[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.

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?



yes, traditional boundaries are collapsing

people are becoming aware (conscious) of subliminal unconscious affective triggers....and a new individual/collective cognitive paradigm is on the precipice of becoming globally actualized.

....and it is about time.

"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?"

Why?

We slow down and observe. The slower matter moves = the slower information travels = the more one observes/perceives.

"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. "

Relative, but an inevitable occurance with cognitive development, whether that potentiality becomes actualized is the key.

You go down the mountain and seek justice for the people.

Why?

That is an exremely fair question and deserves a fair answer:

For self-gratification. There is no nobler cause than justice, which embodies principles of (primarily) fairness, liberty, honesty, (and secondarily) responsibility, and community.

Ensuring these values are realized (which brings justice) requires effective government, and there are myriad ways for individuals all over the world to work to improve their governments.

The self-gratification part comes from Shawn's quote above: "You reside in an expanded, godly, egoless state of mind in which you are one with everything you experience." In accord with my description elsewhere of the identity principle, then, bringing justice to the people is bringing justice to one's self.

Here follows some elaboration on the values mentioned above:

Fairness

Fair play means a level playing field and that no class of people is superior to any other in terms of civic rights and obligations. Every person should pay his or her fair share of the investment necessary for effective government and community life.

Effective Government

The just and necessary role of government is spelled out in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. These proper duties include establishing courts and police, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of freedom for all. Effective government means an efficient government that doesn't waste or misappropriate the people's money. It also means doing well the things that only a government can do well, such as providing public infrastructure and regulating businesses to prevent exploitation of consumers and the environment.

Liberty

The ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution provide that rights not given to the government are reserved for the people. The government has no right to inspect or control the interiors of people's bodies. The right to privacy is implied by the fourth amendment: people shall be secure in their persons, papers, and effects.

Honesty

People should be honest in their dealings with each other; the government should be honest and open with the people. Government information that is intended to deceive or mislead is wrong. Hiding non-private government information from the people is wrong and promotes corruption.

These values are described related to the Constitution of the USA, but the principles are universal. Portions of this are excerpted from a political analysis I performed at the request of the Torrance Democratic Club in Torrance, California, USA.

When you learn, it seems that you end up wanting to teach. It is said that when you teach you really learn what it's all about ;0)

The urge to share your lessons learned is incredibly strong, but possibly futile as we all seem to have to learn the hard way.

PS: a godly state cannot be a egoless one ;0)

Everyone must learn at least some lessons the hard way, but the wise man (and woman, of course) learns from the mistakes of others.

I don't know about you Lucid, but to me, the path to enlightenment takes me through the well being of everything and everyone that can be better-off. If Oneness is our ultimate goal, therefore, the suffering of others (of those who can suffer) becomes also my suffering. So, untill the very last neuron in the universe may benefit from my entering into this state of enlightening, then I may not enter into it either.

Hey Max, I like your style :0)

Not sure about your logic though, it's a bit wavey. To take repsonsibility for yourself and everyone around you is a good thing and part of the journey, but to deny yourself enlightenment for what ever reason is martyrdom. There's only one trick to becoming enlightened and that's to shut down your thinking and just experience the things around you, some call it meditation.

I'm with shawn on the "what now?" thing, enlightenment is lonely :0(

I can't quote Alan Watts but he had a great way of looking at this problem and said something like:
As you learn more and more the world becomes less and less mysterious, ultimately there is nothing left to learn and you are a god, the world meanwhile becomes a bore. The way out of this is to start to forget things so that they become interesting again, and the more you forget the more mysterious the world is.

Ooops, forgot to log in. The mysterious response was me :0)

Thanks for the reply, Laz. I'm not willing to be anyone's martir. I'm just stating the obvious. I just think we're not in the same page on the definition of a 'state of enlightnenment'. What's your definition of it?

Hmmm, definitions are a lot like the trap of science. Nail it down, stretch it out, show it to everybody and they will learn, damn them they will learn.

I'm sorry to say, and i mean this with all honesty, Enlightnement is a state of knowing your enlightened.

No book, cd, website, chat room, or forum message is going to give you the feeling of being enlightened, you have to live it, know it, and when you share it, others will see it in you.

Now this ain't a cop out either, so don't be giving me none of that hippie bashing vagueness crap. This is propper philosophy, up there with the best of them.

Actually reminds me, i keep coming across Einstein quotes on the internet and theres a lot more to him than i ever gave him credit for ironic!

enlightenment is more than just believing you're enlightened. Enlightenment has its basis in raw experience, not belief.

[cheappun]But do you believe that?[/cheappun]

So here is where to start INLIGHTENMent i call it as it speaks thru my mouth to these fingers,we as beings are somehow conned into believing we are doing the work of living ,that some how we control the action here,some how we reach our goals thAt we picked we are not doing anything , we are not doing this is the ILLUSION WE DO IN THE illusion we listen to the speakers [doing]we follow the words in our

That 'INLIGHTENMent' that speaks through your fingers, that is the doer. Enlightnment is when you realize yourself to be that 'INLIGHTENMent' and become the force behind doing.

general comment.

It is far better to use 'canal' thinking when seeking enlightenment.

You can then rise to greater heights in your thinking than when charging in a turbulent stream which simply goes downhill.

If barges can go higher, so can man!

Enlightenment is interesting.

It's not uncommon for a guru/enlightened person to not have flawless conduct.

Yet there can be non-enlightened people who have as little flaws or even less.

Makes you think.

you will know them by their works

Yeah Neural but what's interesting is that those people have experienced enlightenment... how and why do non-enlightened people surpass them? Maybe the experience of enlightenment is not what it's made to be, it's not _that_ essential. Just digging here...

What's that mean then?

I was still referring to character flaws. The phenomenon of non-enlightened having less than some of the 'lightened'.

If you presented the question to me; like I said, I don't know the answer. Maybe their brains work better overall and they just haven't seen the scenery from the mountain top of experiences.

I would not expect enlightened people to be free of character flaws. Enlightenment and personality disorders seem separate things.

Okay... now why meditate then?

because meditation dissolves dualistic modes of consciousness. Meditation can be therapeutic if it makes us aware of our mental conditioning and filters to apply to sensations but so can many other nonmeditative things.

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

in our current world, particularly true of the West, we tend to apply focused attention to identify subject-object (self-other) relations almost continuously during our awake moments. Meditation allows us to switch from focused attention of objects to global diffuse attention of the field supporting objects. What we are normally aware of in moments of focused attention is a figure in a ground (figure-ground relationship). Try to shift your attention to the ground without it becoming figure. Can't do it except through diffuse global attention, which involves breaking dualistic modes of thought. Give it a try.

But you said:


That's something different altogether. Enlightened, non-enlightened surpassing eachother in a conflict??? why surpassing? This smacks of bitterness and jealousy but there is no reason for it?

Where are you coming from Guest? (and i don't mean where do you live!)

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?

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



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?

Neural said:

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?

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.

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.

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.

Of course :0)



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



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?



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



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?



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.



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

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.

look deeper into it ;0)




Joesus is a star.



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



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

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.




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.

QUOTE

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.

Plato, did you used to be Psiloman?

No, that is not I

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.

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)



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?

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

you changed your mind then buttons?

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

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?

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