Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[Joshpantera]

16 hours ago, Weezer said:

My world view is hoping to stay out of the nursing home until they scatter my ashes! 

 

The worldview of on the way out the door! 

 

I have a different perspective of that as I approach the same from the mid age perspective.

 

If I'm right, then consciousness will be continuous due to it's eternal nature. The logic of the experiential path and Idealist Philosophy is that ego content collected in life will disperse into the field of core subjectivity. Information gathered is never lost or deleted out of existence. It represents information that stays around in the spatially unbound field. What we've actually been the whole time during a life experience is the field itself, conducting a life experience. And then the logic is that you return to the field of core subjectivity. Punishment or rewards never factor in because it's "non-dual." Just a natural flow of the universe taking on finite experiential perspective as a living being for a lifetime and then returning to the Source. 

 

If that's wrong, then the not-conscious void of materialism could be it. But I have no good reason to entertain materialism as ever having it right. And quite a lot of reasons to see it as having it wrong. 

 

If that's wrong, then the dualistic "reward/punishment" scenario of christianity could be it. But I have no good reason to entertain dualistic christianity as ever having it right. And quite a lot of reasons to see it as having it wrong. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm getting started with old age: 61 now.

 

Take up a positive hobby, sir. Not politics or keyboard warrior-ing. haha. 

 

As for myself...

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

14 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I'm getting started with old age: 61 now.

 

Take up a positive hobby, sir. Not politics or keyboard warrior-ing. haha. 

I've got 20 years on you (81).  I keep busy.  Would you believe my passion is "trail riding" with an enduro motorcycle.  Been riding since 14 years of age and now am the oldest of a small group of guys who get together and ride.  We try to go to Moab, Utah or somewhere in the Rocky mountains and ride each year, plus riding the backroads of Kansas and Oklahoma during the year.  I've really had to slow down the last 2 years.  Don't know how much longer I will be able to do it.  And we have rental property to maintain, and when not doing that I am an eclectic reader.  Lately started reading stuff about the ancient Sumerian writings which is extremely interesting.  I'm doing what I can to keep my physical and mental self going, but my age and diabetes is catching up with me.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The worldview of on the way out the door! 

 

I have a different perspective of that as I approach the same from the mid age perspective.

 

I was being very concrete and gave my "world" view.  My after-this-life view has been very similar to yours for several years.  I seem to have been born with a logical mind and have always tried to have an open mind and look at the big picture.  And what you wrote above is very similar to what I think could possibly be true.  It is the most logical thing my redneck Okie mind has come up with.  Like you said, we likely came from the source, and will likely return to the source.  I'm agnostic with a redneck "hunch".  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Take up a positive hobby, sir. Not politics 

 

Looking at the big picture of that is really scary!

[walterpthefirst]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:47 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

Most people involved in theorizing in each of the fields mentioned, are usually very careful to keep repeating that all models are subject to change and cannot be literally true.

 

So much so, that it can get annoying seeing that ground covered over and over again in interviews, it's like beating a dead horse.

 

Hoffman does it too much repeating over and over that there can never be a TOE and no one has modeled absolute truth. Kastrup does it when pressed up against absolute truth questions, but doesn't harp on and on about it. And I don't know of any physicists who don't do the same. It's basic practice to position their platforms that way to where no one has actually claimed to have modeled absolute truth. 

 

The thing about refuting any model is that someone is setting out to refute something which has been publicly acknowledged as less than absolute. And expected to change over time. If someone finds something damming enough to warrant trashing a model, back to the drawing board.

 

What else would we expect?

 

We don't have literal truth in the form of models in the first place, so that's never possible to begin with.

 

What we have is not truth in modeling anything, we have consensus. And consensus, obviously, doesn't mean that a model is literally true in any absolute sense. How could it? That's rhetorical, again, of course. 

 

So, the deeper question I've asked myself and others, is why bother with any of it?

 

And the answer keeps coming back around to seeing the effort of trying as necessary towards human advancement. What if we all just stopped trying to figure out Reality? Not much discovery, not much advancement. 

 

And I've been persuaded by that general sentiment. Why not keep trying? Knowing full well that the deck is strongly, or absolutely, stacked against you. So what, why not keep trying to tighten it up and learn more and more. It's just good sporting fun to try and imagine better ideas that can explain more things.

