GENIUS FORUMS

Hi Wolfbird, what a nice refreshing post.

Wolfbird wrote:The second question is " What is Everything ? ".

What isn't Everything?

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

How does this follow on from your enquiry into Everything? Everything includes both the map and the mapped, so focusing particularly on one or the other seems to miss the point.

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

Is Everything meaning? In my reality meaning is only a part of Everything.

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ?

If you want to talk about meaning in terms of human projection, then how about: where would "twenty million years ago" be without Homo Sapiens imagining such a past time?

Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ?

My neurochemistry says that human-created meaning is worthwhile and profound. I think the real question is: is there an absolute neurochemistry somwhere that will decide once and for all which of our neurochemistries is ultimately meaningful?

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on. All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

THE ANSWER: Things are just as they are®. The coherence of that puts lasers to shame.

Wolfbird wrote:From what I have learned from talking to people, there seems to be a selection that can be made between folks who have been raised in a particular belief system and stayed with it (e.g. Catholicism, Islam, Marxist atheism, etc.) and folks who have been raised in one belief system and then, at some point, consciously chosen another.

I am one of the latter. In making my choice, it seemed to me that the first step, or the corner stone, so to speak, was very important, because all else that follows inevitably harks back to the foundation.

This is true. But you would agree that where you are headed is more important to you than from whence you came?

Now, according to the initial premise of the particular belief system, the route that you take towards enlightenment or salvation, or what ever, will be remarkably different, and likely, the destination you end up will be remarkably different.

I'm not convinced of that.

The perfected Protestant is not the same as the perfected Hindu.

Yes, and no two perfected Hindus are the same, either, nor any two Protestants. But maybe their destinations are. I have always liked the saying: "There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but when you get there, the view is the same." You say you are 59 years old, Wolfbird. Then you will have noticed that it is easier for older people to find things in common with each other and with everybody else. Your observation about the pefected Hindu and the perfected Protestant presupposes perfection is possible; I rather imagine if two such perfect people existed and were by chance to meet, they would likely get along famously, each sharing anecdotes of their journey to the mountain top.

By contrast, humanism, it seems to me, is a 'religion' of cities and universities, of folks who find the standard view of a supernatural god unacceptable (understandably so, considering the many negative historical consequences) and replace 'God worship' with a similar sort of worship of the human species, elevating themselves above all else, including, perhaps particularly, wild nature, which is looked upon as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, with little if any intrinsic value other than recreation for humans to enjoy. ( I actually find that deeply offensive, I might add.)

I think any sort of nature worship to be quite mistaken. Humanism is right on track, as far as I am concerned, if it allows for the respect and preservation of as much of Nature's Bounty as possible, while not veering as all too often happens towards regarding Nature as Divine. Humanism must also recognize and allow for the human hunger for the Divine. I must also add that it is this very same hunger, when misdirected, that causes people to become overly attached to things of Nature. Nature itself shouldn't be sacrosanct, except insofar as it helps humans approach the things that are.

Wolfbird,

What is reasoning ? Logical deduction or inference ? So, if someone studying phenomena in deep space makes reasoned conclusions, where's the moral aspect?

I pose the question - why did that individual get into astronomy in the first place? Probably because he dreamed of humanity conquering space and expanding to other planets to increase the chances of the species survival. All his motivations are based on what he prefers for humanity. His vision is what sustains his drive. Some visions are petty and egotistical, whereas others are a more realistic and humble, and the latter tends to produce the most successful scientists.

Most advanced pragmatic work in the sciences can be traced back to moral motivations.

I pose the question - why did that individual get into astronomy in the first place? Probably because he dreamed of humanity conquering space and expanding to other planets to increase the chances of the species survival. All his motivations are based on what he prefers for humanity. His vision is what sustains his drive. Some visions are petty and egotistical, whereas others are a more realistic and humble, and the latter tends to produce the most successful scientists.

Most advanced pragmatic work in the sciences can be traced back to moral motivations.

Sorry (once again Ryan) but IMHO I don't agree, and your thrust seems to take the topic off course. There are so many possible motivations for an individual to do something. What if the person got into astronomy because their dad told them too ? Also, I'm looking at a broader perspective than science and scientists. Your stance of 'everything being moral' seems similar to 'everything being political'. IMO, there is some truth in both statements, but it is vague, diluted and unspecific, so not very helpful. I see morality as being a difficult matter even in a very precise context.

All moral framworks, are merely ego frameworks. All values within memory, are firstly determined relative to the ego, and secondly when called into present experience subservient to the ego.

The ego is merely the most dominant program of learnt behaviour in the mind, it is the top dog of all memories, the master program that calls up and dismisses the myriad of sub-routines.

While experience, the outer world, is master to all things "within" us, through experience the ego can be mastered by the use of the frontal lobes. The nature of one's ego forms firstly from what is genetically inherent, and then by experience, what is calculated through the frontal lobes, as being positive programs of mental action that are worth retaining to aid survival. For instance, the desire we all have for happiness is simply an ego-formed form of the genetically caused desire for survival.

You may well be correct, J, however it seems a trifle mechanistic and covers areas of dispute. I'd suggest, even if the basic groundplan is as you say, after half a century or so of life, study, meditation, thought,etc, it might be changed out of all recognition. Again, I feel this is a side track from my questions at the head.

What if the person got into astronomy because their dad told them too ?

Then he would be a poor astronomer and would quickly fail. My point is that any great scientist is motivated for moral reasons. Newton, Einstein, Darwin, these were all moral men. You cannot separate reasoning from morality.

Your stance of 'everything being moral' seems similar to 'everything being political'. IMO,

No, I'm saying that anything worth discussing is based on reasoning, and reasoning is fundamentally a moral exercise.

there is some truth in both statements, but it is vague, diluted and unspecific, so not very helpful. I see morality as being a difficult matter even in a very precise context.

It isn’t vague, it is an absolute truth. Irrefutable. Proper reasoning is always a moral exercise, even if indirectly. Moreover, Being concerned with the way things are, or how things operate is a moral exercise because such understanding gives raise to technology, theories, ideas, and other useful tools to manipulate reality for humanities benefit. Or reasoning frees one's psyche from self-deception, which is another moral exercise.

Hi Wolfbird, what a nice refreshing post.

Thankyou for your politeness.

Wolfbird wrote:The second question is " What is Everything ? ".


What isn't Everything?

Nice answer. But it's a question. My answer is, if I don't know what Everything is, is it likely that I'd know what Everything isn't ?

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

How does this follow on from your enquiry into Everything? Everything includes both the map and the mapped, so focusing particularly on one or the other seems to miss the point.

Yes, that's a good point. However, isn't it clear that there is a mapper and a mapped ? I don't have trouble with the map, because I can see that they are personally, or socially, or culturally conditioned. There are many maps. That's the easy part. But the 'thing' that is being mapped, is what I've been trying to point to with my label Everything. My question was, what is it ? I know it's an extremely dumb, ridiculous question. So, put me right. Explain to me, if it is possible to say anything in reply to such a silly question.

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

Is Everything meaning? In my reality meaning is only a part of Everything.

What I was trying to say was that it is simple to understand how we make sense of all the pieces of Everything, because we can say this bit is like that bit, not like that bit. Thus meaning arises. But Everything is a singularity, we have no other Everything with which to compare. So our system breaks down. Perhaps someone can explain how thought could go further ?

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ?

If you want to talk about meaning in terms of human projection, then how about: where would "twenty million years ago" be without Homo Sapiens imagining such a past time?

Well, I suggest, all we have are the stories we tell ourselves. There are very many stories, and choice is often made on non-rational grounds. That's fine by me. However, the "20 million years" is part of the particular story told by science.
Scientific stories differ from most because they require some sort of linkage to demonstrable evidence, rather like the stories told in law courts.

Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ?

My neurochemistry says that human-created meaning is worthwhile and profound. I think the real question is: is there an absolute neurochemistry somwhere that will decide once and for all which of our neurochemistries is ultimately meaningful?

I'm not quite happy with that. Perhaps i don't understand what you are getting at.

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on. All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

THE ANSWER: Things are just as they are®. The coherence of that puts lasers to shame.

That answer has been supplied already. Perhaps it is the best or the only possible answer. Or perhaps ?

It isn’t vague, it is an absolute truth. Irrefutable. Proper reasoning is always a moral exercise, even if indirectly. Moreover, Being concerned with the way things are, or how things operate is a moral exercise because such understanding gives raise to technology, theories, ideas, and other useful tools to manipulate reality for humanities benefit. Or reasoning frees one's psyche from self-deception, which is another moral exercise.

Okay, have it your own way Ryan. If that's what you think, that's what you think. i think that the difference between us on this matter lies in the 'even if indirectly'. I like my moral concerns to be directly attached. If I thought it was helpful to begin all reasoning from a moral foundation, I might consider you have a valid position. I like the fact that you think morality is so high up the agenda, but I'd prefer to keep the thread approximately on topic, so perhaps you'd like to address my initial post ? Surely we could return there, now we've set the moral question aside for the time being. perhaps you'd like to set up a new thread which looks at your particular proposition at a later date.

(BTW, I can't commit myself to answering every response in exhaustive detail, but I'll do as much as time permits. I couldn't access the site yesterday. presumably some technical reason for that)

Wolfbird wrote:From what I have learned from talking to people, there seems to be a selection that can be made between folks who have been raised in a particular belief system and stayed with it (e.g. Catholicism, Islam, Marxist atheism, etc.) and folks who have been raised in one belief system and then, at some point, consciously chosen another.
I am one of the latter. In making my choice, it seemed to me that the first step, or the corner stone, so to speak, was very important, because all else that follows inevitably harks back to the foundation.

This is true. But you would agree that where you are headed is more important to you than from whence you came?

No. I don't think any of it is important.

Now, according to the initial premise of the particular belief system, the route that you take towards enlightenment or salvation, or what ever, will be remarkably different, and likely, the destination you end up will be remarkably different.

I'm not convinced of that.

The perfected Protestant is not the same as the perfected Hindu.

Yes, and no two perfected Hindus are the same, either, nor any two Protestants. But maybe their destinations are. I have always liked the saying: "There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but when you get there, the view is the same." You say you are 59 years old, Wolfbird. Then you will have noticed that it is easier for older people to find things in common with each other and with everybody else. Your observation about the pefected Hindu and the perfected Protestant presupposes perfection is possible; I rather imagine if two such perfect people existed and were by chance to meet, they would likely get along famously, each sharing anecdotes of their journey to the mountain top.

I'm familiar with the illustration of the paths to the mountain top. I'd have agreed with you once. I don't think I see it that way any more though. I can think of many points in thaat paragraph that I'd like to contest, but they'd carry us faraway from the discussion in hand, so i move on...

By contrast, humanism, it seems to me, is a 'religion' of cities and universities, of folks who find the standard view of a supernatural god unacceptable (understandably so, considering the many negative historical consequences) and replace 'God worship' with a similar sort of worship of the human species, elevating themselves above all else, including, perhaps particularly, wild nature, which is looked upon as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, with little if any intrinsic value other than recreation for humans to enjoy. ( I actually find that deeply offensive, I might add.)

I think any sort of nature worship to be quite mistaken. Humanism is right on track, as far as I am concerned, if it allows for the respect and preservation of as much of Nature's Bounty as possible, while not veering as all too often happens towards regarding Nature as Divine. Humanism must also recognize and allow for the human hunger for the Divine. I must also add that it is this very same hunger, when misdirected, that causes people to become overly attached to things of Nature. Nature itself shouldn't be sacrosanct, except insofar as it helps humans approach the things that are.

Aha! Here we come to a fundamental parting of the ways. I find your position completely mistaken, so much so that my calm rational attitude is disrupted. (Please don't take it personally, because it's important to conduct a thoughtful debate here, but...) I find it so hard not to get angry when I hear intelligent people say this sort of thing. What the heck is "Nature's Bounty" ? ? What sort of quasi mystical sentimental clap trap does that concept come out of ?

Whatever "people" may think or hunger for, I'm not speaking here on behalf of "people", I'm speaking my own views.I'm not saying anything is "divine" or "Divine", or that anything is "sacrosanct", or that anything should be worshipped. My position is so far away from the conceptual framework you are using that i doubt you'd be able to comprehend. It'd be like explaining the sight of a rainbow to someone blind from birth. I'm willing to give it a try, for all that...

So, what are, in your view, are the things that humans should or might approach as sacrosanct ?

Greetings to all. I'm newly arrived here. How long I will stay remains to be seen.

Welcome, Wolfbird, and some thoughtful questions there, but IMO, I think you already have the answers, however… some clarifications are needed to address your proposed questions within proper context.

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

What exactly do you mean by “raw reality”?

How is “language and conceptual framework” any less a “raw reality”? Are they any less real than “raw reality?

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

You just described the human nature in a sense; its capabilities of abstract thought; but how do you think an animal is able to differentiate? How about anything at all that is able to differentiate its immediate environment and hence react coherently?

What do you mean by ‘totality’ is ‘singular’? How did you arrive at that conclusion? What exactly does ‘totality’ include? I take it that by ‘totality’ you mean absolutely ‘Everything’, but saying it includes ‘Everything’ seems quite vague, since one is abstractly totaling it up and defining that which possibly has no beginning or end in absolutely any respect.

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry? Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time?

The reaction of anything, say even a quark, has to necessarily be a ‘meaningful’ one, for Existence at its core operates on a purely logical basis (based in and off coherent differentiation), so there could have been no time, nor will it ever be, that ‘meaning’ is not operational, but, we cannot mistake it for individual conclusions that abstract thinking produces individualistic, for all conclusions are based in and off reasoning, and individual reasoning can be flawed, or emotionally biased. (another aspect of human nature)

Even 'nature' makes “mistakes” as Existence gets more and more complex, but that too is not illogical at its core.

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.

Is there any other stance possible?

All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

Perhaps not… but let us not loose hope. Let's see how the discussion goes.

No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

I’m neither enlightened nor a Zen master, so I won’t be pointing to the “moon” per say, but that too has its own place and meaning, which I do respect.

Your two questions may be short, but they open up oceans of inquiry.

Your turn…

Welcome, Wolfbird, and some thoughtful questions there, but IMO, I think you already have the answers, however… some clarifications are needed to address your proposed questions within proper context.

Thankyou, Sapius. Nice to meet you.

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

What exactly do you mean by “raw reality”?
How is “language and conceptual framework” any less a “raw reality”? Are they any less real than “raw reality?

I mean that our senses, (sight, touch, hearing,etc., and their technological amplifiers) tell us that we are in contact with something. To try and comprehend what that something is, we build models in our brains, using thought and language.
We then overlay these models, so to speak, upon the raw reality so that it becomes, to a degree, comprehensible.

For example, we say , "That's a stone". But it isn't a stone. 'Stone' is merely a sound we make, and a corresponding set of symbols upon this screen. We share the convention with others in our culture which is very convenient, because than we can speak about that particular portion of raw reality and communicate the idea of 'stone'.

The relationship between the concept 'stone', which is some sort of electro chemical trace in neural code, and the actual physical object, is synthetic, artificial, conceived by people.

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

You just described the human nature in a sense; its capabilities of abstract thought; but how do you think an animal is able to differentiate? How about anything at all that is able to differentiate its immediate environment and hence react coherently?

I think much of the differences between animals and humans that are regularly claimed are merely human arrogance, conceit, self-aggrandisement. But certainly, humans are remarkable and have extraordinary capabilities.
Is the second part of your question pointing towards artificial intelligence ? I'm not clear what you mean.

I think that 'what is human nature ?' is such a difficult question, because, if you survey the historic and prehistoric data, and consider present day examples, we seem to be almost infinitely diverse. Any quality offered as 'human nature' will likely find an exception somewhere.

What do you mean by ‘totality’ is ‘singular’? How did you arrive at that conclusion? What exactly does ‘totality’ include? I take it that by ‘totality’ you mean absolutely ‘Everything’, but saying it includes ‘Everything’ seems quite vague, since one is abstractly totaling it up and defining that which possibly has no beginning or end in absolutely any respect.

Yes, by totality I'm just using a different word for Everything, and by Everything, I mean all that a person could know and experience. Let's talk about a hypothetical individual, smart enough to have absorbed the information from the world's books and to have visited many extreme situations, so that they have a rounded picture of all that a human can know and experience.

And yes, I agree, quite possibly no beginning and no end. Don't think that's vague. Just a bit hard to get one's head around. That's why we all chop it up into small comprehensible pieces. But if we put all the pieces back, suddenly the
Everything reappears, and just as suddenly we are flummoxed and don't seem able to say anything sensible. It's that patch of the thought process which I'd like to inspect here, if possible. Maybe someone smarter than myself can clarify the area.

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry? Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time?

The reaction of anything, say even a quark, has to necessarily be a ‘meaningful’ one, for Existence at its core operates on a purely logical basis (based in and off coherent differentiation), so there could have been no time, nor will it ever be, that ‘meaning’ is not operational, but, we cannot mistake it for individual conclusions that abstract thinking produces individualistic, for all conclusions are based in and off reasoning, and individual reasoning can be flawed, or emotionally biased. (another aspect of human nature)

Sorry, but I'm struggling there with what you mean. You'll have to explain more so I can grasp what you want to say.

Even 'nature' makes “mistakes” as Existence gets more and more complex, but that too is not illogical at its core.

How can you tell if it's a mistake ?

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.


Is there any other stance possible?

I think there are many other stances available. Many people think that their view is THE view and find it impossible to entertain any other.

All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

Perhaps not… but let us not loose hope. Let's see how the discussion goes.

I've enjoyed reading the contributions so far, although I may not be any the wiser !

No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

I’m neither enlightened nor a Zen master, so I won’t be pointing to the “moon” per say, but that too has its own place and meaning, which I do respect.

Your two questions may be short, but they open up oceans of inquiry.

Your turn…

I have followed a zen path for about thirty years. I don't know what "a fully enlightened zen master" might look like, do you ? I've read about them in books. In my understanding, zen is different to all other teachings and philosophies and religions, because it is a method to transcend all methods, to get free from all beliefs and ideologies, and ultimately, to kick away the ladder and be free from zen itself.

Wolfbird,

Yes, that's a good point. However, isn't it clear that there is a mapper and a mapped ? I don't have trouble with the map, because I can see that they are personally, or socially, or culturally conditioned. There are many maps. That's the easy part. But the 'thing' that is being mapped, is what I've been trying to point to with my label Everything. My question was, what is it ? I know it's an extremely dumb, ridiculous question. So, put me right. Explain to me, if it is possible to say anything in reply to such a silly question.

God. Nothingness. Brahman. Zeus. The Void. Emptiness. The Absolute. The Unconditioned. Buns. Tao. Mu. Bribbagribba. Diidlypuff.

It's possible to say something in reply to your question. In fact, it is the only question I know of to which we can say anything. That's the trick.

And because we can say anything, it is as if we are saying nothing. So a simpler solution is to do just that.

What I was trying to say was that it is simple to understand how we make sense of all the pieces of Everything, because we can say this bit is like that bit, not like that bit. Thus meaning arises. But Everything is a singularity, we have no other Everything with which to compare. So our system breaks down. Perhaps someone can explain how thought could go further ?

Thought can take one last step - which is to fully realize what you already suspect. Nothing can be said, or anything can be said. It doesn't matter. Thought is inherently dualistic and cannot make conceptual sense of the non-dual.

But it won't do to take this on faith, or just because someone says so. That's the trouble. You have to find out by allowing the mind to travel every possible path and slam into every dualistic brick wall. It's a tough prescription, and if I knew of an easier one, I'd certainly recommend it. I know you're a somewhat older person and have been at this sort of thing a long time, but perhaps you haven't given it enough raw hours. It took me almost 10 years of full-time thinking, actively throwing ideas around in my head for an average of 6-8 hours a day.

But it's likely you are much more experienced than I was, and perhaps more intelligent. Maybe all you need is a little head start. I hope that's the case. The main obstacle in any case is the ego - being defined as the sense of self which seeks to "find the ultimate answer" and identify itself with that ultimate answer, thus elevating itself to the status of God. That's what is behind the constant hope that something "more" can be known. And the ego won't take "no" for an answer unless it is forced at intellectual gunpoint to give up and let go.

That answer has been supplied already. Perhaps it is the best or the only possible answer. Or perhaps ?

That last "or perhaps" is motivated by the sense of self looking for a way to establish its ultimate, inherent existence. See above.

And yes, I agree, quite possibly no beginning and no end. Don't think that's vague. Just a bit hard to get one's head around. That's why we all chop it up into small comprehensible pieces. But if we put all the pieces back, suddenly the
Everything reappears, and just as suddenly we are flummoxed and don't seem able to say anything sensible. It's that patch of the thought process which I'd like to inspect here, if possible. Maybe someone smarter than myself can clarify the area.

Exceptional intelligence will not be of any assistance in conceptualizing that which is beyond conception. Rather, it is potentially helpful only in reaching the point at which the limits of the intellect are realized. I sometimes envision a tremendously powerful AI which sets to work on the problem of "what is ultimate reality" and comes up with "Mu" just a few seconds later. That might really help end a lot of this grasping.

I have followed a zen path for about thirty years. I don't know what "a fully enlightened zen master" might look like, do you ? I've read about them in books.

To begin with, it's very unlikely a Zen master would have anything to do with terms such as "fully enlightened." In my view, the process of "mastering" Zen is a progressive and ever-deepening realization that Zen is simply not a big deal. It is just the present moment, presently experienced. It is the "ordinary infinite." Zen is now. Nothing more, nothing less. What else would it need to be? Any number of ideas might come to mind, but all will simply reflect the ego's desire to latch onto some concept and reify itself thereby.

In my understanding, zen is different to all other teachings and philosophies and religions, because it is a method to transcend all methods, to get free from all beliefs and ideologies, and ultimately, to kick away the ladder and be free from zen itself.

Exactly. But therein is the catch. One actually has to "do" Zen and "be" Zen. Reading about it will do nothing but create and reinforce beliefs and attachments, unless the texts are approached a certain way. In Zen, the purpose of words and concepts is to point away from words and concepts. If we fail to bear this in mind, we might as well read TimeCube.com for all the good it will do us.

Zen doesn't give us "The Answer." It helps us dissolve "The Question."

Thanks, Unidian.

(How nice not to have to copy/paste your words ! because i can't think of anything to add.)

BTW, I think your paper on freedom and capitalism is spot on. Not so sure about the dialects one. Extinction or Utopia ?
Maybe if Heraclitus reappeared he'd say, "Hang on, that's not what I meant !" I mean, we only have a few fragments...
And the pdf. is just scrambled code on my computer.

ah.yes. There's the story of the Jesuit priest who went to train with a zen master.

After a week of meditation he was interviewed by the master as to his experiences.

"I just sit quietly in the presence of God"
"Good, good", replied the master, "Just continue and eventually God will disappear"
The priest, somewhat taken aback, thinking of God as omnipresent and eternal,
replied "God won't disappear but I might !"
"Yes, yes" said the master. "It's the same thing !"

So thus, I can become God and God can become me, and instantly both vanish.

It is from that position that i ask my question, Unidian. Something remains. I'm calling it Everything.

I don't know what it is. I know it's a silly question. What is Everything ?

BTW, I think your paper on freedom and capitalism is spot on.

Excellent. Very few people can really endorse that one. I'm always glad to find someone who gets it.

Not so sure about the dialects one. Extinction or Utopia ?
Maybe if Heraclitus reappeared he'd say, "Hang on, that's not what I meant !" I mean, we only have a few fragments...

Yep, maybe he would. That would be fine with me. Any philosopher allows his statements to be used differently than he might have intended when he publishes them. That is why we have to be careful what we let the world have if and when anyone ever takes notice.

So thus, I can become God and God can become me, and instantly both vanish.

It is from that position that i ask my question, Unidian. Something remains. I'm calling it Everything.

I don't know what it is. I know it's a silly question. What is Everything ?

Nothing.

And what is "nothing?" Everything.

Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness.
-Heart Sutra.

Nothing.

And what is "nothing?" Everything.

Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness.
-Heart Sutra.

Thank you, Unidian. I have chanted that Sutra, and have it in several translations, but it is really great to be reminded.

Consciousness usually holds some object, such as thoughts, or sensations, or other mental phenomena .
If all such objects drop away, and pure consciousness becomes it's own object, in a feedback loop,
we have consciousness conscious of consciousness.

Do you think that Heart Sutra could be paraphrased thus: Consciousness conscious of consciousness ?

Yes, perhaps. It's about as close as a pointer can come, I'd think. But isn't "consciousness conscious of consciousness" still just a concept? Isn't it still really only a way for the the imaginary self to say "there, that's what I really am" and be reinforced (rather than relinquished) as a result? Doesn't it still cling to words in place of direct experience?

Up to you to decide. But I came up with something similar a while back and held on to it for a while, before deciding I needed to let go of that, too.

Yes, perhaps. It's about as close as a pointer can come, I'd think. But isn't "consciousness conscious of consciousness" still just a concept? Isn't it still really only a way for the the imaginary self to say "there, that's what I really am" and be reinforced (rather than relinquished) as a result? Doesn't it still cling to words in place of direct experience?

Up to you to decide. But I came up with something similar a while back and held on to it for a while, before deciding I needed to let go of that, too.

Yes, it is still a concept. But by actually following the recipe and making the cake, it becomes a practical function, very different to 'normal' monkey-mind consciousness.
It's not easy to find consciousness without any object. It's a lot of work ! I find it is convenient to tag a little formula to the experience, hence "consciousness conscious of consciousness" becomes a sort of mnemomic.
A teacher told me it is a mistake to consider one's self to be 'enlightened' (whatever that may mean) because then you are stuck. The path is endless, so without destination, so always flowing, always 'becoming buddha'.

I think I shall leave it at that. Best wishes to everyone and thank you for such interesting remarks.

I think I shall leave it at that. Best wishes to everyone and thank you for such interesting remarks.

All the best to you too, Wolfbird, and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Ditto that. Take care, WB.

Wolfbird wrote:

…what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

Short and simple, the best starting place is with one’s own existence. Ask, and answer the question, “What am I” and you’ll also have the answers to your other questions about “What is human nature” and “What is everything”.

You're a little late, dear lady. And since when does QRS push Ramana-style self-inquiry? Surely you must be aware that Ramana, Nisgardatta, and other luminaries of the tradition would do a barrel roll were they to encounter QRSism.

Too late for what? This forum isn't just for the people who post here, it is for those who read it and are stimulated to think about the matters raised here.

----

Let them "roll" all they like, the important thing is truth, and a good way to jump into it is by understanding your own existence.

If we do not understand completely what we ourselves are, we aren't truly living.

Nat, I've been following along here and I must say, you seem to have upped your level as well. Everything you've written is spot on. You have mellowed since your days of "sticky buns"! :)

TOILET BRUSH!

Wolfbird, I truly am sorry to have made you angry, but I stand by what I said 110%. Perhaps I misunderstood you in the quote I was responding to. You wrote:

humanism, it seems to me, is a 'religion' of cities and universities, of folks who find the standard view of a supernatural god unacceptable (understandably so, considering the many negative historical consequences) and replace 'God worship' with a similar sort of worship of the human species, elevating themselves above all else, including, perhaps particularly, wild nature, which is looked upon as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, with little if any intrinsic value other than recreation for humans to enjoy. ( I actually find that deeply offensive, I might add.)

It sounded as though you were criticizing humanism for setting humans above wild nature. In my view, humans are above wild nature. "Exploit" can have a negative connotation - it seems that is how you are using the word. I believe nature is supposed to be used by humans for their benefit. Note "used," not "abused." I agree the abuse is deeply offensive; the use is not. When viewed this way, I do believe there is a "bounty" in nature. I mean that as a term urging respect for her resources. But I wanted to be careful to add some caution there. You used the words "intrinsic value." I find that frequently people have a sentimental attachment to nature, not that I was accusing your statement of implying that. Put metaphorically, people all too often mistake Eden for the gods. If you are criticizing humansim for elevating the human animal to god-like status, I couldn't agree with you more. However, again in my own view, there is no a priori reason why humanism should do that. Simply put, neither nature nor humans should be worshipped. But to the extent that humanism places mankind at the helm of "spaceship earth," so to speak, I agree with it.

What sort of quasi mystical sentimental clap trap

hardly seems warranted by the term "Nature's Bounty," with or without the capitalization.

It'd be like explaining the sight of a rainbow to someone blind from birth

Okay, with that and my quote about the paths leading to the mountaintop, we have duly traded somewhat worn cliches.

It's somewhat tragic that you come to a forum seeking to exchange ideas, yet right off the bat, words like "divine" and "sacrosanct" seem to trigger a bad reaction. We are, all of us, limited by our language somewhat, perhaps myself more so than most, at least at GF. I feel like I just poured a glass of water and offered it to a thirsty man, and he spat out his very first mouthful. I assure you, I didn't put anything in it. It was just a glass of water.

You know, now and again I ask myself what I am doing in this forum. And to be honest, I can never come up with a satisfactory answer. We use this space to exchange ideas, I get that. But I also get the impression that many people come here to find something, as opposed to endlessly opining and venting. Yet there is a curious kind of common thread present here, and maybe it’s not just here but everywhere and that is likelihood monumentally depressing. And that is this tacit agreement that the first person who brings up God loses. It’s like I can offend somebody by capitalizing the words like Nature’s Bounty. I think I should really ask myself if this is the best forum for me. I didn’t want some namby-pamby kind of venue where everybody is “praise Jesus” and “amen,” I wanted a place where people with open minds might be drawn to. But more than that; I wanted, I think, a place where I might encounter online more open hearts. I am 51 years old, so I suppose I may be a come across as cynical in my postings, but I sincerely try not to be so much so that my own mind and heart are closed. My approach to matters intellectual has been to expose myself to as broad a sampling of other people’s thinking as possible, while only stipulating quality of the thought, the consistency. Personally, I tend to read more Eastern than Western philosophy, but it doesn’t really matter, because I am not going to stop. It is food for the mind, but it is not mind itself, let alone one’s own mind. I ask myself, what is the motivation for this? It is well and good to ask, why are we here? Where did we come from? What is Everything? But why are we asking? I can only speak for myself. I ask not just because I want to know, but because I care. It is as if I cannot win. I am doomed to be misunderstood. I was raised to be Catholic, but stopped attending Church services because the more I learned about the Church’s history, the more repelled I became. The very same organization that passed a collection basket under my nose was responsible for the Inquistion and all sorts of gruesome activity unparalleled in the annals of recorded history until the twentieth century. If it’s truth we are all looking for, shouldn’t it be easier to find? You can dig through the Western classics and you can dig through the Vedas and Upanishads and read Lao Tzu as well. It’s hard work. I keep trying to do it because it keeps me sane. But it doesn’t answer the question of What is Everything? Can it be answered in words? And there you have it: you instantly proceed to verify what has been put into words: Socrates says this, Plato that. Words have to come from somebody. An idea or thought can be had and shared; where did it come from? Meaning, the source: from whom did it come? A person is not born understanding things! Every philosopher was once an infant. The chain of custody of an idea, any idea, lies in words. The ability to have an idea or to understand an idea, any idea, lies in words. In the very beginning was the word. Why is it so easily dismissed to postulate that if in the beginning was the word, it must have been spoken, so to speak, by someone? And to want to know more about that someone? To me, it seems as natural as drinking a glass of water when you are thirsty, or for that matter to offer one to somebody else who appears to be. A thousand pardons.

Wolfbird seems to have flown. I wish him a good journey.

Brokenhead, do you believe in God? And if so, can you describe him/it?

And you don't "lose" for bringing it up (or alluding to it), at least in my book. If anything, you "win" for your honesty. So I'm asking in that spirit.