Perspective

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:16 am
This is precisely what you don't understand. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are?
...
  • "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
I agree 'attention' is necessary, but what is the use if 'attention' is directed to the wrong path rather than the right-view, right action, and the rest of the noble-eightfold paths.

"seeing things as they are" is a core maxim of Buddhist philosophy, but the effectiveness of 'seeing things as they are' is grounded on 'seeing things as you are.'
This meant that you are unable to 'see things as they' are unless you first see into your own self and understand the principles, mechanics and processes that 'rules' within your own self, i.e. Know Thyself.
Seeing Things as They Are

This is often the first question that lurks behind any new undertaking. But when it comes to spiritual practice—and Buddhist practice in particular—it’s a question bathed in irony. One way to get at this irony is through an expression found in pretty much every Buddhist tradition: seeing things as they are (Sanskrit yatha-bhutam darshanam).

To “see things as they are” means, very simply, to see that all samsaric experience is stamped by what are known as the three marks: impermanence (anitya), no-self (anatman), and suffering (duhkha).
-C. W. Huntington
Wiki wrote:Saṃsāra in Buddhism is the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again.[1] Samsara is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful,[2] perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.
In your case, you are not 'seeing things as they are' because you have been deceived [attention misdirected] by your mind to chase an illusion [which you sincerely believe is real].
You don't know the difference between directed attention and conscious attention. You don't understand that directed attention is the result of attractions to the external world. It is a mechanical process. Directed attention is used to judge good and bad and in the process of indoctrination.

Conscious attention is a potential human attribute. It enables us to see the whole picture without judgment and align the human organism so it can receive the impressions of the external world as a balanced organism: mind, body, and spirit. Directed attention is a function of your personality while conscious attention is function of the conscious part of the human organism.

Before a person can become capable of conscious attention they must be able to maintain directed attention. Only then can it mature to become capable of sustained conscious attention.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:34 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:36 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 am
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:16 am
This is precisely what you don't understand. Have you ever thought for a moment about what would be necessary for you to achieve the quality of perspective necessary to "see things as they are?
...
  • "Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil
I agree 'attention' is necessary, but what is the use if 'attention' is directed to the wrong path rather than the right-view, right action, and the rest of the noble-eightfold paths.

"seeing things as they are" is a core maxim of Buddhist philosophy, but the effectiveness of 'seeing things as they are' is grounded on 'seeing things as you are.'
This meant that you are unable to 'see things as they' are unless you first see into your own self and understand the principles, mechanics and processes that 'rules' within your own self, i.e. Know Thyself.
Seeing Things as They Are

This is often the first question that lurks behind any new undertaking. But when it comes to spiritual practice—and Buddhist practice in particular—it’s a question bathed in irony. One way to get at this irony is through an expression found in pretty much every Buddhist tradition: seeing things as they are (Sanskrit yatha-bhutam darshanam).

To “see things as they are” means, very simply, to see that all samsaric experience is stamped by what are known as the three marks: impermanence (anitya), no-self (anatman), and suffering (duhkha).
-C. W. Huntington
Wiki wrote:Saṃsāra in Buddhism is the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again.[1] Samsara is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful,[2] perpetuated by desire and avidya (ignorance), and the resulting karma.
In your case, you are not 'seeing things as they are' because you have been deceived [attention misdirected] by your mind to chase an illusion [which you sincerely believe is real].
You don't know the difference between directed attention and conscious attention. You don't understand that directed attention is the result of attractions to the external world. It is a mechanical process. Directed attention is used to judge good and bad and in the process of indoctrination.

Conscious attention is a potential human attribute. It enables us to see the whole picture without judgment and align the human organism so it can receive the impressions of the external world as a balanced organism: mind, body, and spirit.
Directed attention is a function of your personality while conscious attention is function of the conscious part of the human organism.

Before a person can become capable of conscious attention they must be able to maintain directed attention. Only then can it mature to become capable of sustained conscious attention.
Note 'conscious attention' is any attention that one is conscious of.
If your attention is on the Sun [or whatever] and you are conscious of your attention to the Sun, then you have 'conscious attention'. There is nothing special to it.

I believed what you are trying to convey re your 'conscious attention' is some sort of Altered State of Consciousness [ASC] which is different from any normal conscious attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness
Suggest you do more research on this topic.

There are many perspectives to ASCs.
One of these,
The work of Adolph Dittrich[25] aimed to empirically determine common underlying dimensions of consciousness altererations induced by different methods, such as drugs or non-pharmacological methods. He suggested three basic dimensions, which were termed:
  • (1) oceanic boundlessness
    (2) dread of ego dissolution
    (3) visionary restructuralization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sification
Nick_A: the impressions of the external world as a balanced organism: mind, body, and spirit.
What you are trying to describe is categorized as oceanic boundlessness (1) and ego dissolution(2) or cosmic consciousness or oneness.

What you stated, i.e. "Directed attention is a function of your personality.." is probably correct and this as I had claimed is applicable to you when your attention is misdirected when you relate an 'oceanic boundlessness' experience to a God [illusory].

ASCs are experienced by many people via various means and reasons, e.g. drugs, spirituality, brain damage, mental illness, etc. but to relate such experiences to a real God is a misdirected attention due to some weak psychology within because you are unable to "see things as they are."

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:31 pm

V A
Note 'conscious attention' is any attention that one is conscious of.
If your attention is on the Sun [or whatever] and you are conscious of your attention to the Sun, then you have 'conscious attention'. There is nothing special to it.

I believed what you are trying to convey re your 'conscious attention' is some sort of Altered State of Consciousness [ASC] which is different from any normal conscious attention.
You neither seem to understand the difference between being self conscious and consciousness of self or the effect of the loss of conscious attention on the collective being of Man. Consequently the result is the loss of a human perspective. But for those who believe conscious attention is not altered states of consciousness, I invite you to read this short explanation. It may raise questiions different from the usual.

http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=667

The Problem of Time
--by Jacob Needleman (Nov 09, 2009)
It is necessary to realize that technology itself is not the cause of our problem of [not having enough] time. Its influence on our lives is a result, not a cause -- the result of an unseen accelerating process taking place in ourselves, in our inner being. Whether we point to the effect of communication technology (such as e-mail) with its tyranny of instant communication; or to the computerization, and therefore the mentalization of so many human activities that previously required at least some participation of our physical presence; or to any of the other innumerable transformations of human life that are being brought about by the new technologies, the essential element to recognize is how much of what we call "progress" is accompanied by and measured by the fact that human beings need less and less conscious attention to perform their activities and lead their lives.

The real power of the faculty of attention, unknown to modern science, is one of the indispensable and most central measures of humanness -- of the being of a man or a woman -- and has been so understood, in many forms and symbols, at the heart of all great spiritual teaching of the world. The effects of advancing technology, for all its material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) is but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being...........................
The effects of advancing technology, for all its material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) is but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being.
How many in these times have ever considered the question of the cultivation of being in relation to a human perspective. They are few so nothing changes.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:20 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:31 pm
V A
Note 'conscious attention' is any attention that one is conscious of.
If your attention is on the Sun [or whatever] and you are conscious of your attention to the Sun, then you have 'conscious attention'. There is nothing special to it.

I believed what you are trying to convey re your 'conscious attention' is some sort of Altered State of Consciousness [ASC] which is different from any normal conscious attention.
You neither seem to understand the difference between being self conscious and consciousness of self or the effect of the loss of conscious attention on the collective being of Man. Consequently the result is the loss of a human perspective. But for those who believe conscious attention is not altered states of consciousness, I invite you to read this short explanation. It may raise questiions different from the usual.

http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=667

The Problem of Time
--by Jacob Needleman (Nov 09, 2009)
It is necessary to realize that technology itself is not the cause of our problem of [not having enough] time. Its influence on our lives is a result, not a cause -- the result of an unseen accelerating process taking place in ourselves, in our inner being. Whether we point to the effect of communication technology (such as e-mail) with its tyranny of instant communication; or to the computerization, and therefore the mentalization of so many human activities that previously required at least some participation of our physical presence; or to any of the other innumerable transformations of human life that are being brought about by the new technologies, the essential element to recognize is how much of what we call "progress" is accompanied by and measured by the fact that human beings need less and less conscious attention to perform their activities and lead their lives.

The real power of the faculty of attention, unknown to modern science, is one of the indispensable and most central measures of humanness -- of the being of a man or a woman -- and has been so understood, in many forms and symbols, at the heart of all great spiritual teaching of the world. The effects of advancing technology, for all its material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) is but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being...........................
The effects of advancing technology, for all its material promise they offer the world (along with the dangers, of course) is but the most recent wave in a civilization that, without recognizing what it was doing, has placed the satisfaction of desire above the cultivation of being.
How many in these times have ever considered the question of the cultivation of being in relation to a human perspective. They are few so nothing changes.
Note in the article is this;

The real power of the faculty of attention .. at the heart of all great spiritual teaching of the world

Now I am very familiar with what is at the heart of all great spiritual teachings of the world, and fundamentally it is grounded on an altered states of consciousness.

There are is a continuum and degree of spirituality within ALL great spiritual teachings.

Those are the higher percentile of spirituality will rely on meditation [various techniques] to gain spiritual insight [attention, cognition] and competences.

Meditation is a form of altered states of consciousness leading to various types of more refined states of consciousness.

In Simone Weil's and your case, I believe the spirituality involved is of lower grade relative to those of Buddhism, Taoism and the likes.
In the case of Simone Weil's spirituality it is all about her insights but she did not establish any practices that could change one's brain for the better in terms of spirituality.
This is why you are compelled to cling to some remnants of things that are illusory, i.e. the idea of a God.

Btw, I have raised the question many times, why is it that you're are not capable to deliberate the issue from your own psychological perspective.
You need to 'Know Thyself' and understand the machineries that are pulling your strings as a puppet of some zombie parasites within you.

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:57 am

V A

I read the link but cannot accept this definition of consiousness and how it compares to altered states of consciousness:
As a basis for our discussion, we will use the general definition of altered states proposed by Tart (1975). He suggested that: Our ordinary discrete state of consciousness is a construction built up in accordance with biological and cultural imperatives for the purpose of dealing with our physical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal environments. A discrete altered state of consciousness is a radically different way of handling information from the physical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal environments, yet the discrete altered state of consciousness may be as arbitrary as our ordinary discrete state of consciousness (p. 24). Note that this definition is value free. It allows us to study a discrete altered state of consciousness without a priori judgment.
The author confuses human consciousness with animal consciousness and contents of consciousness. IMO the Gospel of Thomas provides an excellent description of the relativity of consciousness. As can be seen it has nothing to do with ASC.
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Human consciousness can observe the nature of our mechanical reactions. This quality of consciousness can in turn be observed and helped by still higher consciousness. Of course this process can be perverted and we celebrate it as altered states of consciousness. The results of perversion can effect the entire human organism leading to mixed results

My interest isn’t in celebrating altered states of consciousness but rather appreciating the realistic relationship between the essence of religion as a reflection of qualities of consciousness and objective values and science or the interactions of universal laws. You seem to be concerned with ASC leading to PC indoctrination while my concern is for the human soul becoming “normal.”

The abnormal collective human soul assures that Man will serve technology as opposed to technology serving Man which is a human potential gradually being lost.
In Simone Weil's and your case, I believe the spirituality involved is of lower grade relative to those of Buddhism, Taoism and the likes.
In the case of Simone Weil's spirituality it is all about her insights but she did not establish any practices that could change one's brain for the better in terms of spirituality.
This is why you are compelled to cling to some remnants of things that are illusory, i.e. the idea of a God.
She didn’t advocate any practices that would pervert human beings so that their brains would be changed to serve the state. Universities do this for the purpose of creating snowflakes. Simone stressed the importance of developing the power of conscious attention so as to become spiritually and physically human as opposed to being indoctrinated into the life of mechanical things serving the state. You seem to prefer indoctrination which is why Plato’s cave has become your celebrated domain and kingdom of imagination you are compelled to cling to that are illusory, i.e. the idea altered states of consciousness substituting for the reality of consciousness.

I have read this short essay by Simone Weil several timesand have marveled at its depth. I know of course that since it defies social indoctrination it will never be accepted in secular institutions and hidden whenever possible. But for the sake of any students majoring in education who are still alive on the inside, you may appreciate some of the ideas within it which are being hidden from you for the sake of your indoctrination.

http://www.hagiasophiaclassical.com/wp/ ... e-Weil.pdf
Btw, I have raised the question many times, why is it that you're are not capable to deliberate the issue from your own psychological perspective.
You need to 'Know Thyself' and understand the machineries that are pulling your strings as a puppet of some zombie parasites within you.
Of course we need to know ourselves but what is the knower? I am open to pondering the question from my psychological perspective but are you?

Can a car know itself and know its purpose? It lacks the quality of consciousness necessary for a conscious perspective. It cannot know its purpose is to serve its driver. Lacking the capacity for conscious attention a human being can never know themselves but just imagine themselves. How can a human being ever experience their objective meaning and purpose while limited in this way? So we either deny or imagine objective human meaning and purpose and celebrate it as intelligence.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:09 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:57 am
V A

I read the link but cannot accept this definition of consiousness and how it compares to altered states of consciousness:
As a basis for our discussion, we will use the general definition of altered states proposed by Tart (1975). He suggested that: Our ordinary discrete state of consciousness is a construction built up in accordance with biological and cultural imperatives for the purpose of dealing with our physical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal environments. A discrete altered state of consciousness is a radically different way of handling information from the physical, intrapersonal, and interpersonal environments, yet the discrete altered state of consciousness may be as arbitrary as our ordinary discrete state of consciousness (p. 24). Note that this definition is value free. It allows us to study a discrete altered state of consciousness without a priori judgment.
The author confuses human consciousness with animal consciousness and contents of consciousness. IMO the Gospel of Thomas provides an excellent description of the relativity of consciousness. As can be seen it has nothing to do with ASC.
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Human consciousness can observe the nature of our mechanical reactions. This quality of consciousness can in turn be observed and helped by still higher consciousness. Of course this process can be perverted and we celebrate it as altered states of consciousness. The results of perversion can effect the entire human organism leading to mixed results

My interest isn’t in celebrating altered states of consciousness but rather appreciating the realistic relationship between the essence of religion as a reflection of qualities of consciousness and objective values and science or the interactions of universal laws. You seem to be concerned with ASC leading to PC indoctrination while my concern is for the human soul becoming “normal.”

The abnormal collective human soul assures that Man will serve technology as opposed to technology serving Man which is a human potential gradually being lost.
You are shifty and deflecting;

Note you referenced this from Joseph Needham;

The real power of the faculty of attention .. at the heart of all great spiritual teaching of the world

I have argued the above is grounded on the relevant Altered States of Consciousness.
Your point from Tart (1975) is too partial and insufficient to cover the point.

Then you diverted to Jesus and went out of point to some lower grade of Christian spirituality.
Within Christianity there are a range of spirituality from low -1/100 to high - 99/100.

At the higher end of Christian spirituality [especially with the Christian mystics] there are elements of altered states of consciousness when a Christian is able to experience the union with God example, in relation to verses such as;
  • John 10:34
    Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

    Psalm 82:6
    I have said, "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.
In Simone Weil's and your case, I believe the spirituality involved is of lower grade relative to those of Buddhism, Taoism and the likes.
In the case of Simone Weil's spirituality it is all about her insights but she did not establish any practices that could change one's brain for the better in terms of spirituality.
This is why you are compelled to cling to some remnants of things that are illusory, i.e. the idea of a God.
She didn’t advocate any practices that would pervert human beings so that their brains would be changed to serve the state. Universities do this for the purpose of creating snowflakes. Simone stressed the importance of developing the power of conscious attention so as to become spiritually and physically human as opposed to being indoctrinated into the life of mechanical things serving the state. You seem to prefer indoctrination which is why Plato’s cave has become your celebrated domain and kingdom of imagination you are compelled to cling to that are illusory, i.e. the idea altered states of consciousness substituting for the reality of consciousness.
You are shifting again and diverting to irrelevant points like snowflakes and evil ideology.

In spiritual-proper it is essential to develop a highly tuned spiritual mind that is supported by the relevant neural faculty and connectivity. This necessitate beliefs, theory and practices.
Simone Weil's approach is all talk and no action to develop one's brain and mind to cultivate high spirituality.

Note in contrast, note this one example [there are many others];

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
which incorporates loads of theory, wisdom and practices to develop the person brain and mind.

In addition to meditations and various exercises to hone the spiritual brain/mind Buddhists are encourage to debate among themselves in various contentious issues, e.g.;

Image
I have read this short essay by Simone Weil several times and have marveled at its depth. I know of course that since it defies social indoctrination it will never be accepted in secular institutions and hidden whenever possible. But for the sake of any students majoring in education who are still alive on the inside, you may appreciate some of the ideas within it which are being hidden from you for the sake of your indoctrination.

http://www.hagiasophiaclassical.com/wp/ ... e-Weil.pdf
Yes you have read, i.e. read only but there are no instruction on practices that will develop your brain and mind for an effective spiritual brain and mind.
Btw, I have raised the question many times, why is it that you're are not capable to deliberate the issue from your own psychological perspective.
You need to 'Know Thyself' and understand the machineries that are pulling your strings as a puppet of some zombie parasites within you.
Of course we need to know ourselves but what is the knower? I am open to pondering the question from my psychological perspective but are you?

Can a car know itself and know its purpose? It lacks the quality of consciousness necessary for a conscious perspective. It cannot know its purpose is to serve its driver. Lacking the capacity for conscious attention a human being can never know themselves but just imagine themselves. How can a human being ever experience their objective meaning and purpose while limited in this way? So we either deny or imagine objective human meaning and purpose and celebrate it as intelligence.
Me??
I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.

Note the experiment of the two 'normal' face illusion re how your brain and mind had deceived you regardless of your intellectual capability.
I have argued your belief that God is real a deception by your brain/mind to soothe an existential crisis/dilemma.
Have you research on how your brain/mind is exposed to an existential crisis and how it is coping with this inherent unavoidable activity within your brain/mind?

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:52 pm

N. Of course we need to know ourselves but what is the knower? I am open to pondering the question from my psychological perspective but are you?

Can a car know itself and know its purpose? It lacks the quality of consciousness necessary for a conscious perspective. It cannot know its purpose is to serve its driver. Lacking the capacity for conscious attention a human being can never know themselves but just imagine themselves. How can a human being ever experience their objective meaning and purpose while limited in this way? So we either deny or imagine objective human meaning and purpose and celebrate it as intelligence.
Me??

V. I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.

Note the experiment of the two 'normal' face illusion re how your brain and mind had deceived you regardless of your intellectual capability.
I have argued your belief that God is real a deception by your brain/mind to soothe an existential crisis/dilemma.
Have you research on how your brain/mind is exposed to an existential crisis and how it is coping with this inherent unavoidable activity within your brain/mind?
This is a good example of why we cannot communicate and why we must have different conceptions as to a human perspective

To know thyself for you apparently means to study the mechanics of the human organism.

To know thyself for me means becoming capable of having the conscious experience of myself. You study mechanics and I study the psychology of being in which consciousness observes or has the conscious experience of mechanics.