 

Materialism is at big loss to explain PSI phenomenon, for instance. These apologists come at us with various unexplained mysteries of science and other PSI type issues as "proof" (their words) that their personal, dualistic oriented god, exists. That's what drew me into this discussion.

 

What an absolute bluff game that is on their part. Combined with a great deal of lack of knowledge about the broader spiritual world, especially the esoteric communities East and West. Zero comprehension of non-duality, omnipresence, Wholeness, Interconnection, and Unitary Reality in general. 

 

We can experience existence as pure awareness. That's the closest thing I've witnessed to anything that could be ultimately true and unquestionable. We can't say there is no truth, because it's absolutely true that we are 'aware and experiencing.'

 

This could be the one and only, unitary, singular, non-dual truth that exists. And anything that diverges from that, which is what dualistic thinking does, is ultimately not true. 

 

And if so, that just outlines how clueless we are again. It doesn't give a theory of everything. We couldn't know any more than that we are aware of experiencing existence through a finite perspective. 

 

Where science and cosmology are concerned, the idealist movement sticks with the BBT. They don't deny it, or even try to deny it. The BBT and evolution by Natural Selection stays as is. And I'm trying to navigate how that gels with the theory of a spatially unbound field of core subjectivity, which is necessarily "Eternal." I suppose no differently than the current paradigm that would have a unitary Quantum Field that isn't viewed as an Aware Experiential field, springing fourth the Big Bang. 

 

It's like a collective dream that had a beginning to the dream-like experience, within an eternal field.

 

For evolution, from what I'm looking at, it involves material bodies of living beings, metabolizing life forms, as something like an avatar body made of the components or contents of the MAL field itself. It's the medium out of which the appearances of components arise. And experiences are taking place on various levels throughout. The whole thing is an "Experiential Based Reality" (EBR). All with various levels of awareness and experience. 

 

What if none of this is literally true in terms of the exact details of any given model???

 

Whether it is or it isn't, I'm still standing here 'experiencing awareness' with no fixed or absolute explanation as to why or how? From anyone.

 

1) Materialism is off the table and bowed out to even trying to answer the question.

 

2) Religion can't answer the question with a dual answer, because the true experience of awareness in the current moment, devoid of active content (dual thinking), is "non-dual" in nature. 

 

3) Idealism CAN answer the question, but only through the limits of philosophy which are logic and reason oriented, not specifically or directly "experiential." Just in ways which are indirect, but which point to the experiential as true. 

 

4) Experiential Mysticism CAN answer the question without any model or conceptualization whatsoever. And because this goes beyond conceptual awareness, it's not going to be a fixed or absolute explanation as to why or how the existence of experiential awareness IS existing in the current moment. It's pure experience, beyond conceptual mind, which shut off when memory, projection of the future, and all active content where set aside. 

 

I've chosen to stick with Idealism in terms of philosophy, tempered with placing the Experiential Path ahead of it where absolute truth is concerned.

 

I want the spiritual community to realize that I understand the "non-dual" transcendent mystery. I'm not suckered in by the conceptual philosophy. It's not fooling me away from the non-dual transcendent. They want to warm me about being suckered in by logical mind. Like materialists want to warn me about getting suckered into philosophy, metaphysics, and mysticism. This to me represents an error in judgement to disregard either logical / intellectual mind or emotional mind. Especially to come off trying to "warn" someone of the dangers of either. 

 

Our experience is filtered through dual hemispheres. 

 

Logical mind and Emotional mind. The Math's over here, the Arts and Music over there. The Pineal Gland in between. The idea is to fully develop both types of mind. Not have one conquer the other. 

 

It's not about eliminating what exists.

 

It's about taking what exists, as it exists, and balancing what exists into non-dual understanding. And that non-dual understanding is what is considered, "spiritual intelligence," or SQ. 

 

IQ balanced with EQ = SQ. 

 

I could live any number of ways under any number of worldviews. I prefer this one. Naturalist based Idealist Philosophy balanced with naturalist based experiential spirituality. It's the best fit so far in life out of any previous worldviews I've tried on after leaving the church.

 

Materialism not withstanding....

 

 

 

 

Josh,

 

One thought that has occurred to me about all the goings on in this thread gives rise to a question.  Not so much about Hoffman or materialism or eternal consciousness, but more about how we (Ex-Christians, atheists, agnostics and sceptics) conduct ourselves in this forum.  I'll explain.

 

When a Christian apologist presents an argument I usually try to seek out the flaws in their argument.  These can be flaws of internal logic, logical fallacies, misunderstandings of the rules of evidence, mistakes concerning science, etc. Then I try to show them where they are tripping up.  

 

So, my question, not just to you but to anyone reading this thread, is this.

 

If we are severely critical on the Christians in this way, should we, for the sake of consistency, be equally severe on ourselves and out own beliefs?

 

For myself, I believe that I should be.  Perhaps this explains why I have been annoyingly persistent on various issues in this thread.  My own desire to be as severe as possible has carried over from myself, impacting the way that I've interacted with you, midniterider and others.  If you've found that bothersome, then I'm sorry.  As I've already described in this thread, I'm often wise about something afterwards, not realizing what I'm doing or what I've done until after the event.

 

Anyway, I leave the question out there in case you want to tackle it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:59 AM, midniterider said:

 

Take up a positive hobby, sir. Not .......... keyboard warrior-ing. haha. 

 

Hey, it is easier to leave the religion than the fervor that goes with it!  

[midniterider]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

So, my question, not just to you but to anyone reading this thread, is this.

 

If we are severely critical on the Christians in this way, should we, for the sake of consistency, be equally severe on ourselves and out own beliefs?

 

 

My first reaction is "Yes, we should." Then again, this is an ex-Christian site. Christianity is the enemy on this site.

 

Does science, or materialism, or idealism, or non-duality, or paganism or whatever non-Christian 'ism' come with a sword, to pit father against son, to divide families, to cause fear of eternal agony in hell, to cause guilt, shame and destroy self-esteem? 

 

I don't need to be hard on something that isn't evil.

 

 

[midniterider]

16 hours ago, Weezer said:

I've got 20 years on you (81).  I keep busy.  Would you believe my passion is "trail riding" with an enduro motorcycle.  Been riding since 14 years of age and now am the oldest of a small group of guys who get together and ride.  We try to go to Moab, Utah or somewhere in the Rocky mountains and ride each year, plus riding the backroads of Kansas and Oklahoma during the year.  I've really had to slow down the last 2 years.  Don't know how much longer I will be able to do it.  And we have rental property to maintain, and when not doing that I am an eclectic reader.  Lately started reading stuff about the ancient Sumerian writings which is extremely interesting.  I'm doing what I can to keep my physical and mental self going, but my age and diabetes is catching up with me.  

 

You're doing great at 81. Dont know too many dirtbikers your age.  I learned to ride in Idaho in my 20s. Kind of gravitated towards Kawasaki. Dirt biked on a KDX 250 for a couple years, then sold it. There was a nice dirt bike trail at a campground in Idaho that ended at the top of a mountain at a fire lookout station....great ride! 

 

Bought a KLR 250 around age 45 and definitely was not as bulletproof as a 20 year old. lol. It was nice for on road/off road, but the offroad magic was gone by then.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If we are severely critical on the Christians in this way, should we, for the sake of consistency, be equally severe on ourselves and out own beliefs?

 

I'm not sure I can answer that question.  Can you explain what you mean by being "equally severe on ourselves and our own beliefs".   Are you taking all this more serious than is needed??

 

I don't know how you define critical, but I never saw you as being extremely critical.  Very persistent, but not severely critical.  And none of us are perfect, and all of us have better hindsight than foresight.   The question I have is, does the criticism (to whatever extent) accomplish what we want to accomplish?  Or is it simply our egos blowing off steam, whether dealing with each other or christians.  Would simply making our points by stating our evidence and beliefs suffice??  And what image are we creating for the whole website by our posts?

.

And while we are at it, I want to apologize for getting "off track" at times.   

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

You're doing great at 81. Dont know too many dirtbikers your age.  I learned to ride in Idaho in my 20s. Kind of gravitated towards Kawasaki. Dirt biked on a KDX 250 for a couple years, then sold it. There was a nice dirt bike trail at a campground in Idaho that ended at the top of a mountain at a fire lookout station....great ride! 

