For those interested in pursuing alternative literature (untested ideas) - I would recommend the following:
“Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” Barbara Dewey, 1993. Bartholomew Books,
"The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality" by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, 1990. New York: Springer-Verlag
"The Holotropic Mind:The Three Levels of Human Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives." Grof, Stanislav, and Bennett, Hal Zina. (1992). San Francisco: Harper Collins.
"Space, Time and Medicine", Larry Dossey, M.D., Shambhala, Boston & London, 1982
"The Holographic Universe" By Michael Talbot, Harper Collins, 1991
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Blogging Time
I think there is a unified vibrational field of energy that co-exists in all things, all places, and all dimensions as the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy. I believe that everything exists because it holds a specific and distinct vibrational pattern that remains connected to, and powered by, the original source pattern of frequency (vibration) - the template of origin from which it emanated. I find this worldview compatible with Barbara Dewey’s “Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” and Rob Bryanton’s "Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way Of Thinking About Time, Space And String Theory."
All else that is distinct from the base or original pattern of existence exists distinctly as an incorporation of a modification to that base pattern, which continues to source the modification while maintaining Its own purity of energy pattern (frequency).
All this exists in movement – which I believe is a pre-requisite for frequency existence, and that time is the product of any modification (change) to every pattern of energy. That is, shifts in continuums of energy patterns create time.
I believe that the distinctness or separateness can be eradicated by consciously shifting focus from the modified pattern of original frequency to the contents of its umbilical cord - the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy, and then uniting with that originating energy. By adapting intent after union, it is possible to “jump” to a dissimilar template (pattern of energy) including dimensions, even time.
Some templates of distinct frequencies can create other vibrationally distinct templates (how ideas are created). Patterns of energy possess greater or lesser form – depending on their frequency, which may or may not be testable by current scientific or technological modalities. This does not preclude the possibility of their existence, or the reality of their existence.
In support of my untestable and less accepted take on reality I go to DKJ’s post on The Daily Phlog, (CR) "My Take on RC", from which I have liberally extracted his words and hopefully, correctly represented his ideas.
#8.“…Our thoughts are true when and if they correspond to the way things are.”
#10. “…Given the arbitrariness and diversity of our conceptualizations, the world determines but never guarantees our access to truth. We may rarely, if ever, be right about the world…”
#11. “Appeals to science and commonsense…are used fallibilistically and hypothetically to provide evidence in favor of a more robust realism that posits the mind-independent existence and nature of the many objects and relations of everyday experience.”
My worldview is the result of my perceptions and experiences, many of which are untestable by current scientific methods – a fact that, of and by itself, does not necessitate the diminishment of, or require the relinquishing of, my worldview. Being of sound mind, I can not in good conscience automatically presuppose science tests, or lack thereof, are superior to my perceptions and experiences, therefore I can not grant greater credence to their incapability to test over my capacity to perceive, experience and wonder. New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted.
All else that is distinct from the base or original pattern of existence exists distinctly as an incorporation of a modification to that base pattern, which continues to source the modification while maintaining Its own purity of energy pattern (frequency).
All this exists in movement – which I believe is a pre-requisite for frequency existence, and that time is the product of any modification (change) to every pattern of energy. That is, shifts in continuums of energy patterns create time.
I believe that the distinctness or separateness can be eradicated by consciously shifting focus from the modified pattern of original frequency to the contents of its umbilical cord - the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy, and then uniting with that originating energy. By adapting intent after union, it is possible to “jump” to a dissimilar template (pattern of energy) including dimensions, even time.
Some templates of distinct frequencies can create other vibrationally distinct templates (how ideas are created). Patterns of energy possess greater or lesser form – depending on their frequency, which may or may not be testable by current scientific or technological modalities. This does not preclude the possibility of their existence, or the reality of their existence.
In support of my untestable and less accepted take on reality I go to DKJ’s post on The Daily Phlog, (CR) "My Take on RC", from which I have liberally extracted his words and hopefully, correctly represented his ideas.
#8.“…Our thoughts are true when and if they correspond to the way things are.”