A human perspective for you requires indoctrination into what is perceived as correct ways to react

A human perspective for me requires becoming what is normal for the human soul or essence which leads to conscious action as opposed to indoctrinated reaction.
“It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau is offering another side of Simone's observation that attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. Jesus said we need new eyes to see and ears to hear.

You can study what you want but until you come to experience what these people did, it will be meaningless. Your mechanics will be incomplete and your psychology purely imaginary continuing the collective fallen human perspective which governs the wold now.

Mechanics is one thing and the psychology of being is another. Anyone who has become proficient in both will have a human perspective IMO. Obviously these people will be very rare.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:09 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:52 pm
N. Of course we need to know ourselves but what is the knower? I am open to pondering the question from my psychological perspective but are you?

Can a car know itself and know its purpose? It lacks the quality of consciousness necessary for a conscious perspective. It cannot know its purpose is to serve its driver. Lacking the capacity for conscious attention a human being can never know themselves but just imagine themselves. How can a human being ever experience their objective meaning and purpose while limited in this way? So we either deny or imagine objective human meaning and purpose and celebrate it as intelligence.
Me??

V. I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.

Note the experiment of the two 'normal' face illusion re how your brain and mind had deceived you regardless of your intellectual capability.
I have argued your belief that God is real a deception by your brain/mind to soothe an existential crisis/dilemma.
Have you research on how your brain/mind is exposed to an existential crisis and how it is coping with this inherent unavoidable activity within your brain/mind?
This is a good example of why we cannot communicate and why we must have different conceptions as to a human perspective

To know thyself for you apparently means to study the mechanics of the human organism.

To know thyself for me means becoming capable of having the conscious experience of myself. You study mechanics and I study the psychology of being in which consciousness observes or has the conscious experience of mechanics.

A human perspective for you requires indoctrination into what is perceived as correct ways to react

A human perspective for me requires becoming what is normal for the human soul or essence which leads to conscious action as opposed to indoctrinated reaction.
Note I mentioned;
V. I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.
This implies the mechanism and processes which obviously would include the psychology of the brain/mind including 'being.'
Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki
You are onto a strawman when you confine my view to only 'mechanics'.
Note I had researched into everything [mechanics, processes, mental, consciousness, etc.] that is needed to know about the brain/mind.
In addition to the theories, I have putting into practice in rewiring my brain for the better. There are scientific evidence to show that those who practiced those mental exercises has greater cognitives abilities related to spiritual. physiological, psychological and philosophical matters.
Note I critique Simone's approach as all talk but no actions.


I admit there is a lot humanity has not known of the brain/mind. However, we have made much progress in certain areas, i.e.
  • 1. What humanity has learned so far is, there are loads of research and evidences to support what you are postulating about [soul, essence, God] are also claimed by mad people, those with brain damage, those taking drugs/hallucinogens, serious spiritualists, mystics, prophets, etc.

    2. Now, it is very evident, those who are mad, with brain damage, taking drugs are experiencing induced hallucinations and illusions with are irrational and have no relation to reality.

    3. Since what you have been postulation, i.e. soul, essence, god, etc. has not been proven and not likely to be proven, it is highly probable that those theists who postulated the existence of the soul, essence, God, Absolute, are also suffering from the same issue as mad people and those listed in 1 and 2 above.
One point is, it is natural you will deny the above correlation re 1-3 because of the desperate and terrible psychological impulses that compel you to be believe those illusions as real. This is like [not exactly] a schizo believing Gnomes are real because he 'spoke' to them in his garden.

I don't expect you to change your current view because you need such belief as a crutch as security against the subliminal torments.

However one need to consider [at least philosophically and theoretically] my inference re 1-3 since it is very rational.

“It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau is offering another side of Simone's observation that attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. Jesus said we need new eyes to see and ears to hear.

You can study what you want but until you come to experience what these people did, it will be meaningless. Your mechanics will be incomplete and your psychology purely imaginary continuing the collective fallen human perspective which governs the wold now.

Mechanics is one thing and the psychology of being is another. Anyone who has become proficient in both will have a human perspective IMO. Obviously these people will be very rare.
I agree one need new 'eyes' and 'ears' which is why we need an altered state of consciousness which is different from the normal waking/sensual consciousness.
What is needed is an altered state of consciousness that enable to understand an transcendental illusion [idea of God] as an illusion and not taking it as real. In such a state, the self will not be ignorantly attached, clung to ideas [of God, soul, essence, Absolute oneness, etc.].

In such a state, one can be activated by emotions yet not be emotional. In addition, one will be above to understand reality in wider and deeper perspectives.

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:05 pm

V A
Note I mentioned;
V. I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.
This implies the mechanism and processes which obviously would include the psychology of the brain/mind including 'being.'

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki


You are onto a strawman when you confine my view to only 'mechanics'.

Note I had researched into everything [mechanics, processes, mental, consciousness, etc.] that is needed to know about the brain/mind.

In addition to the theories, I have putting into practice in rewiring my brain for the better. There are scientific evidence to show that those who practiced those mental exercises has greater cognitives abilities related to spiritual. physiological, psychological and philosophical matters.

Note I critique Simone's approach as all talk but no actions.

You don’t understand it since you have yet to have a conscious human experience. all you have written of are mechanics.
Simone lived her philosophy. She didn’t live in universities trying to spiritually abuse students. What other philosopher has done this?

At one time philosophy and psychology were united in the quest to understand human “being.” Removing the conscious element has reduced psychology to behaviorism forcing their separation.

Psychology for you is behaviorism or what we do and for me it is the study of human being or what we are in relation to consciousness itself. People now study it as Transpersonal psychology.

Transpersonal psychology is a sub-field or "school" of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology".

Here is the beginning of an essay on Transperonl psychology.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/ATT89150.ATT.pdf
“Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all around it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness.? William James, Varieties of religious experience.

