the rest of us, it is impossible to escape from our subjective perspective(unless we're dead). Unless we could see ourselves from outside of ourselves, or mind-melt with any living thing, our reality will always be perceived from a subjective perspective. Physical reality can't be a mental construct, since it exists outside of the mind. Can you mentally create the computer you are looking at? Is it a mental construct or is it a physical construct? Mental constructs are not real, and only exist in the mind.
The perspective of science is a highly conditioned perspective operating against the background of unconditioned consciousness. Unconditioned consciousness is no particular perspective.
Science is a DISCIPLINE not a highly conditioned perspective. Scientists are also DISCIPLINED, not highly conditioned. That is why scientist don't make absurd truth claims like non-scientists do. Again more dishonest insinuations.
It seems obvious to me, that your need to believe far outweighs your need to know. Therefore truth, evidence, and logic, are all irrelevant. So, unless you can provide at least some kind of relevant fact or evidence to support your truth claims, your narrative becomes nothing more than metaphysical word-salad, that can make any sentence mean anything you want it to mean. To support your argument would not even be a challenge. Just ONE metaphysical event. Just ONE person who could mentally move objects or read minds. Just ONE documented unexplained miracle. Just ONE person who can predict the future. There is even a million dollar reward for any verifiable proof of the metaphysical. Or do you simply believe that if you keep throwing enough metaphysical verbiage at the wall, that over time, some of it might stick and transform into facts?
