cosmic intelligence and causality: lets resolve this o.a.f.a

[Cory Duchesne]

With help from Soloway and others, let's resolve the cosmic otherworldly intelligence vs. 'this is all there is' debate once and for all.

The question of whether or not a greater intelligence 'is' - - keeps coming up.

Soloway, quite reasonably challenges us with the question:

Do you think higher intelligences are caused by yet another intelligence, or intelligences, and likewise for those, etc?

What I am getting at in all my posts is this:

I dont find it unreasonable to imagine that there is a supreme intelligence that is not subject to time and literally 'is' everything. Is it not reasonable to at least suspect that the universe, in its infinity, 'is' conscious and all knowing and perhaps the human brain can be illuminated, or even taken over, by this intelligence, that is, if the human brain is not hypnotized by what it fancies (ideolgies, beliefs, narcisitic images, etc....)

[Kevin Solway]

I dont find it unreasonable to imagine that there is a supreme intelligence that is not subject to time and literally 'is' everything.

Ok, so you are talking about Nature, or Reality itself. That is, Everything, the All.

I have a problem calling that an "intelligence" because it is an "intelligence" relative to what exactly? There is nothing other than itself.

Our own intelligence is an intelligence about things. And, also, we have intelligence relative to things that have less intelligence than us. But in the case of the All, there is nothing for it to be intelligent about, and nor is there anything less intelligent or more intelligent than itself. So the term "intelligence" is unnecessary in my opinion.

Is it not reasonable to at least suspect that the universe, in its infinity, 'is' conscious

It is not reasonable since consciousness contains precisely a subject and an object - one who is conscious, and an object of consciousness. That is, it requires duality. But in the case of the Universe, the All, there is just the One thing, with no subject and object. We ourselves are experiencing the only kind of consciousness there can ever be - ie, the experience of duality.

and all knowing and perhaps the human brain can be illuminated, or even taken over, by this intelligence, that is, if the human brain is not hypnotized by what it fancies (ideolgies, beliefs, narcisitic images, etc....)

We could speak of the All as being all-knowing in the sense that it contains all information, all of causality.

Einstein had an intuition of this when he made his poetic statement "God does not play dice with the Universe". That is, nothing happens by chance. All things that happen are caused to happen, predetermined to happen by the rest of the Universe, and this is the fabric of reality, the fabric of the All.

Becoming aware of these truths can totally transform the human individual.

[sue hindmarsh]

Cory Patrick wrote:

I dont find it unreasonable to imagine that there is a supreme intelligence that is not subject to time and literally 'is' everything.

“Supreme intelligence” - sounds like you are talking about the Christian concept of ‘god’. If so, how can this ‘god’ be everything and yet still remain separate?

Is it not reasonable to at least suspect that the universe, in its infinity, 'is' conscious and all knowing and perhaps the human brain can be illuminated, or even taken over, by this intelligence, that is, if the human brain is not hypnotized by what it fancies (ideolgies, beliefs, narcisitic images, etc....)

Yes, it is unreasonable to consider the Universe as some brain snatching granddad, which preys upon unsuspecting morons. But it would make a reasonable plot for a 1950’s B-grade Hollywood film. Oh, but hang on – Christianity already holds the copyright to that story.

Sue

[David Quinn]

Can there be anything more intelligent than cause and effect? It is able to create things with the utmost complexity and order without even trying. It can whip up geniuses and supercomputers without even noticing. Never does it make a false move.

Can there be anything less intelligent than cause and effect? It has no purpose, no aims, no desires, no cunning, no knowledge, no thoughts - and yet everything flourishes because of it.

-

[Jamesh]

I don’t find it unreasonable to imagine that there is a supreme intelligence that is not subject to time and literally 'is' everything. Is it not reasonable to at least suspect that the universe, in its infinity, 'is' conscious and all knowing and perhaps the human brain can be illuminated, or even taken over, by this intelligence, that is, if the human brain is not hypnotized by what it fancies

Intelligence requires a physical structure – you can’t have intelligence without both memory stores and some form of data processing area. Such things must be physical, and being physical must be subject to time and not permanent. Intelligence is something that takes actions against or for something else – so it makes no sense to me that a cosmic intelligence could act against anything else –there would be nothing else for it to act against.

Notwithstanding the above, I do believe that there is cosmic “intelligence”, but the intelligence is the most simple possible form of intelligence – it has only two forms, it is binary. It is purely a “physical-like” intelligence, like a computer it is limited to two states. The complete and only possible content of its intelligence can be stated in one sentence – “It knows what it is at any one time, and, to know what it is it must also know what it is not”.

The only reason I am saying this is that for any physical thing to be able to have “an equal and opposite reaction” when physical contact occurs (as all things are doing at all times), then it must hold the knowledge within itself that it must react in a certain manner.

While everything is caused, it is not the case that anything is determined. This term is misleading. What is occurring, what causes are, is this – the ONLY two building blocks of everything - namely that which creates effects we describe as Expansion and Contraction - enforce:

a) Equal and Opposite reactions and
b) when things are not equal (as is the case for ALL things and is required for the existence of things) then one of the two forces will flow in the path of least resistance (which essentially means these two infinite forces will seek balance, the path of least resistance is where there is lesser or more of one of the two forces).

In essence this is the intelligence of both that which is finite and infinite. Every thing while being finite in form actually consists of infinite “material”, though this material is not some form physical thing like atoms but merely the infinite forces of Expansion and Contraction in a relative state, in a connected state.

What I've described here is my description of physical duality, sure, but I don't like the term duality - it is to open to misinterpretation by association with Mind/Matter.

From other thread:The universe is an infinite undivided whole, which I suspect is intimately connected with an infinite number of other undivided wholes that we are unable to perceive because we don’t have the scientific tools necessary.

Perhaps there are multiple miniverses, but I personally don’t believe it AND I know that if there was they would be almost exactly the same as this universe, perhaps the only difference being at what stage they are currently in terms of the caused singularity to mega blackhole or equivalent flow. Mind you I don’t hold much faith in the single big bang theory, but it is OK as a generalisation to describe a never ending Expansion/contraction process.

[Sapius]

David wrote;

Can there be anything more intelligent than cause and effect?

No.

Can there be anything less intelligent than cause and effect?

No.

In effect, wouldn’t you say that inferring intelligence to cause and effect actually holds no meaning at all?

[David Quinn]

In the way Cory thinks of it, sure. But his conception of intelligence is rather dreary.

Cause and effect is easily the most intelligent out of all the fundamental processes in Nature. There is simply no competition!

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn Wrote:

Can there be anything more intelligent than cause and effect?

Solway wrote:

All things that happen are caused to happen, predetermined to happen by the rest of the Universe, and this is the fabric of reality, the fabric of the All.

The prostitute declares to the world he has a beef with Solway and Quinn’s emphasis on an advanced conception of causality as a means to understand the nature of reality.

The prostitute takes out a photo of Diogenes the Great, and kisses it for good luck. The photo is heavily worn due to repeated friction in and out of his pocket. He proceeds to urinate on any posts, which imply causality is the foundation of some sort of supreme understanding.

I question how much one understands by placing value on cause and effect?

Like I mentioned before cause and effect seems reasonable when looking at objects invented by man. Ie: machines, technology and so on…

But when one observes nature with an advanced conception of causality, ones observations are still incomplete. Nature is much too complex to be perceived with the filter of logic.

Causality implies time. But nature’s complexity cannot be understood with a time-based understanding.

For instance: if one observes a tree, there are an infinite number of relationships happening simultaneously. It can not be understood in terms of time, in a logical sequence.

The tree is in relationship to the soil, macro-organisms, the atmosphere, the sun, the animals, weather, seasons, human intervention, but these factors do not relate in a logical causal sequence. They all interrelate, and weave together simultaneosly, this is beyond logic and time, so the phenomenon is beyond the understanding of the intellect.

so one observes the irrationality of it, and realizes that the tiny logical intellect cannot grasp the complexity of the whole. So perhaps one must abandon the desire to understand the nature of reality by claiming ignorance.

I am skeptical whether you can claim to understand the nature of reality, infinity, oneness, supreme intelligence, nature, or whatever label you wish to assign to the whole thing.

Logic is limited. Reason is limited. Causality is the product of logic therefore even an advanced conception of causality is limited, and doesn’t suffice for understanding.

Understanding is born out of unknowing. Not knowing.

Placing importance on causality is tricky business because it implies a state of knowing. And I remain skeptical that such a state is wise.

[Beingof1]

Greetings all,
I am back from the wilderness, good to cya.

Intelligence as well as counsciousness are fluid in definition. Its a moving target and so the conlusions reached can be misleading.

You cannot have another reality because there is only one, yours. The fundamental fabric of reality is you.

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.

-- Lao Tzu

There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
All speech, action, and behavior are fluctuations of consciousness. All life emerges from, and is sustained in, consciousness. The whole universe is the expression of consciousness. The reality of the universe is one unbounded ocean of consciousness in motion.
It requires an infinite amount of energy to animate your consciousness. I say this because you are in a state of eternal flux. If the state of the universe as well as your state of being is never ending change - you experience an infinite amount of energy at all times.

You are the fractal infinite loop that is the universe. It has been said that consciousness is a subset of the universe, this is a logical absurdity because it is a singular consciousness perceiving the universe. They are one in the same.

[David Quinn]

The cosmic prostitute wrote:

The prostitute declares to the world he has a beef with Solway and Quinn’s emphasis on an advanced conception of causality as a means to understand the nature of reality.

The prostitute takes out a photo of Diogenes the Great, and kisses it for good luck. The photo is heavily worn due to repeated friction in and out of his pocket. He proceeds to urinate on any posts, which imply causality is the foundation of some sort of supreme understanding.

All of which involves causal processes. The heavily worn photo doesn't spring out of nowhere. It is caused, in part, by the repeated friction.

So even in pissing on causality, you are making use of causality.

I question how much one understands by placing value on cause and effect?

Like I mentioned before cause and effect seems reasonable when looking at objects invented by man. Ie: machines, technology and so on…
But when one observes nature with an advanced conception of causality, ones observations are still incomplete. Nature is much too complex to be perceived with the filter of logic.

Yes, we cannot keep track of the innumerable causal factors which contribute to any phenomenon. We can know some of them, but in the end, there are just too many of them. We simply don't have the tools to track them all. And even if we did, they would still eventually stretch over the horizon and become lost in the beginningless past.

However, you are wrong in blaming logic for this limitation. The real culprits are the limitations of our senses and our scientific tools, coupled with the infinite complexity of casuality.

Empirically, our awarness of the Universe is very small. Logically, however, we are able to step back and take in the Universe as a whole. We are able to determine, for example, via logic, that all things necessarily have causes and that this causal process necessarily goes back forever.

Causality implies time. But nature’s complexity cannot be understood with a time-based understanding.

Casuality doesn't necessarily imply time. A "cause" is defined to be anything which is necessary for something else to exist. This can involve time-based causality, but it can also involve other kinds as well.

For example, one of the necessary causes of an object is its constituent parts. Without these parts, the object couldn't exist. This conception of causality is non-reliant on the concept of time, as both the parts and the object exist simultaneously.

The key ingredient of causality, the one that gives it so much philosophic firepower, is its implication that all things are illusory. It is by exploring this key ingredient, and understaning it thoroughly, that a person can attain the highest enlightenment.

The following cartoon sums up the issue with beautiful succinctness. The whole of Reality is encapsulated in it, for those who are perceptive enough.

For instance: if one observes a tree, there are an infinite number of relationships happening simultaneously. It can not be understood in terms of time, in a logical sequence.

You mean, a linear, time-based sequence. Calling it a logical sequence is a missapplication of the word "logical".

The tree is in relationship to the soil, macro-organisms, the atmosphere, the sun, the animals, weather, seasons, human intervention, but these factors do not relate in a logical causal sequence. They all interrelate, and weave together simultaneosly, this is beyond logic and time, so the phenomenon is beyond the understanding of the intellect.

And yet the intellect is perfectly able to understand that the tree cannot exist without these interweaving causes, and that it therefore lacks inherent existence. This is an incredibly powerful piece of knowledge which it is able to unearth.

Your gripe really seems to be aimed at the scientific method of creating models which try to map in detail what goes on in the world. I agree that these models will always be tentative and incomplete. However, you are incorrectly equating the words "logic and "intellect" with this scientific methododolgy.

Science only makes up a small part of the entire realm of intellect and logic. There are other ways to use the intellect and logic, such as using logic as a kind of scythe to hack away at delusion and uncover the core principles of Reality. We could call this the "philosophic method", so as to distinguish it from the more limited scientific method.

Understanding is born out of unknowing. Not knowing.

Placing importance on causality is tricky business because it implies a state of knowing. And I remain skeptical that such a state is wise.

Blocking out truths because they conflict with one's attachment to being uncertain and unknowing is just as unwise.

There are many uncertainties in life and, yes, it is important to acknowledge and embrace them. But it is equally important to acknowledge and embrace what is certain as well. One of the things which makes a wise person wise is his ability to distinguish between what is certain and what is uncertain, and to embrace both.

I often meet people who are overly-attached to uncertainty, to the point where they have erected large mental blocks which kill off any possibility of their becoming conscious of truth. These people end up stagnating mentally because their minds are simply too open-minded and bereft of any structure. They become fat and lazy, and all the philosophical sparkle quickly drains out of them.

What they should be doing is using these core truths, such as causality, as platforms for further development. When the mind forms a close relationship wth a great truth like causality, its fundamental perspective begins to alter and it becomes receptive to other loftier, greater truths. These loftier truths can then lay the platform for yet more development - and so it goes on, each core truth forming a rung on a ladder by which the spiritual person can climb up into the highest enlightenment.

Meanwhile, the uncertaintist remains languishing far below in his vacuous open-mindedness, like a contented pig rolling around in the mud.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Quinn wrote:

for example, via logic, that all things necessarily have causes and that this causal process necessarily goes back forever.

Agreed. And this going back forever cannot be completely understood through logic and reasoning.

Quinn wrote:

is its implication that all things are illusory.

Let us explore something to see if we can arrive at the same page. Yes, I agree that we can use causality as a tool to see that all things are illusory, and in a sense we are using causality to free us from the grips of causality. Let me explain.

Suppose I am a 24 year male, who still has a active sex drive, and suppose periodically I take action on sexual desire, which I clearly see creates conflict. So how do I see that acting on desire creates conflict?

1. first of all, I have to waste gas to pick up the girl.
2. I have to communicate with a neurotic mother.
3. I have to listen to superficial conversation leading up to the sexual act.
4. After the act, there is worry about pregnancy.
5. the smell of vagina seeps into the pours of the skin and it remains there for days.
6. sexual fantasies for days afterwards.
7. Frequency of masturbation increases.

And so on, and so on.

So do stupid actions cause stupid thoughts?
Or do stupid thoughts cause stupid actions?

I suspect both are true simultaneously.

So in a sense the negation of desires is the result of seeing the causal connection between desire and conflict.

But what I am suggesting in that after this exercise in causality is over, there is no longer a need to weld causality so the mind returns to a state of nothingness, with no cause.

Do you agree?

[Jamesh]

So do stupid actions cause stupid thoughts?
Or do stupid thoughts cause stupid actions?

You can't get away from the concept of personal ownership or personal responsibilty - which in effect means you still believe in the CONCEPT OF A SOUL, of a self - which is not surprising as that is all we are taught (because older people/or the powerful, want to use those who are younger/less powerful). This is the way of nature, the way of non-rationalism.

It is crap.

[Jamesh]

Gentleman please, no applause.

btw...Get rid of this or fuck off. I have no interest in your ego dreams.

[David Quinn]

The prostitute wrote:

DQ: for example, via logic, that all things necessarily have causes and that this causal process necessarily goes back forever.

CP: Agreed. And this going back forever cannot be completely understood through logic and reasoning.

Which part of "going back forever" don't you understand?

Let us explore something to see if we can arrive at the same page. Yes, I agree that we can use causality as a tool to see that all things are illusory, and in a sense we are using causality to free us from the grips of causality. Let me explain.

Suppose I am a 24 year male, who still has a active sex drive, and suppose periodically I take action on sexual desire, which I clearly see creates conflict. So how do I see that acting on desire creates conflict?

1. first of all, I have to waste gas to pick up the girl.
2. I have to communicate with a neurotic mother.
3. I have to listen to superficial conversation leading up to the sexual act.
4. After the act, there is worry about pregnancy.
5. the smell of vagina seeps into the pours of the skin and it remains there for days.
6. sexual fantasies for days afterwards.
7. Frequency of masturbation increases.

And so on, and so on.

You've analyzed it meticulously. I can feel your pain from here. :)

I read recently that the Australian male spends an average of $340 on a first date - for dinner, drinks, clothes, flowers, taxis, etc. That's around $500 US! It's certainly an expensive few minutes of sexual fun, which, if he's lucky, he may not get in any case.

So do stupid actions cause stupid thoughts?
Or do stupid thoughts cause stupid actions?

I suspect both are true simultaneously.

Yes, they inspire each other.

So in a sense the negation of desires is the result of seeing the causal connection between desire and conflict.

One can certainly be turned off a particular activity by considering its consequences. For example, one might decide that heroin is not worth trying because of the possibilities of becoming addicted and everything that entails.

But this is not what I mean by forming a relationship with causality. Instead, what I am referring to is constantly bringing to mind, in every moment of the day, no matter what you are doing, that everything you experience, both externally and internally, is causally-created and illusory. In this way, your perception of the world changes gradually, deeply and radically, and the desire for finding emotional satisfaction in things begins to diminish.

It's a case of implementing a wholesale solution to the problem, rather than trying to deal with it in piece-meal fashion.

But what I am suggesting in that after this exercise in causality is over, there is no longer a need to weld causality so the mind returns to a state of nothingness, with no cause.

Do you agree?

One has to keep weilding causality, and its associated truths, until every shred of delusion is eliminated and the mind is able to spontaneously rest in Truth without any effort at all.

It's like being a fireman with a hose constantly on the lookout for new outbreaks. Only when all the flammable material has been eliminated and no possibility of fire remains can he can put down the hose and take his ease.

-

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jamesh wrote:

Gentleman please, no applause.

btw...Get rid of this or fuck off. I have no interest in your ego dreams.

this is a joke. but what I would be interested in is your emotional response to it, I used to think like this as well, it was because I had an ideal of no ego, and when I observed egotisical behavior, I reacted emotionally.

Now I can watch egotiscial behavior, and not be emotionally affected. I think this is the goal, to be emotionally invincible.

Quinn Wrote:

Which part of "going back forever" don't you understand?

I'm just suggesting that the intellect is incapable of capturing infinity with 'thought' as its instrument. For instance: some scientists feel that the latest theories such as the big bang theory do a good job communicating the nature of the universe. But theory is just 'thought', and thought cannot capture something infinitely immense. It can only give you a tiny insignificant image which is comparable to a drop of water in a vast ocean.

So the scientists cling to these drops of water, and they believe that actually see something, but I'm suggesting that they see nothing, but a limited incomplete image. This is the problem with 'thought' is that many believe it can show us the entire picture, but we will always come up short.

what do you think?

Quinn Wrote:

Instead, what I am referring to is constantly bringing to mind, in every moment of the day, no matter what you are doing, that everything you experience, both externally and internally, is causally-created and illusory. In this way, your perception of the world changes gradually, deeply and radically, and the desire for finding emotional satisfaction in things begins to diminish.

I dont quite follow here. Suppose you are walking in solitude on a beach, and you're looking at the waves, the sandy shore, and the seaguls flying overhead. Now, are you constantly telling yourself that this environment is causality-created and illusory? and if so, wouldnt this develop into a neurotic pattern over time? Also, if you werent constantly relating the cosmos to an advanced conception of causality, wouldn't there be other thoughts popping up in the mind that there could be attention to? Aren't these thoughts primary?

Moreover, when I walk the beach, there is neurotic thoughts poping up, usually insecurities, and when those thoughts arent active in the backgroud. there is just a state where there is no movement of thought at all. I find this state of no movement rather peaceful, and desirable. Although, while in this state, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I couldnt tell you that I see waves, or the sandy shore, or seaguls, because I'm not even aware that I'm looking at objects that are separate from what I am.

[sue hindmarsh]

cosmic_prostitute,

...I used to think like this as well, it was because I had an ideal of no ego, and when I observed egotisical behavior, I reacted emotionally.

Now I can watch egotiscial behavior, and not be emotionally affected. I think this is the goal, to be emotionally invincible.

What happened to change in your thinking?

What does it mean to be "emotionally invincible"?

Sue

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sue Wrote:

What happened to change in your thinking?

What does it mean to be "emotionally invincible"?

First of all, as long we expect particular behaviors from other people, we will be miserable. The problem with philosophy is there is this tendency to create a system of belief, which ends up controlling our thoughts, and causing suffering.

This system of belief causes us to be antisocial with others because we are constantly fighting to mold the other person to our own system of belief, to our own identity.

And if someone presents us with an argument that attacks our system of belief, we become emotional, defensive, and just outright unstable. And because the beliefs give us a false security, we will not even see the evidence against our belief. We will only look for evidence, which disproves the opposing argument, and confirms ours.

what is tragic about life is that these systems become increasingly difficult to detect as the intellect becomes more and more refined. For instance: I may have a system of belief that states that the ego is the problem, and the ego needs to end, but tragically the system of belief is still the ego. So what I am doing is using the ego as a means to try to end the ego, but this activity is rather futile. what a hell we have gotten ourselves into...

Another example: I may have a belief that says “people who talk about sex are infantile”, and then when someone talks about sex, I treat them like an infantile. Or someone may say that “anyone who believes that people who talk about sex are infantile is inferior to me” and then there is another emotional reaction.

So it appears that the expectations of how people ought to behave is the result of our own limited system of beliefs, which actually causes us suffering.

So the goal, if one wants to be emotionally invincible is to rid the brain of these systems of belief. This is a scary thing because this system is a large percentage of our identity.

So if that system dies, a piece of us dies, but I feel this is a liberating thing because we are less emotional around other people.

For instance:

If there are people in my presence that are behaving ignorantly, violently, stupidly, sexually, and so on, there is no reaction from this entity. People can have anal sex, and throw feces at each other, but this entity would show no emotion. I would simply just leave the room. There is an indifference to what is happening outwardly. The only thing one can do is work on oneself inwardly, and as for the violent zoo outside our window, we have no control over that.

This is why the cosmic_prostitute will sometimes do silly things. His weakness is he enjoys invoking emotional responses as a means to create interesting posts.

[David Quinn]

The comic prostitute wrote:

DQ: Which part of "going back forever" don't you understand?

CP: I'm just suggesting that the intellect is incapable of capturing infinity with 'thought' as its instrument.

Yes, that is obviously true. The idea, then, is not to "capture" the Infinite with thought, but to use thought to point the mind's attention to the Infinite's fundamental nature.

Philosophy differs from science in that it is not concerned with all the little details of what occurs on the world. To the philosopher, those details are unimportant, just so much bubble and froth. He is far more interested in the underlying principles of Reality which govern all things. These principles are perfectly accessible to thought.

For instance: some scientists feel that the latest theories such as the big bang theory do a good job communicating the nature of the universe. But theory is just 'thought', and thought cannot capture something infinitely immense. It can only give you a tiny insignificant image which is comparable to a drop of water in a vast ocean.

Thought has just told you that it is but a drop in the ocean, so already it is giving you information about the nature of the whole.

You need to stop thinking in terms of empirically modelling the Universe, in the way that scientists and academics like to do. No one here on this forum is interested in that kind of thing. We're all concerned with something much deeper. As such, most of your posts are attacking a ghost which doesn't exist here.

So the scientists cling to these drops of water, and they believe that actually see something, but I'm suggesting that they see nothing, but a limited incomplete image. This is the problem with 'thought' is that many believe it can show us the entire picture, but we will always come up short.

what do you think?

I think you're making an obvious point about science, and an irrelevant point about philosophy.

There are many ways to use thought. Creating empirical theories and models is just one of them. Get over it already!

DQ: Instead, what I am referring to is constantly bringing to mind, in every moment of the day, no matter what you are doing, that everything you experience, both externally and internally, is causally-created and illusory. In this way, your perception of the world changes gradually, deeply and radically, and the desire for finding emotional satisfaction in things begins to diminish.

CP: I dont quite follow here. Suppose you are walking in solitude on a beach, and you're looking at the waves, the sandy shore, and the seaguls flying overhead. Now, are you constantly telling yourself that this environment is causality-created and illusory? and if so, wouldnt this develop into a neurotic pattern over time?

If it is done without proper understanding, it might. But for anyone who grasps the truth of causality and appreciates its incredible significance, there's no problem at all.

It's not a matter of "telling" yourself that everything is causally-created and illusory, like a religious chant. Rather, it's a matter of correcting the habitual delusion of regarding objects as seperate, independent entities with the aid of a consciously-understood truth.

It's a form of conceptual reprogramming, if you will, which results in the mind being less deluded and more truthful, and more receptive to enlightenment.

Also, if you werent constantly relating the cosmos to an advanced conception of causality, wouldn't there be other thoughts popping up in the mind that there could be attention to? Aren't these thoughts primary?

It depends on your values, doesn't it. If you have a burning desire to become enlightened as soon as humanly possible, then you would probably ignore these other thoughts until absolutely necessary. On the other hand, if you're a luke-warm soul with no great desire to do much at all, then you would be more inclined to welcome any distraction that comes along.

Moreover, when I walk the beach, there is neurotic thoughts poping up, usually insecurities, and when those thoughts arent active in the backgroud. there is just a state where there is no movement of thought at all. I find this state of no movement rather peaceful, and desirable. Although, while in this state, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I couldnt tell you that I see waves, or the sandy shore, or seaguls, because I'm not even aware that I'm looking at objects that are separate from what I am.

Yes, I suppose if one is drowning all the time, then seeking any sort of respite, no matter how temporary, becomes a matter of urgency. The path to wisdom is really only open to people who don't spend all their time drowning, who are already calm and peaceful as a matter of course.

In other words, it's an advanced path for advanced humans.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

I asked cosmic_prostitute:

What does it mean to be "emotionally invincible"?

cosmic_prostitute replied:

First of all…The problem with philosophy…which…attacks our system of belief - (I) become emotional, defensive, and just outright unstable.

Or something like that - and then continued:

So the goal, if one wants to be emotionally invincible is to rid the brain of these systems of belief. This is a scary thing because this system is a large percentage of our identity.

For instance:

If there are people in my presence that are behaving ignorantly, violently, stupidly, sexually, and so on, there is no reaction from this entity. People can have anal sex, and throw feces at each other, but this entity would show no emotion. I would simply just leave the room. There is an indifference to what is happening outwardly. The only thing one can do is work on oneself inwardly, and as for the violent zoo outside our window, we have no control over that.

This is why the cosmic_prostitute will sometimes do silly things. His weakness is he enjoys invoking emotional responses as a means to create interesting posts.
_________________
Gentleman please, no applause.

I get it – you decided to become “emotionally invincible”, because you wanted to be just like your Mum. Yes, I understand – middle aged women’s lifestyles are quite fetching, aren’t they. All that trotting around; wearing sensible heels and an air of quiet superiority reeking of ‘Mother knows best’ - well that truly is a mode of conduct that deserves reproduction. Oh, but most edifying and instructive is her answer to the questions about the meaning of Life; her sagely reply, “I would simply just leave the room” – can’t be beat.

But Cosie, I know you are working hard to be the 'best darn old girl in these here parts', but I still think you are missing something - what about adding “tsk, tsk!” to your repertoire – my Mum couldn’t operate without it.

You could also change your sign-off to “I bow to the cow” – as it would be far more fitting.

Sue

[Jason]

For instance:

If there are people in my presence that are behaving ignorantly, violently, stupidly, sexually, and so on, there is no reaction from this entity. People can have anal sex, and throw feces at each other, but this entity would show no emotion. I would simply just leave the room. There is an indifference to what is happening outwardly. The only thing one can do is work on oneself inwardly, and as for the violent zoo outside our window, we have no control over that.

So basically you are saying you are pissed off by the external world at times. You feel powerless to change the external world, so you have decided the only thing you can change is your reactions to it. I've got another possible solution to your problems: autocratic dictactor. You don't like something: you ban it. Someone annoys you: you blow them away. Being a Westerner you probably have enough cash to set up a well armed militia in some small lawless African state. With enough time and the right moves you could go from regional warlord to taking the whole state for yourself. Bingo! No anal sex or faeces throwing for as far as the eye can see.

[Beingof1]

David:

It's not a matter of "telling" yourself that everything is causally-created and illusory, like a religious chant. Rather, it's a matter of correcting the habitual delusion of regarding objects as seperate, independent entities with the aid of a consciously-understood truth.

It's a form of conceptual reprogramming, if you will, which results in the mind being less deluded and more truthful, and more receptive to enlightenment.

It is indeed a paradigm.
A Zen story is told of monk and his student waiding across a river. The student asked the monk "Master, will I ever find God?".
The monk leaped on the young man and pushed him under the water. The boy was fighting frantically and thought he was going to drown. Just before he thought his lungs would burst the teacher pulls him up out of the water.

The teacher said "when you desire God like you just wanted a breath of air, you will find him".