Enlightenment An Ultimate Aim? Options

[Shawn]

[to continue a discussion started with Steve Lance]

When your experience grows, and you become a part of all you experience, and there is no clear boundary where you end and others begin, where is there room for an ego? And where do we go when we've outgrown our old egos? Do we create new ones or does something else happen?

Assume for a moment that you've reached the ideal state of enlightenment (some of us may be there already, but nevermind that). You reside in an expanded, godly, egoless state of mind in which you are one with everything you experience. What now? Is this it? Is this really the goal of life you desire?

Perhaps all living things have a will to transcend themselves (which appears exceptionally in man, at times). In such a case, there is no ideal state of enlightenment. In such a case, quality of life is measured in terms of striving and strength to transcend oneself, and the notion of remaining content with a state of enlightened Being is seen as a weakness precisely because the act of Becoming (and striving and transcending oneself) is noticably absent.

Or perhaps it's no coincidence that age is commonly believed to be correlated with 'wisdom', and that the older we get, the more 'mellow' we tend to become. That is, we become more mellow as we age because we become wiser?

There seems to be a flaw with that logic. The point being that we should all strive for enlightening experiences, but not remain content with the enlightenment thereby attained, because in the end, it's all relative.

[Plato]

Neural said:

enlightenment is not about seeing things from a particular perspective, but from all perspectives and even beyond perspectives

Being doing some reading here to get the tone of the place:) There is no doubt in my mind that I do not have the abilties of some here or that as a layman, I struggle to make sense.

You made a comment about where you had been ten years previous, and to me this saids that your perspective had been contianed around that time to one other then, what it is today.

What changed or were there changes for the better, that allowed some positive reiforcement of what you had to offer today?

I too was invited back by a email forum constructed generated delivery system(nothing special:), but I am wondering, if I need more education to come back here and comment in a future time.

I am concern that there is a bilateral exchange, one with cognitive developement of maths and physics approaches, to what would be allowed in recognition of the "new physics/maths?

Under the heading of enlightenment, the "across the board modulation" (maybe holographical who knowes?), might have amounted to the simple explanation that ties it altogether geometrically. This maybe vague, but , your statement again above seems to point to this?

I know I am not going to solve anything here, other then to exchange ideas and then see how it works.

Your quote above was important to me in that the progression of the thinking mind, and how it might encapsulate all that we had learnt. If I had said that theoretcially GR developement was leading all these factors to cosmological understanding gravity, what value then, the minds appearance to something held within microperspective uncertainties, joined with the macroperspective view?

There would had to have been a dynamcial relationship seen at that level that is extreme, and runs out at Planck epoch/length? We are indeed looking for a simple explanation.

Enlightenment, would encapsulate this?

[Neural]

You made a comment about where you had been ten years previous, and to me this saids that your perspective had been contianed around that time to one other then, what it is today.

What changed or were there changes for the better, that allowed some positive reiforcement of what you had to offer today?

There's only so much I can tell you, Plato. If I tried explaining to myself of ten years ago, I wouldn't understand. It sounds like you're on a right path though.

[Plato]

You made a comment about where you had been ten years previous, and to me this saids that your perspective had been contianed around that time to one other then, what it is today.

What changed or were there changes for the better, that allowed some positive reiforcement of what you had to offer today?

There's only so much I can tell you, Plato. If I tried explaining to myself of tens years ago, I wouldn't understand. It sounds like you're on a right path though.

Thanks that's encouraging.

I was looking at the mapping procedure that was being developed here by the group.

IN my updated blog entry linked here, the idea of memory was a fascinating one, if you considered the relevance of memory to lets say points within the brain's unfolding function. The 3d mapping while discrete to xyz coordinates , woud seem much more dynamic, had consciousness been revealled in the layering it would do in any thought process?

Topologically related on the 2d surface as dyinkin diagrams, dynamically, when coordinated with the brains 3d imaging in B field considerations. These abstractions can be found within my blog along with the understanding that "image" as it is used on our computer screens from a fifth dimensional representation, is held in consideration of Thomas Banchoff's work.

IN the mind it would have been holographical coordinated and is wrapped.