GENIUS FORUMS

David,

Iolaus wrote:
Nature being uncaused means that it doesn't have a first cause. Cause and effect extends back indefinitely.

This is not coherent.

It only seems incoherent if your mind is spellbound by the need to discover "starting points" and "bottom lines" in reality.

Certainly I have noticed that the problem of existence involves some sort of break in what my mind is normally capable of thinking or perceiving, nonetheless, I still maintain that cause and effect cannot extend back forever, as that is, as I said, incoherent.

That the situation may be inexplicable at this time, or just unknown by you and me, is probably true. But why make up false solutions?

Yet it is that very need which prevents us from entering into the endless Void of who we are.

Hmmm....
I'm not sure they're related.

They are very much related. It is clear that you have difficulty in ascending to the largest possible perspective, and this is caused, in part at least, by an emotional need to keep the mind fixated on "starting points" and "bottom lines" - that is to say, on finite solutions that the ego can take comfort in.

I don't think you'll ever understand this, though. You're on a different path.

-

Iolaus:

Certainly I have noticed that the problem of existence involves some sort of break in what my mind is normally capable of thinking or perceiving, nonetheless, I still maintain that cause and effect cannot extend back forever, as that is, as I said, incoherent.

David:

They are very much related. It is clear that you have difficulty in ascending to the largest possible perspective, and this is caused, in part at least, by an emotional need to keep the mind fixated on "starting points" and "bottom lines" - that is to say, on finite solutions that the ego can take comfort in.

David,
I agree that there is no beginning or ending in the perpetual cycle of Nature/Kosmos.
But what is your "largest possible perspective" on the above?" What is your cosmology?... the body of the One Being, Whose consciousness is "the Omnipresent One?" (Shall we call It God?)

You *always* duck out on this question. How about a direct answer, for a change. If you've never "seen God", of course cosmology (and "Kosmos") is all "speculation." I f you have it is gnosis. There is a limit to "logic" in this realm. Yet that limit does not limit the reality of God-as-One-Consciousness-in-all. It just defines the limit of human reason.
Comeback? (Or not. Still on 'ignore?') Maybe just another personal insult will suffice for your reply. (Kidding... not as mean as you project!)

mikiel wrote:

Iolaus:

Certainly I have noticed that the problem of existence involves some sort of break in what my mind is normally capable of thinking or perceiving, nonetheless, I still maintain that cause and effect cannot extend back forever, as that is, as I said, incoherent.

David:

They are very much related. It is clear that you have difficulty in ascending to the largest possible perspective, and this is caused, in part at least, by an emotional need to keep the mind fixated on "starting points" and "bottom lines" - that is to say, on finite solutions that the ego can take comfort in.

David,
I agree that there is no beginning or ending in the perpetual cycle of Nature/Kosmos.
But what is your "largest possible perspective" on the above?" What is your cosmology?... the body of the One Being, Whose consciousness is "the Omnipresent One?" (Shall we call It God?)

I laugh at cosmology. Watching a cosmologist in action is like watching a mind flapping aimlessly in the breeze.

"Straining our minds does not help us to understand how Buddhas transcend all things. Once, Gautama measured out three thousand chiliochosms (each containing a myriad worlds), a Bodhisattva suddenly appeared and passed over them in a single stride. Yet even that prodigious stride failed to cover the width of one pore of the Buddha's skin! Now what sort of mental attainments have you that will help you to study the meaning of that? "

- Huang Po

David:

I laugh at cosmology. Watching a cosmologist in action is like watching a mind flapping aimlessly in the breeze.

But seriously, for a moment David... If you can break out of your program of harsh ridicule just for a brief interlude...

The focus here is, in your words, "ascending to the largest possible perspective."

The possible intelligence of the Whole (and our "conscious unity" in Identity with That) is one question..."Kosmos" in this thread. The manifest body of this Beng , the cosmos, or Nature, in the largest sense, is what cosmology investigates.
If you can get serious for a moment, what do you think"The Whole Thing" looks like and acts like as a dynamic cosmos... "Nature" (in your lexicon) on the largest scale?

David,

They are very much related. It is clear that you have difficulty in ascending to the largest possible perspective, and this is caused, in part at least, by an emotional need to keep the mind fixated on "starting points" and "bottom lines" - that is to say, on finite solutions that the ego can take comfort in.

I don't think you'll ever understand this, though. You're on a different path.

It may be I have some sort of block and I do seem to be on a different path, but I am not sure this is an emotional need for starting points. To say that cause and effect extend back indefinitely is an illogic. It is you who wants the pattern to remain unchanged. Also, I do not agree that my ego takes comfort in such things. Rather, my ego would be soothed if I could pass the thing off as of no import the way most people do. Perhaps I have an emotional attachment to logic.

My logic tells me I have hit a wall.

Mikiel said,

I agree that there is no beginning or ending in the perpetual cycle of Nature/Kosmos.

Sure, because there is the Eternally Existent. But there is something completely outside of our normal perception of cause and effect. It goes on endlessly because it exists without cause, and therefore without beginning. If it were not so, there would be no existence.

And David

I laugh at cosmology. Watching a cosmologist in action is like watching a mind flapping aimlessly in the breeze.

You shouldn't. Some of them are really putting things together and coming up with theories that tie reality together. If things keep going the way they are, and they may very well not, then soon enough, perhaps in my own lifetime, this age, this aeon of ignorance, will no longer be. Science will get closer and closer to the underpinnings of reality. It's not magic. With the establishment kicking and screaming all the way of course.

Iolaus:

It may be I have some sort of block and I do seem to be on a different path, but I am not sure this is an emotional need for starting points. To say that cause and effect extend back indefinitely is an illogic.

Try to envision a perpetual cycle. What, in your mind,came before your 'beginning?' Whence came the cosmos? How will it "end?"
Contemplate the absurdity of "something out of nothing" (be it religious or "scientific.?")
I have asked these questions before in this thread and elsewhere, and no answers have come in reply... ever!

Anna wrote:To say that cause and effect extend back indefinitely is an illogic.

It seems you define causation as a domino-like effect, where one thing leads to another in time.

Thus, you believe there is something before causation, which logically would have to be time.

This means causation, as you appear to be conceiving of it, is still in force.

Iolaus wrote:David,

They are very much related. It is clear that you have difficulty in ascending to the largest possible perspective, and this is caused, in part at least, by an emotional need to keep the mind fixated on "starting points" and "bottom lines" - that is to say, on finite solutions that the ego can take comfort in.

I don't think you'll ever understand this, though. You're on a different path.

It may be I have some sort of block and I do seem to be on a different path, but I am not sure this is an emotional need for starting points. To say that cause and effect extend back indefinitely is an illogic.

I will show you how it is emotional. But to do so, I first need to ask why you believe the idea of cause and effect going back indefinitely is illogical.

Iolaus wrote:

I laugh at cosmology. Watching a cosmologist in action is like watching a mind flapping aimlessly in the breeze.

You shouldn't. Some of them are really putting things together and coming up with theories that tie reality together. If things keep going the way they are, and they may very well not, then soon enough, perhaps in my own lifetime, this age, this aeon of ignorance, will no longer be. Science will get closer and closer to the underpinnings of reality. It's not magic. With the establishment kicking and screaming all the way of course.

Every generation thinks this. But the truth is, even if cosmologists were to spend the next million years doing nothing alse but observe the universe and develop cosmological theories, they still wouldn't advance an inch closer to understanding the nature of reality. It is the wrong tool for the task.

This is the benefit of being able to ascend to the highest possible perspective. It enables one to see things like this.

-

mikiel wrote:David:

I laugh at cosmology. Watching a cosmologist in action is like watching a mind flapping aimlessly in the breeze.

But seriously, for a moment David... If you can break out of your program of harsh ridicule just for a brief interlude...

What you see as harsh ridicule, I see as pure Zen-like truth.

The focus here is, in your words, "ascending to the largest possible perspective."

The possible intelligence of the Whole (and our "conscious unity" in Identity with That) is one question..."Kosmos" in this thread. The manifest body of this Beng , the cosmos, or Nature, in the largest sense, is what cosmology investigates.

Ascending to the largest possible perspective means going beyond cosmology. Comsological theories of the kind you are talking about are speculative in nature, as they depend on circumstantial evidence and are tied to appearances which may or may not be real.

If you can get serious for a moment, what do you think"The Whole Thing" looks like and acts like as a dynamic cosmos... "Nature" (in your lexicon) on the largest scale?

From the largest possible perspective, Nature is timeless, beyond life and death, and entirely without form. It is formless like a void, and yet it is so formless that it doesn't even have the form of a void. It neither exists, nor not exists. It is neither conscious, nor unconscious. It is neither finite, nor infinite. It is neither substantial, nor empty. No dualistic categories can be applied to it. Yet it is everythng that we see around us.

Ascending to the largest possible perspective means becoming so free that one no longer pays attention to any appearance at all. One becomes as free as the void itself.

-

Mikiel,

Try to envision a perpetual cycle. What, in your mind,came before your 'beginning?' Whence came the cosmos? How will it "end?"
Contemplate the absurdity of "something out of nothing" (be it religious or "scientific.?")
I have asked these questions before in this thread and elsewhere, and no answers have come in reply... ever!

Of course, something from nothing ain't gonna happen. I have asked these questions as well, and no answers are forthcoming.
I'm not sure where you are agreeing, and where disagreeing. I think the cosmos is probably cyclic, but something underlies it that gives it rise and fall.
The cosmos may end in dissolution, but it will rise again.

Kelly,

It seems you define causation as a domino-like effect, where one thing leads to another in time.

More or less, yes. It is very difficult for me to envision timelessness.

Thus, you believe there is something before causation, which logically would have to be time.

I don't think it would have to be time.

This means causation, as you appear to be conceiving of it, is still in force.

I'm not quite sure of your point. I think you are saying I have not stepped outside of causation. But that is because I can't figure out how.

David,

I will show you how it is emotional. But to do so, I first need to ask why you believe the idea of cause and effect going back indefinitely is illogical.

I thought I already stated it succinctly. If cause and effect go back indefinitely, it is turtles all the way down. All effects require causes, so how to get it started. And how to get a cosmos from - what? Nothingness? No way. Do you not see that there is something we can't quite put our finger on that is mind boggling?

Every generation thinks this. But the truth is, even if cosmologists were to spend the next million years doing nothing alse but observe the universe and develop cosmological theories, they still wouldn't advance an inch closer to understanding the nature of reality. It is the wrong tool for the task.

Well, I don't just mean cosmologists. Particle physicists and whatnot, too. It is possible that without a sound philosophy, they cannot use science to achieve the heights you speak of, but I think it is incorrect to say they won't move an inch. Well, it is your hyperbolic style. But see, the alternative science I read about, should it prove sound, already will dispel the idea of a universe of separate items, showing a fully interconnected reality, which will tend to disabuse people of many wrong ideas and give them a better foundation for philosophy.

Surely, better knowledge of how the universe works can only provide assistance toward better spiritual ideas.

From the largest possible perspective, Nature is timeless, beyond life and death, and entirely without form. It is formless like a void, and yet it is so formless that it doesn't even have the form of a void. It neither exists, nor not exists. It is neither conscious, nor unconscious. It is neither finite, nor infinite. It is neither substantial, nor empty. No dualistic categories can be applied to it. Yet it is everythng that we see around us.

This may be correct, but you can see it is a koan.

Iolaus wrote:

I will show you how it is emotional. But to do so, I first need to ask why you believe the idea of cause and effect going back indefinitely is illogical.

I thought I already stated it succinctly. If cause and effect go back indefinitely, it is turtles all the way down. All effects require causes, so how to get it started.

Why do you think it needs to get started?

Do you not see that there is something we can't quite put our finger on that is mind boggling?

What I see is someone manufacturing an artificial dilemma out of her need to have a starting point.

Iolaus wrote:

Every generation thinks this. But the truth is, even if cosmologists were to spend the next million years doing nothing alse but observe the universe and develop cosmological theories, they still wouldn't advance an inch closer to understanding the nature of reality. It is the wrong tool for the task.

Well, I don't just mean cosmologists. Particle physicists and whatnot, too. It is possible that without a sound philosophy, they cannot use science to achieve the heights you speak of, but I think it is incorrect to say they won't move an inch. Well, it is your hyperbolic style.

No hyperbole. Scientists have as much chance of understanding the nature of reality through the scientific method as Christians do of learning about quantum mechanics by reading the Bible.

But see, the alternative science I read about, should it prove sound, already will dispel the idea of a universe of separate items, showing a fully interconnected reality, which will tend to disabuse people of many wrong ideas and give them a better foundation for philosophy.

Surely, better knowledge of how the universe works can only provide assistance toward better spiritual ideas.

If science can stimulate the mind into philosophic thought and inspire it into truly understanding the nature of reality inwardly, then well and good. But more often than not, scientific theorizing becomes a poor substitute for philosophic thought and all higher possibilities vanish.

What I've found through experience is that the human race consistently places as much as distance from the truth as possible and that the expression of this can change through time. For example, even though science seems to be slowly moving towards a more Buddhist-friendly conception of things - through its discovery of evolution, neurology, the interconnectedness all things, etc - the human race is subconsciously compensating for this movement by emphasizing femininity, emotionalism, materialism, consumerisim, hedonism, etc. In this way, the threat of a slight movement towards Truth hinted at in modern science is automatically undermined.

I fear it will always be thus.

-

Why do you think it needs to get started?

What I see is someone manufacturing an artificial dilemma out of her need to have a starting point.

Is the totality caused or uncaused?

m:

Try to envision a perpetual cycle. What, in your mind,came before your 'beginning?' Whence came the cosmos? How will it "end?"
Contemplate the absurdity of "something out of nothing" (be it religious or "scientific.?")
I have asked these questions before in this thread and elsewhere, and no answers have come in reply... ever!

I:

Of course, something from nothing ain't gonna happen. I have asked these questions as well, and no answers are forthcoming.
I'm not sure where you are agreeing, and where disagreeing. I think the cosmos is probably cyclic, but something underlies it that gives it rise and fall.
The cosmos may end in dissolution, but it will rise again.

I am agreeing (with David) that there are no beginnings or endings, cosmologically speaking (tho he has a major problem with speaking "cosmologically.")... Something in his Buddhist indoctrination in denial of the "world of maya" it would seem. (More Hindu than Budhist, but you know what i mean.)

There is a difference between "I think" and "I have seen." The latter is mystic Vision. The former is the thinking mind without the
grace of mystic Vision. (No one-ups-man-ship intended. Just my usual speaking plainly and very honestly from my transpersonal perspective... having transcended 'personal opinion'.')

You say, " I think the cosmos is probably cyclic, but something underlies it that gives it rise and fall."

It has always existed and will always. The dynamics are not so mysterious. Fusion explosion and gravity compression to critical mass are the primary agents. The "weak" nuclear force (atomic scale gravity) and the electromagnetic force are the other two major players. But plasma physics integrates the latter (magnetic flux on cosmic scale) in a way most cosmologists have not yet comprehended... just outside their field of interest... and academic indoctrination.

I know this is true from a lifetime of mystic visions. Yet I have been passionately motivated to find supporting evidence... my whole life... and i have. The old "bang-crunch" is *not* disproven. It does have a lot of competition. And my passion as a lay scientist is to debate the opposition and present this vision of multiple bangs and crunches... a perpetual "launching" and compressing (to critical mass for the next fusion-explosion "launch") of the next incoming batch of matter returning to "ground zero" of the cosmic "juggling act."

You seem open minded enough to 'grok' this scenario. Most Phd astrophysicists (who teach in college or work for a companies) will ignore it completely, as it is outside their robotic programing... not relevant to their hard earned credentials... answering questions "correctly" on their way to the doctoral endorsement.

Time to go.
I value your presence here as someone not so indocrtrinated with the the cult philosophy.
m

Iolaus wrote:Is the totality caused or uncaused?

If the totality had a cause, then the cause would be part of the totality — by definition — and therefore not really a cause of the totality.

So your question is not a real question. It's like asking, "Is an orange a capitalist or a socialist?"

Kevin Solway wrote:

Iolaus wrote:Is the totality caused or uncaused?

If the totality had a cause, then the cause would be part of the totality — by definition — and therefore not really a cause of the totality.

So your question is not a real question. It's like asking, "Is an orange a capitalist or a socialist?"

"First cause" is a very old philosophical debate. Its source is the mis-conception... the whole embedded cultural stupidity of un-evolved human consciousness... linear thinking. "Beginnings and endings." No clue to the perpetual cycle of life... locally or cosmically.
Consciousness creates... on all scales. It is eternal, not 'caused' but always present as 'the cause' of all that manifests, be it "my life"
(of which I Am the Creator) or the Universe... the whole conscious creation.
It is exactly midnight where I live. The magic hour. I speak the truth... (as i know it.) I onlly ask that others here do the same.
Good night.

It does not matter who agrees with whom, as in below narative.

I agree with your description of what "isotropic" means. But my (mystic) vision is that all we can see, given the cosmic event horizon limit, is but cosmic matter all at one locus/sphere within the "thickness" of the membrane of the expanding "balloon" of cosmos. That is, the known cosmos is but a sphere of "vision" contained within one small piece within the ever expanding "rubber" of the entire baloon membrane. We can not see beyond the balloon either in the direction of its expansion or in the direction of its (cyclical) origin. And, from this perspective, it looks "smooth."

It is, however, expanding into the infinite void of space... whch is not all the same density as the cosmic matter we can "see."

The above is integral to the cosmology I have both "seen" mystically and studied as a lay scientist.. Still the best candidate for the "True" cosmolsogy ... *all things considered.*

Still open to debate on the most likely shape/dynamic of this cosmos.... as far as we can see... and speculation on the "beyond."

Don't be timid. Venture beyond logic and take an intelligent guess... if you intelligence extends into vision beyond what you think you know, logically,,as if that were the limit and end-all of cosmic reality.

Do you know that space is infinite? If not, how does it ** end**?
A very stupid question for very stupid readers.
Just baiting those of you limited to the finite mind.

A favorite old quote:
"But man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what is heaven for?"

Heaven? How silly! There is nothing besides human rational understanding! So sez the Trio... So it must Be... if you are fool enough to believe them. (The majority here, on intuitive count.)
No edit.,Forgive me, for I have sinned.