Free will, freedom from what?

[Fairy]

You've completely forgotten that human beings are inherently binary: male and female. And that without both, there is no human life.

Without both eh.

Yes, without both the formless and the form arising together as one, neither form nor formless can exist < that knowing appears to be known as a binary, (two things) but is actually, ( single, one) nondual, because neither can exist without the other. Same one.

Question for you IC... Is it the formless who is aware of knowing form. Or is the form who is aware of knowing form?

Do you know the answer to that question?

[Belinda]

You've completely forgotten that human beings are inherently binary: male and female. And that without both, there is no human life.

Without both eh.

Yes, without both the formless and the form arising together as one, neither form nor formless can exist < that knowing appears to be known as a binary, (two things) but is actually, ( single, one) nondual, because neither can exist without the other. Same one.

Question for you IC... Is it the formless who is aware of knowing form. Or is the form who is aware of knowing form?

Do you know the answer to that question?

What does "knowing" mean ? How do you know that the formless can't exist without the form?

[Fairy]

You've completely forgotten that human beings are inherently binary: male and female. And that without both, there is no human life.

Without both eh.

Yes, without both the formless and the form arising together as one, neither form nor formless can exist < that knowing appears to be known as a binary, (two things) but is actually, ( single, one) nondual, because neither can exist without the other. Same one.

Question for you IC... Is it the formless who is aware of knowing form. Or is the form who is aware of knowing form?

Do you know the answer to that question?

What does "knowing" mean ? How do you know that the formless can't exist without the form?

Knowing implies a knower, which extends to imply knowledge.


I don’t know.

And yet I is known.

Formless implies both form and the absence of form as concepts known together in the same instance of knowing, one with itself.

There is no knowing of any thing without a thing to be known.

Therefore knower and known are one thing inseparable, which implies division, where there is none. Because to divide one is simply more of one.

Outside of knowledge no thing is known. The formless doesn’t know and neither does the form know.

Knowing only comes into the known when not-knowing pops aware, becomes conscious of being conscious. . In its conception as a concept aka knowledge.

Knowledge is a fictional overlay, upon unknowing. When unconsciousness ( dead ) pops aware, consciousness is born ( birth )
Un Consciousness cannot be known, only that which is a thing to be conscious of is known, when the unconscious pops aware and becomes conscious of being consciousness, in this conception the concept known.

That knowing is one unitary action.

.

[Belinda]

Without both eh.

Yes, without both the formless and the form arising together as one, neither form nor formless can exist < that knowing appears to be known as a binary, (two things) but is actually, ( single, one) nondual, because neither can exist without the other. Same one.

Question for you IC... Is it the formless who is aware of knowing form. Or is the form who is aware of knowing form?

Do you know the answer to that question?

What does "knowing" mean ? How do you know that the formless can't exist without the form?

Knowing implies a knower, which extends to imply knowledge.


I don’t know.

And yet I is known.

Formless implies both form and the absence of form as concepts known together in the same instance of knowing, one with itself.

There is no knowing of any thing without a thing to be known.

Therefore knower and known are one thing inseparable, which implies division, where there is none. Because to divide one is simply more of one.

Outside of knowledge no thing is known. The formless doesn’t know and neither does the form know.

Knowing only comes into the known when not-knowing pops aware, becomes conscious of being conscious. . In its conception as a concept aka knowledge.

Knowledge is a fictional overlay, upon unknowing. When unconsciousness ( dead ) pops aware, consciousness is born ( birth )
Un Consciousness cannot be known, only that which is a thing to be conscious of is known, when the unconscious pops aware and becomes conscious of being consciousness, in this conception the concept known.

That knowing is one unitary action.

.

I don't know what you mean by "pops".

I agree "Knowledge is a fictional overlay".So you and I know nothing. Right?

[Fairy]

What does "knowing" mean ? How do you know that the formless can't exist without the form?

Knowing implies a knower, which extends to imply knowledge.


I don’t know.

And yet I is known.

Formless implies both form and the absence of form as concepts known together in the same instance of knowing, one with itself.

There is no knowing of any thing without a thing to be known.

Therefore knower and known are one thing inseparable, which implies division, where there is none. Because to divide one is simply more of one.

Outside of knowledge no thing is known. The formless doesn’t know and neither does the form know.

Knowing only comes into the known when not-knowing pops aware, becomes conscious of being conscious. . In its conception as a concept aka knowledge.

Knowledge is a fictional overlay, upon unknowing. When unconsciousness ( dead ) pops aware, consciousness is born ( birth )
Un Consciousness cannot be known, only that which is a thing to be conscious of is known, when the unconscious pops aware and becomes conscious of being consciousness, in this conception the concept known.

