Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 751 - 780 of 790 in total
Mon, 15 May 2017 #751
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I understood the first time :) Must have been a quoting problem. Possibly due to me trying to type and quote on this small Samsung tablet. I was responding to Jan telling me my 'problem', yes. I didn't even bring attention into the discussion, so how would he know if I understood total attention ...or not?

Ah . . . understood. Sometimes these exchanges can get kind of knotty :-)

But I've commented to Jan on several occasions that he tends to jump at things rather. That itself implies a 'mechanical' reaction, does it not? As for me, I make many mistakes and often they are due to hurrying and often again due to a lack of seriousness. Most mistakes have some sort of meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #752
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ken D has been banned

I think his posting privileges were suspended on the general discussion forum by Dev, due to his postings of cartoons, films, images, jokes and the like, from what I recall. I never found his posts detrimental, even at their most supercilious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #753
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I think his posting privileges were suspended on the general discussion forum....

Didn't realize that. He's now banned from posting on kinfonet until 2027! Or so I've been told.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #754
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Again, Tom, there have been a few fair warnings.

Sorry, didn't realize that.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #755
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What I have said is that I have had no personal experience which I take as being beyond matter, in whatever form, energy, thought etc.

Yes, that is what I have understood you to say. I would however be mildly surprised if actually you had never experience a small 'i' insight. Maybe not of course but I would have expected more likely that you would. And if you had in fact experienced such a thing then you would be aware, on examination of the circumstance of it, that the 'arrival' of the particular snippet of information to which it related, was timeless. Ie. it was not supported by any brick-upon-brick wall building of knowledge. The 'answer' is simply seen in a flash. And another characteristic of the phenomenon is that there is no element of doubt. The 'answer' is the 'answer', end of. Now that is not a phenomenon that I would claim to be able to explain, but for me at least it is a fact of life, not only in the lower case 'i' but in the upper also.

I have no reason to believe in anything beyond matter, in whatever form.

Indeed. So you repeat. But you would surely allow, all the K stuff aside, that matter alone (ie. thought etc.) cannot, is never going to, explain the phenomenon of being. A further 'experience' is requisite for that, of which you say (I repeat after you) you have no experience. But yet that 'experience' must BE, or else there is no such thing as 'true'. A patently absurd notion.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #756
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I would however be mildly surprised if actually you had never experience a small 'i' insight.

Not the supernatural kind, I think. All insight is time-bound, even when it appears to be 'instant.' Like K said, faced with an irresolvable problem one sets it aside and sleeps on it. The one wakes in the morning and 'poof,' the answer is there. The processing has been done unconsciously but the delivery system is 'instant,' rather like an email whereas thinking and deliberation are more like snail mail. Mind you, Freud surmised that the unconscious has no coherent time structure, hence dreams flit from one time construct to another, indifferent to the constraints of either horology or chronology. In a sense then, the unconscious working would be timeless, psychologically speaking.

I don't find any qualitative difference between small insights and larger ones, by the way. K spoke of Total Insight but I've not experienced it. That would be a radically different thing apparently, if it were to exist, which it may. But, of course, I have many insights every day, as do most people.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #757
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Somehow this tidal wave of vulgarity has to be stopped somewhere.

I'll speak plainly and honestly to you John, for my part I haven't seen 'vulgarity' from Ken. I have however quite often found his input helpful, informative and entertaining; a combination of some merit in my view. I will always remember - I keep a printed-out copy here by my side - the interview between K and Auldus Huxley's daughter that Ken posted and thus introduced me too.

It is your forum not mine and you must do as you see fit. I won't mention the matter again.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #758
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
But you would surely allow, all the K stuff aside, that matter alone (ie. thought etc.) cannot, is never going to, explain the phenomenon of being.

My advice. Never be too sure about what you should be too sure about.

I have no idea whatsoever what you intend to mean by "the phenomenon of being," John. Do you mean the 'all and everything' of the universe? Why should I want to 'explain' it at all? I have no idea about it. Not even one. But I will conjecture one thing: It is more likely to be one movement than two. I conjecture that at the heart of everything there is some sort of unity. That's as far as I can go with it and I stop there.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #759
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I haven't seen 'vulgarity' from Ken.

Nor me. Was something deleted?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #760
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I don't find any qualitative difference between small insights and larger ones, by the way. K spoke of Total Insight but I've not experienced it. That would be a radically different thing apparently, if it were to exist, which it may. But, of course, I have many insights every day, as do most people.

