The One Elemental Law

[Lacewing]

Nick wrote: As far as I know Creation can only be the result of accident or conscious intent.

Lacewing wrote: So, what about a "mechanical/natural process" that is neither an "accident" nor "conscious intent"? Is that possible?

Nick wrote: Sure. Why will it rain tomorrow? It is neither the result of conscious intent nor an accident, it is the result of the mechanical interactions of natural laws.

So does your last response affect/change your first statement? If not, why?

Nick wrote: The purpose of the universe is found in the process rather than a political result.

Lacewing wrote: Then there's no reason for a god to be making up rules according to some master plan, correct? The only "purpose" of creation may be to explore/express/manifest creative potential.

Nick wrote: if justice is necessary for the master plan

Why would there be a master plan for something that's about "process" not "result"? Why would there need to be "justice" when it's all One?

Nick wrote: We do sense that we are capable of a much greater conscious experience of inclusion but something prevents it. Have you ever wondered what this is?

Sure. I think we are energy (of the One) manifested as a human experience... and in order to have that experience, we draw the cosmic curtain of "oneness" mostly closed so that we can have a believable "individual" experience. Regardless of how it plays out and what we create, it is a sacred experience, and we are divine (by which I mean, "part and complete in the One"). Perhaps we can look behind the superficial curtain sometimes, and remember (for ourselves) that there is no separation or "otherness". Perhaps we also experience and explore "collectively" on subconscious levels.

What do you think prevents you from exploring your "capability of a much greater conscious experience"?

[HexHammer]

Yadda yadda ..bla bla ..bla!!!

SIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nick_A]

As I see it accidents on earth are the normal result of the interaction of lesser natural laws without conscious intent. Look at this famous painting of the Wave. The chaotic movement within it are the results of interacting laws. Even though gravity, resistance, and the force of the wind which creates the wave may be the result of conscious intent necessary for creation, Its expression within interacting lesser laws could be considered accidental

How can science acknowledge the existence of accidents when all change in motion is a logical consequence of force meeting resistance?
To define an event as an accident is to tacitly admit that rationally has run out of road.

By accident I mean a result without conscious intent. Imagine a vat of ping pong balls as in a lottery drawing. The machine mixes them up and allows the balls to stop moving. While it is true the result of their mixture is a lawful result, the process in which they collided into each other is beyond scientific calculation so I call it an accident.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

So does your last response affect/change your first statement? If not, why?

Yes this is confusing. What I meant is that the results of mechanical processes are beyond calculation so appear as accidents. Actually the function of the demiurge in universal structure is largely to repair unintended accidents.

Why would there be a master plan for something that's about "process" not "result"? Why would there need to be "justice" when it's all One?

But suppose every-thing exists within the isness of No-thing? Everything by definition is not ONE.

Are you familiar with the concept of karma and karmic justice? Is karma a judgment or simply a result of the interaction of universal laws?

Sure. I think we are energy (of the One) manifested as a human experience... and in order to have that experience, we draw the cosmic curtain of "oneness" mostly closed so that we can have a believable "individual" experience. Regardless of how it plays out and what we create, it is a sacred experience, and we are divine (by which I mean, "part and complete in the One"). Perhaps we can look behind the superficial curtain sometimes, and remember (for ourselves) that there is no separation or "otherness". Perhaps we also experience and explore "collectively" on subconscious levels.

From the link in the OP

The highest level of mystic meta-physics is unity itself, a truth that corresponds with most world spiritual systems. Those looking for a book that reconciles religion and science will find a solid bridge between the two here, as Spencer shows that reality can really make sense only when we acknowledge a higher unifying power that is eternal and infinite.

The sad truth that I have discovered is that ideas that tend to serve as a bridge between science and religion are hated by both sides. Men of science often believe that metaphysical speculation is just fantasy and believers sense that science cannot answer the basic human need for meaning. Those like me believe that it is only egoistic ignorance that denies the natural human connection between science and the essence of religion. The same laws that we know of in physics connecting before and after also define the vertical quality of the moment: of “now.”

