Re: Universe = Mind

From: yunlong (thedreamofbutterfly_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/21/04 

Date: 21 Sep 2004 00:28:41 -0700

bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message news:<cinfib$r91$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> yunlong wrote:
>
> >bv_schornak wrote:
> >
> >>Russell E. Rierson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>< snipped, not forgotten... :) >
> >>
> >>Let's make a little journey.
> >>
> >>Just assume there's something like the "speed of thoughts", so we
> >>can travel through spacetime without any delay.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Such idea in the ancient Chinese thought is called "Xing-Er-Shang,"
> >"[reasoning what comes] beyond forms."
> >
>
> Then they had a higher level of "mental freedom" than we
> have today!

They were.

>
> >>Let's leave Earth
> >>and our solar system, our galaxy, the local cluster and so on. At
> >>the end of our journey, we finally reach a point where we can see
> >>our entire Universe concentrated to one single dot of light. What
> >>can we find at the point where we are now?
> >>
> >
> >It depends on whether the space is flat/fixed/absolute or not;
> >however, if it is not, as suggested by contemporary scientific
> >theories, you cannot travel out of it, or if it is, and when you come
> >to see the dot of light, the universe will be too far gone for you to
> >"recognize" as the universe you used to know, how do you make the
> >connection?
> >
>
> What we can observe, the thing we call "The Universe" is
> one of infinite "isles of energy and matter" in my "Uni-
> verse".

Ancient Chinese/Taoism called it "the flow of Yin and Yang," where
"Yin" is "matter," and "Yang" is "energy."

> That is: I expand the boundaries of the Universe
> to nowhere (infinity). Thus, I do not leave the Universe
> with my journey, I just leave one of the "isles" to look
> at it from a point _within_ the Universe, but outside of
> the isle where I came from. That "dot of light" is not a
> physical contraction of the "isle", it's just an optical
> effect caused by the distant point of view.

Then the connection of the "entire universe" and the "dot of light"
becomes too farfetched an idea.

>
> You are right about the "dot of light". There can't be a
> "dot of light", no light beam from our "isle" ever could
> reach this point.

Are you saying that "our entire universe" is only the gigantic "black
hole"?

>
> Stupidity killed the cat?

Yup, but I like the cat's adventurous spirit, and a capable cat always
survives.

>
> >>Is there "something" or not? Obviously - there can't be anything.
> >>The point where we are is outside the radius where any matter has
> >>ever been, it will need some more aeones to arrive at this point.
> >>The expansion of the "known Universe" has not reached our current
> >>position.
> >>
> >>Now the question pops up - does time exist here? The answer might
> >>be a "yes and no".
> >>
> >
> >Yes, in dualism.
> >
> >No, in Unism, Oneness, the realm of TaiChi/Tao.
> >
>
> Sorry - I want to stay within reality.

What do you mean by "reality"?

> This is a thought
> model of something which can be physically true or, with
> a higher probability, fails the test.

The reality of TaiChi is balanced/harmonized Yin and Yang--inhale is
Yin and exhale is Yang; you do breathe, don't you?

> For me, it is more
> convincing than a folded space where a line meets itself
> if we draw it long enough - this folded space leaves the
> important question "what's behind" completely open.

Or how open are you?

>
> >>As long as we are here, we bring our time with
> >>us. If we leave this place, there is absolutely nothing left. The
> >>"Nothing" doesn't know a time, nothing is in motion. If we define
> >>time as continuous motion in a nuclear range - no time exists out
> >>here.
> >>
> >
> >Not sure what you mean here; "nothing," means "not having a thing,"
> >has a meaning in dualism, thus a "thing." Between things, there's
> >"space," and come with space, there's "time." In dualism, there's
> >always "space," "time," and "things."
> >
>
> Okay, I did not expect there are so many definitions for
> Nothing. In my model it is "empty space" or "the void" -
> no energy, no matter => Nothing.
>
> The existence of space and time depend on the definition
> you're using. I used the definition developed in another
> discussion. In general, if those "isles" have properties
> like space and time, then the Nothing between them might
> be defined as space-time with no "mass distribution", as
> well.

Then, those "isles" are isolated without "nothing" to connected them;
i.e. the universe is no longer "whole" but some fragmented or
partitioned universe.

>
> >However, there's neither thing nor space/time in Unism, the unified
> >mind and body.
> >
>
> So only "bodyminds" or "mindbodies" exist?

Not the "only" existence, nevertheless, but a higher level of
existence.

>
> >>One step ahead - could it be possible that we would see some more
> >>dots of light out here? More Universes "floating" in the Nothing?
> >>Is there an end of this Nothing, the point where we smash against
> >>a "solid wall", if we move straight forwards further and further?
> >>
> >
> >Not really, mind can be anywhere, however,
> >
>
> It's a rhetoric question.

Not really, it is a fact that has been grossly overlooked.

> There are no borders. If there
> would be outer boundaries, the effect probably would not
> be like smashing into a wall. But if there would be some
> kind of border, my next question would be "What's behind
> that border?".

The tranquility and the serenity of "wordless" existence.

>
> >>Now: How could a SPoG or a theory of an universal mind be applied
> >>to such a Nothing with an infinite amount of Universes "floating"
> >>inside its "borders" (where I would tend to say there are none)?
> >>
> >
> >only the body is grounded, which makes the "borders" of the universe.
> >
>
> I'm not familiar with your model. Could you give a brief
> explanation?

My model, an ancient Chinese model called Tao/Taoism, is rooted in
"Yin and Yang"; that is, based on "what we feel"--Yin--AND "what we
see"--Yang--when they are matched/harmonized, there is the reality.

http://www.taomartialarts.com/tji/tji_taichiandchuan.html

>
> >>Isn't _every_ thought about entities with superior qualities just
> >>a try to cover our missing knowledge, our limited perception, our
> >>limited abilities to comprehend what we perceive?
> >>
> >
> >[limited] perception of mind is where limitation breeds.
> >
>
> Yes. Obviously, some of us are more, some of us less li-
> mited. Is my neuronal network just firing erroneous data
> through my head, or is there the possibility my thoughts
> might touch the truth?

Yes, if it terminates at the physical level; no, a "black hole" is not
a "physical" entity--we can neither see nor touch it, i.e. without our
mental activity it cannot exist.

>
> >>Isn't it a wish
> >>of us humans that we're the center of the Universe, our denial to
> >>accept that we're not even a single atom in a grain of sand found
> >>in the Sahara - compared to the entire Universe?
> >>
> >
> >Or mind makes the entire universe?
> >
>
> Have a look at the world (especially those "minds") out-
> side - do you need a more convincing proof that it can't
> be true? ;)

The reason that Taoism favored "sight AND touch" to know their
environment is so that they may eliminate the illusions created by
minds and reach into the "true" sense of reality.

>
> BTW: This model was developed in my own head. I'm not in
> touch with philosophers or religious groups who could be
> a source of influence...

Good works...

Good lucks, :)
IS

>
>
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak

Quantcast