Duveyoung, I find this rather an intriguing response. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@...> wrote:
> X, > > Not so sure I can defend the equation. If Curtis pipes in, I'm doomed, but, > but, but . . . let's see what I come up with. > > To me, radiation-less space has the quality of "being almost not there" -- > and it would be tough to say more, but consider how everyone feels they have > a significant clarity about time's various attributes or at least most folks > have had a lot of experience with mentally chewing on the concept of time and > its various presentations. Who hasn't experienced time's relativity? > "Eternity in an hour.....," and all that. > > But try to get someone to talk about the qualities of radiation-less space > and how these qualities are discernible in daily life, and we hear crickets > out to the horizon. What an interesting sentence. It feels very Zen. By radiation-less space I am assuming you mean truly *empty* space without electromagnetic radiation passing through it, or particles (like cosmic 'rays'). In this universe, there is the observation called the Lamb shift, indicating virtual photons come into being and out again in the electromagnetic quantum field. Without objects or particles, waves, or gravity, there is no handle you can attach to space to give it any sense of dimension. If you examine spiritual language, it is really analogical, with words for physical phenomena such as 'light' representing spirit or consciousness, and words such as 'great' implying size dimensions bigger than some other aspect that is being talked about, utilising the concepts of non-empty space to convey an idea. > > We all feel we can (by some metric, however so relative,) know about time's > passing, but, if we accelerate a person towards the speed of light, at no > point along that journey do we expect one to say something like: "I feel a > huge increase in the amount of space whizzing between my atoms, not the usual > ho-hum amount I usually feel from the various vectors I am participating in, > such as the motion of the earth, or the solar system's motion around the > galactic core, etc." > > Astronauts have yet to report anything about space moving faster through > them....like that. Yet that is precisely the truth if Einstein is correct > when he insists that we forever marry space-and-time. It would seem our concept of time is based on objects in space that are moving, and that differential gives us the feeling of progression. Have you ever sat in a car at a stop light, and not quite paying attention, the light changes and the car next to you speeds ahead, and suddenly you think you are rolling backward even though you are not moving on the street? > > Unknown too is the Self -- which the scriptures of the world seem to agree is > beyond any instrumentality's grasping, be it physical or conceptual. The idea of Self, as opposed to self with the small 's' seems to have the purpose of setting up a goal in the mind, a goal that is greater than what and where we are now, even though where and what we are now is in fact what is always so. In attempting to visualise empty space, which is really impossible to do, you eliminate everything that creates any sense of size, duration, and even meaning in life. Something that is static has no progression or sense of change. To sense that life is even just dull and boring, let alone interesting and fun, requires a sense of dimension and duration, as you intimate in the following sentence: > > The clockwork whirring of the mind's gears is, as is time's passage, > perceivable to all, such that we all feel ourselves to be quite intimate with > the passage of time due to the metronome ticking of "objects of > consciousness" as they pass through the mind. > > Commonly, and spiritually alarming, most of us are in the thrall of thoughts > and identify with them as if they are "bits of self on parade." Disturb > someone's thoughts, and it can be as jarring to them as keying the side of > their car might be -- such is the power of one's deluded identification with > ideation. Yes. The identification with ideation is the killer. Even knowing this intimately intellectually does not break the chains. Meditation, solitude, or having someone around who knows how to push your buttons in a way to get you to experience through the identification seem to be the greatest aids in breaking the chains that hold us in thrall with our thinking. It took me more than a third of century to finally have a major breakthrough in this. I was alone, minding my own business when it happened spontaneously. But it has taken some time to get comfortable with this new perception of thought and its relationship with experience, with some difficult bumps along the way. And this redefines sense of self and even Self. It is as if the mystery of existence is solved without the mystery going away. > > The only way to win thermonuclear war is to never play that game -- same deal > with winning the thought war....don't start playing with the tar baby. If the identification with thought is finally broken through, there seem to be ways