Why relativity is an illusion.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:56 pm

“What is the relationship between awareness and thinking?

Awareness is the space in which thoughts exist when that space has become conscious of itself.”

Eckhart Tolle

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Terrapin Station » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:03 pm

Dontaskme wrote:“What is the relationship between awareness and thinking?"
"Thinking" is often ambiguous. Sometimes it's used to only refer to reasoning, in the logical sense. Sometimes it's used as more or less a synonym for awareness or consciousness. So it depends on what sense of "thinking" one is using. In the narrower sense, thinking is part of aware or conscious phenomena, but isn't the whole of aware or conscious phenomena. In the broader sense, awareness and thinking may be the same thing--obviously that's what a synonym would be.

What any of this has to do with relativity? <shrugs>

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:26 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:“What is the relationship between awareness and thinking?"
"Thinking" is often ambiguous. Sometimes it's used to only refer to reasoning, in the logical sense. Sometimes it's used as more or less a synonym for awareness or consciousness. So it depends on what sense of "thinking" one is using. In the narrower sense, thinking is part of aware or conscious phenomena, but isn't the whole of aware or conscious phenomena. In the broader sense, awareness and thinking may be the same thing--obviously that's what a synonym would be.

What any of this has to do with relativity? <shrugs>

If awareness and thinking may be the same thing then no one is thinking, therefore there's no thinker separate from the thought.

The thought ''I am thinking'' is a thought known to be relative to the source of thought. That's the illusion of relativity. Awareness has no opposite. Relationships are illusions.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Terrapin Station » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:28 pm

Dontaskme wrote:If awareness and thinking may be the same thing then no one is thinking,
So no one is aware in your view?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:If awareness and thinking may be the same thing then no one is thinking,
So no one is aware in your view?
That's right.

''The greatest barrier to consciousness is the belief that one is already conscious.'' ~ P.D.Ouspensky

Awareness is not dependant on thought to be what it is. But 'thought' is dependant on Awareness if 'thought' is to be made conscious.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Terrapin Station » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:So no one is aware in your view?
That's right.
Is anyone thinking in your view?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:So no one is aware in your view?
That's right.
Is anyone thinking in your view?
No, no thinker. Only 'thoughts'

There are 'thoughts' which spontaneously arise in awareness, awareness is everything and everywhere, awareness is this boundless space without beginning or end, in other words infinity.



Consciousness does not experience it's own consciousness or reality by it's own, unless it manifests as something. All existential beings experience a restricted version of their own Reality only. But, Consciousness is the only Absolute Reality that unites all existential beings and is the only Absolute Reality. The entire existence is divided by physicality, but united by Consciousness. Else, all existence will be discrete bits and pieces without a broad cohesive binding and understanding. Consciousness is the 'Life Force' that binds all that exists! Consciousness unites Everything. Rather, to put it precisely, Consciousness creates everything in it's dream.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:03 pm

Image

The Pictures can have no independence existence without the Black board
Our Body and Mind can have no Independence existence without Consciousness/Awareness

The 'I' arises in Awareness. Awareness is always the stable permanent state prior to the 'I'

The 'I' is an appearance that comes and goes in Awareness. Awareness cannot be emptied of it's contents/appearances. Just as space cannot be emptied of itself.Without the conscious mind for One's projection screen, where would the universe be located?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:25 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:So no one is aware in your view?
That's right.
Is anyone thinking in your view?

“Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute there is neither time, space nor causation.”

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:37 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
The 'I' is an appearance that comes and goes in Awareness. Awareness cannot be emptied of it's contents/appearances. Just as space cannot be emptied of itself.Without the conscious mind for One's projection screen, where would the universe be located?
Awareness is never lost because there is nothing to lose. The contents of awareness don't go anywhere, there is nowhere to go.

HexHammer
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by HexHammer » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:58 pm

Dontaskme wrote:“What is the relationship between awareness and thinking?

Awareness is the space in which thoughts exist when that space has become conscious of itself.”
Seems like pure nonsense and babble to me.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:38 pm

I'm unclear on this: are we speaking here of "relativity" or "Relativism"? Because they're not at all the same thing.

"Relativity" is an Einsteinian theory. It pertains to a description of the physical world and to our perceptions of it. It's about Physics, not Metaphysics.