Introduction

Transpersonal Psychology represents a fundamentally different model of the consciousness. It incorporates existing models of psychology and adds the perspectives gained by studies of the perennial philosophy and modern experiential schools. It represents a serious attempt to integrate the scientific and spiritual traditions. Traditional psychology sees the mind and consciousness as arising out of neuro-physiological processes and unable to exist independently of the living brain. Transpersonal psychology understands consciousness as not just a product of brain process but as independent of the brain. This is a seriously radical idea, perhaps of similar significance to the advent of quantum physics which totally revolutionized our understanding of the physical world and which found it to be so much more complex and difficult to understand than the more simple Newtonian model which had served for the previous few hundred years. According to the transpersonal model, the brain and the senses are the hardware through which consciousness can be expressed and experienced. Some of the software (or the operating system) comes from outside of the brain. Consciousness is not limited to the bony confines of the skull but is the stuff of the universe and is immanent in everything. Sir James Jeans, distinguished physicist, astronomer and philosopher summarizing the implications of quantum physics noted that ‘the universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine, mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought to hail it as the creator and governor of the world of matter’ (Wilber 1984)…………………………….
Your goal is apparently to indoctrinate the brain to create altered states of consciousness in order to train animal Man while my concern is for opening the human organism so as to receive the help of higher consciousness in order to become a normal conscious soul. This will always be our essential disagreement. You seek an artificially created linear animal perspective and I support efforts to awaken to our potential for a normal vertical human perspective connecting higher and lower realities.
One point is, it is natural you will deny the above correlation re 1-3 because of the desperate and terrible psychological impulses that compel you to be believe those illusions as real. This is like [not exactly] a schizo believing Gnomes are real because he 'spoke' to them in his garden.
I’ve said all along that as we are living in imagination we are victims of self deception. There is nothing for me to deny. You just seem to deny the importance of conscious attention for distinguishing between the wheat and the tares.
I agree one need new 'eyes' and 'ears' which is why we need an altered state of consciousness which is different from the normal waking/sensual consciousness.
We live in altered states of consciousness created by our interpretations. What we need are conscious experiences
What is needed is an altered state of consciousness that enable to understand an transcendental illusion [idea of God] as an illusion and not taking it as real. In such a state, the self will not be ignorantly attached, clung to ideas [of God, soul, essence, Absolute oneness, etc.].

In such a state, one can be activated by emotions yet not be emotional. In addition, one will be above to understand reality in wider and deeper perspectives.
You seem to want to join with the Borg. You want to be absorbed into their grand collective. You believe resistance is futile and the God/Man connection will be eliminated and replaced with the worship of the grand collective or what Plato called the Beast.

I would rather support those who have understood the effect of the fallen condition on their being and desire to awaken to the normal human need to become a normal human individual with a normal conscience as opposed to a Borg. These people wish to attain a normal human perspective worthy of the name Man.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:48 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:05 pm
V A
Note I mentioned;
V. I am doing serious and very extensive research about what is going on inside my brain on issues related to theism [..I was once a pantheist] and spirituality.
This implies the mechanism and processes which obviously would include the psychology of the brain/mind including 'being.'

Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as feeling and thought.
-wiki


You are onto a strawman when you confine my view to only 'mechanics'.

Note I had researched into everything [mechanics, processes, mental, consciousness, etc.] that is needed to know about the brain/mind.

In addition to the theories, I have putting into practice in rewiring my brain for the better. There are scientific evidence to show that those who practiced those mental exercises has greater cognitives abilities related to spiritual. physiological, psychological and philosophical matters.

Note I critique Simone's approach as all talk but no actions.

You don’t understand it since you have yet to have a conscious human experience. all you have written of are mechanics.
Simone lived her philosophy. She didn’t live in universities trying to spiritually abuse students. What other philosopher has done this?

At one time philosophy and psychology were united in the quest to understand human “being.” Removing the conscious element has reduced psychology to behaviorism forcing their separation.

Psychology for you is behaviorism or what we do and for me it is the study of human being or what we are in relation to consciousness itself. People now study it as Transpersonal psychology.

Transpersonal psychology is a sub-field or "school" of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. It is also possible to define it as a "spiritual psychology".

Here is the beginning of an essay on Transperonl psychology.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/ATT89150.ATT.pdf
“Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all around it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness.? William James, Varieties of religious experience.

Introduction

Transpersonal Psychology represents a fundamentally different model of the consciousness. It incorporates existing models of psychology and adds the perspectives gained by studies of the perennial philosophy and modern experiential schools. It represents a serious attempt to integrate the scientific and spiritual traditions. Traditional psychology sees the mind and consciousness as arising out of neuro-physiological processes and unable to exist independently of the living brain. Transpersonal psychology understands consciousness as not just a product of brain process but as independent of the brain. This is a seriously radical idea, perhaps of similar significance to the advent of quantum physics which totally revolutionized our understanding of the physical world and which found it to be so much more complex and difficult to understand than the more simple Newtonian model which had served for the previous few hundred years. According to the transpersonal model, the brain and the senses are the hardware through which consciousness can be expressed and experienced. Some of the software (or the operating system) comes from outside of the brain. Consciousness is not limited to the bony confines of the skull but is the stuff of the universe and is immanent in everything. Sir James Jeans, distinguished physicist, astronomer and philosopher summarizing the implications of quantum physics noted that ‘the universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine, mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought to hail it as the creator and governor of the world of matter’ (Wilber 1984)…………………………….
Your goal is apparently to indoctrinate the brain to create altered states of consciousness in order to train animal Man while my concern is for opening the human organism so as to receive the help of higher consciousness in order to become a normal conscious soul. This will always be our essential disagreement. You seek an artificially created linear animal perspective and I support efforts to awaken to our potential for a normal vertical human perspective connecting higher and lower realities.
N: Simone lived her philosophy.
As I had stated, Simone is all talk and no action.
What sort of spiritual practices did Simone introduced that could enhance the individual spirituality.

The danger with "all talk and no action" is it will activate and reinforced one to believe in an illusion. This is what Simone was actually reinforcing.

I don't think Simone was into Transpersonal psychology.
Even with Transpersonal psychology, one is still triggered to reinforce the belief in an illusion, i.e. as above,
.... we are beginning to suspect that we ought to hail it as the creator and governor of the world of matter’ (Wilber 1984)
Where is the proof and justification for such a creator and governor?
One point is, it is natural you will deny the above correlation re 1-3 because of the desperate and terrible psychological impulses that compel you to be believe those illusions as real. This is like [not exactly] a schizo believing Gnomes are real because he 'spoke' to them in his garden.
I’ve said all along that as we are living in imagination we are victims of self deception. There is nothing for me to deny. You just seem to deny the importance of conscious attention for distinguishing between the wheat and the tares.
"Seem" ??
Your 'seem' is wrong.
Your conscious attention to 'a creator and governor ....' is a delusion since there is no proof and justification for it.
I have argued the ground and basis for the above postulation is your own existential psychology which you deny or have no clue at all.
I agree one need new 'eyes' and 'ears' which is why we need an altered state of consciousness which is different from the normal waking/sensual consciousness.
We live in altered states of consciousness created by our interpretations. What we need are conscious experiences
You are wrong on the above.
As I had suggested you need to research more into Altered States of Consciousness and preferably to have real direct experience of real spiritual ASCs.
What is needed is an altered state of consciousness that enable to understand an transcendental illusion [idea of God] as an illusion and not taking it as real. In such a state, the self will not be ignorantly attached, clung to ideas [of God, soul, essence, Absolute oneness, etc.].