That knowing is one unitary action.

.

I don't know what you mean by "pops".

I agree "Knowledge is a fictional overlay".So you and I know nothing. Right?

Pops as in awaken from unconscious into consciousness …like becoming Aware of my empty fullness. A bit like when you awaken from a nightly dream. You realise you are both the dreamer and the dream. And while you were not aware of yourself as the dreamer while the dream was in play, upon awakening you are aware you are just dreaming your experience of being alive. The dreamer is never separated from its dreaming. The dreamer is made aware that it can only exist within its own dream because there’s nothing known or happening outside of the dream. So the dream is all there is.

[Belinda]

Knowing implies a knower, which extends to imply knowledge.


I don’t know.

And yet I is known.

Formless implies both form and the absence of form as concepts known together in the same instance of knowing, one with itself.

There is no knowing of any thing without a thing to be known.

Therefore knower and known are one thing inseparable, which implies division, where there is none. Because to divide one is simply more of one.

Outside of knowledge no thing is known. The formless doesn’t know and neither does the form know.

Knowing only comes into the known when not-knowing pops aware, becomes conscious of being conscious. . In its conception as a concept aka knowledge.

Knowledge is a fictional overlay, upon unknowing. When unconsciousness ( dead ) pops aware, consciousness is born ( birth )
Un Consciousness cannot be known, only that which is a thing to be conscious of is known, when the unconscious pops aware and becomes conscious of being consciousness, in this conception the concept known.

That knowing is one unitary action.

.

I don't know what you mean by "pops".

I agree "Knowledge is a fictional overlay".So you and I know nothing. Right?

Pops as in awaken from unconscious into consciousness …like becoming Aware of my empty fullness. A bit like when you awaken from a nightly dream. You realise you are both the dreamer and the dream. And while you were not aware of yourself as the dreamer while the dream was in play, upon awakening you are aware you are just dreaming your experience of being alive. The dreamer is never separated from its dreaming. The dreamer is made aware that it can only exist within its own dream because there’s nothing known or happening outside of the dream. So the dream is all there is.

If I understand you, the way I'd express your thought is by claiming that every experience is experienced in a context
As you say , all is one; this applies to when contexts of time,space ,force, and selves don't apply so experiences become experience.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know the answer to that question?

Yes. I know that it's nonsense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If God has spoken to you, then can you tell me a little about his voice? Is he more or less baritone, tenor? What exactly did God say when he spoke to you?

Though your intention is to mock the possibility, or the reality, of communication between man and divinity -- which I define as a supernatural order of intelligence -- nevertheless the entire question is worth examining. Taken in a most elemental sense, *the voice of God* would be something akin to realization, conscience, becoming aware of a higher truth or a *meaning* that is perhaps otherwise unknown or unintelligible. The *small still voice* as it is described by some. So then the *voice* could also be something akin to *recognition* that something or other is true and also *real* even though, as is likely the case, it is more an idea than it is something tangible. If one realizes something -- say at a profound level and as a result one's life is changed -- one has (if you will allow me to put it like this) -- "heard" a voice.

We really must cut to the chase here in order to arrive at the real point of contention. One is either convinced of, and involved with, and perhaps subject to, what I call metaphysical supernatural being, or one simply does not, or cannot, give one's assent to the idea or the reality. If one does give assent, one then seeks to *engage* with that supernatural realness. Then the question or the issue revolves around how. And the ways and means of engaging are as varied as all the descriptions of religious experience make plain. Prayer, meditation, service -- I don't feel it necessary to enumerate the means.

But here is, I think, a curious problem. No matter what or how this *engagement* takes form and is carried out, all of man's similar engagements occur within his mind, within a biological entity, and within a vessel of awareness and understanding totally conditioned by material forces and constraints. At a very *low* level a man may have a crude and non-sophisticated image or imagining of God or divinity. But if that is so it is likely that this limitation is noted in all of his perceptions and understandings.

But here is the point: that whatever the case his perception of what is engaged with occurs in his imagination: that field or zone of the mind and consciousness where we live and perceive and where we conceptualize literally everything. It is the vehicle of the imagination that I refer to. Just dwell for a moment on your own conception of life and being and you will likely realize that it is your your imagination is the *instrument* that you are playing as you entertain your view (perception in the widest sense) of life.