In contrast, "Relativism" is a metaphysical belief system or ideology within which are two variations: 1) epistemological relativism and 2) moral relativism, each of which pertains to an completely different domain of knowledge.

It seems to me that in some of which has been said so far, people are sliding between "relativity" and "relativism-type-1," possibly with some interest in "relativism-type-2"? :? But "relativity" actually has no implications conducing to either type of "Relativism." So that's perplexing...

So which of the three is the on-topic option here? Einstein? Epistemology? Morality?

Dontaskme
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm unclear on this: are we speaking here of "relativity" or "Relativism"? Because they're not at all the same thing.

"Relativity" is an Einsteinian theory. It pertains to a description of the physical world and to our perceptions of it. It's about Physics, not Metaphysics.

In contrast, "Relativism" is a metaphysical belief system or ideology within which are two variations: 1) epistemological relativism and 2) moral relativism, each of which pertains to an completely different domain of knowledge.

It seems to me that in some of which has been said so far, people are sliding between "relativity" and "relativism-type-1," possibly with some interest in "relativism-type-2"? :? But "relativity" actually has no implications conducing to either type of "Relativism." So that's perplexing...

So which of the three is the on-topic option here? Einstein? Epistemology? Morality?
None of the three, but maybe all three, I don't flipping know.

I'm just speaking of the obvious ''relativity'' that is dependence of a mental state or process upon the nature of the human mind by association.That dependency is an illusion. The universe functions quite well without a mind to do so.The idea that there is something here to be reasoned, is like the content of consciousness searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself. It is an idea searching for an idea. It can never 'see' what it is because it is the vastness out of which it arises. How can this reality be spoken of without creating a conceptual overlay?...It can't.
In a few, the structure of the overlay collapses and that which is experienced cannot be shared because sharing requires stepping back into the conceptual overlay. Those that have seen IT easily recognise each other...something comfortable,unspoken,familiar,resonates.

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by TSBU » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:19 pm

Is that your argument ?
Don't use drugs.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4119
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:26 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:I'm unclear on this: are we speaking here of "relativity" or "Relativism"? Because they're not at all the same thing.

"Relativity" is an Einsteinian theory. It pertains to a description of the physical world and to our perceptions of it. It's about Physics, not Metaphysics.

In contrast, "Relativism" is a metaphysical belief system or ideology within which are two variations: 1) epistemological relativism and 2) moral relativism, each of which pertains to an completely different domain of knowledge.

It seems to me that in some of which has been said so far, people are sliding between "relativity" and "relativism-type-1," possibly with some interest in "relativism-type-2"? :? But "relativity" actually has no implications conducing to either type of "Relativism." So that's perplexing...

So which of the three is the on-topic option here? Einstein? Epistemology? Morality?
None of the three, but maybe all three, I don't flipping know.

I'm just speaking of the obvious ''relativity'' that is dependence of a mental state or process upon the nature of the human mind by association.That dependency is an illusion.
That would be "Relativism-type-1," I'm guessing? But I still can't tell.

Maybe you can help me, though: are you personally more concerned about physics, knowledge or morals?
The universe functions quite well without a mind to do so.
Ummm...don't you have to have a "mind" in order to make such an observation? In which case, how can you make any statement about the universe without using your "mind"? And then what could you possibly mean by "the universe functions quite well," since absent your mind, no such utterance would be possible? :?
The idea that there is something here to be reasoned, is like the content of consciousness searching within the content of consciousness for consciousness itself. It is an idea searching for an idea. It can never 'see' what it is because it is the vastness out of which it arises. How can this reality be spoken of without creating a conceptual overlay?...It can't.
But this amounts to denying your own idea about "the universe functioning without a mind." You have a mind, don't you? How else would you be writing? So you know only a universe with minds in it. How then could you possibly make any confident claim about how it works without minds involved?

That's not an empirical observation, whatever else it is. It's also not a logic-based proposition. But then, how can you take for granted, as you seem to, that people will all naturally agree with it?
In a few, the structure of the overlay collapses and that which is experienced cannot be shared because sharing requires stepping back into the conceptual overlay. Those that have seen IT easily recognise each other...something comfortable,unspoken,familiar,resonates.
Sorry. I'm a reasonably well-educated person, but I can't make heads or tails of these sentences. Are you maybe just being poetic? Or can you clarify?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests