Infinity – as a lack of source material underpinning reality

[mikiel]

Ryan,
You conclude:

The certainty of Gnosis is a form of fundamentalism in my view, and we are in an age where all forms of fundamentalism are being crushed by the weight of an intensified rationalism.

...

This simply affirms that you are among those who, as I said have never "experienced the transcendental revelation that the whole cosmos ("Kosmos') is One Intelligent Being."

Gnosis is not "belief" in God. It is the direct experience of the "Ultimate Reality" which is the pretended subject of this forum but "ultimately" beyond the reach of reason/logic alone.

You are the "fundamentalist" here as in "materialist flatlander" in denial of the transcendental aspect of consciousness altogether...
in denial of the whole branch of epistemology (a-priori as contrasted with a-posteriori) addressing knowledge through Identity with this "Ultimate Reality." This is what gnosis actually is. You are not only clueless but determined to stay that way. This is true materialistic fundamentalism.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Mikiel,

This simply affirms that you are among those who, as I said have never "experienced the transcendental revelation that the whole cosmos ("Kosmos') is One Intelligent Being."

I’m not denying that one can experience altered states, and experiences that feel out of body, and even an experience that feels like a union with something higher and vast. However, such experiences are not absolute proof that reality is one intelligent being.

For instance: psychologists have probed certain areas of the brain, which causes people to feel at one with the universe and at one with some higher order power, but these experiences may just be an evolutionary adaptation of some sort. We don’t know, and we can’t know. The problem with transcendental experiences is that they must be interpreted, and as interpreters we are biased because our deepest longings and desires effect what conclusions we form from experiences.

It is a big leap of faith to go from – the experience of an altered state in the brain that felt like oneness to an absolute conclusion that the universe is one intelligent being… There is a big leap of faith there, and if you cannot see it, then that is your own mental block.

Basically, the certainty you have cannot follow from experiences because powerful experiences can be generated by things like drugs, women, or other mind alternating causes, which only distorts reality in the brain.

What can happen is that chemicals create powerful emotional experiences in the brain and body that can be misinterpreted in such a way to give absolute knowledge. However, in my opinion, it is a mistake to derive certainty from such experiences that could easily be chemically induced in a lab setting.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Mikeil,

You are the "fundamentalist" here as in "materialist flatlander" in denial of the transcendental aspect of consciousness altogether...

btw, you use this sort of language all the time, and I find it very telling. You seem to believe that because you have experienced transcended experiences that you have attained something high, but many people throughout history have experienced these states, and have remained quite deluded and illogical.

Jim Morrison is a good example. During his lifetime, he ingested large amounts of psychedelic drugs, and reported unions with a universal mind, feelings of oneness, love and compassion, but what type of person was he? In my opinion, he was a selfish hedonist, who took advantage of everyone that he was around, and drained energy from all around him. He was a black hole of desire, despite powerful ego-destroying drug induced experiences he enjoyed as a result of psychedelic drugs.

It proves my argument that transcended experiences may blow away the door of perception, but they give you nothing of value. And the knowledge you derive from these experiences only creates a false sense of elitism, which you are exerting towards me now.

Btw, I consider the term flatlander a compliment, as I want my being to be grounded in the earth in total realism, rather than in the clouds somewhere derive false security from fundamentalist beliefs derived from experience

[Steven Coyle]

boo hoo.

[mikiel]

Ryan:

However, such experiences (as I have had as a mystic) are not absolute proof that reality is one intelligent being.
"Absolute proof" is clearly hyperbole in this context.

It is a big leap of faith to go from – the experience of an altered state in the brain that felt like oneness to an absolute conclusion that the universe is one intelligent being… There is a big leap of faith there, and if you cannot see it, then that is your own mental block.

The nature of true enlightenment is absolute certainty of "conscious unity" with the One in All... more so than even the relative certainty we all share in trusting our senses, to whatever degree. Your mental block is based on your proud flatland materialism... the bottom rung, btw in integral studies of the many dimensions of conscious awareness. Must be a big blind spot in your philosophical education for you to be so proud of your ignorance.

Basically, the certainty you have cannot follow from experiences because powerful experiences can be generated by things like drugs, women, or other mind alternating causes, which only distorts reality in the brain.

My experience of The One Intelligent Being, "Kosmos" is direct, like my experience of the geranium outside my window, both experiences happening right now.
Your most powerful experience is your programing which tells you that all experiences beyond your physical senses and mental concepts are probably "generated by things" not as reliable as your materialistic programing. So you claim the "high ground" of this actually extremely limited version of reality and call my direct experience as a mystic "mind alternating causes, which only distorts reality in the brain."
Very myopic and egocentric judgment on your part!

What can happen is that chemicals create powerful emotional experiences in the brain and body that can be misinterpreted in such a way to give absolute knowledge. However, in my opinion, it is a mistake to derive certainty from such experiences that could easily be chemically induced in a lab setting.

And your certainty is derived from your conviction (faith!) that Western materialistic conditioning is much more reliable than the more transcendental Reality described above. So you are in total denial of the Ultimate Reality known to enlightened ones of all eras, cultures, traditions and direct mystic union with the Omnipresent One transcending all such conditioning. (It's not a "belief!")

I am wasting my breath with you, so this will (probably) conclude my conversation with you, tho I reserve the right to change my mind if you show any sign of grokking what I've said.

[divine focus]

It is a big leap of faith to go from – the experience of an altered state in the brain that felt like oneness to an absolute conclusion that the universe is one intelligent being… There is a big leap of faith there, and if you cannot see it, then that is your own mental block.

It is a big leap of faith. The faith here is not one of absolute knowledge but a trusting of experience by the mental aspect. The leap entails a relinquishing of an absolute or bedrock reality that is graspable mentally. Ultimate safety is known through action.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Personally, I believe people derive a false sense of safety and comfort from concluding that the universe is one intelligent mind or being, while there isn't the evidence there to proof it, as subjective experience isn't enough in my view. Yes, the most courageous thing a man can do is admit that he cannot know, as the alternative is slightly cowardly. lazy and illogical...

[mikiel]

Ultimate safety is known through action.

What does this mean, d.f.? Who was talking about safety?

"I" (this guy) lost all fear when I lost the illusion of personal self as an identity separate from the One Cosmic Self... as do all enlightened ones.

This is one way to know for sure who is enlightened, assuming honesty of testimony. (It's all we have here... sina qua non... in serious discussion of enlightenment.) Do you still experience fear? Who has that experience? Only ego worried about safety, survival, avoidance of pain, social shame or feeling inferior in the dog heap scrambling for top dog position... etc.

[divine focus]

Personally, I believe people derive a false sense of safety and comfort from concluding that the universe is one intelligent mind or being, while there isn't the evidence there to proof it, as subjective experience isn't enough in my view. Yes, the most courageous thing a man can do is admit that he cannot know, as the alternative is slightly cowardly. lazy and illogical...

Quite a conclusion.

mik,

Ultimate safety is known through action.

What does this mean, d.f.? Who was talking about safety?

I. Without a bedrock, there is no safety. It is mental or experiential. The mental is static (until it changes), the experiential is dynamic but definite.

Do you still experience fear? Who has that experience?

To talk about it, I can. Who has any experience?

[Carl G]

Personally, I believe people derive a false sense of safety and comfort from concluding that the universe is one intelligent mind or being, while there isn't the evidence there to proof it, as subjective experience isn't enough in my view. Yes, the most courageous thing a man can do is admit that he cannot know, as the alternative is slightly cowardly. lazy and illogical...

Ryan wades into the surf, sloshing to the beat of a different drum, marching against the tide of everything QRS stands for, namely that ultimate knowledge of the true nature of the universe is attainable through logic. He stands tall and is counted.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

what I'm saying isn't actually in contradiction with much of what the QRS has stated. For instance: I have heard David, Dan and Kevin suggest things like - how do we know that we aren't living in a matrix world, a world in which outside beings are manipulating us for their own benefit. However, it is apparent to me that these thinkers do not believe this possibility with absolute certainty, but they mention it to illustrate that it is a possibility that cannot be disproven with logic.

Basically, they are taking the same stance as myself- namely, that logic cannot prove with certainty metaphysical matters.

So a logical person knows what logic can explain with certainity and what it cannot, but they are certain of it.

In my opinion, both a priest and an atheist have arrived at conclusions about metaphysics to which the powers of logic cannot grant them, and that is why I remain skeptical of what both types of thinkers utter because I am certain of what logic cannot tell us about metaphysics.

[divine focus]

In my opinion, both a priest and an atheist have arrived at conclusions about metaphysics to which the powers of logic cannot grant them, and that is why I remain skeptical of what both types of thinkers utter because I am certain of what logic cannot tell us about metaphysics.

How can we move forward?