 

Bought a KLR 250 around age 45 and definitely was not as bulletproof as a 20 year old. lol. It was nice for on road/off road, but the offroad magic was gone by then.

The KDX is a tough bike. "Off track" one more time, but I tried to send you a PM and it would not go through.  I had several Hondas and Suzukis through the years, and now (probably my last bike) I splurged and got a special built Beta 185.  I'm a short, scrawny guy and have trouble finding a dirt bike that isn't too tall and heavy.  

[Joshpantera]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:47 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Josh,

 

One thought that has occurred to me about all the goings on in this thread gives rise to a question.  Not so much about Hoffman or materialism or eternal consciousness, but more about how we (Ex-Christians, atheists, agnostics and sceptics) conduct ourselves in this forum.  I'll explain.

 

When a Christian apologist presents an argument I usually try to seek out the flaws in their argument.  These can be flaws of internal logic, logical fallacies, misunderstandings of the rules of evidence, mistakes concerning science, etc. Then I try to show them where they are tripping up.  

 

So, my question, not just to you but to anyone reading this thread, is this.

 

If we are severely critical on the Christians in this way, should we, for the sake of consistency, be equally severe on ourselves and out own beliefs?

 

Doesn't hurt anything.

 

I've been reviewing the Leslie Allan's critical review of Hoffman's theory, bit by bit. I have two posts out right now collecting information about the credibility of the critical review.

 

Section 2.2 takes a short quote mine of Hoffman responding to the accusation that FBT is self-refuting, for instance. Hoffman says that it isn't. No in-depth explanation is revealed in the critical review.

 

So, I asked around for relevant information or Hoffman responding to Leslie's Review. 

 

The first line of information was three youtube videos explaining FBT in detail in terms of what the math's show and why. Followed by addressing the objections for FBT in the second video. Objection 10 seems to answer the objections of section 2.2

 

 

 

Then it's carried over to part 3 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Therefore, I feel the need to test and challenge what I believe to the same degree of severity that I test and challenge the beliefs of the Christians in this forum.

 

 

Does that help?

 

 

Walter.

 

This is why after getting through the issue of Leslie's critical review, we can then tackle Bernardo Kastrup's demolition of metaphysical materialism. It should be a good test. It's quite severe.

 

The christians can't very well use it to suite their own needs to get an upper hand over materialists, however, because it demolishes religious literalism too. So, it can't be used by christians to attack materialist's without turning the sword back in on themselves. That's what makes it all the more interesting. 

 

We're checking out how the math's fair against scrutiny. 

 

Then the Philosophical models can have the same attention. 

 

And then we can come back around a second time to the "direct experience" path beyond math's, science, philosophy, and religion. Possibly with people understanding it better. 

 

The question of "how do we know what is real" doesn't have a whole lot of viable options really. It's just a matter of engaging the content until that becomes more than obvious. 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Walter and Josh, do you realize that on this forum, for part of the time, the talking/writing is completely over the average persons head?  The words, phrases and concepts that are used may be familiar to experienced scientists and professors of religion, but I sometimes have to read a section of the writing 2 or 3 times, and look up the definition of some of the words to tell what is being said.  I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think most people you are dealing with are in the same boat I am in.  Or even less knowledgable than myself.  Do they give up because it's too much trouble to figure out what you are saying? 

 

In a conversation here between the two of you (and occasionally with Ed) you probably understand what you are doing, but with the average person on forum, it may be more trouble than it is worth.  I suggest bringing the conversation down to the common persons level if you want the common person to understand you, and to hang around for more conversation. 

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My public, social media response giving it right back to him: 

 

I started my comments above before you posted your response to the christian.  After reading your response, my initial reaction was,  WHAAAT??  My guess is that he didn't understand half of what you said.   My next thought was, "Was Josh drunk at the time?"  It simply was not the wise and rational Josh I thought I knew. 

 

If you have any suggestions about my responses, let me know. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps this will help, Weezer?

 

Josh is following up criticisms from this site...  https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLHCR  ...about Hoffman's work.  Specifically the section called Self-refuting.  Apparently Hoffman claims that evolution works to show us information about the world that helps us survive - not information about the world that is true.

