Enlightenment An Ultimate Aim? Options

[mayonaise]

Guest=me

So I am bitter and jealous, let that be where I am coming from.

But let's talk about the matter instead of me.

I know that meditation is about thoughts without boundaries. I do it daily.

Yet getting rid of character flaws is the most important thing for me, and I believe, the whole world too. I think that's true too to some extent. That is why I'm bringing this POV up - that has actually been sidestepped in by Kornfield. But maybe you and me have already exhausted our supply of fresh ideas and we have to rest the case?

[Laz]

Guest=me

So I am bitter and jealous, let that be where I am coming from.

But let's talk about the matter instead of me.

that's a real shame, i'd like to get to know you.

I know that meditation is about thoughts without boundaries. I do it daily.

Yet getting rid of character flaws is the most important thing for me, and I believe, the whole world too. I think that's true too to some extent. That is why I'm bringing this POV up - that has actually been sidestepped in by Kornfield. But maybe you and me have already exhausted our supply of fresh ideas and we have to rest the case?

becomming perfect and sweeping the island of the tonal is my primary goal as well :0)
what i'm unable to do with you right now is to have a straight conversation because of the hoks and traps in your words. what exactly is your point of view? and why do you think the two of us have run out of ideas?

[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.

[mayonaise]

Hi Laz.. in case you're still there, I revive this post... sorry but I needed the time to engage my brain.

[quote name='Laz' date='Mar 20, 02:18 PM' post='61447']
[quote name='mayonaise' post='61440' date='Mar 20, 05:11 AM']
Guest=me

So I am bitter and jealous, let that be where I am coming from.
But let's talk about the matter instead of me. [/quote]

that's a real shame, i'd like to get to know you.[/quote]
Alrightie then... I have asperger's syndrome, ADD, PTSD - I'm like Danger from the movie Million Dollar Baby, yelling " And I challenge the "Motor City Cobra", Thomas "Hit Man" Hearns to fight me for the Welterweight Championship of the whole world!"

[quote]
[quote]I know that meditation is about thoughts without boundaries. I do it daily.

Yet getting rid of character flaws is the most important thing for me, and I believe, the whole world too. I think that's true too to some extent. That is why I'm bringing this POV up - that has actually been sidestepped in by Kornfield. But maybe you and me have already exhausted our supply of fresh ideas and we have to rest the case?
[/quote]
[quote]becomming perfect and sweeping the island of the tonal is my primary goal as well :0)
what i'm unable to do with you right now is to have a straight conversation because of the hoks and traps in your words. what exactly is your point of view? and why do you think the two of us have run out of ideas?
[/quote]
So we have common goals. I still disagree I had deliberately put many traps there, hooks yes but mainly just to push the dialog more to the direction I wanted.

It seems to me that enlightenment is, on this forum, almost universally accepted as desirable without a doubt. So much so, that it's like what a Kurzweilian singularity is to many techie types. This to me suggests an error in thinking, bias (?), based perhaps on the myriad stories about it, the myth. I can be shown to be wrong.

Whereas neurohacking has a lot less myth around it, at least the practical side of it. This is an ego thing to me, to set matters straight about this.

But using an eastern view of the world may slow down progress of technology. And this might be slowing us down as a species too.

Looking up the quote from Kornfield is too much for me now.

[Laz]

Hi Laz.. in case you're still there, I revive this post... sorry but I needed the time to engage my brain.

Of course :0)

So we have common goals. I still disagree I had deliberately put many traps there, hooks yes but mainly just to push the dialog more to the direction I wanted.

I'm not so sure are goals are common after your later comments. As for your traps; they're still there ;0)

It seems to me that enlightenment is, on this forum, almost universally accepted as desirable without a doubt. So much so, that it's like what a Kurzweilian singularity is to many techie types. This to me suggests an error in thinking, bias (?), based perhaps on the myriad stories about it, the myth. I can be shown to be wrong.

Both Enlightenment and the Singularity are important parts of this forum and important ideas for me personally. I don't see that they are mutually exclusive, in fact i feel that they are likely to be the same thing ultimately.

Why do you see either of them as an error or bias in peoples thinking. Surely they are both progressions of knowledge?

Whereas neurohacking has a lot less myth around it, at least the practical side of it. This is an ego thing to me, to set matters straight about this.

I'm sorry, i've no idea what you mean by this.

But using an eastern view of the world may slow down progress of technology.

Do you feel an eastern view of philosophy/religion will slow down progress in general, or just technology? is this necessarily a bad thing? Technology is just making people lazy in thought and in body. Actually if you you are for the infinite progression of technology, why are you against the singularity?

