Enlightenment and science

[weareunity]

Hello again. Regarding "perspective/perception". Forming an acceptable definition of what this means in the context of the discussion here will be of help I think. Doing so will begin to propel us along the process of trying to understand the "what", "how" and "why" of this complex topic. petex

[organic born]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello again. Regarding "perspective/perception". Forming an acceptable definition of what this means in the context of the discussion here will be of help I think. Doing so will begin to propel us along the process of trying to understand the "what", "how" and "why" of this complex topic. petex

In some ways it's the act of "defining" that then generates the confusion. When we 'define' we are engaging our cultural conditioning and attempting to organize a whole host of assumptions that we've been instructed to take serious... and in a format that's mentally arranged. Nature does not go about doing things in this way. So the very act of defining removes our attention from the natural rhythms and leaves us clumsily-wallowing among the thickets of our own thoughts.

There is 'experience', which is direct.
There is 'thought', which is indirect.
Thought is a process that is removed from the "real thing". So the more we invest ourselves into the act of mental thinking the further from our natures we drift away from.

So here's the problem. We were raised with the assumption that our thoughts are of paramount importance. Everything that exists around us does not participate with itself in this way. So how are we able to integrate ourselves within the rhythms of nature if we're continuously applying overly mentalized concepts?

So the "what", "how" and "why" will only get murkier without the physical alignment with nature. And since nature is not 'conceptual' we are then confronted with a conundrum. The more we talk about something the further we drift from the inner source of the very thing we're attempting to discuss.

[weareunity]

hello organic born. Being reminded by your post that defining can also be confining if not confusing, "description" would have been a better word to have used rather than "definition" in my post above to which you have replied.

That the act of defining can--in some circumstances--be confining if not confusing should not, I think, mean abandoning the process of defining or rejecting definitions. I am pondering here,--thinking not aloud but in print-- that in circumstances when definition is used in the sense of a description arrived at by thought of that which is the product of thought, then no confusion or confinement need necessarily accompany such definition. In circumstances where a description is needed of that which is not the product of thought then perhaps we would be better advised to simply drop the term "definition" and use the term "description". ( As above) indicating that we recognise that our knowledge arrived at by thought may be insufficient to be definitive.

Bit clumsy all this, needs more work. It seems a bit pedantic. I am sure those with more ability will put it better. It is quite possible that, as is often the case, those with more ability have already done so--or rejected such pondering as rubbish.

It further occurs to me there is also one kind of in between circumstance which results from the use of words and terminology. For though it is the case that words and terminology are the product of thought, they are themselves simply conveyances of meaning, and may be attempts to convey meaning of that which is not the product of human thought.This does indeed present a dilemma.

In such circumstances perceiving certainties as stepping stones may be helpful. Good wishes. petex

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by weareunity

hello organic born. Being reminded by your post that defining can also be confining if not confusing, "description" would have been a better word to have used rather than "definition" in my post above to which you have replied.

That the act of defining can--in some circumstances--be confining if not confusing should not, I think, mean abandoning the process of defining or rejecting definitions. I am pondering here,--thinking not aloud but in print-- that in circumstances when definition is used in the sense of a description arrived at by thought of that which is the product of thought, then no confusion or confinement need necessarily accompany such definition. In circumstances where a description is needed of that which is not the product of thought then perhaps we would be better advised to simply drop the term "definition" and use the term "description". ( As above) indicating that we recognise that our knowledge arrived at by thought may be insufficient to be definitive.

Bit clumsy all this, needs more work. It seems a bit pedantic. I am sure those with more ability will put it better. It is quite possible that, as is often the case, those with more ability have already done so--or rejected such pondering as rubbish.

It further occurs to me there is also one kind of in between circumstance which results from the use of words and terminology. For though it is the case that words and terminology are the product of thought, they are themselves simply conveyances of meaning, and may be attempts to convey meaning of that which is not the product of human thought.This does indeed present a dilemma.

In such circumstances perceiving certainties as stepping stones may be helpful. Good wishes. petex

one of the problems is that some people like to obscure the actual meanings, others like to be mischievious little monkeys. And meanwhile the base meaning for everything is so enshrouded in places we don't want to go that noone will even consider looking upon it! But that aside even if you go the scientific route and try to correlate direct meanings between the map and reality you are beset with things like 99% of your meanings came from studying the relationships between other meanings; an absurdly small amount came by actually observing the terrain. So how the heck are you supposed to make an accurate model of what the words are in relation to the terrain, when you are only looking at the relationships between one word and another? ISn't that kind of like trying to make a map of the ocean by measuring the distance between each individual wave? People don't see how far afield you can get with that... or rather how far afield we have gotten.

When someone promotes something like my computer was built using scientific principles in a manufacturing environment and I should be reverent about all the good things that come of science and technology, the first thing that comes up for me is, if I want to verify that all this works the way scientists tell me I should be able to verify it, I don't have the training or access to appropriate equipment or even enough time in my life to verify all the things that have to be verified in any practical way. Let alone the desire to actually do it! So it might as well be magic for all I could care.... it is very much an 'elite' thing which a plebian like me isn't allow entry to regardless. But really, noone comprehends it in its entirety as it requires a lot of people working in tandem to keep it afloat. But still the thing that might stop me from choosing an alternate meaning is that then I won't be singing the same song as everyone else.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

But that aside even if you go the scientific route and try to correlate direct meanings between the map and reality you are beset with things like 99% of your meanings came from studying the relationships between other meanings; an absurdly small amount came by actually observing the terrain. So how the heck are you supposed to make an accurate model of what the words are in relation to the terrain, when you are only looking at the relationships between one word and another?