 

And here's where his theory is (according to Leslie) self-refuting.  Since Hoffman himself is a product of evolution then he is subject to the same limitations he theorizes about.  Evolution cannot allow him to see or understand what is true about the world - it can only allow him to see and understand what he needs to know to continue to survive.

 

Therefore, whatever Hoffman theorizes about anything to do with evolution cannot be true.

 

I find this to be a devastating and fatal flaw.  To me it means that nothing of what Hoffman theorizes can be in any way true.  Not literally, not metaphorically and not in any meaningful sense.  Even inference and deduction about Hoffman's work is ruled out by this because those two things still rely on the assumption that he senses and perceives reality in a true way.

 

But, according to his own proposed theory, he cannot be seeing or perceiving anything that is true.  He can only be seeing what evolution allows him to see that enables him to carry on surviving.

 

Does that help?

 

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Josh,

 

For the sake of full transparency, let me just say that I was going to contact you privately and express my doubts about Hoffman to you, out of the public gaze.  Firstly, out of respect for your feelings, seeing as I was going to be pouring cold water on an idea that you seemed to be quite enthusiastic about. 

 

Secondly, because what's been discussed between midniterider, Weezer and myself.  That is, that we should be as critical of our own beliefs as we are with the beliefs of visiting Christian apologists.

 

So its a considerable relief to me to see that you've not shied away from scrutinizing Hoffman's work yourself and that you've also chosen to make your investigations public, here in this thread.  In truth I was wrestling with doubts and indecision about how I should go about this, but you've now relieved me of that burden.

 

You've also plainly demonstrated that you are unafraid to test and challenge your beliefs in the presence of your peers.  That will noted by your fellow members, visitors and those lurking, watching how this thread develops.  Such an honest and even-handed approach does you credit.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if evolution allowed him to see something true in order to enhance his survival?  I don't see it as a fatal flaw; only as an inconvenient obstacle someone smarter than me ought to be able to get around.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What if evolution allowed him to see something true in order to enhance his survival?  I don't see it as a fatal flaw; only as an inconvenient obstacle someone smarter than me ought to be able to get around.

 

Objection number 10 in this clip: 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

But, according to his own proposed theory, he cannot be seeing or perceiving anything that is true.  He can only be seeing what evolution allows him to see that enables him to carry on surviving.

 

Does that help?

 

 

Walter.

 

Again, objection number 10

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What if evolution allowed him to see something true in order to enhance his survival?  I don't see it as a fatal flaw; only as an inconvenient obstacle someone smarter than me ought to be able to get around.

 

A good question, Prof.

 

According to Leslie's criticisms, Hoffman declares that evolution only allows him to see what he needs in order to survive.  If we take that at face value, then he could never know if he was seeing something true.  Hoffman should adhere to his own stated line - that he can only see that which promotes his survival.  If he doesn't do this then he is being inconsistent to his own theory.  But if he does adhere to it then he cannot claim that he can see anything that is true.  His own theory only permits him to see whatever assists his survival.

 

This trap of his own making is described here, by Leslie.

 

https://philarchive.org/archive/ALLHCR

 

I can't seem to cut and paste the relevant section, so please see the last two paragraphs of page 7, where Leslie makes his case that Hoffman's theory is self-refuting.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, about Objection 10, Josh...

 

1. 

"There is a chance that certain domains, such as formal logic, are beyond the reaches of evolution."

And there is a chance that String theory is correct.  There are many chances that many different things are correct.  There are also many chances that many different things are incorrect.  Such a situation clarifies nothing and yields no answers.  At best it places Hoffman's work on a level playing field with a great many other theories that may or may not be correct.  So, this is an uninformative non-answer.  It's little more than speculation.

 

2.

"Mathematics, logic and computation may reveal a deeper truth, beyond our fallible senses."

And then again, mathematics, logic and computation may not do that.  So this is just a rehash of point # 1 above, yielding little more than a speculative non-answer.

 

3.

"Hoffman's Interface Theory addresses this concern."

How?  It can only do that if certain domains like formal logic ARE beyond the reaches of evolution.  It can only do that if mathematics, logic and computation DO reveal a deeper truth beyond out fallible senses.  Until these things actually happen all we have is speculation and Hoffman's word that he can deliver.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

Walter and Josh, do you realize that on this forum, for part of the time, the talking/writing is completely over the average persons head?  The words, phrases and concepts that are used may be familiar to experienced scientists and professors of religion, but I sometimes have to read a section of the writing 2 or 3 times, and look up the definition of some of the words to tell what is being said.

 

I'm pretty sure I can break any of this down to simple terms. We just have to deal with the models as they are, then make it clearer. 

 

The problem with consciousness (little "c") is that it's misunderstood to only mean human finite conscious experience. And nothing else. So, people talk past each other all the time from that initial misunderstanding of what's being discussed. It's a given that when people try and review Idealists, or engage debate, they almost always make the mistake of not joining the Idealist from the Idealist perspective. And that basically blocks them out from having an informed opinion. None of it will ever address the actual content. 

 

We have no explanation for why either of us are currently aware and experiencing in the moment in terms of how no-awareness at all, suddenly pops into existence from a previous non-existence. That is the Hard Problem.

 

Which is what Hoffman is currently trying to work out through a mathematically precise way. A scientific way. Which goes back to awareness as a continuity that always exists in Nature. The idea is that the nature of Nature itself, is a fundamental core Awareness. 

 

There's no question, then, as to where our current experience in the moment comes from. No Hard Problem to tackle. It comes down to the quest for 'explanatory power' that mainstream science currently lacks. We had nothing for an explanation. Now we at least have something. That's a forward progressing move. 

 

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

I started my comments above before you posted your response to the christian.  After reading your response, my initial reaction was,  WHAAAT??  My guess is that he didn't understand half of what you said.   My next thought was, "Was Josh drunk at the time?"  It simply was not the wise and rational Josh I thought I knew. 

 

If you have any suggestions about my responses, let me know. 

 

Yeah, that needs some unpacking too. 

 

The context is a Gnostic (mystical) video page. About the mystical realization of unity between god and man. Such as "I and the Father are One!" You're familiar with the mystical book of John I assume? 

 

Christians generally use "I am the way, the truth, and the life! No one goes to the Father but through me!" from the mystical book of John to claim that no one can be saved outside of the church. Which is what the christian was trying to threaten me with. 

 

Here's the logical argument: 

 

1) It's universally known that John is the most mystical Gospel. 

2) The mystical realization in mythology means union with the god of the myth - Oneness, interconnection, unitary, non-dual. 

3) The way that mystics operate is known as "Direct Experience." I had cited a video section about direct experience of the non-dual mind. If you close your eye and set aside all thoughts about the past or future, and then explain what it is you are experiencing in the moment, it will be an awareness without content, without "things." Just pure Awareness. 

4) Pure Awareness is One, not two. Not dual. 

5) Infinite Mind would be not dual. Finite Mind (dualistic thinking) is what overlays on top of that non-dual core that goes unnoticed most of the time, unless you focus in and notice it. 

6) Mystical insight is squarely to do with non-duality. 

7) The only way to access an experience of the Infinite Mind, or "Father," is through the "Direct Experience" approach explained here, which IS the mystical approach. 

 

Gnostics, Idealists, Neo-Platonists, Advaita Vedantan's, Buddhists, Taoist's, and Hermeticists (the audience on this video page) are people who understand the above. 

 

So, I turned the whole thing around on the christian. Jesus as a mythological character represents the mystical realization of unity with the Whole. He makes that clear several times in John. There's a running context of that mystical realization which is best understood as the "Direct Experience" path. 

 

"I (direct experience) am the way, the truth, and the life! No one goes to the Father (pure Infinite Awareness) but through me (direct experience)!"

 

This Gnostic mystical stuff that was working into the mystical book of John. It has nothing to do with any institutional church body. And it has nothing to do with being saved because you believe that some other person was god on earth. That's a corruption of the mystical insight. Which involves taking a mystical non-dual reference and turning it around the other way into a dualistic type of reference of exclusivity for one particular church. 

 

That is a confusion of the mystical insight. The metaphor for confusion in the bible starts with the tower of Babel. And then runs onward into a general reference towards certain confusion later on. Such as with "Babylon the Great." This would be a reference to "The Great Confusion." 