In such a state, one can be activated by emotions yet not be emotional. In addition, one will be above to understand reality in wider and deeper perspectives.
You seem to want to join with the Borg. You want to be absorbed into their grand collective. You believe resistance is futile and the God/Man connection will be eliminated and replaced with the worship of the grand collective or what Plato called the Beast.

I would rather support those who have understood the effect of the fallen condition on their being and desire to awaken to the normal human need to become a normal human individual with a normal conscience as opposed to a Borg. These people wish to attain a normal human perspective worthy of the name Man.
Seem?? No!
As usual you are generating a straw man and force the views of others in your own self-created pigeon holes of negatives.

I suggest again; you need to research more into Altered States of Consciousness and preferably to have real direct experience of real spiritual ASCs.
Note this thread and read more on the subject;

DMT - The Spiritual Molecule
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25349

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:18 am

Veritas
N: Simone lived her philosophy.
As I had stated, Simone is all talk and no action.
What sort of spiritual practices did Simone introduced that could enhance the individual spirituality.

The danger with "all talk and no action" is it will activate and reinforced one to believe in an illusion. This is what Simone was actually reinforcing.
Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.
To her gravestone was attached a small plaque written in Italian which translates: "My solitude held in its grasp the grief of others till my death.
This is what you do not understand. Simone was an awakening influence serving animal Man’s potential to become human. Can there be a better purpose than living a life dedicated to the conscious experience of reality and serving awakening to the process of human conscious potential ? You would say yes; it is dedication to the cause of animal man becoming indoctrinated to become an automaton in service to the whims of the state created by puppet masters. Our basic disagreement/
You are wrong on the above.
As I had suggested you need to research more into Altered States of Consciousness and preferably to have real direct experience of real spiritual ASCs.
We perceive colors because they are reflections of light from a given object. The rest are absorbed by the object. People argue colors as the ultimate truth unaware that they are but reflections concealing the white light within which they are a part.

It is the same with your ASCs. They just serve to conceal the conscious truth of which they are an interpretation. People get lost in them much to their own disadvantage and even destroy their lives in the process.
“To give up our imaginary position as the center, to renounce it, not only intellectually but in the imaginative part of our soul, that means to awaken to what is real and eternal, to see the true light and hear the true silence.” ― Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace
Acquiring a human perspective requires abandoning your self important cave perspective. You are dedicated to blind denial of some non existent enemy. It is your color.

Sometimes people who experience their own colors begin to realize there must be a quality of light from which all these interpretations arose. They are open to help each other get beyond the limitations of their opinions, their colors, so as to become open to the white light or the source of their colors. You prefer to argue colors and defend the cave perspectives they create. Most are like you and prefer to argue colors. Yet there are a minority in both philosophy and the essence of religion needing to go beyond arguing and experience what philosophy and the essence of religion offer. Simone was one. That is why she seems so absurd to you. She was concerned with what we are in the context of the potential for human being itself: an idea intolerable for secularism only concerned with what one does as an automaton of the state.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:10 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:18 am
Veritas
N: Simone lived her philosophy.
As I had stated, Simone is all talk and no action.
What sort of spiritual practices did Simone introduced that could enhance the individual spirituality.

The danger with "all talk and no action" is it will activate and reinforced one to believe in an illusion. This is what Simone was actually reinforcing.
Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.
To her gravestone was attached a small plaque written in Italian which translates: "My solitude held in its grasp the grief of others till my death.
This is what you do not understand. Simone was an awakening influence serving animal Man’s potential to become human. Can there be a better purpose than living a life dedicated to the conscious experience of reality and serving awakening to the process of human conscious potential ? You would say yes; it is dedication to the cause of animal man becoming indoctrinated to become an automaton in service to the whims of the state created by puppet masters. Our basic disagreement/
You are wrong on the above.
As I had suggested you need to research more into Altered States of Consciousness and preferably to have real direct experience of real spiritual ASCs.
We perceive colors because they are reflections of light from a given object. The rest are absorbed by the object. People argue colors as the ultimate truth unaware that they are but reflections concealing the white light within which they are a part.

It is the same with your ASCs. They just serve to conceal the conscious truth of which they are an interpretation. People get lost in them much to their own disadvantage and even destroy their lives in the process.
“To give up our imaginary position as the center, to renounce it, not only intellectually but in the imaginative part of our soul, that means to awaken to what is real and eternal, to see the true light and hear the true silence.” ― Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace
Acquiring a human perspective requires abandoning your self important cave perspective. You are dedicated to blind denial of some non existent enemy. It is your color.

Sometimes people who experience their own colors begin to realize there must be a quality of light from which all these interpretations arose. They are open to help each other get beyond the limitations of their opinions, their colors, so as to become open to the white light or the source of their colors. You prefer to argue colors and defend the cave perspectives they create. Most are like you and prefer to argue colors. Yet there are a minority in both philosophy and the essence of religion needing to go beyond arguing and experience what philosophy and the essence of religion offer. Simone was one. That is why she seems so absurd to you. She was concerned with what we are in the context of the potential for human being itself: an idea intolerable for secularism only concerned with what one does as an automaton of the state.
As usual you are generating a straw man and force the views of others into your own self-created pigeon holes of negatives.
You should at least get a confirmation from me regarding my beliefs and understand [not necessary agree] before you critique them.
This is very intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.

You don't understand what are altered states of consciousness [ASC] with reference to spirituality and insist so confidently they are like 'colors are not the ultimate truth,' the cave analogy, etc.
I bet you do not understand or have the wrong conception of what is meant by ultimate truths.

Note you quoted Needham and I proved and reduced his thoughts to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality.
Now you introduced Thomas Merton and mysticism which is also reducible to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality, note..
Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them.[web 1] It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.
-Wiki
Note the mention of "practices" within mysticism as above.
Where is Simone's recommended practices?

I have asserted Simone Weil is "all talk but no action" in enabling one to cultivate one spirituality to higher states.
I don't deny the talk of the mystical by mystics can be very inspiring and soothing to many people with such inclinations. Whatever Simone proposed is not crude theism like the Abrahamics' but the ultimate is whatever is claimed in such mysticism it must be justified, i.e. justified true beliefs.

