Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
I really like writings of
Pyotr Demianovich Ouspenskii in the questions of the
functions of a human being and a description of the possible
states of being for a normal human being. That is the
answer that I use and that I discovered over forty years ago; The
answer that I still use and refer to almost every moment of my day.
Ouspensky also addresses the
origin of man and his writings in general provide a workable, living answer toward the
possible meaning to each moment; each breath, of our existence.[/size]
Bill,
Thanks for the thoughts and the photo. There are rocks like that up another 1000 ft. in my west yard. I love mountains.
About 30 years ago a cherished friend recommended Ouspensky, so I perused what she said was his main (perhaps only) book. As I recall, he claimed to have obtained these ideas through Gurdjieff (sp), a guy who wandered the world in search of understanding, but seemed to focus his attention upon the Eastern mystical traditions. I'd studied those before, and so found nothing new in Ouspensky, but perhaps a slightly different, westernized interpretation or two.
It's been so long that I don't recall any specific objections. My general objections to Eastern mysticism in general is summed up by one of the little top-chapter quotes in my book, "
A mystic is someone who seeks to understand the universe, but does not see how some knowledge of physics would be helpful."
About a half century ago I enrolled in a physics program, and came into it as a devout Catholic. Before long it was obvious that my religious beliefs were incompatible with physics. It was also obvious that physics worked. Desperate for a new understanding of my purpose and nature, I invented my own, a concoction of Catholic metaphysics and classical physics that seemed to me to explain all things.
I was wrong about that, but in the course of a subsequent career in various sciences, I expanded and perfected my theories thanks to conversations with scientists and engineers who though that my ideas were at least worth kicking around over a few beers. The discovery of dark energy in 1998, which my theories actually predicted without me noticing, forced me to abandon core elements of my original theory and develop better ideas. After a few years of work I ended up with a logically consistent, physics-based theory that describes
dark energy and human consciousness, plus time, QM, and the real forces behind evolution. It incorporates psychic phenomena, including past life recollections and temporary-death experiences. Other stuff too. Mine is a richer and deeper theory than Ouspensky's. He did what he could with the tools he knew how to use. I found what I regard to be better tools in Physics 301 and subsequent studies.
I mention this so you'll understand that I appreciate your suggestion. My policy is that if someone has ideas that work for them, and if they are living a positive and constructive life, I do not try to interest them in my ideas. Most people are strongly attached to whatever ideas they currently hold. That probably applies to you. Yet one might wonder why, if you are content with your ideas, you are killing personal time posting stuff on a philosophy forum? Perhaps you are looking for deeper levels of understanding. You are the only one who knows. If that turns out to be the case, it would be remiss of me not to recommend my book, in the same spirit that you recommended Ouspensky.
Greylorn
