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.

[Neural]

Plato, why would you think the mystical experience is unnatural? What exactly do you mean by natural and unnatural? Since we are all a part of Nature, isn't everything natural by definition?

[Plato]

Plato, why would you think the mystical experience is unnatural? What exactly do you mean by natural and unnatural? Since we are all a part of Nature, isn't everything natural by definition?

Maybe your right to point this out, neural.

If we are given things to view in life that run contrary to everything we had known, or that some fixed part of the body broken, then some like me might become shocked because it is not natural. For nurses and doctors this might not be the case, since they had been exposed to it time and time again?

My early experiences had been study of the subject of enlightenment from a eastern perspective, it had all be intertwined with the practise of meditation. I must admit I am not very good at it. Yet I understand that the mind can wander, never stay in one place to long. I practise for a time a medical technique called quieting as it had been proposed by medical practiioner. Measuring body temperature and heart rate etc.

Still could I have ever said that I was truly practising meditation, I can not be certain. I tried other ways, and I would be gone for a time, and what seemed lke a mintue turned into a half hour and sensations felt afterwards, but might I have been asleep and well rested?

Had it helped me understand the emotional picture I had been developing most certainly, but could I say I have all the subject characterizations of anger, love and all these thing in well defined perspective I would say it is always is still a long way off.

So from the standpoint of not really knowing or understandng this term enlightenment I have come across somethings that appear to be similar to what I have read of enlightenment, yet I still do not know if this is the case.

Why my links to the site in question was built, and attention drawn to the subject of liminocentric structures.

The example drawn of Brian Greene problematic scenario had been a troubling one untill certain understanding progressed in learning about science, and responsibility. The method by which each and everyone of us could adopt a certain model and find relevant circumstances, that had raised perception after once consumiing? Satisfied experimental verification not once, but many times. Could subjectivity ever say that such a thing is possible?

These had been worked into my everyday life and in historical contexts, with which I had studied. I do not know if these are the truth of it, but for any mind seeking wholeness, I thought it might have compared this to a mandala of sorts, and that is the way it started for me.

Seeking wholeness.

A circle was a very simple diagram for me. It went through many models, and from a historical standpoint medicine wheels, would have different people born at different times on this circle, and life, never having truly been completed until one may have travelled the wheel.

But that is not mine, that I speak of, but of the history of those seeking wholeness, just as relevant today in the quest of science, that maybe, some theory of everything could be accomplished?

So in science I explore the techniques and models of math, as some cognitive realization that geometrical emergence would rise from planck length? Some call it quantum gravity so in the very beginning times?

The joining of GR, with these microscopic things, was being defined in the very structure Brian Greene was explaining. THat Fudjack was demonstrating in the psychology of what enlightenment might mean. These are not my words, yet I understood the progression, and the genus figures in topology as sphere and a torus.

So of course studing and not knowing what enlightenment is, it would be not natural to me, yet I have read and done things in regards to meditation that I could not say for certain whether such a lightening strike would have flashed, and made the microscosm, the macrocosm, the same, just turned inside out?

Yet insight drawn from running out of the work/language done, had connected to a image from the creativity explored. Why I showed the Aristotle arche. Becuase that kind of intuition, is familiar to me.

By placing the teacher and student within the self, this paved the way for progression and understanding in science. Concepts that had a math basis to it , yet I am not very proficient in these areas, I understand the concept can be reduced from the original math born out of a cognitive production. At what point does this language end? Where does it begin?

Alain Connes

Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their defnition.

ftp://ftp.alainconnes.org/maths.pdf

Dirac revealled to me the very idea of the geometrical exploration versus the algebraic one, and I feel most comfortable exploring the abstract models and seeing these dynamics. It's all their in that blog I had been building and progressing, to understand science.

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

http://www.aias.us/Pub/Other%20Papers/Paul...metry%20(2).pdf


Thanks Laz for explaining.