#10. “…Given the arbitrariness and diversity of our conceptualizations, the world determines but never guarantees our access to truth. We may rarely, if ever, be right about the world…”
#11. “Appeals to science and commonsense…are used fallibilistically and hypothetically to provide evidence in favor of a more robust realism that posits the mind-independent existence and nature of the many objects and relations of everyday experience.”
My worldview is the result of my perceptions and experiences, many of which are untestable by current scientific methods – a fact that, of and by itself, does not necessitate the diminishment of, or require the relinquishing of, my worldview. Being of sound mind, I can not in good conscience automatically presuppose science tests, or lack thereof, are superior to my perceptions and experiences, therefore I can not grant greater credence to their incapability to test over my capacity to perceive, experience and wonder. New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Origin of Human Ideas
The generally accepted assumption that all human ideas are created from the human mind was mentioned in class. I acknowledge the possibility that that construct could hold true at least some of the time, and for Western cultures I would agree that it is probably perceived as true most of the time. However, I do not believe the human mind to be the sole source of human ideas.
There is the belief that certain ideas exist in the astral realm and are "discovered" by a person after an aspect of their consciousness (mind) connects to pre-(their human)mind-existing thought. The person then assumes ownership and credit for the thought as their own idea. This is how some inventions are believed to have been brought into existences and considered human ideas.
Would we consider thoughts/ideas coming from the mind of a person in an altered state of consciousness as always coming from their human mind? Is a person in an ecstatic state communing with ideas from their mind or another being's Mind, or the One Mind? Are the sources of inspiration - artistic, creative, or natural, confined to the limited containment of a human mind? I hope not.
Taken in the context of a universe that is holographic in nature, as posited by physicist David Bohm, who "associates the existence of 'holomovement' with laws describing an implicit level of reality in an 'implicate' order that is hidden below our experience with the 'explicate order'"("The Conscious Universe:Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory," Kafatos/Nadeau)there exist many humanly unknowable variables, of which space,time, and thought are just a few.
Should we limit ourselves just to that which can be tested against, and by, human created tools of scientific design? There is so much in existence that can not be humanly subjected to disclosure employing current western human-mind theories or experiments.
I prefer the construct comprised of the multiple, simultaneously-existing versions of a single universe, created from, bound together by, and always, at all times, communing through a unifying, singular light/sound frequency. Which calls into question the origin of thought - human or other-being, as well as the concepts of space, time and spacetime.
There is the belief that certain ideas exist in the astral realm and are "discovered" by a person after an aspect of their consciousness (mind) connects to pre-(their human)mind-existing thought. The person then assumes ownership and credit for the thought as their own idea. This is how some inventions are believed to have been brought into existences and considered human ideas.
Would we consider thoughts/ideas coming from the mind of a person in an altered state of consciousness as always coming from their human mind? Is a person in an ecstatic state communing with ideas from their mind or another being's Mind, or the One Mind? Are the sources of inspiration - artistic, creative, or natural, confined to the limited containment of a human mind? I hope not.
Taken in the context of a universe that is holographic in nature, as posited by physicist David Bohm, who "associates the existence of 'holomovement' with laws describing an implicit level of reality in an 'implicate' order that is hidden below our experience with the 'explicate order'"("The Conscious Universe:Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory," Kafatos/Nadeau)there exist many humanly unknowable variables, of which space,time, and thought are just a few.
Should we limit ourselves just to that which can be tested against, and by, human created tools of scientific design? There is so much in existence that can not be humanly subjected to disclosure employing current western human-mind theories or experiments.
I prefer the construct comprised of the multiple, simultaneously-existing versions of a single universe, created from, bound together by, and always, at all times, communing through a unifying, singular light/sound frequency. Which calls into question the origin of thought - human or other-being, as well as the concepts of space, time and spacetime.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Mind, Perception, and Reality?
In an effort to adequately digest "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I spent hours investigating terms, that were to me, unfamiliar, or unclear. Reference.com and the whole "www" failed to provide me with an understanding of "sirfiple units"(Phillips, p.7)
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)