Can your theory explain the logic of the universe in a way that science can respect? It is probably unnecessary for you if you believe we are all ONE. I need a logical theory which explains the purpose of our great universe as well as Man within it that I can at least partially verify. Believe me I know how insulting this idea is to both blind believers and blind deniers. I know both Jesus and Socrates had to die as a result of the emotional human tendency for both blind belief and blind denial Which sustains existence in Plato's cave but regardless, it is my interest.

What do you think prevents you from exploring your "capability of a much greater conscious experience"?

I am the wretched man. I am not one so in opposition to myself.

[Lacewing]

What I meant is that the results of mechanical processes are beyond calculation so appear as accidents.

Only to those who view them that way. Some people (like myself) think that all is fine and perfect from that higher perspective and broader scope. Rather than "accidents", it's like clouds blowing across the sky. There is no need for calculation... it is art in motion.

Actually the function of the demiurge in universal structure is largely to repair unintended accidents.

Why is there so much that is "wrong" in your universe? So many levels that need to control and fix each other. It's exhausting.

suppose every-thing exists within the isness of No-thing? Everything by definition is not ONE.

I don't understand what you're saying. And what's with the hyphens? Can you communicate this another way?

Are you familiar with the concept of karma and karmic justice? Is karma a judgment or simply a result of the interaction of universal laws?

I'm resistant to the idea of humans claiming to know universal laws. I don't think there are any. However, I DO think that energy attracts like energy, or moves other energy. It is NOT a "law", it's just a natural process. And there could be all kinds of variations of it. For example: A person who is being destructive may be playing out something important. A person who is being constructive may lead to devastation. The far-reaching ripples and countless influences are beyond human comprehension. If it's a natural system, ebbing and flowing like cosmic tides, for no particular reason or purpose... what's wrong with that?

The sad truth that I have discovered is that ideas that tend to serve as a bridge between science and religion are hated by both sides.

Is it a sad truth, or does it make perfect sense?

Can your theory explain the logic of the universe in a way that science can respect? It is probably unnecessary for you if you believe we are all ONE.

I don't think I am in conflict with science. Everything I talk about is "natural" -- and imitates what I see in nature. Natural flows and reactions without ego or intent. It's very logical! As opposed to claiming there is an ultimate purpose or separate consciousness with a master plan.

I need a logical theory which explains the purpose of our great universe as well as Man within it that I can at least partially verify.

Is it a "logical" theory if you (or others) create it and make yourself believe it? Why do you need that? What difference will it make? What will you do differently? Are you ever going to know anything for sure? Does that matter?

Why not love as much as you can while you're here? You don't have to, of course... but it's possible.

[Walker]

How can science acknowledge the existence of accidents when all change in motion is a logical consequence of force meeting resistance?
To define an event as an accident is to tacitly admit that rationally has run out of road.

You are actually right, but from a wrong angle, Walker.

Accidents happen only from points of view. Everything that happens has been caused. Nothing that has not been caused happens.

Accidents are not caused. Accidents don't happen. Accidents are humans' way of saying, "I don't know why that change effected that cause." For instance, a change in DNA structure changes a newborn to grow a fingernail in his bellybutton. We call it accident, but only because we don't understand the connection between molecular changes in the DNA, and the developmental difference in the growing organism.

However, if we change ANY other embrio's DNA the same way, they will all grow a fingernail in their bellybuttons.

So obviously the causation stands, it's only humans who can't grasp the connection between cause and effect.

Those humans, what are you gonna do?

Whether or not people understand all cause and effect connections, life goes on and people do what they have to do, even if it’s tossing the purest of the tribe into an active volcano. Ignorace of causation doesn’t make that act an accident. Right or wrong, connections are made and acted upon, based on some kind of proof, even if it’s fairy tales.

How long has the concept of accident been in the zeitgeist, anyway?

Did the denizens of the dark ages call the black death an accident, because they didn't connect it to sleeping on flea-infested straw?

[Walker]

As I see it accidents on earth are the normal result of the interaction of lesser natural laws without conscious intent. Look at this famous painting of the Wave. The chaotic movement within it are the results of interacting laws. Even though gravity, resistance, and the force of the wind which creates the wave may be the result of conscious intent necessary for creation, Its expression within interacting lesser laws could be considered accidental

How can science acknowledge the existence of accidents when all change in motion is a logical consequence of force meeting resistance?
To define an event as an accident is to tacitly admit that rationally has run out of road.

By accident I mean a result without conscious intent. Imagine a vat of ping pong balls as in a lottery drawing. The machine mixes them up and allows the balls to stop moving. While it is true the result of their mixture is a lawful result, the process in which they collided into each other is beyond scientific calculation so I call it an accident.

… the process in which they collided into each other is beyond scientific calculation …

Not sure what you mean by this.
The process is, ricochet.

Because the number of ping-pong balls is finite, then in principle, with sufficient knowledge of conditions (lack of ignorance) then the result of the process, which is the ordering of numbered balls, can be calculated. The computing power and real time knowledge of conditions, such as angle of impact and velocity, are beyond technical reach at this time, but that doesn’t negate the principle.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

If what you believe satisfies your need for meaning then stick with it. I don’t read any explanation of objective human meaning or purpose. Again if it satisfies you, then there is no reason for further speculation. Just try and be a good person and leave it at that.

But what I’ve learned about the conscious universe and how it is structured in accordance with Pythagoras Law of Octaves resonates with me. According to Plato and Plotinus, the demiurge are the conscious artisans and craftsman of the conscious universe that keep the universe as a machine functioning again makes sense to me.

The complimentary flows of forces called involution and evolution which provide the circulation which connects levels of reality and serves universal purpose also makes perfect sense. Doesn't blood circulation serve our bodies? You are right to ask why bother with it. But if it explains how conscious evolution takes place and begins where mechanical evolution is completed isn’t it beneficial for some to learn of it and practice what is necessary for their conscious evolution?

Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity" says the following after a lecture he had been giving took an unexpected turn:

”Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.”

You seem primarily attracted to pleasure as most people are. This is the norm and there is nothing wrong with it. However, I have the highest regard for the rare minority like Simone Weil who are willing to suffer for truth. The willingness to awaken is real suffering. A person’s personality and acquired habits struggle against it. It is far easier to live for pleasure. Is the struggle for truth worth it? If there is anything real about the idea of conscious evolution, then of course it is. The point is that for those like Simone, there isn’t a choice. Plato described Man as a being in search of meaning. Some feel this with an intensity that is not satisfied with pleasure and societal meaning. If the drive isn’t in a person, then it appears the height of lunacy. But for those who understand, they will know what Jesus meant by:

Matthew 16: 26

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:57 pm
suppose every-thing exists within the isness of No-thing? Everything by definition is not ONE.

I don't understand what you're saying. And what's with the hyphens? Can you communicate this another way?

This is really the question of the thread.

No-thing refers to a a conscious potential in which everything is present in potential. Every-thing is the actualization of conscious potentials.

For Plotinus the elemental law as I see it allows for nous and the connection between ONE and nous. The universe is the means by which every-thing or all things (fractions of the whole) become possible through universal laws as specializations devolving from the elemental law. Man on earth serves the universe as an animal necessity on one level of reality but with the potential for serving a conscious purpose connecting levels of reality.

[Lacewing]

I have the highest regard for the rare minority like Simone Weil who are willing to suffer for truth.

Okay. "Truth" is debatable, of course.

The willingness to awaken is real suffering. A person’s personality and acquired habits struggle against it.

Sure. That doesn't mean that a life of suffering and wallowing in the IDEA of "suffering for truth" leads one to an awakened state. There are so many things within a person that can create something ELSE. Suffering doesn't ensure awakening... it only ensures suffering.

It is far easier to live for pleasure.

Is it? How many people have truly pleasurable lives? Seems to me that it is easier to say "Woe is me... everything is bad and awful... and THAT'S why I'm not a happy person." Seems to me that it takes great courage (more than suffering) to seek truth. Many religions focus on suffering. All things considered, it seems to be no greater or more productive path than any other.

You seem primarily attracted to pleasure as most people are.

No, Nick... I am primarily attracted to clarity. I see it as naturally flexible and open and willing to let go. It's only natural that there's a lot of pleasure associated with doing that. Whereas, the idea of "Truth" is often claimed as a reason for "locking things down in a certain way", thereby making it the ONLY truth, and making those who proclaim it, superior... even if they use their suffering as some sort of proof. Human suffering may be many things -- inevitable, entertaining, eye-opening, etc. -- but idolizing it (or anything!) surely leads to intoxication more than clarity. If your idea of suffering brings you PLEASURE... ha ha... have fun with that.

I'm simply challenging your absolute claims. It seems like that's a useful activity to do here.

Is it not true that there are many truths? Has it not been shown in humankind's history that there is a continual search for the GREATEST TRUTH -- the one above all others? Humans search high and low... down every path and in every crevice. Yet you claim that it is a rare minority, with which you are aligned (of course), who are willing to suffer in search of truth and awakening. How many such "rare minorities" have there been, I wonder? Claiming that their suffering is BECAUSE of their divine and noble quest? A wonderful STORY. And yet... how do such stories actually weigh down humankind... and KEEP IT FROM evolving?

It's really quite amusing to notice how/when humans claim the OPPOSITE of what they're doing. Like a little kid with chocolate and crumbs around his mouth, claiming that he didn't eat a cookie. Is growing into adulthood just a collection of more elaborate excuses and disguises to conceal what we're really doing?

If the drive isn’t in a person, then it appears the height of lunacy. But for those who understand, they will know what Jesus meant by: Matthew 16: 26: "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"

Don't you think that MOST people understand the idea that losing one's soul (spirit) while striving after worldly/superficial gains is not the "ultimate richness" it may seem? It's a message woven throughout world cultures and throughout time. Yet, do you see how you weave such a narrative to uniquely support (and even exalt) yourself and your ideas... while claiming that others cannot see? You are a persecuted seeker of truth... suffering as a rare minority of others have suffered. That's your story, right?

Have you ever wondered what makes a person choose the story they do among the countless stories available?

[Lacewing]

No-thing refers to a a conscious potential in which everything is present in potential. Every-thing is the actualization of conscious potentials.

Why are those hyphenated words needed to say what you're saying -- it makes sense without them. They're not clever or helpful... just confusing. I get the idea that you like to be "complex"... but I see it as convoluted. Just sayin'.

Man on earth serves the universe as an animal necessity on one level of reality but with the potential for serving a conscious purpose connecting levels of reality.

Okay. How much convolution might be introduced by man attempting to do that?

My sense is that man's attempts, ideas, rules, desires, stories, etc., are rooted on the animal level. The level on which man truly expands across levels does not require any of those things, and would actually be prevented by those things. Those things create MORE stories. The stories create idols and limitations and density that serve the ego. The stories have to be put aside.

When I've stepped out of my own stories, I've seen what appears to NATURALLY BE when not obscured by stories... it is free of judgment and fear and demands... and it is GOOD. ALL is already connected... I'm fully part of it (as is everyone/everything)... and it doesn't need me to adjust or connect anything. That's what I saw. I can keep creating stories or not... doesn't matter. It's nice to see them for what they are -- as it seems to change the quality and value of them -- and perhaps there can be more conscious creation. They can still sweep me up at times, but it's okay to let loose and play when you know that everything is okay.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing, you’ve raised important questions. The first has to do with clarity and absolutes.