Now, in your case (if indeed I am correct), you are shut out from the possibility of conceiving of a supernatural divinity that can *speak* to you. Naturally, you are certainly not alone! It seems to me that likely 90% of those who write on this forum share this existential orientation. The very notion of a supernatural reality -- realness -- is more or less an impossible idea. So it is dismissed from the realm or the imagination. It simply cannot be imagined. Which does in fact mean imaged. And what cannot be imaged, for all sorts of reasons, cannot have influence nor even meaning.

Thus the entire realm of *relationship* to divinity or supernatural realness is jettisoned from awareness. If it is entertained, it is entertained as an illusion, a phantasy, or a psychological drug.

In my view, the highest and most trustworthy evidence of supernatural realness is to be discovered in theological exposition. There, one reads and entertains ideas which one then weighs on an internal level of conscience. By exposure, one meditates, one ruminates, and the ideas gestate within one's awareness. The invisible (the supernatural, the metaphysical) then becomes manifest in a shift in one's orientation. This certainly happens, but here is the thing: it happens on a relative level. And whatever does *happen*, happens in an inner realm that is invisible and subjective.

Therefore the idea of gestation -- being generated or regenerated *from above* -- becomes a conceptual possibility. But prepositional reference to *above* is a trope since, really, there is no above except as an imagined metaphorical picture or aid (to conception).

If the question is to be taken seriously -- I mean the one addressed to Immanuel Can -- the answer is likely to be: That any *voice* that is *heard* comes through the imagined structure which has been built and assembled within his own self in the course of life and living. And this must be true for all of us. These things -- our structure of imagination -- are indeed constructed. Similar perhaps to the notion of constructing a radio that is designed to pick up frequencies that cannot be heard except through the instrument. The fidelity of the construct, then, becomes the subject: Who is perceiving? and through what 'lenses'?

[henry quirk]

You're a dollar short and a day behind, AJ.

Some of us have, over the long haul, written about the conscience, the moral sense, the moral compass, and how it is indeed the Creator's small, still voice, and we got the same result you're gonna get: zilch, nada, dismissed and disregarded (and, mebbe, mocked).

It's the nature of this place and the people who frequent it.

But: you sure do write purty, if that's any consolation.

[Fairy]

Do you know the answer to that question?

Yes. I know that it's nonsense.

That’s correct.

Non-sense.

[Belinda]

If God has spoken to you, then can you tell me a little about his voice? Is he more or less baritone, tenor? What exactly did God say when he spoke to you?

Though your intention is to mock the possibility, or the reality, of communication between man and divinity -- which I define as a supernatural order of intelligence -- nevertheless the entire question is worth examining. Taken in a most elemental sense, *the voice of God* would be something akin to realization, conscience, becoming aware of a higher truth or a *meaning* that is perhaps otherwise unknown or unintelligible. The *small still voice* as it is described by some. So then the *voice* could also be something akin to *recognition* that something or other is true and also *real* even though, as is likely the case, it is more an idea than it is something tangible. If one realizes something -- say at a profound level and as a result one's life is changed -- one has (if you will allow me to put it like this) -- "heard" a voice.

We really must cut to the chase here in order to arrive at the real point of contention. One is either convinced of, and involved with, and perhaps subject to, what I call metaphysical supernatural being, or one simply does not, or cannot, give one's assent to the idea or the reality. If one does give assent, one then seeks to *engage* with that supernatural realness. Then the question or the issue revolves around how. And the ways and means of engaging are as varied as all the descriptions of religious experience make plain. Prayer, meditation, service -- I don't feel it necessary to enumerate the means.

But here is, I think, a curious problem. No matter what or how this *engagement* takes form and is carried out, all of man's similar engagements occur within his mind, within a biological entity, and within a vessel of awareness and understanding totally conditioned by material forces and constraints. At a very *low* level a man may have a crude and non-sophisticated image or imagining of God or divinity. But if that is so it is likely that this limitation is noted in all of his perceptions and understandings.

But here is the point: that whatever the case his perception of what is engaged with occurs in his imagination: that field or zone of the mind and consciousness where we live and perceive and where we conceptualize literally everything. It is the vehicle of the imagination that I refer to. Just dwell for a moment on your own conception of life and being and you will likely realize that it is your your imagination is the *instrument* that you are playing as you entertain your view (perception in the widest sense) of life.

Now, in your case (if indeed I am correct), you are shut out from the possibility of conceiving of a supernatural divinity that can *speak* to you. Naturally, you are certainly not alone! It seems to me that likely 90% of those who write on this forum share this existential orientation. The very notion of a supernatural reality -- realness -- is more or less an impossible idea. So it is dismissed from the realm or the imagination. It simply cannot be imagined. Which does in fact mean imaged. And what cannot be imaged, for all sorts of reasons, cannot have influence nor even meaning.

