Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Can this be done without effort/will/motive...without concentrating on thought movement within?...Without the hope that eventually such observing will come?

YES

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Without motive, from where will one get/bring them?

When one's house is burning, there will be interest. Or to use K's example, if one is faced with a poisonous snake in the room. We are similarly faced with a crisis inwardly and in society. Perhaps as deadly as the snake in the room. But if we're feeling secure in our pleasures and worldly ambitions, then we may not even notice the snake....until we step on it.

Let it Be

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
So i would like to ask you if you could put an example on that for me to fully understand what these words try to convey.

I think the following is clear:

Every time the I appears in the mind, it is in relationship to some thing, is it not? To the previous thought, perhaps, or to an emotion. Or to a sensory input. So the I is always in relationship to something. In fact it actually arises in relationship.

It is never not in relationship to something, no?

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
The seeing/understanding of its limits by thought is full of too much impatience to create order in this field.

But is the seeing BY thought? Or is there a seeing (of the limitation of thought) which may be expressed, communicated by thought, but does not originate in thought. THis is a question I have brought up recently

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
The seeing/understanding of its limits by thought is full of too much impatience to create order in this field.

I am not following this. Where does impatience come in?

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
S : No, psychological thought and order are incompatible, Clive. In the name of bringing order, it will only continue its dual and conflict prone existence. The seeing/understanding of its limits by thought is full of too much impatience to create order in this field.

The seeing, whether it is by thought or not, of the limitation of thought is a fact here. And this seeing is action.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Good morning Juan and Clive and...

Would you say, Peter, that the very existence of the Universe denies the possibility that all is matter, matter being purely mechanical, based around cause and effect. I do not see that such a model can explain the origin of the Universe. Where did it come from?

Hello Clive,

"Would you say, Peter, that the very existence of the Universe denies the possibility that all is matter"

Well, saying it and seeing it are two different things. And what exactly is the other that is not matter?

Most human activity seem to arise from the sense that matter is all or at least primary. Religions are the imagining or the pretending that there is something beyond. And none of it is the beyond.

I just googled origin of the universe:

"Cyclic theories (Steinhardt, Turok), Big Bounce theories (LQG), eternal inflation (Linde etc, variant of the Big Bang), Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Penrose, variant of the Big Bang), "No Boundary" origin (Hawking, Hartle, variant of Big Bang with no singularity and imaginary time), the self-creating universe (Richard Gott )-unlikely but fun to consider, Steady State theory--Hoyle Gold and Bondi--not taken seriously now, and, of course various religious creation myths taken seriously by some."

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 15 May 2016.

Right here, right now, I would have to say that I am not in contact with what ultimately underlies this... that there is anything at all.

But perhaps not so. We are in that. It is aways here whether seen or unseen.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 15 May 2016.

Hi Peter, i've uploaded a collection of 137 papers about Consciousness+Quantum Mechanics written by Henry P. Stapp (see the link in the Thread 'Note to Juan') ... See the note.03 there about a paper that may be of your interest ...

As i've said there, i've been busy preparing the RAR to upload, so i'll continue our conversation tomorrow because now i'm going to sleep ... Don't think i've forget it :-)

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sun, 15 May 2016.

Peter Kesting wrote:
I just googled origin of the universe:

I don't think any number of theories can help with this question.

Well, Google is pretty good.

mike

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
Sudhir Sharma wrote:

Can this be done without effort/will/motive...without concentrating on thought movement within?...Without the hope that eventually such observing will come?

Juan : YES

As the answer is an emphatic "YES", then do tell us what changes in daily living have come about by this "observing without thought"?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Tom Paine wrote:
Sudhir Sharma wrote:

Without motive, from where will one get/bring them?

Tom : When one's house is burning, there will be interest. Or to use K's example, if one is faced with a poisonous snake in the room. We are similarly faced with a crisis inwardly and in society. Perhaps as deadly as the snake in the room. But if we're feeling secure in our pleasures and worldly ambitions, then we may not even notice the snake....until we step on it.

S : Convincing explanation/analysis is not the replacement of the needed action/the happening. :)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or is there a seeing (of the limitation of thought) which may be expressed, communicated by thought, but does not originate in thought.

Is it right for someone who has always been wearing colored goggles to inquire about (still wearing goggles) how the world looks without goggles?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sudhir Sharma wrote:

The seeing/understanding of its limits by thought is full of too much impatience to create order in this field.

C E : I am not following this. Where does impatience come in?

S : Impatience is due to the turmoil caused within by the incessantly becoming/acquiring/seeking/reaching/grasping thought movement.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Mon, 16 May 2016.

Clive Elwell wrote:
The seeing, whether it is by thought or not, of the limitation of thought is a fact here. And this seeing is action.