And this might be slowing us down as a species too.

What is slowing us down as a western culture is capitalism, everythings being run into the ground for profit and its far too expensive to develop new technologies.

Looking up the quote from Kornfield is too much for me now

I think i'll have to go look this up myself ;0)

[mayonaise]

Sorry for the fucked up quotes, I really don't know what's wrong.

[quote name='Laz' date='Apr 08, 12:34 AM' post='62342']
It seems to me that enlightenment is, on this forum, almost universally accepted as desirable without a doubt. So much so, that it's like what a Kurzweilian singularity is to many techie types. This to me suggests an error in thinking, bias (?), based perhaps on the myriad stories about it, the myth. I can be shown to be wrong. [/quote]

[quote]Both Enlightenment and the Singularity are important parts of this forum and important ideas for me personally. I don't see that they are mutually exclusive, in fact i feel that they are likely to be the same thing ultimately.[/quote]
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. But to think they are the same, is quite simplistic IMHO. There is no spirit in the unity of mind of the singularity, is there? I'm not sure if I'd miss it very much though, too busy thinking cool things.

What do you think of Joesus?

[quote]Why do you see either of them as an error or bias in peoples thinking. Surely they are both progressions of knowledge?[/quote]
Let's face it, the Kurzweilian singularity is a wet dream of techie people. OTOH, believing firmly it will happen, may in fact cause more of it to happen.

Enlightenment is progression of personal and transpersonal knowledge, singularity not of transpersonal. But how much weight to put on them... that's the question. Do you balance everything right. Joesus might say this is impossible, that once you start doing that, you have already failed. But I admit religious freaks (for example) still exist in my mind, if not anywhere else.

[quote]I'm sorry, i've no idea what you mean by this.
I've changed my mind

Go and and have a look. "The outskirts of cyborg city"...

[quote]Do you feel an eastern view of philosophy/religion will slow down progress in general, or just technology? is this necessarily a bad thing? Technology is just making people lazy in thought and in body. Actually if you you are for the infinite progression of technology, why are you against the singularity?[/quote]
I'm mainly "concerned" (as in, not content with) about the slowing down of the development of mind technology. Now Dalai Lama has already given thumbs up to neurotech but nobody gives a damn. We could have enlightenment in a pill in 10 years if everybody stopped their meditation and began working on this project (I'm exaggerating to make a point).

Technology does no such thing, imo, it's their minds that hold the users captive. Change their minds and you change their thinking.

I'm not against the singularity...actually I never said I was.

[quote]What is slowing us down as a western culture is capitalism, everythings being run into the ground for profit and its far too expensive to develop new technologies.[/quote]
You're right too. In theory we might get better results with another economic system, based on sane people. But I still argue that eastern notions of reality slow our development. Whether that has any meaning in the end, is another question (Joesus-argument).

[quote]I think i'll have to go look this up myself ;0)
[/quote]
Sorry but I read the book over a year ago. Books should come with searchable electronic versions, maybe on the net.

[Laz]

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. But to think they are the same, is quite simplistic IMHO. There is no spirit in the unity of mind of the singularity, is there?

look deeper into it ;0)

What do you think of Joesus?

Joesus is a star.

Enlightenment is progression of personal and transpersonal knowledge, singularity not of transpersonal.

You're right, but what are we trying to prove by heading towards the singularity? I think you'll find it ends up very personal.

I'm mainly "concerned" (as in, not content with) about the slowing down of the development of mind technology. Now Dalai Lama has already given thumbs up to neurotech but nobody gives a damn. We could have enlightenment in a pill in 10 years if everybody stopped their meditation and began working on this project (I'm exaggerating to make a point).

Technology does no such thing, imo, it's their minds that hold the users captive. Change their minds and you change their thinking.

I see a contradiction here, are you for enlightenment by natural means or technoligical ones?

You're right too. In theory we might get better results with another economic system, based on sane people. But I still argue that eastern notions of reality slow our development. Whether that has any meaning in the end, is another question (Joesus-argument).

so what is your argument? woud you care to explain it to me?

[Plato]

I wonder if I had related this piece of information that I had gained in my research would have been of benefit here for those who believe in the sngularity?

Liminocentric Structure

If you thought it the pea or some obect so dense, well I have something else to consider when we see the dynamical way things collapse, and are reborn, to become the motivation let's say for a inflationary new universe?

But it's more then that, if one considered Brian Greene's quote.

In fact, in the reciprocal language, these tiny circles are getting ever smaller as time goes by, since as R grows, 1/R shrinks. Now we seem to have really gone off the deep end. How can this possibly be true? How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above? (Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249).