'Insight' is a word bandied about like 'love'. Everybody has heard of it but nobody knows what it means in its most refined form. To make any sense of a conversation around it one would have to as clearly as possible define their terms. No small task in itself, and impossible in the case of the capital 'I' (or capital 'L' variety).

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #761
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

But you would surely allow, all the K stuff aside, that matter alone (ie. thought etc.) cannot, is never going to, explain the phenomenon of being.

.

Paul David son wrote:

My advice. Never be too sure about what you should be too sure about.

Well, it was a question. Surely you'll allow that?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #762
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Well, it was a question. Surely you'll allow that?

And stop calling me Surely

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #763
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
This may involve logic but it is not rational (depending on the real). It is most difficult to set the mind in the opposite direction and question itself.

Being rational is as much with only a part of one's being as it's 'depending' on the real, therefore questioning has to have it's limits and to put the right question is as important as questioning itself; without an acceptance and advocacy of irrationality, and without being able to offer sufficient reasons, there needs be movement forward into the unknown.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #764
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
'Insight' is a word bandied about like 'love'. Everybody has heard of it but nobody knows what it means in its most refined form.

Some in fact, use the word as if they do understand the significance and depth of the phenomenon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #765
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the true link between Creation and the 'created'.

I doubt there is any good reason to consider them as two things. Creation is the created. You can't have one without the other.

But let's look at the word 'creation.' Implicit in it is the idea that something has been created from nothing, that there was an ultimate starting point and that starting point is called 'creation.' Yet we know of no ultimate starting point and 'creation' is an invention of ours.

The word 'creation' is used in another, common sense, meaning the universe, the 'all and everything.' That's fine, so long as it's not set against a supposed 'nothing' from which the 'all and everything' somehow arose. When that supposition is introduced all we have done is quenched our thirst to know with a concept.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #766
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

I used to teach elementary school where the main literacy programme was based on phonetics - "A makes the sound 'a,' B makes the sound 'b'" etc., or "A is for apple, B is for balderdash).

I always thought, why break up words in such a way? We don't teach children to speak by breaking the words down into sounds, which are totally abstract and have nothing to do with the object the word represents? The word is already an abstract representation of the subject, why go a stage further and break it down into individual letters and/or sounds? Why not just give them the written word 'apple' in the same way we gave them the spoken word?

You know, "G-O-D spells god." or "g-o-d spells god." Children are capable of seeing a word and remembering it in the same way they are capable of hearing a word and remembering it. Both the written and the spoken word are symbols, and are equally memorable. The only difference is the sense that is receiving the data, the eye or the ear.

It is the disassembling and reassembling of words as discrete letters representing discrete (but meaningless) sounds that we can instantly recognise as a 'mechanical' process as against the instant recognition of the spoken word and its associated meaning.

My eldest granddaughter is nine next month and cannot read yet. She goes at it mechanically, using letter sounds (phonetics) whereas her younger sister reads very well and uses word recognition with only the occasional need for phonetics when coming across a new or unusual word.

I am seeing this as an analogy between thought and thinking. Thoughts come to one suddenly, ideas, images, wants etc. In conversation, one hardly deliberates on each word. They seem to come automatically and it is as if the conscious mind is merely observing and to some extent directing or managing the flow. Yet the actual process of 'thinking' is deliberative. One is more conscious of creating a pathway, of bringing in memory and association, of stringing things together, of going back and forth over it, testing it out and changing it around. Thinking is more a linear process whereas thought, in general, is more random.

Yet both are material processes, being more or less 'mechanical' but never either absolutely so or absolutely not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #767
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I always thought, why break up words in such a way? We don't teach children to speak by breaking the words down into sounds, which are totally abstract and have nothing to do with the object the word represents?

so you prefer the Chinese script where, instead of 30 letters, you need to learn 8000 characters? The Latin alphabet might be more abstract and harder to learn at the beginng, but once you master it, the advantages far outweight the disadvantages. The same goes for mathematics. It is the most precise, consice, but also abstract and difficult language ever developped. Sure, not every man has the talent to master it, but those who do appreciate its beauty.

update: I see where the problem is. The problem is the English language, because the words are pronounced differently to the way they are written. This problem does not exist in Czech and many other languages. We write exactly as we speak, the words are exact fonetic transcriptions. We do not need to learn any spelling, because we write it exaclty as we hear it, we do not need to learn any pronunciation, because we pronounce exactly as we write. English is not a difficult language but this sucks. It is a similar annoynce to the US/British metric system - all those inches, feet, fluid ounzes, yeards, miles, Fahrenheit etc. The English speaking world should have gotten rid of this long time ago. The decimal metric system is much more logical.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #768
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
so you prefer the Chinese script

I am neither advocating any script nor criticising any, Jan. Please try to understand my post rather than jumping at it. It is about methods of learning and what aspect of the brain/mind are involved in different strategies.

