Re: MD Atomic awareness

[Thracian Bard]

Elephant, Your postings always challenge me to open my mind to try to see other's perspectives more clearly as did your latest one to Platt in which you stated:   "It certainly isn't higher quality to remove an "as if" which belongs there. I never saw an actor, however high-quality his acting, go on TV to say that he *really is* Hamlet, and that he boarding a plane to go and lead Danmark in a war against Sweden."   Dear colleague, while I agree entirely that it would be highly unlikely that an actor playing Hamlet would wish to return to Denmark to lead the Danish troops (whether or not, one feels the need to defend against Sweden has really less to do with whether a person is Hamlet as with the current diplomatic situation between the Scandinavian states, and therefore is not germane to the "as if" argument), I still must reserve the possibility that such an actor may be Hamlet; and that you and I and all of us reading this may, in fact, be Hamlet, and Caesar, and Gandhi, and GOD. And there may indeed be a level of Quality inherent in the actor and us admitting this fact.   When Phaedrus describes the visit with Dusenberry to share in the collective meditation with the Native American tribe in the opening chapters of LILA, we are reminded of the connectedness that we all share. This common experience is a real experience. It is shared by each of the participants, with or without narcotic intervention. The peyote, in this case, serves only as a medium. In some cultures, tobacco tea is used. Among many Buddhists, shared consciousness can be achieved through simply (and often for the modern "Homo sapien", doing things simply is quite difficult) emptying their minds utilizing a universal mantra. Both Lao Tze and Jesus suggest that all of us are in fact The TAO / GOD (respectively), and that The TAO / GOD is, in fact, all of us (humans, animals, rocks, water, gases, stars, planets, etc..) No wonder that the "TAO that can be named is not the eternal Tao" and that the One GOD that the Judeo/Christian culture describe is known as "IT is that IT is."   To elaborate, please allow me to state a given that I can neither prove nor disprove (it is an accepted convention in preparing a hypothesis. Einstein provides a perfect example in accepting a constant speed for light.) Given that time, space, and all that occupies it is indeed infinite in nature, isn't it probable that we humans are actually just subatomic matter magnetically attracted to a larger subatomic particle (Earth), which, in turn, shares a magnetic relationship to its Nucleus (Sun), which, in combination with other planets, represents a type of atom, ad infinitum... and inversely that the atoms that we humans recognize as "our world's" building blocks are, in fact, other smaller magnetically based systems whose subatomic particles may be  made up of other aware beings such as we profess to be. If this be so, then there is no doubt that everything, at every level is aware. Please forgive the fact that I've, purposefully,over-simplified the science analogy to get at the kernel of the issue.   The thing about synthesis vs. analysis that seems so right, is that with synthesis, one can look at a particular model and say "yes, I can see it. That seems to make sense." Tomorrow, the model may have to be rebuilt. But if its reconstruction is based on a love for the subject and a desire to make it work (two essential elements to a Quality outcome), it will continue to improve through Dynamic Quality. For me, today, this "Infinite Universalist Model" seems to work best for my understanding of the nature of things. Too often, analysis tends to explain logically why something can't be, because it would violate some accepted model of the past in which humans tend to find comfort, like an old blanket which they are unwilling to discard. That's why discussion groups like this are so valuable.   So long for now! I'm off to "Get(ting) drunk and pick(ing) up bar-ladies."   Regards, The Bard