You have introduced Needham, Merton, what's next?
Desert Fathers, Meister Eckhart, Cloud of the Unknowing, .... ????
Whichever you take, they all deal with altered states of consciousness re spirituality.
I argued all these ASCs are reducible to human existential psychology.

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:16 am

V A
You don't understand what are altered states of consciousness [ASC] with reference to spirituality and insist so confidently they are like 'colors are not the ultimate truth,' the cave analogy, etc.
I bet you do not understand or have the wrong conception of what is meant by ultimate truths.
The ultimate truth is the quality of truth all partial truths revolve around.
Note you quoted Needham and I proved and reduced his thoughts to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality.
Now you introduced Thomas Merton and mysticism which is also reducible to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality, note..
I don’t know who Needham is. I have quoted Jacob Needleman who was included in the link you posted
Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them.[web 1] It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.
-Wiki
I have never heard of alternate states of consciousness. I know of altered states of consciousness. Here is a description of altered states of consciousness.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... sciousness
Altered states of consciousness, sometimes called non-ordinary states, include various mental states in which the mind can be aware but is not in its usual wakeful condition, such as during hypnosis, meditation, hallucination, trance, and the dream stage.* Altered states can occur anywhere from yoga class to the birth of a child. They allow us to see our lives and ourselves with a broader lens and from different angles of perception than the ordinary mind………………...
The trouble with the article is that it avoids the necessary distinction between fantasy and noesis. Yes ASCs can offer alternatives to habitual thought. So do drugs but what value are they for the seeker of truth? The article gives the impression that distinguishing between a conscious noetic experience and fantasy is unnecessary. We create our own reality. Without this distinction based on relative quality the concept becomes meaningless.

Consciousness and imagination are mutually exclusive. They do not exist together in our psych. Imagination replaces consciousness. Taking some drugs, lying back, and flying around Saturn is not the same as having a genuine conscious experience of intuition.
Note the mention of "practices" within mysticism as above.
Where is Simone's recommended practices?
She advocated becoming capable of sustained conscious attention. For example from a personal letter written shortly before her death often referred to as her spiritual autobiography:
During all this time of spiritual progress I had never prayed. I was afraid of the power of suggestion that is in prayer -- the very power for which Pascal recommends it. Pascal's method seems to me one of the worst for attaining faith.

Contact with you was not able to persuade me to pray. On the contrary I thought the danger was all the greater, since I also had to beware of the power of suggestion in my friendship with you. At the same time I found it very difficult not to pray and not to tell you so. Moreover I knew I could not tell you without completely misleading you about myself. At that time I should not have been able to make you understand.

Until last September I had never once prayed in all my life, at least not in the literal sense of the word. I had never said any words to God, either out loud or mentally. I had never pronounced a liturgical prayer. I had occasionally recited the Salve Regina, but only as a beautiful poem.

Last summer, doing Greek with T-, I went through the Our Father word for word in Greek. We promised each other to learn it by heart. I do not think he ever did so, but some weeks later, as I was turning over the pages of the Gospel, I said to myself that since I had promised to do this thing and it was good, I ought to do it. I did it. The infinite sweetness of this Greek text so took hold of me that for several days I could not stop myself from saying it over all the time. A week afterward I began the vine harvest I recited the Our Father in Greek every day before work, and I repeated it very often in the vineyard.

Since that time I have made a practice of saying it through once each morning with absolute attention. If during the recitation my attention wanders or goes to sleep, in the minutest degree, I begin again until I have once succeeded in going through it with absolutely pure attention. Sometimes it comes about that I say it again out of sheer pleasure, but I only do it if I really feel the impulse.

The effect of this practice is extraordinary and surprises me every time, for, although I experience it each day, it exceeds my expectation at each repetition.

At times the very first words tear my thoughts from my body and transport it to a place outside space where there is neither perspective nor point of view. The infinity of the ordinary expanses of perception is replaced by an infinity to the second or sometimes the third degree. At the same time, filling every part of this infinity of infinity, there is silence, a silence which is not an absence of sound but which is the object of a positive sensation, more positive than that of sound. Noises, if there are any, only reach me after crossing this silence..................

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:40 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:16 am
V A
You don't understand what are altered states of consciousness [ASC] with reference to spirituality and insist so confidently they are like 'colors are not the ultimate truth,' the cave analogy, etc.
I bet you do not understand or have the wrong conception of what is meant by ultimate truths.
The ultimate truth is the quality of truth all partial truths revolve around.
What is ultimate truth is the truth that all truths ultimately is co-dependent with the human condition.
There are no standalone truths, like there is a God that exists independently by itself and for most theists, God created the Universe which is a very problematic proposition.
Note you quoted Needham and I proved and reduced his thoughts to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality.
Now you introduced Thomas Merton and mysticism which is also reducible to Altered States of Consciousness re Spirituality, note..
I don’t know who Needham is. I have quoted Jacob Needleman who was included in the link you posted
Principle of Charity?
It is just a spelling error in reference to an earlier context.
Mysticism is the practice of religious ecstasies (religious experiences during alternate states of consciousness), together with whatever ideologies, ethics, rites, myths, legends, and magic may be related to them.[web 1] It may also refer to the attainment of insight in ultimate or hidden truths, and to human transformation supported by various practices and experiences.
-Wiki
I have never heard of alternate states of consciousness. I know of altered states of consciousness. Here is a description of altered states of consciousness.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... sciousness
Altered states of consciousness, sometimes called non-ordinary states, include various mental states in which the mind can be aware but is not in its usual wakeful condition, such as during hypnosis, meditation, hallucination, trance, and the dream stage.* Altered states can occur anywhere from yoga class to the birth of a child. They allow us to see our lives and ourselves with a broader lens and from different angles of perception than the ordinary mind………………...
The trouble with the article is that it avoids the necessary distinction between fantasy and noesis. Yes ASCs can offer alternatives to habitual thought. So do drugs but what value are they for the seeker of truth? The article gives the impression that distinguishing between a conscious noetic experience and fantasy is unnecessary. We create our own reality. Without this distinction based on relative quality the concept becomes meaningless.