 

What is the Great Confusion? 

 

Dualistic thinking, the very opposite or "anti" of what the mystical message is saying. 

 

Do you see this coming together now? If Christ has to do with mystical realization and awareness of non-duality, then we have an obvious logic as to what the "anti-Christ" would be. 

 

And its the modern churches themselves. And this deluded soul who is trying to threaten me in the name of the modern churches and telling me that I need to repent. I turned the whole thing around on him, which, the Gnostic audience can understand completely. Whether he understands or not, I don't know. All I know is that anything he tried to throw at me and can be turned around bounced right back at him. 

 

So, I singled the guy out to make an example of what christians should expect when walking into mystical groups of discussion and trying to threaten people.

 

Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and he's coming back soon like a thief in the night when you least expect him repent and get saved by Jesus Christ and live righteous and get baptized before it's too late time is running out

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Jesus Christ is a mythological character from a collection of metaphorical and allegorical wisdom teachings.

 

And what the mythological character represents is “direct experience” of the Divine. The character represents humanity itself. The mystery of the One and the Many.

Direct knowing. Non-dual Reality. The “experiential path.”

 

“I (direct experience) am the way, the truth, and the Life! No one goes to the Father (primary Consciousness). But through me (direct experience)!” - The anonymous writer of the John Gospel

 

When you say “Jesus” is coming soon, that could only mean that “Direct Experience” Is coming soon. That’s the context of the myth.

 

I sure hope so, Ron.

 

But I’m not holding my breathe. Because the world looks to be pretty far off from world wide “direct experience” right now.

 

You for instance, show zero signs of any direct knowing whatsoever judging by your uninformed tone.

 

“And the Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached onto the whole World, then shall the end come!”

 

The Good News of “direct experience” and the end of self-ignorance. The end of dualistic religion, which has never been “spiritual.” It’s the “Whore of Babylon” in Revelation.

 

You need to consider 'repenting' of your own 'dualistic mindset,' Ron. You’re not telling me, I’m telling you! You've got it backwards!!!!

 

Don’t worry though, anyone who comes at me “knowing not what they do or say,” I’ve already forgiven in advance. 

 

Namaste-Amen

 

 

[Joshpantera]

47 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ok, about Objection 10, Josh...

 

1. 

"There is a chance that certain domains, such as formal logic, are beyond the reaches of evolution."

And there is a chance that String theory is correct.  There are many chances that many different things are correct.  There are also many chances that many different things are incorrect.  Such a situation clarifies nothing and yields no answers.  At best it places Hoffman's work on a level playing field with a great many other theories that may or may not be correct.  So, this is an uninformative non-answer.  It's little more than speculation.

 

2.

"Mathematics, logic and computation may reveal a deeper truth, beyond our fallible senses."

And then again, mathematics, logic and computation may not do that.  So this is just a rehash of point # 1 above, yielding little more than a speculative non-answer.

 

3.

"Hoffman's Interface Theory addresses this concern."

How?  It can only do that if certain domains like formal logic ARE beyond the reaches of evolution.  It can only do that if mathematics, logic and computation DO reveal a deeper truth beyond out fallible senses.  Until these things actually happen all we have is speculation and Hoffman's word that he can deliver.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Which is what video 3 gets into. The end of video 3 sets out that no theories are true, but some are useful. This extends to the standard model. And Hoffman posits that there can never be a TOE. 

 

I've already covered all this ground but I'm going to have recover it until I see some signs that it's being understood. Only RP and myself seem to understand it at present. Once you get the subtle truth of models never being true, only useful to certain extents, then you should understand the following logic that prohibits science itself from ever touching the Nature of Reality in a direct way. It's always indirectly. And regardless of Hoffman's particular model, which will never be a TOE or absolute truth.

 

Science will have to be left behind at some point during an intellectually honest search for truth. And then Philosophy comes into view as the next line of inquiry. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Isn't truth directly tied to survival in myriad ways?  Or is this just one of those deeper things a shallow mind like mine cannot fathom?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Isn't truth directly tied to survival in myriad ways?  Or is this just one of those deeper things a shallow mind like mine cannot fathom?

 

It is so deep that I can't find the bottom.  I think I'll find another pool to swim in.