No, Nick... I am primarily attracted to clarity. I see it as naturally flexible and open and willing to let go. It's only natural that there's a lot of pleasure associated with doing that. Whereas, the idea of "Truth" is often claimed as a reason for "locking things down in a certain way", thereby making it the ONLY truth, and making those who proclaim it, superior…….

Is it not true that there are many truths? Has it not been shown in humankind's history that there is a continual search for the GREATEST TRUTH -- the one above all others? Humans search high and low... down every path and in every crevice. Yet you claim that it is a rare minority, with which you are aligned (of course), who are willing to suffer in search of truth and awakening. How many such "rare minorities" have there been, I wonder? Claiming that their suffering is BECAUSE of their divine and noble quest? A wonderful STORY. And yet... how do such stories actually weigh down humankind... and KEEP IT FROM evolving?

As I see it the most important part of building a house is the foundation. Without a good foundation a house will fall. It is the same idea for a seeker of truth. Without the foundation for the search, the seeker will end up with one of all the fantasies you further describe in your post. This truth is as hated as it is essential. Plato described it in his famous Cave allegory. We live in imagination and it is this attachment to imagination which prevents our inward turning towards the light.

This recognition that we live in imagination is the necessary foundation for any realistic seeker of truth. Recognition of the human condition for me is an absolute. Of course it is denied. It is poison for secularism and New Age philosophies that encourage creating our own reality. Recognition of ones nothingness doesn’t make a person feel superior. Actually these feelings of superiority are normal for those who egoistically believe they are something.

Human suffering may be many things -- inevitable, entertaining, eye-opening, etc. -- but idolizing it (or anything!) surely leads to intoxication more than clarity. If your idea of suffering brings you PLEASURE... ha ha... have fun with that.

There is suffering which supports a person’s fantasies and suffering which exposes what we are. Which to choose? Gurdjieff explains it far better than I ever could:

Another thing that people must give up is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasure you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time, one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means.
 Gurdjieff, in P.D. Ouspensky's 'In Search Of The Miraculous'

Have you ever wondered what makes a person choose the story they do among the countless stories available?

I imagine a person chooses the story which supports their self esteem. A seeker of truth doesn’t create stories for self esteem. They practice efforts to “know thyself.” It provides what is necessary in pursuit of “understanding” as opposed to self esteem

[Lacewing]

This recognition that we live in imagination is the necessary foundation for any realistic seeker of truth. Recognition of the human condition for me is an absolute. Of course it is denied. It is poison for secularism and New Age philosophies that encourage creating our own reality.

It seems that you SO BADLY want to see opposition, that you honestly cannot see how many people of MANY different philosophies recognize the concepts that you think are so unique to your position.

I think it would be valuable for you to see that we all have the same materials we're working with... and MANY of us are focused on foundations that are based in truth and clarity (it's absurd for you to think and keep claiming otherwise)... but we build different houses, and that is beautiful!! I would be so much more interested in the values of your perspectives if you could stop projecting/creating the opposite. It's just a bunch of NOISE that obscures ALL that we have in common. They are YOUR STORIES. Again, I ask you... are you just looking for reasons/justification to REJECT everyone else?

Recognition of ones nothingness doesn’t make a person feel superior. Actually these feelings of superiority are normal for those who egoistically believe they are something.

Saying you are wretched isn't the same as recognizing you are nothing. You clearly think you are something -- you are aligned with the rare minority seekers of "the Truth", in superior opposition to all those OTHERS who you deem as serving the Great Beast: blind believers, blind deniers, secularists, new agers, pleasurers, and on and on)! You have NO CLUE what "the Truth" is IF YOU FALSELY JUDGE AND LEAVE OUT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE!!!

There is suffering which supports a person’s fantasies and suffering which exposes what we are.

And here you go again... pretending that you have a MORE FUCKING RIGHTEOUS PURPOSE FOR SUFFERING.

Gurdjieff explains it far better than I ever could...