Well, the inwards fact finding mission has no ending...this is all one can say.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This may be of interest for some:

The Extended Mind (Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers)
Memento’s Revenge - The Extended Mind, Extended (Andy Clark)

In the Theater of Consciousness (A Rigorous Scientific Theory of Consciousness) [Bernard J. Baars]
The Bodily Basis of Thought [Jay A. Seitz]
Criteria for Consciousness in Humans and other Mammals [Bernard J. Baars et Al.]
(just for the table 1 (pp.121-22): 'Basic brain facts (1–3), and 14 other widely recognized properties of consciousness')

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Mon, 16 May 2016.

Sudhir Sharma wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

The seeing, whether it is by thought or not, of the limitation of thought is a fact here. And this seeing is action.
Well, the inwards fact finding mission has no ending

I don't know if it has an ending or not. All knowing, psychologically, is a pretence, is it not?

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
: Convincing explanation/analysis is not the replacement of the needed action/the happening. :)

I was only making an analogy, Sudhir. You asked where the interest comes from. The interest comes from seeing one's house(world) burning....or a poisonous snake. I can't describe it any other way. One sees the danger he himself is creating as he's doing it....becomes aware of thought's nature as distortion and division...so he looks/observes as he would watch the snake..If you see that something is destroying you(burning down your house...your whole world)...but you see it's part of you....you have great interest to see exactly how it works, no?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 16 May 2016.

Clive: "I don't think any number of theories can help with this question"

Sorry, No help was intended.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 16 May 2016.

Hello Juan, Thank you again for your reaserch.

Sooo much to read. Where ever shall we start?

Actually I think it just comes automatically. Read only what you are really interested in when it comes to you.

Burden lifted.

K quote, from memory, "Don't read books"

:)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 16 May 2016.

Tom Paine wrote:
If you see that something is destroying you(burning down your house...your whole world)...but you see it's part of you....you have great interest to see exactly how it works, no?

If that something is a part, then what is the rest of you/one/I, Tom?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Clive Elwell wrote:
All knowing, psychologically, is a pretence, is it not?

All knowing/experiences, psychologically, is the substance of you/self/I, Clive.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sudhir Sharma wrote:

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Can this be done without effort/will/motive...without concentrating on thought movement within?...Without the hope that eventually such observing will come?

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
YES

As the answer is an emphatic "YES", then do tell us what changes in daily living have come about by this "observing without thought"?

Perhaps you could tell us how can there be a change when there's no motive (to change)?
You seem an intelligent person, sure you'll get what i mean.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Peter Kesting wrote:
K quote, from memory, "Don't read books"

I'm afraid that this is something that many people has never understood its real meaning.
K DO read books (and not just novels) ...
Now, what is what he wanted to convey in reality with his words?
In any case, what's the difference between listen to X and read a book from X?

If one knows how to read one can read anything at any time without any limit created by thought.

Going to iron the shirt for tomorrow while i listen to some audio-book on my MP3

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Mon, 16 May 2016.

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
All knowing/experiences, psychologically, is the substance of you/self/I, Clive.

Obviously

Peter Kesting wrote:
Clive: "I don't think any number of theories can help with this question"

Sorry, No help was intended.

But do you see what I mean, Peter?

Do you think science could ever answer the question 'where did the Universe come from' in such a way as to eliminate the question "well, what caused that?"

Juan,

Sorry if you missunderstood me. I thought that little emotacom at the bottom would tell you that I was only playing.

We would need the context to explore what he meant. I will try to find it. My vague rememberence is he was not being serious either.

I read quite a lot. Almost all nonfiction. Almost all of K. Mostly Science now, popularisations. Math similarly.

Should I be able to get to the Stapp article: "Light as...." from what you posted?

It would nice to discover that every thing in the field confined to matter is all of it actually light. That would be at least as beautifull as I think things really are. But I think that sentience and everything in that is of another dimension beyond time/space.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 16 May 2016.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you think science could ever answer the question 'where did the Universe come from' in such a way as to eliminate the question "well, what caused that?"

Well, who knows, isn't it? ...

Anyway, this question leads me to ask a question i've always put to myself since a very early age: why human being divide science, spirituality, philosophy, non believing, from the whole, that is, from himself? ... Why human being considers he is either scientist, spiritual, philosopher, or non believer? ... How is it that he still has not seen that all of them arise from..., have the root in the same mind?

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Peter Kesting wrote:
Sorry if you missunderstood me.

I didn't misunderstood you, Peter! ... I was just thinking aloud taking advantage of the quote you wrote ... Don't take it personal, pleeease! :-(

Peter Kesting wrote:
Should I be able to get to the Stapp article: Light as.... from what you posted?

Are you having problems too, like Clive, in downloading the archive from my post in 'Note to Juan'? ... It's included there! ... Anyway here's a direct link to the PDF.

[NOTE:] If someone is interested in some other paper listed in my post in 'Note to Juan' and have some problem in downloading the archive with all the PDFs you tell me and i'll put the direct link to that concrete PDF file.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Mon, 16 May 2016.