I am saying that phonetics, the adding together of sounds to create words appears mechanical while the recognition of the 'wholes' of words appears to be instantaneous. It has nothing to do with this language versus that.

It seems to me that phonetic learning is reliant on conscious thinking whereas a holistic strategy harnesses the unconscious more roundly, where insight is used rather than mechanical construction.

Incidentally, my family lives in Brazil where the language is Portuguese, much more regular than English but slightly less so than Spanish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #769
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
We do not need to learn any spelling, because we write it exaclty as we hear it

That is a misconception. If you write according to how you hear, you still need the basic rules of spelling. What you are referring to is something else, the exceptions to the rules and/or the presence of a multitude of rules. English is an amalgam. It came together from ancient Saxon (or Anglo-Saxon, with its Germanic influence), Nordic tongues (from the Vikings) and Latin tongues (from the Romans and more importantly the French - Norman invasion 1066 on).

But you made a general conclusion which I would question when you wrote:

Jan Kasol wrote:
The English speaking world should have gotten rid of this long time ago. The decimal metric system is much more logical.

I wonder if you see the bias? Do you want language, weights and measures to be "logical?" Why? Why can they not be idiosyncratic, based upon meaningful measures rather than logical digits?

The reason that a foot is a foot is because we have feet. Three feet make one yard, which is a rough proportion of the length of a foot to the length of an arm (or a stride). The measures reflect something real.

Or take the measure, one furlong. It meant a long furrow and accorded with the optimum length appropriate to a team of oxen plowing the soil and turning. Eight furlongs became one mile. So much more romantic than the kilometer!

The reason that a shilling was a shilling (decimalised now) is because it was the twentieth part of a pound (the 'sh' comes from the Nordic, written in Swedish as 'tj' while the 'ing' means 'small part'). Most of the measures have ancient cultural meanings and accord with the way people lived their lives. Some of those meanings are obviously outdated, but others are not.

When I grew up and had to learn the mathematics behind why 'five times eleven shillings and sevenpence halfpenny equals two pounds, eighteen shillings and a penny halfpenny,' not only did I have to convert the mathematics into standard algorithms, it taught me flexibility of number systems and some advanced mental arithmetic which the decimal system would have been hard pressed to do, which is why young people can't do maths and are dependent on calculators.

But how about months? I guess you have twelve still in your country. You haven't decimalised the calendar yet have you? :-)

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #770
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Paul, yes, we still have 12 months which is obviously based on the lunar cycle, and we have a day, which has 24 hours (why?), each hour has 60 minutes (why?), each minute 60 seconds (why?) - I think the reason is somewhere very deep in the past, possibly ancient Sumer or Babylon. It is illogical. I would replace it with a decimal system. A day should have 10 hours. An hour should be subdivided into decihours, milihours etc. And also, a circle has 360 degrees, which is again illogical. Or, a circle has 2pi radians which is somewhat more logical because the number pi is natural in nature, just like the number e
Our number system is based on a decimal system, on the number 10. It is extremely confusing to have other paralel systems based on the number 24, 60 etc, because then you need to convert between those systems. And the metric system in the US is a complete mess. When studying physics, the pupils spend unnecessary time converting different systems of illogical units, instead of grasping the underlying laws of physics.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #771
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
a circle has 360 degrees, which is again illogical

I don't see why. 360 is a very powerful number. Just think how many more quotients it has than 100.

But you are really missing the point, Jan. You can convert the whole world and everything in it into decimals but the issue would be the same.

We can move from phonetics to number. Children are taught to 'count' before they ever get the concept of number. Then they have to translate this 'counting' into real things, which is ludicrous. We give them numerals when what we ought to give them is number. Then they have to mechanically apply rules, which are taught one by one.

