02 Feb 11
Originally posted by joe shmoEven Kant back then knew that objectivity is an illusion -but I would love to hear more about that "original realm of thought" that transcends our collective subjectivity
Alright guys and gals, although philisophical thought can be entertaining, the conversation has certainly crossed the threshold of things scientific. Is there any way to bring it back from the murky depths of subjectively interpreted ancient religious texts to the here, now, and possibly "original" realm of thought?
šµ
02 Feb 11
Originally posted by TaomanEdit: "And, is not Sabhava as empty of itself as it is of Rupa? Where is this thing, sabhava? Yet Sabhava and Rupa are."
"The chain of ontological dependence has no end point."
>>> No, only that which is linear has an endpoint. Emptiness contains no lines, or chains. It is the One Zero.
"... Therefore “Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness” means that “the svabhava-lacking phenomena are aggregations that they have the form of Rupa, Rupa is empty of svabhava”.
>>> And ...[text shortened]... then returns to the nameless beginning.
This is the Way things are."
Lao Tzu.
Nagarjuna does not conceive emptiness as a primordial reality but as a corrective way of how the world exists. In fact he makes clear that sunyata does not depend on any specific phenomenon to exist, but there has to be a phenomenon we mistakenly conceive for emptiness to exist
šµ
02 Feb 11
Originally posted by joe shmoIt was all BB's fault, he started it. But let it not be forgotten that philosophy was once regarded not only as a science, but also as the start of science. But in regards to physical science, I admit the thread has wandered. Sssh!, BB!
Alright guys and gals, although philisophical thought can be entertaining, the conversation has certainly crossed the threshold of things scientific. Is there any way to bring it back from the murky depths of subjectively interpreted ancient religious texts to the here, now, and possibly "original" realm of thought?
Let us extract ourselves from the "murky depths". lol!
02 Feb 11
1 edit
Ok, back to thought and energy. No one appears ready to respond to the possible quantum aspect of thought processes. There is current exploration of the possibility with PCAR (Phase Conjunctive Adaptive Resonance) that enables holistic change states, rather than anything linear. This is now seen as possible (not sure if proven yet) in the neuronic microtubules at biological temperatures. I think Roger Penrose was one scientist attached to this exploration.
If it were so, I have not the knowledge at all to know the possible energy flows or changes inherent in a quantum phase change. Any quantum physicists out there?
The interesting aspect is seen in what happens in a phase state to plasma, wherein apparently separate non-sentient particles suddenly change to a unified harmonised dynamic, "acting as one".
A thought may be of the same nature (but not plasmic of course), wherein all that energetic electro-chemical interconnection of the neurones are non-locally in touch with the brain-body-environmental quantum field and a unified state emerges - and thus a single thought has occurred? Very simplified and probably inaccurate but putting it out here nevertheless for comment.
02 Feb 11
Originally posted by TaomanThe murky depths are emptyšµ
It was all BB's fault, he started it. But let it not be forgotten that philosophy was once regarded not only as a science, but also as the start of science. But in regards to physical science, I admit the thread has wandered. Sssh!, BB!
Let us extract ourselves from the "murky depths". lol!
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
02 Feb 11
Originally posted by black beetleI suppose you believe truly original thought is impossible?
Even Kant back then knew that objectivity is an illusion -but I would love to hear more about that "original realm of thought" that transcends our collective subjectivity
šµ
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
03 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleIt would be rather presumptuous of me ( seeing as how I lack the philisophical education needed to find a one-to-one correspondence between your thoughts and the thoughts of the many philosiphers mentioned in the discussion) to conclude you are without a margin of original thought, so I didn't( or at least I didn't mean to). I simply noted that the frequency and continuity of things philisophical in their entirety were becoming the main focus.
How did you came to conclude that my thoughts are not original?
šµ
04 Feb 11
Originally posted by joe shmoI see
It would be rather presumptuous of me ( seeing as how I lack the philisophical education needed to find a one-to-one correspondence between your thoughts and the thoughts of the many philosiphers mentioned in the discussion) to conclude you are without a margin of original thought, so I didn't( or at least I didn't mean to). I simply noted that the frequency and continuity of things philisophical in their entirety were becoming the main focus.
šµ
04 Feb 11
Originally posted by TaomanIt seems to me the thoughts are simply an uroboros-like product of the interaction between our psychism, our ideas and our physical world that surrounds us;
Ok, back to thought and energy. No one appears ready to respond to the possible quantum aspect of thought processes. There is current exploration of the possibility with PCAR (Phase Conjunctive Adaptive Resonance) that enables holistic change states, rather than anything linear. This is now seen as possible (not sure if proven yet) in the neuronic microtubul ...[text shortened]... red? Very simplified and probably inaccurate but putting it out here nevertheless for comment.
...therefore, since our specific states of mind are the sole agent that constructs the reality the way we perceive it, reality is nothing but an illusion that has to be taken seriously...
04 Feb 11
Originally posted by black beetle...seriously enough, so that its empty nature is well recognized, that is
It seems to me the thoughts are simply an uroboros-like product of the interaction between our psychism, our ideas and our physical world that surrounds us;
...therefore, since our specific states of mind are the sole agent that constructs the reality the way we perceive it, reality is nothing but an illusion that has to be taken seriously...
šµ