That statement in bold troubled me for a long time. There is an image I like to show that describes this breakthrough, not saying whether or not this is a type of enlightenment? I really don't know what that means I think.

In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.

Click on quote.

[Laz]

Plato, did you used to be Psiloman?

[Plato]

Plato, did you used to be Psiloman?

No, that is not I

[Laz]

Oh okay, sorry.

[Plato]

Oh okay, sorry.

Was that a kinder way of asking what kind of drugs I am on?

I am thinking of Arthur Koestler and the experiments of Timothy Leary.

Actually enlightenment is still a deep question for me, and in some ways, I think this had been exploited to be something "mystical" when in fact it might be a very natural thing.

[Laz]

Just thought I recognised the style of writing is all, and you had said that you used to post here under a differnet name ;0)

Actually enlightenment is still a deep question for me, and in some ways, I think this had been exploited to be something "mystical" when in fact it might be a very natural thing.

May i refer you to what Joesus is saying in the theology section.

[code buttons]

May i refer you to what Joesus is saying in the theology section.

Joesus has many posts. So, which threat or post in particular are you trying to point to?

[Laz]

Joesus has many posts. So, which threat or post in particular are you trying to point to?

[old]Harsh words indeed. I guess that any of them will do in that case :0)[/old]

you changed your mind then buttons?

[Plato]

Harsh words indeed. I guess that any of them will do in that case :0)

I am sorry I still do not understand, what you are saying or not saying.

Could you be clearer since I do not know you or who have past through this forum. Am I suppose to know the characters, and what you might have implied by me going there what ever that post was or what harsh means?

Thanks

[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?

[Guest]

I am sorry I still do not understand, what you are saying or not saying.

Could you be clearer since I do not know you or who have past through this forum. Am I suppose to know the characters, and what you might have implied by me going there what ever that post was or what harsh means?

Thanks

Sorry Plato, none of that was meant for you. Code Buttons was getting all nasty about Joesus but has since re-edited his post.

[Laz]

I am sorry I still do not understand, what you are saying or not saying.

Could you be clearer since I do not know you or who have past through this forum. Am I suppose to know the characters, and what you might have implied by me going there what ever that post was or what harsh means?

Thanks

Sorry Plato, none of that was meant for you. Code Buttons was getting all nasty about Joesus but has since re-edited his post.

That was me writing that, forgot to log in :0(

[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.

[Hynox.]

Can I ask, what makes seeking enlightenment, or the act of enlightenment, any different from anything else?
I don't mean this in any critical way, I am just curious, it just seems to me strange that this has become such a popular thing to aim for. Why does it differ from any other aim someone might have?

From my understanding it is coming to the point where the ego dissipates and all that is, is what is. But isn't that feeling, just another feeling? Just another act? Which is as equally valid as say, working at woolworths? If we don't know what all this is, isn't enlightenment just another 'is'?

Some clarification would be very much appreciated.

[lucid_dream]

Enlightenment is special because it is about 'Knowing thy Self'. But there are many posts over this and I don't want to repeat what is posted. Look around a bit.

[Guest]

Every human being´s essential nature is perfect and faultless, but after years of immersion in the society we forget our true nature and take on a counterfeit personality.
There are two ways of living: through the ego or in our true nature. Most of people live through the ego, they are swallowed by the ego. The ego is the source of all misery, pain, conflict, illusion, isolation and loneliness.
What is enlightenment ? It is the state of egolessness, it is the dissolution of the false center, it is returning to our true nature -- our innermost being; it is discovering our original face, it is merging with the spirit within.
It is the state of sheer Joy, Bliss, Love, Peace and Unity with All. It is utter fulfilment.

[lucid_dream]

What is enlightenment ? It is the state of egolessness, it is the dissolution of the false center, it is returning to our true nature -- our innermost being; it is discovering our original face, it is merging with the spirit within.
It is the state of sheer Joy, Bliss, Love, Peace and Unity with All. It is utter fulfilment.

Enlightenment is a stepping stone onto higher things.

[maximus242]

.. wow, nicely put lucid.

[Guest]

Truth is not an opinion, and an opinion is not Truth.

[rhymer]

I agree: opinions are beliefs.

But, an opinion may well be the truth!
It often takes years to prove that particular opinions are in fact truths (or untruths for that matter).

[Guest]

"Opinion is a flitting thing but Truth outlasts the Sun." Emily Dickinson

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread opinion is more likely to be foolish than sensible." Bertrand Russell

"The larger the crowd, the more probable that that which is praised is folly, and the more improbable that it is truth; and the more improbable of all that it is any eternal truth." Soren Kierkegaard