to use thought to continue that process, like reading things by people whose ideas you do not like or with whom you disagree. Getting into a few philosophical arguments, like here on this forum is also a good way to continue that process. Reading what philosophers and scientists think about consciousness is another way. There is no general agreement here among these people that are not towing some traditional ideological line, and their ideas can bring in some fresh air if you try to visualise how they see the world in the way they express it. > The hardest part about spiritual evolution is that we can have no sense of > any attributes about Self, and therefore we cannot know if we (our small > selves) are evolving into greater resonance with it -- just as an increase in > the amount of space flowing through our atoms is imperceptible but real > nonetheless. Obviously "faith" is a response this issue of unknowability. I would agree this is a problem. Faith is a response, but tends to be a kind of mindless one. Some kind of trigger, a slight experiencing of opening up, a realisation, or anything that give one a hint of what 'the goal' might be like helps a lot. Faith in the absence of some kind of tangible experience just locks you down in a fantasy. But even if one has what would be called 'good' experiences, one can go through long dead periods that last months, years, even decades where progress seems a distant memory. In the end that stagnation of progress is seen to be part of the fantasy one was pursuing. > > Again, this is a comparative analogy, and I like the exercise, but in > actuality, space is, however so subtly, part of "that which is manifest," and > therefore cannot be, as no other thing can be either, instructive about Self, > but the study of space is evolutionary for the small self such that clarity > about space, silence, love, etc. can bring the mind to lesser states of > anxiety, such that, with the mental cacophony reduced in intensity by > meditation of many sorts, be expected to be, however so little, more prepared > for ascertaining just exactly why the small self is necessarily an artifact > of Self and unworthy of identification -- which would be narcissistic sin. If the sense of 'self' dissolves the idea of 'Self' as opposed to the little self also dissolves because its characteristic as an idea depends on the dichotomy of the two concepts. There is an experience, but there is no need to define it unless you really want to tell someone about it and there is someone who really wants to hear about it. Then you have to make up stuff or proffer some traditional method of inviting them into this singular mystery of experience. > > Such clarity can be expected to "max out" when identification becomes > universal and beyond universe. > > Tell Shakespeare: "To be beyond being or non-being cannot be questioned." > > Tell Descartes: "Amness precedes ego, and amness is an artifact of silence." > > > Tell Godel: "Say hi for me if you see Nisargatta." > > Edg Beyond is a spacial concept. There really is, experientially, no beyond. It is an idea, if handled properly, that may lead us on to where we are but do not think we are, and saying that that way of course is using spacial concepts that seem to pin down a location of where we are or are not, so it is not ultimately true in a literal sense. Is-ness precedes am-ness but note that 'precedes' is a spacial construct too, so it really is not true either when dealing with these concepts, it is a way of characterising a typical progression of experience on a spiritual path, if by misfortune you do not become completely enlightened all at once, which seems to be the lot of most of us. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > The problem most folks have with relativity is that they don't grok > > > "space" nearly as much as they do "time." > > > > > > Same deal with them when it comes to seeing the importance of Self when > > > everyone goes around strutting as an expert on thoughts. > > > > > > Edg > > > > Duveyoung, could you elaborate a bit on the second sentence? I may be > > dense, and do not quite get the gist of what you are saying. As an analogy, > > it does not quite seem to sync with the first sentence, so either I am > > unclear, or your sentence is too vague, and if you respond, you can let me > > know which you feel it is. > > > > I get that it is easier to visualise time distortion than the distortion of > > space, which I believe most probably visualise as being very rectilinear > > and stable. Most seem to not appreciate there is a distinction between the > > concept of 'self' as opposed to 'Self', as 'Self' is not a commonly known > > concept in the United States at least. I have friends for whom this idea > > makes no sense whatever. > > > > But it only makes sense from a certain perspective. 'Self' versus 'self' > > does not really mean anything if you discover what these terms are all > > about, because they are part of the mythos of a particular set of spiritual > > paths, and only have relevance for part of that trek when one is under the > > influence of the dream. > > >