I feel commonality with his view. Human suffering is inevitable (as I said), but to wallow in it, or hold it up as a righteous banner, turns it into an idol and loses CLARITY. Then you're on a DIFFERENT path... and making up stories to support it. I'm not sure that you can accept that people are attaining evolved states of awareness and functioning through paths of divine joy and love. Can you accept that truth?

Since you like to quote others, here's one I'll offer you:

Each day just goes so fast. I turn around, it's past. You don't get time to hang a sign on me. Love me while you can. Before I'm a dead old man. There's people standing round. Who'll screw you in the ground. They'll fill you in with all their sins, you'll see. Make love all day long. Make love singing songs. [Love To You, The Beatles]

[Lacewing]

Have you ever wondered what makes a person choose the story they do among the countless stories available?

I imagine a person chooses the story which supports their self esteem. A seeker of truth doesn’t create stories for self esteem.

What about choosing stories based on fear or ignorance? Don't you think those are a few possibilities? Do you think a "seeker of truth" somehow escapes all the pitfalls of being human, such that they don't deceive themselves or others with their own versions/stories of "the truth"? Isn't history full of people who were mistaken and oblivious: in denial or ignorance of their own "baggage" or blindness, regardless of the evolved role/path they claimed to have?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I think it would be valuable for you to see that we all have the same materials we're working with... and MANY of us are focused on foundations that are based in truth and clarity (it's absurd for you to think and keep claiming otherwise)... but we build different houses, and that is beautiful!! I would be so much more interested in the values of your perspectives if you could stop projecting/creating the opposite. It's just a bunch of NOISE that obscures ALL that we have in common. They are YOUR STORIES. Again, I ask you... are you just looking for reasons/justification to REJECT everyone else?

I don’t try to REJECT. I try to AFFIRM the human condition. I’ve read on hypocrisy. If what I’ve learned about hypocrisy is true, then building these different beautiful houses doesn’t work. It sounds good but in reality people are primarily motivated by prestige or the lack of prestige.

Do you remember the Secular Intolerance thread? It was filled with expressions of intolerance and intolerance is rejection? Why deny the tendency for secular intolerance just because it is PC to speak of tolerance? I have affirmed that for some reason people advocating tolerance are often the most intolerant. This is acceptable hypocrisy. It isn’t that I reject it but rather affirm the reality of hypocrisy and seek to understand why this unnatural tendency so dominates our lives. Why do kids see what adults are incapable of

Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised. Leo Tolstoy

If hypocrisy and the need for prestige are such dominant traits in society, what do you think will happen to all these beautiful houses regardless of the most wonderful stories?

And here you go again... pretending that you have a MORE FUCKING RIGHTEOUS PURPOSE FOR SUFFERING.

It isn’t that I have it but rather I know of it.

“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” Simone Weil

I'm not sure that you can accept that people are attaining evolved states of awareness and functioning through paths of divine joy and love. Can you accept that truth?

I don’t understand it. Conscious evolution requires consciousness. Making up stories requires imagination taking the place of consciousness. How can imagination produce a conscious result? Once a person experiences that they are incapable of conscious love and are limited to selective animal love, there is no sense in pretending if they are drawn to conscious love. The willingness to let go of imagination in pursuit of reality requires real suffering.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."
Simone Weil -- Gravity and Grace

What about choosing stories based on fear or ignorance? Don't you think those are a few possibilities? Do you think a "seeker of truth" somehow escapes all the pitfalls of being human, such that they don't deceive themselves or others with their own versions/stories of "the truth"? Isn't history full of people who were mistaken and oblivious: in denial or ignorance of their own "baggage" or blindness, regardless of the evolved role/path they claimed to have?

Are we really limited to making up stories? Plato wrote of the relationship between knowledge and opinion. Knowledge is like the elemental law from which lesser laws arise. Opinions are just stories or devolutions of knowledge. The seeker of truth seeks to graduate from opinions into the domain of knowledge. I have verified that the sincere attempts are as essential for humanity as they are hated. Welcome to the human condition.