Consciousness and imagination are mutually exclusive. They do not exist together in our psych. Imagination replaces consciousness. Taking some drugs, lying back, and flying around Saturn is not the same as having a genuine conscious experience of intuition.
That is your problem.
You pick merely on one article as the full representation of the subject.
I suggest you focus more on altered states of consciousness in relation to spirituality, religion, mysticism, hallucinogens in the spiritual context and other related areas.
Note the mention of "practices" within mysticism as above.
Where is Simone's recommended practices?
She advocated becoming capable of sustained conscious attention. For example from a personal letter written shortly before her death often referred to as her spiritual autobiography:
During all this time of spiritual progress I had never prayed. I was afraid of the power of suggestion that is in prayer -- the very power for which Pascal recommends it. Pascal's method seems to me one of the worst for attaining faith.

Contact with you was not able to persuade me to pray. On the contrary I thought the danger was all the greater, since I also had to beware of the power of suggestion in my friendship with you. At the same time I found it very difficult not to pray and not to tell you so. Moreover I knew I could not tell you without completely misleading you about myself. At that time I should not have been able to make you understand.

Until last September I had never once prayed in all my life, at least not in the literal sense of the word. I had never said any words to God, either out loud or mentally. I had never pronounced a liturgical prayer. I had occasionally recited the Salve Regina, but only as a beautiful poem.

Last summer, doing Greek with T-, I went through the Our Father word for word in Greek. We promised each other to learn it by heart. I do not think he ever did so, but some weeks later, as I was turning over the pages of the Gospel, I said to myself that since I had promised to do this thing and it was good, I ought to do it. I did it. The infinite sweetness of this Greek text so took hold of me that for several days I could not stop myself from saying it over all the time. A week afterward I began the vine harvest I recited the Our Father in Greek every day before work, and I repeated it very often in the vineyard.

Since that time I have made a practice of saying it through once each morning with absolute attention. If during the recitation my attention wanders or goes to sleep, in the minutest degree, I begin again until I have once succeeded in going through it with absolutely pure attention. Sometimes it comes about that I say it again out of sheer pleasure, but I only do it if I really feel the impulse.

The effect of this practice is extraordinary and surprises me every time, for, although I experience it each day, it exceeds my expectation at each repetition.

At times the very first words tear my thoughts from my body and transport it to a place outside space where there is neither perspective nor point of view. The infinity of the ordinary expanses of perception is replaced by an infinity to the second or sometimes the third degree. At the same time, filling every part of this infinity of infinity, there is silence, a silence which is not an absence of sound but which is the object of a positive sensation, more positive than that of sound. Noises, if there are any, only reach me after crossing this silence..................
Prayers as Simone mentioned above is kindergarten stuff with reference to spirituality. Even a child is taught to pray from very young.

The "absolutely pure attention" which Simone mentioned above is more advanced prayers but it is still basic which nevertheless do invoke some basis altered-states-of-consciousness. This is basic meditation practices which are preliminary stuffs of spirituality in most Eastern spiritual practices.

The point is Simone did not establish any tutorial for the above basics.

Note "absolutely pure attention" is a very complicated issue as it is natural for the brain/mind to wander. As such this point need more elaborations and practices on how to deal with and accept the natural 'monkey mind.'
Note the concept of "Pure Awareness" an altered state of consciousness.
http://www.zenthinking.net/blog/beyond- ... eness-only
One cannot simply jump into this state because there are loads of nuances to deal with else one could be astray by the ego.

If what Simone is proposing is merely kindergarten-grade-school level of spirituality, just imagine the range of spiritual practices established by various Eastern schools that cover up to Masters and PhD levels.

When one is stuck at the basic level of spirituality, one is more inclined to an illusory based spirituality, i.e. theism in Simone's and your case.
Btw, I am not saying Simone should have changed or you to change, but one need to understand one's optimal position in the hierarchy of spiritual development.

The problem with you in this discussion is, unaware of your position you keep insisting your approach is 'superior' to others and kept inventing straw man to put others down.

Nick_A
Posts: 3809
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:52 am

V A
What is ultimate truth is the truth that all truths ultimately is co-dependent with the human condition.
There are no standalone truths, like there is a God that exists independently by itself and for most theists, God created the Universe which is a very problematic proposition.
We begin with different premises. You write that God doesn’t exist and I write that God IS. Isness is the eternal unchanging. All that serves the process of existence takes place within Isness.
That is your problem.
You pick merely on one article as the full representation of the subject.
I suggest you focus more on altered states of consciousness in relation to spirituality, religion, mysticism, hallucinogens in the spiritual context and other related areas.
Again, you don’t seem to accept the difference between a direct conscious experience and an experience of an altered state of consciousness which is largely imagination. Regardless if you refer to spirituality, religion, mysticism, hallucinogens, or whatever, these experiences differ in objective quality. Any article failing to recognize this distinction will lack meaning.
Prayers as Simone mentioned above is kindergarten stuff with reference to spirituality. Even a child is taught to pray from very young.

The "absolutely pure attention" which Simone mentioned above is more advanced prayers but it is still basic which nevertheless do invoke some basis altered-states-of-consciousness. This is basic meditation practices which are preliminary stuffs of spirituality in most Eastern spiritual practices.

The point is Simone did not establish any tutorial for the above basics.
Simone Weil wrote:
“"Attention consists of suspending our thought, leaving it detached, empty and ready to be penetrated by the object. It means holding in our minds, within reach of this thought, but on a lower level and not in contact with it, the diverse knowledge we have acquired which we are forced to make use of. Above all our thought should be empty, waiting, not seeking anything, but ready to receive in its naked truth the object which is to penetrate it."

"Absolute unmixed attention is prayer. "
Do you understand what she is describing and why absolute attention is prayer. Is any child taught this?

Simone Weil was not interested in escapism but rather in acquiring the understanding and conscious perspective only a few possess in order to become human. She didn’t want to teach; she wanted to learn. I learn from the quality of her search and experiences. She wrote:
………….. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth……………………
The problem with you in this discussion is, unaware of your position you keep insisting your approach is 'superior' to others and kept inventing straw man to put others down.
Anyone with a sincere interest in the objective meaning and purpose of our universe and Man’s place within it must begin with a foundation for contemplation. If you deny universal purpose and an objective purpose for Man, then we have a basic disagreement. It is no put down to admit it.

Without humanity in general acquiring a realistic perspective uniting the living wholeness of creation with the fragmentation of its parts, our species will become consumed by technology and Man’s collective conscious evolution will be prevented by imgintion.

Admitting the struggle between our higher and lower natures and the resulting inner slavery to imagination is too insulting for secularism to tolerate. That is why Jesus and Socrates had to die. Their awareness of reality could not be tolerated. I side with the minority who strive to keep the great ideas alive in the world regardless of the secular growls they inspire for the sake of awakening to a human perspective.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests