Kevin's Watch

The Esmer wrote:The "doorway" to this perception is "internal silence", or "not-doing", or "stopping the world".

When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive.

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

The Esmer wrote:

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

The Esmer wrote:I "know", heh, that I can't "convince" you of this, --A, or at least have you admit it if I ever did,

The Esmer wrote:Fist, you are indeed correct, but what I am saying is that Tao is "talking about" Gnosis. That the "original" source is the one from which Tao, and all other religions and philosophies, have "sprung from". And it is my assertation that the Toltec's were Gnostics, and Don Juan Matus was a Gnostic, and that he alone has provided not only a "blueprint", but a technical and instructional manual to achieve these awesome "feats of awareness". All others "describe" what one may find, in inadequate and most importanly SUBJECTIVE "human terminology", but none tell you how to get there. This alone makes it, to me, the single most important scientific and religious information to be found in this day and age. Disproving this is my ultimate goal, for that provides me with the "ultimate truth", by eliminating the irrelevant and insufficient, all we are left with is the "irreducible residue" of what stands the "test of truth".

The Esmer wrote:(PS - Fist, my posts wouldn't be so long if more people "talked to me" more often, heh. My posts just sit there so I just keep adding to them, trying to "debate myself", you just can't see the questions and challenges I am imposing upon myself to clarify my statements. )

Fist and Faith wrote:

The Esmer wrote:

Here is a simple test, and one that a mathemitician could provide insight on, but not necessarily needed.

What are the odds of awareness and intent "evolving" into being from a "source" (big bang-esque) that does not contain awareness and intent, compared to a "source" that does have awareness and intent as part of it's "makeup"?

It's the law and science of Logic and Reason that supports this, and makes it more likely mathematically speaking that the "source" of "everything" is indeed "conscious" and "aware".

We cannot answer this in any meaningful way. It's all speculation. We can't possibly know whether or not awareness and intent can arise from a source that does not contain awareness and intent.


but we can "construct" a mathematical formula that can "represent" these odds. Just more bits of circumstantial evidence of the "known" that we can collect to assist us in discovering the "unknown". We need all the assuredness we can get to embrace such faith in the "unknowable". and "common sense" tells us automatically that it is more likely, just by "simple reasoning", which may be sufficient, lacking anything better you have to offer at the moment to convince yourself.


Just as we cannot know if a reality that operates on the principle of Cause & Effect can, itself, be uncaused. It is only the law and science of someone's subjective Logic and Reason that supports this. Another person's logic and reason might say that, to take a familiar example, it is more likely for this unimaginably huge and complex reality to be uncaused than for a being - God - capable of envisioning and creating it to be uncaused. God, after all, must be even more complex to have done this. Like everything else, logic and reason are more subjective than we'd often like them to be, and can only get us so far.


agree, wholly, but it is exactly my point that reason and logic can get us right to the edge, where we can observe the process you describe, and from there we stand without a plan, the best we can do is "clues". So the Warrior's task is to weed out the bad clues from the good clues, and from there maybe catch but a brief glimpse, of something that looks like so much more...

The Esmer wrote:I "know", heh, that I can't "convince" you of this, --A, or at least have you admit it if I ever did,

I'm quite sure you're wrong about the second part.


It delights me to be so humbled for such a coarse and ignorant comment.

The Esmer wrote:Fist, you are indeed correct, but what I am saying is that Tao is "talking about" Gnosis. That the "original" source is the one from which Tao, and all other religions and philosophies, have "sprung from". And it is my assertation that the Toltec's were Gnostics, and Don Juan Matus was a Gnostic, and that he alone has provided not only a "blueprint", but a technical and instructional manual to achieve these awesome "feats of awareness". All others "describe" what one may find, in inadequate and most importanly SUBJECTIVE "human terminology", but none tell you how to get there. This alone makes it, to me, the single most important scientific and religious information to be found in this day and age. Disproving this is my ultimate goal, for that provides me with the "ultimate truth", by eliminating the irrelevant and insufficient, all we are left with is the "irreducible residue" of what stands the "test of truth".

Alas, I have read very little DJM, and no Gnosticism at all. But in general, my feeling has been that X is talking about Tao. Just some stuff added to the core teaching of taoism. Not intentially, mind you. Many systems developed without ever having heard of taoism. But it looks, to me, that taoism tells of certain things that are common to many people, and some people/groups/cultures added onto it. What they added depended on things like their history, geography, language, and lots of other things.


looks like an indepth discussion.

But the last 13 months of my life have been... well... eventful, draining, time consuming, and all that. If I get the chance some day, I'll be back!

My posts just sit there so I just keep adding to them, trying to "debate myself", you just can't see the questions and challenges I am imposing upon myself to clarify my statements.

Avatar wrote:But I'd be very interested to see a formulae for the odds of intent arising without intent backing it. Very interested.

The Esmer wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:We cannot answer this in any meaningful way. It's all speculation. We can't possibly know whether or not awareness and intent can arise from a source that does not contain awareness and intent.

but we can "construct" a mathematical formula that can "represent" these odds. Just more bits of circumstantial evidence of the "known" that we can collect to assist us in discovering the "unknown". We need all the assuredness we can get to embrace such faith in the "unknowable". and "common sense" tells us automatically that it is more likely, just by "simple reasoning", which may be sufficient, lacking anything better you have to offer at the moment to convince yourself.

Avatar wrote:And of course, as Prebe keeps touching on, if all intent depends on intent, then we'd simply be faced with the inevitable question of what intent that backing intent arose from. Is it elephants all the way to the bottom?

Avatar wrote:Very carefully indeed usually. That's not to say "clearly" always, but "carefully" without doubt.

Plissken wrote:Esmer is using language carefully? Icons and siggys maybe. But language?

I'm clearly getting distracted by the punctuation. I must now go and re-read his posts.

The Esmer wrote:And if I'm wrong? What harm can come to me attempting to "mimic angels", if my death is already certain, and what better time could be spent than trying to "find God" by "knowing myself"?

The Esmer wrote:Fist, I'm saying that "simple logic" tells us that "something" that came from "something like it" is more likely than "something" coming from "something not 'et al' like it". The "simple fact" that we are aware tells us that it is "likely" we came from something that also is aware.

The Esmer wrote:(And in my "defense", may I say I do quite well considering most of it comes out of my gut? or is that butt? heh. )

The Esmer wrote:

Avatar wrote:And if I'm wrong? What harm can come to me attempting to "mimic angels", if my death is already certain, and what better time could be spent than trying to "find God" by "knowing myself"?

No harm at all. And, as far as I'm concerned, through oneself is the only way to percieve "god", because, afterall, "Thou art God."

Avatar wrote:(Turtles, Elephants, it's all the same Fist. )

None of which, however, addresses my question about the origin of the original "intent".

And I'm not nearly convinced that this first awareness isn't us.

The Esmer wrote:syntax - def:The rules governing construction or formation of an orderly system of information

Syntax

A man staring at his equations
said that the universe had a beginning.
There had been an explosion, he said.
A bang of bangs, and the universe was born.
And it is expanding, he said.
He had even calculated the length of its life:
Ten billion revolutions around the sun.
The entire globe cheered;
They found his calculations to be science.
None thought that by proposing that the universe began,
the man had merely mirrored the syntax of his mother tongue;
a syntax which demands beginnings, like birth,
and developments, like maturation,
and ends, like death, as statements as facts.
The universe began,
and it is getting old, the man assured us,
and it will die, like all things die,
like he himself died after confirming mathematically
the syntax of his mother tongue.

The Other Syntax

Did the universe really begin?
Is the theory of the big bang true?
These are not questions, though they sound that they are.
Is the syntax that requires beginnings, developments
and ends as statements of fact the only syntax that exists?
Thats the real question.
There are other syntaxes.
There is one, for example, which demands that varieties
of intensity be taken as facts.
In that syntax nothing begins and nothing ends;
thus birth is not a clean, clear-cut event,
but a specific type of intensity,
and so is maturation, and so is death.
A man of that syntax, looking over his equations, finds that
he has calculated enough varieties of intensity
to say with authority
that the universe never began
and will never end,
but that it has gone, and is going, and will go
through endless fluctuations of intensity.
That man could very well conclude that the universe itself
is the chariot of intensity
and that one can board it
to journey through changes without end.
He will conclude all that, and much more,
perhaps without ever realizing
that he is merely confirming
the syntax of his mother tongue.
prologue - The Active Side of Infinity

endless fluctuations of intensity