Thus the entire realm of *relationship* to divinity or supernatural realness is jettisoned from awareness. If it is entertained, it is entertained as an illusion, a phantasy, or a psychological drug.

In my view, the highest and most trustworthy evidence of supernatural realness is to be discovered in theological exposition. There, one reads and entertains ideas which one then weighs on an internal level of conscience. By exposure, one meditates, one ruminates, and the ideas gestate within one's awareness. The invisible (the supernatural, the metaphysical) then becomes manifest in a shift in one's orientation. This certainly happens, but here is the thing: it happens on a relative level. And whatever does *happen*, happens in an inner realm that is invisible and subjective.

Therefore the idea of gestation -- being generated or regenerated *from above* -- becomes a conceptual possibility. But prepositional reference to *above* is a trope since, really, there is no above except as an imagined metaphorical picture or aid (to conception).

If the question is to be taken seriously -- I mean the one addressed to Immanuel Can -- the answer is likely to be: That any *voice* that is *heard* comes through the imagined structure which has been built and assembled within his own self in the course of life and living. And this must be true for all of us. These things -- our structure of imagination -- are indeed constructed. Similar perhaps to the notion of constructing a radio that is designed to pick up frequencies that cannot be heard except through the instrument. The fidelity of the construct, then, becomes the subject: Who is perceiving? and through what 'lenses'?

What is supernatural being?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is supernatural being?

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

[Janoah]

There is no freedom from the regularity of nature, everything that happens obeys the regularity of nature, including human behavior, so what is freedom from?

It should be noted that "everything is predetermined" is also absurd.
For actual, simultaneous infinity is an absurdity, in light of the theory of relativity, it is clear that simultaneity itself is relative.

There is no absolute symmetry in nature, the Universe is not considered an isolated system.
What is so, man's choice within the framework of the law of nature is not predestined.
In connection with this, the ideas of Synergetics (Haken) are interesting.

[Belinda]

What is supernatural being?

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

So is a worm that speaks English a supernatural being?

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is supernatural being?

Being (entity) outside of any category that you can conceive of or hold as being real?

So is a worm that speaks English a supernatural being?

Allow me to clarify your opposition to all notions of *supernatural being* and of supernaturalism. Doing so will help us tremendously.

You asked for a definition of 'supernatural being' and, I think you realize, I would only offer (and in a sense could only offer) a word-description or, perhaps, something like a theological poem. I, like you, am *ensconced* within the categories of modern materialism and, it must be admitted, have no coherent description of non-material being. And the actual fact is that within the paradigm of modern scientism no such description is viable. I think it fair to say that, this being so, you and those who share your position (and limitation) will always, and even successfully, check-mate any verbal description that depends on resort to materialistic, scientistic terms to describe what is outside those categories.

If I were to refer to *supernatural being* I would refer to my own (rather limited) lenses of perception (conception) and refer to an order, a directive intelligence, that (logically) existed before anything at all ever became manifest. I.e. the entire manifest universe or cosmos. Is that *idea*? Is supernatural being akin to *idea*? That is to say a preexistent idea-structure that determined what became manifest? In fact that is what I do think, so that when I think of God it is that sense to which I refer. However, that is a sort of superficial and glossary description.

In fact I do believe, though I do not have access to sufficient language to explain what I mean, that we can interact with divinity and divine intelligence. It is an archaic point of view, isn't it? and one that is outmoded because of our being grounded inside of constraining modern perceptual stances, and yet I do believe it. Can I explain it to a materialist-rationalist in such a way that they would be convinced? Of course not. Because to *get it* occurs on a level that (is said to be) supra-rational.

Which for you (plural) means unreal, phantasy, self-deceptive, childish, and intellectually retarded.

Our *categories of description* in respect to theology depend on structures of definition and thought that pertain to other times in intellectual history, right?

The thing about the conversations that occur here, on PN, and certainly in other places, are in my view always boringly constrained within the limits of simplistic bickering. For this reason it is better, for all concerned, to clarify the reasons why our perspectives cannot jibe.

Additionally, and it surprises me that everyone seems to miss this, it would be far better to link the differences that we notice here with the on-going conflict and disputes that occur in the surrounding world. These are determining stuggles that have real consequences, and our tendency to bicker inanely (I am not referring to you) misses the point of being aware of and participating in the grand battle of ideas.

Now, with that said, I would relish your anecdote about the English-speaking worm you encountered. Was it the King's English it spoke or might it have been an accented English from the former colonies?