An Immaterial Being ? What 's Up With That.

[agnosticator]

BTW, since I was talking last night about writing music as expressive of this (see post above), I thought to proudly post a picture of my piano here, since it was very recently (2 weeks ago) that it finally is in its new home in the remodeling project. It had be unavailable for a very long time for me, and hence why I am finding a place to express this again. In other words, I'm really happy and thought I'd share it here:

 

 

 

 

What kind (brand name) is it? It looks beautiful.

 

I used to have an ancient full upright that I hated to lug around whenever I moved. It was sooo damn heavy. But the thing kept itself in tune. I finally sold it and bought an electric keyboard. Since I'm not a pianist and just use it for writing, I bought a cheapie.

[Legion]

Nothing could change the power and wonder of life and the universe. The more we know the more we can appreciate them, IMHO.

I completely agree with you here Agnosticator.

[Antlerman]

BTW, since I was talking last night about writing music as expressive of this (see post above), I thought to proudly post a picture of my piano here, since it was very recently (2 weeks ago) that it finally is in its new home in the remodeling project. It had be unavailable for a very long time for me, and hence why I am finding a place to express this again. In other words, I'm really happy and thought I'd share it here:

 

 

 

 

What kind (brand name) is it? It looks beautiful.

 

I used to have an ancient full upright that I hated to lug around whenever I moved. It was sooo damn heavy. But the thing kept itself in tune. I finally sold it and bought an electric keyboard. Since I'm not a pianist and just use it for writing, I bought a cheapie.

It's sort of odd. It was branded by Hyundai, but it's actually made by Samick, a Korean piano. It played a lot like a Kawai which is what attracted me to it, since it was in my price range at the time way back when. I just had someone come in a tune it, then reshape all the hammers on it and adjust all the keys. He was phenomenal, and it responds better than it ever has. He's a blind guy that when he ran his hands over the hammers he remarked, "You play this a lot, don't you?" The tuning is also the best I've heard. I can play intervals over the entire range, and the harmonics just hang and suspend with perfect harmony over the whole thing. This is all good, since I love to blend all the harmonics as part of how I play.

 

Anyway... I'll add some more to the other thoughts later as I have time.

[NotBlinded]

All what you say I know as part of what I attempt to express through me as a musician. In fact, it was music that gave release of that in me, as no other voice could do when I needed it to 'minister' to me. I find it the closest thing to touching the face of it. But at best it is a finite attempt to speak its voice, a personal effort to reflect it, but never expressing its full being.

 

As I write, like you, I move into a place where I can let it flow through me, and as sating as it can be, to express love, passion, vision, truth, hope, light, and life, it's a small sliver of the infinity that stands behind the river that emerges, expressing itself from that Source. I don't know how else to describe it.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. You can put this into words better than I can.

 

I also found a similar "experience" (for lack of thinking of a better word) expressed in the old series of books that "The Inner Game Of Tennis" inspired. I would get in this "zone" when improvising on trombone in jazz/rock groups. It was like someone else was performing. It happened when I stopped thinking about what to play, and then my subconscious would take over seemingly on it's own. This would also occur in playing a sport when I didn't have the time to think, but just react. I did some amazing things I didn't realize were possible for me. But maybe this type of experience is more about focus and emptying one's conscious mind as opposed to just expression.

Agnosticator, I really like the way you think.

 

I have told my daughter this several times (and I try to tell myself too): "Don't try so hard...let it flow through you." (She plays the violin.) I could go into a long speel(sp?) about the ego's involvment in this, but I'll make it a short one instead! Ha! You aren't that lucky!!

 

In some of my CDs and reading material, I have ran across this notion that when we are trying really hard to do something, we are getting in the way of our ability to express ourSelf (notice the capital "S"). This is our ego straining. If we try to concentrate, we usually get distracted. If we are relaxed, a book can be read in no time, a picture can be painted with ease and a song can be composed...etc. We still have to practice and a little talent doesn't hurt, but the minute we stop interfering with ourSelves, things happen. I believe this and think this is what is probably meant by being in the "zone" and there is no self-consciousness (little s) in the zone.

[agnosticator]

when we are trying really hard to do something, we are getting in the way of our ability to express ourSelf (notice the capital "S"). This is our ego straining. If we try to concentrate, we usually get distracted. If we are relaxed, a book can be read in no time, a picture can be painted with ease and a song can be composed...etc. We still have to practice and a little talent doesn't hurt, but the minute we stop interfering with ourSelves, things happen. I believe this and think this is what is probably meant by being in the "zone" and there is no self-consciousness (little s) in the zone.

 

Yes, this is what I am referring to. Thinking about what one is doing, and consciously trying to concentrate, gets in the way. As both you and Antlerman said, "it flows through you" when the "sub-conscious" does what you already know how to do.

 

I also think it is embellished by the sub- or un- conscious (whatever it is called) part of the brain that processes information as we are learning something. When I would woodshed (practice) while performing or at home, I didn't seem to get much creatively out of it. But afterwards on a job, the stuff I was trying to learn would come out in new ways! It's as if the brain has to "stew" the ideas awhile, then it begins to flow. Flow, that is, if I stop thinking about doing it and just do it!

[chefranden]

So the roads of gold aren't real gold in Heaven? They're just immaterial gold? That sucks.

 

What's the matter with you? Immaterial can't suck!

[chefranden]

1. I am a highly rational person, and I cannot deny the soundness of a deeper existence than the material alone. I cannot deny it rationally, and certainly not existentially. At all levels it exists, but our awareness at a conscious state through the level of 'mind' is able to integrate itself into this "Ground of Being". The illness, or the death of mind is not the negation of Self, but simply the falling back of evolution of the the material world to its Source. It falls back down the path it emerged up from. This is not leaping outside rationality, rather an integration of evolved mind into the greater reality of Existence.

 

 

2. I'll see if there isn't a better way to talk about this... the mind is processing what the spirit sees...

 

1. AM consider adding a bit of cognitive science to your reading.

 

Tell me, what were you pondering before you had a brain?

 

2. Ghost in the machine. It's already been done.

 

[Kerplunk]

It seems silly to try to disprove the existence of God through some empirical scientific measure. If God was capable of being measured, quantified, tested like a some lab rat, would this being in question really be God?

 

It seems necessary that if we are going to be talking about God, there are certain attributes which are necessary, immateriality being one of them. I don't think however that this means that we can prove God's existence through some a priori ontological argument, saying that God by our definition of God, must exist because he is a necessary being. But rather, if we are going to seriously grapple with the existence of God, we must grapple with what God, if he is to exist, would be - rather than some strawman conjecture.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

It seems silly to try to disprove the existence of God through some empirical scientific measure. If God was capable of being measured, quantified, tested like a some lab rat, would this being in question really be God?

 

It seems necessary that if we are going to be talking about God, there are certain attributes which are necessary, immateriality being one of them. I don't think however that this means that we can prove God's existence through some a priori ontological argument, saying that God by our definition of God, must exist because he is a necessary being. But rather, if we are going to seriously grapple with the existence of God, we must grapple with what God, if he is to exist, would be - rather than some strawman conjecture.

 

-Kerplunk

If there were a god, why would he hide? He didn't hide from Adam supposedly, but Adam had free will. He didn't hide from Moses, but Moses had free will. He didn't hide from the disciples, but they had free will.

 

Why must god be invisible, unmeasurable, untestable, silent, unavailable for comment, made of nothing, existing in no place?

 

The only reason I can see is that you can't find him either, and you want me to believe that he exists. Why would you care if I believe in your invisible man?

 

I hate to tell you, but God has no clothes.

[Ouroboros]

It seems silly to try to disprove the existence of God through some empirical scientific measure. If God was capable of being measured, quantified, tested like a some lab rat, would this being in question really be God?

 

It seems necessary that if we are going to be talking about God, there are certain attributes which are necessary, immateriality being one of them. I don't think however that this means that we can prove God's existence through some a priori ontological argument, saying that God by our definition of God, must exist because he is a necessary being. But rather, if we are going to seriously grapple with the existence of God, we must grapple with what God, if he is to exist, would be - rather than some strawman conjecture.

 

-Kerplunk

I think you got some very good points there.

 

Perhaps by studying the necessary conditions for a universe to begin to exist, we'll find certain principles of nature that must apply, and those principles we can call God, Betty, or Al. But is there any necessity to a sentient God-principle of nature?

[mwc]

All things are things except for those things that aren't things.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

All things are things except for those things that aren't things.

No-things are things too.

[Skankboy]

No-things are things too.

You can't have "10" without "0"?

[Legion]

I'm going to try to avoid being fancy here. I hope to express this using common sense alone.

 

We can view the world as particles in motion. It's all particles in an endless elaborate dance. But I think this only part of the picture, maybe not even the most important part. I think what increasingly interests me is trying to see the organizations through which the particles move. The organizations are immaterial. They cannot be manifested or realized without matter, but simultaneously they can be materially realized in many different ways. Think of all the many different ways in which organisms are manifested.

 

I think the essence of life is both natural and immaterial. There's no need for supernatural woo because the natural world is more than material alone.

[Ouroboros]

You can't have "10" without "0"?

You can't be an idiot without an ID.

[Shyone]

I'm going to try to avoid being fancy here. I hope to express this using common sense alone.

 

We can view the world as particles in motion. It's all particles in an endless elaborate dance. But I think this only part of the picture, maybe not even the most important part. I think what increasingly interests me is trying to see the organizations through which the particles move. The organizations are immaterial. They cannot be manifested or realized without matter, but simultaneously they can be materially realized in many different ways. Think of all the many different ways in which organisms are manifested.

 

I think the essence of life is both natural and immaterial. There's no need for supernatural woo because the natural world is more than material alone.

You can't have organization without material.

 

Three blocks set one upon another is "organized." It is still a stack of blocks. We don't consider "stack" to be some immaterial manifestation of blocks, but just the way the blocks are organized.

 

Calling "organization" immaterial is not helpful. Vacuums are immaterial. That is a useful description.

[Legion]

You can't have organization without material.

Ah, my longstanding and friendly nemesis, Shyone.

 

Yes, I think I have acknowledged as much. But organization can be materially manifested in many different ways, and can be examined independently of matter. Think of how many ways there are to make a can opener, or a house, or any tool. We are not interested here with what entails the tool, rather we are interested in what the tool entails.

[Shyone]

You can't have organization without material.

Ah, my longstanding and friendly nemesis, Shyone.

 

Yes, I think I have acknowledged as much. But organization can be materially manifested in many different ways, and can be examined independently of matter. Think of how many ways there are to make a can opener, or a house, or any tool. We are not interested here with what entails the tool, rather we are interested in what the tool entails.

Really? A stack of bricks - to discuss the organization you have to discuss what is organized.

 

Even if there is more than one way to stack the bricks.

 

When the discussion of organization is freed from that which is organized, it becomes meaningless. Consider what it would mean to have organization in a vacuum.

[Legion]

I have a feeling we're not communicating Shyone.

 

Maybe we'll connect next time.

[Shyone]

I have a feeling we're not communicating Shyone.

 

Maybe we'll connect next time.

I tend to think is concrete terms, so getting through to me can be hard. Pun intended.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Wrong! No pun in ten did!

[chefranden]

I'm going to try to avoid being fancy here. I hope to express this using common sense alone.

 

We can view the world as particles in motion. It's all particles in an endless elaborate dance. But I think this only part of the picture, maybe not even the most important part. I think what increasingly interests me is trying to see the organizations through which the particles move. The organizations are immaterial. They cannot be manifested or realized without matter, but simultaneously they can be materially realized in many different ways. Think of all the many different ways in which organisms are manifested.

 

I think the essence of life is both natural and immaterial. There's no need for supernatural woo because the natural world is more than material alone.

 

You can't have a leaf pile without a quantum of leaf pilishness.

 

Organization is a property of matter based on the four fundamental interactions, no matter no property of organization. If there is matter nothing extra is needed.

[chefranden]

You can't have organization without material.

Ah, my longstanding and friendly nemesis, Shyone.

 

Yes, I think I have acknowledged as much. But organization can be materially manifested in many different ways, and can be examined independently of matter. Think of how many ways there are to make a can opener, or a house, or any tool. We are not interested here with what entails the tool, rather we are interested in what the tool entails.

 

You seem to be espousing the Theory of Forms, is this correct?

[Shyone]

You can't have organization without material.

Ah, my longstanding and friendly nemesis, Shyone.

 

Yes, I think I have acknowledged as much. But organization can be materially manifested in many different ways, and can be examined independently of matter. Think of how many ways there are to make a can opener, or a house, or any tool. We are not interested here with what entails the tool, rather we are interested in what the tool entails.

 

You seem to be espousing the Theory of Forms, is this correct?

Chef, I swear to the gods, we are of one mind. Just amazing.

[NotBlinded]

I'm going to try to avoid being fancy here. I hope to express this using common sense alone.

 

We can view the world as particles in motion. It's all particles in an endless elaborate dance. But I think this only part of the picture, maybe not even the most important part. I think what increasingly interests me is trying to see the organizations through which the particles move. The organizations are immaterial. They cannot be manifested or realized without matter, but simultaneously they can be materially realized in many different ways. Think of all the many different ways in which organisms are manifested.

 

I think the essence of life is both natural and immaterial. There's no need for supernatural woo because the natural world is more than material alone.