Were we to teach children to talk in such a way what would it entail. First they would be taught lists of words without more than the vaguest hint at what they mean. Then they would be taught the rules of grammar in order to apply the words to make meaningful sentences. Isn't this exactly the way schools teach second languages?

What are we doing when we break things down mechanically into discrete units which then have to be reassembled according to learned rules? We are relying totally on the conscious mind and RAM memory and ignoring the unconscious and its facility to intuit rules from enough MEANINGFUL examples without having to 'think' everything through.

We dull our children's intuitive learning and leave them only the mechanical tools to work with.

I teach my grandchildren English by meaningful phrases that arise naturally in relationship, phrases such as 'come here' and 'do you want an apple or a banana?' They get it, it sticks and they can build from it.

Phonetics are abstract. They can be taught later, when useful, but not as a means to read. Let the child abstract the rule intuitively from the mass of data. Present that data in a meaningful way and at their pace of learning, as we do in teaching a baby to speak. Utilise the unconscious, lest we leave them with mechanical tools that limit their further understanding of everything from then on, including life itself.

The fact that 'a' is always pronounced 'a' in your language and a centimetre corresponds with the law of decimals does not liberate your mind, Jan. The world is not logical.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #772
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
But let's look at the word 'creation.' Implicit in it is the idea that something has been created from nothing, that there was an ultimate starting point and that starting point is called 'creation.' Yet we know of no ultimate starting point and 'creation' is an invention of ours.

Let's switch the word for 'the big bang'. Happy now?

The word 'creation' is used in another, common sense, meaning the universe, the 'all and everything.' That's fine, so long as it's not set against a supposed 'nothing' from which the 'all and everything' somehow arose. When that supposition is introduced all we have done is quenched our thirst to know with a concept.

Let's switch the word for 'the big bang'. Happy now?

Such blind tedium.

To my mind your extensive posting of such extensive verbiage represents on its own account, if I might be forgiven for saying so, a veritable 'tidal wave of vulgarity' if ever I saw one. You love to flood and blind a thread with your Wikipedia knowing.

Just an observation you understand.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #773
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Let's switch the word for 'the big bang'. Happy now?

I'm always happy, John. But why switch? Surely you are only again expressing your own prejudice that the Big Bang theory is equivalent to a creation theory, which it is not. Look, go and investigate what science actually says, not what you suppose it says. The Big Bang theory is about an event, what's called a 'horizon event,' which means we cannot probably ever look beyond it. As you move towards a horizon it recedes so you never reach it.

The Big Bang theory presupposes that something came before. There has to have been, according to the theory, space and energy AND a precursor. This is totally different from a 'Creation' theory which says something came from nothing.

So, two DIFFERENT theories. Why then should I wish to call one by the name given to the other? John, you are so stuck in the combative/competitive mode with me that you have stopped inquiring and write whatever nonsense you think will score a point. Sad.

(I have to rush out now so no time to deal with whatever came after)

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #774
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul

What you have written at at #774 represents unexamined nonsense.

To run with the cop-out of an 'ever receding horizon' for the validation of one discipline whilst disallowing anything similar for another simply evidences bias, which has no room in genuine inquiry.

An infant could recognise the requirement for a pre-existent potential for a 'big bang' just as s/he could recognise that a pre-existent 'God' would be requisite for creation. Both represent just 'turtles all the way down'. Yet the former you allow whilst the latter you groundlessly reject. You constantly demonstrate - again, if you don't mind me saying so - only brain movement and no light. You represent a long succession of highly opinionated biases.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #775
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Both represent just 'turtles all the way down'

Neither do.

The idea of a 'God' adds a final stop to the turtles. There is only one turtle and that turtle is the uncreated creator. The turtle is both infinite and immortal and capable of creating worlds such as this. It is a turtle with no beginning and no end but creates things with beginnings and with ends.

So far as the Big Bang theory goes there is no creational force presumed outside of the actuality that is. Big Bang does not go into what preceded it. It does not claim to know there was some sort of creational force at all. It sets no limits on the 'all the way down' and in fact does not believe in either a down or an up. It simply says that we don;t know and we can't know. The difference between the scientific approach and the religious is that the religious says we can know and we do know and then tells you what it is that it 'knows.'

John Perkins. wrote:
What you have written at at #774 represents unexamined nonsense.

From you, I take that as a compliment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #776
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
The idea of a 'God' adds a final stop to the turtles. There is only one turtle and that turtle is the uncreated creator. The turtle is both infinite and immortal and capable of creating worlds such as this. It is a turtle with no beginning and no end but creates things with beginnings and with ends.

yes, it is a very mysterious turtle. You cannot say that it exists and you cannot say that it does not exist, because the very concepts of existence and non-existence are bound by time and space. You cannot ask, what existed before the Big Bang, because there was no time, hence no causality. The laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. This is like nothing compared to the turtle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #777
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
You cannot say that it exists and you cannot say that it does not exist

One cannot be absolutely certain but that doesn't mean it's an even chance. As far as I can see, the central idea that there was nothing and then, suddenly, there was something, has nothing to commend it. The very fact (if it is a fact) that something came presupposes a condition of its coming. To call that condition 'God' or any other damned thing adds nothing to the fact, bar a belief which has no supporting evidence.

Jan Kasol wrote:
because the very concepts of existence and non-existence are bound by time and space.

The concepts are, yes, but we are discussing the realities behind the concepts. All concepts are bound by time and space. So all we are saying that actuality is space/time bound. The moment you posit something outside of the actual you have moved from fact into fantasy.

Jan Kasol wrote:
You cannot ask, what existed before the Big Bang, because there was no time, hence no causality.

You do not know that, Jan. In the above sentence the word 'because' is key. It may be that one cannot ask what came before (but it may also be that one can ask, even if no answer is forthcoming) but the statement that before the Big Bang there was no time, hence no causality itself makes no sense. If there was no causality, what caused the Big Bang? And as there does seem to have been a Big Bang (so the theory goes) there must have been a cause and therefore there must have been time.

Jan Kasol wrote:
The laws of physics break down at the Big Bang.

Better put, the laws of physics that pertain to our universe, so far as we know them, break down at the big bang. You see how absolute your statement is compared to mine? We simply do not know what the laws of physics that pertain to our universe break down to. We cannot break them down in order to find out what the origin of those same laws of physics may be. For example: Would there there a unifying law (which has somehow broken down and created the universe we know) and would that unifying law be any different than that which it ruled over? Would there be any differentiation at all? We simply do not know and no amount of logical speculation can tell us. If there was an ultimate unity, what could have led it to break down? And if it did break down to create the differentiated laws and energies of this universe, what was the cause of its breaking down and can its unity be said to be anymore than temporary and relative if it could break down?

Another perspective could be that the Big Bang was a Big Bounce, which is what some say it was, and that there are a sequence of universes that come into existence and then fold up to 'nothing' before rebounding as a new universe. In fact there are many theories and none are considered proven. But the God believers believe in their uncreated Creator and thereby display the utmost in human hubris.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #778
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
From you, I take that as a compliment.

You're very welcome.

My point, which it seems you conveniently missed, is that your perception is groundlessly biased in favour of science. The psychological thought process cannot but be thusly so. It is steeped in duality from the moment it draws breath to the moment it ceases so to do.

K called himself, with perfect justification, a truly religious man. Not religious in accord with any organised religion of course but 'religious' none the less. This means that what the teachings point to is that by way of something other than science it is possible for an individual to 'see'. You, however, are sold on the contrary. It's why I forever counter your vacuous and strictly anti-K input on these forums. Sorry, but unless somebody does, you tend to just have your way and run away with the place, having your, so to speak, 'wicked' anti-K way. No moderator ever seems to catch this utterly subversive-of-the-fora proclivity of yours, so slippery is your personal skill set.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #779
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

you cannot come to the uncreated by means of knowledge. Knowledge is and will always be limited. Knowledge will always have horizons, you can expand the horizons, but you will never be able to see behind the horizons. But then there are the mystics who claim that you can experience the uncreated, if you conquer your self. You can either believe it or disbelief it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #780
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
you cannot come to the uncreated by means of knowledge. Knowledge is and will always be limited. Knowledge will always have horizons, you can expand the horizons, but you will never be able to see behind the horizons. But then there are the mystics who claim that you can experience the uncreated, if you conquer your self. You can either believe it or disbelief it.

I've set out very clearly, Jan, how it's impossible that one might 'conquer' oneself. But yet it's obvious isn't it that a person might come to see oneself? How else might there come to be anything 'true'?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 751 - 780 of 790 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)