Wonderfully written replies weareunity and FallingLeaves! Allow me to pluck FallingLeaves interesting observation and further flesh-out what I'm noticing with this issue.

Lets take the word "Farming" and run it though the paces. Now everyone knows what a farm is, we can define this easily, it's a place where food is grown. We should be able to leave this right here. And yet as I move ever further into farming it's obvious to me that this description of farming only "points" in a direction of what's actually taking place among various locations. Over the winter I studied all manor of farming so could write for some time as to how one farm may be so dramatically different than the one a mile away, so much so, that it's difficult to imagine that both of them occupy the same label.

And the term "farm" will carry with it dramatically different imagery when a city person and a person who works the land compare notes. And at this, the inner definition of each individual will have structured the imagery of what a farm is in purely customized ways. No two individuals will view the term farm in exactly the same way, and can be as different as extremes could be different.

So what is a "farm"? It depends on who you ask.

And this would be the case with every word we'd focus on. Each word is an individualized definition/experience. So the term itself only points in a general direction and would require most of ones lifetime to define. :)

[Carnate]

Originally Posted by organic born

So what is a "farm"? It depends on who you ask.

Very true..
A wind farm is an entirely different concept to a food farm.

In a similar way, we each likely have different understandings of core spiritual topics such as 'spirits', 'dimensions', 'guides', 'chakras', 'higher-self'... to name a few.

Most of the debates on this forum are essentially semantic in nature.

When I say 'dimensions', I mean differences in vibrational frequency. But other people may think of the six spatial axis, with time being the fourth dimension..

And the unfortunate thing is, most people aren't aware of the varying differences in understanding. Some people would struggle to explain the differences / similarities between ether, prana, qi/ki/chi, jing, psi, shen, kundalini, yin/yang, feng shui.. well, you get the picture. And this isn't considering the different methods of making use of these energies.

Orgainc Born also have a description of awakening below, and from this perspective, the words are perfectly accurate and relevant for the topic. But I have a different idea of 'awakening' where knowledge isn't optional.. awakening grants knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Awakening implies remembering.

We could have had a debate about the meaning of 'awakening', but I can see that this is an issue with semantics rather than any disagreement in what's taking place.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Carnate

Orgainc Born also have a description of awakening below, and from this perspective, the words are perfectly accurate and relevant for the topic. But I have a different idea of 'awakening' where knowledge isn't optional.. awakening grants knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Awakening implies remembering.

We could have had a debate about the meaning of 'awakening', but I can see that this is an issue with semantics rather than any disagreement in what's taking place.

"Awakening" is always a good thing to discuss. :) And yet you are correct, the subject is often more semantically explored.. while I tend explore it's implications as a more tactile experience. We are all currently awakened to some degree. I notice you and you notice me, so a certain degree of awakening is required for such an identity process to take place.

It's in the attempt to describe what an awakened person should look/feel like is where we tend to run into confusion.

To me it's not words or ideas. It's presence. As we flush-out the mental imagery, and the words that they're wrapped in, we awaken to our-presence-of-being. Now to read this it all sounds semantic. While the experience itself is absent of such complexity. The experience is just awakening to our ongoing self.

Then, there's the idea of 'just-being' as an experience of pure boredom. I thought this at first until the implications settled-in as this experience of continual-presence deepened. I'm finding we have full access to our memory, only we don't need to remind ourself of anything to gain access to this memory. If we've taken the time to explore a particular subject we don't need to keep this at the surface of our thoughts. When we 'need' the information it will surface quite naturally, in response to direct stimulus, and will drift back into the quite space when the stimulus recedes. We don't need to continually identify with information, so we don't need to clutter our thoughts with such obsessions.

When information is important we can engage and apply it, when the importance recedes we let-it-go.

So "awakening/awakened" itself is not an intellectual process, nor is it based on the titles we give it. It's this organic experience of who we are on an on-going basis, quite free of the complications of mentally derived images. :)

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by organic born

Wonderfully written replies weareunity and FallingLeaves! Allow me to pluck FallingLeaves interesting observation and further flesh-out what I'm noticing with this issue.

Lets take the word "Farming" and run it though the paces. Now everyone knows what a farm is, we can define this easily, it's a place where food is grown. We should be able to leave this right here. And yet as I move ever further into farming it's obvious to me that this description of farming only "points" in a direction of what's actually taking place among various locations. Over the winter I studied all manor of farming so could write for some time as to how one farm may be so dramatically different than the one a mile away, so much so, that it's difficult to imagine that both of them occupy the same label.

And the term "farm" will carry with it dramatically different imagery when a city person and a person who works the land compare notes. And at this, the inner definition of each individual will have structured the imagery of what a farm is in purely customized ways. No two individuals will view the term farm in exactly the same way, and can be as different as extremes could be different.

So what is a "farm"? It depends on who you ask.

And this would be the case with every word we'd focus on. Each word is an individualized definition/experience. So the term itself only points in a general direction and would require most of ones lifetime to define. :)

very much agreed. It gets even harder though that even the 'known' connotations of a word (as defined for example in a dictionary) can be all over the place, and even contradicting each other. So even from the point of view of the known, two people could take exactly the same word and mean vastly different and sometimes even opposing things. When you start blowing it up into phrases and sentences it gets to be a real mess... and what is even worse is that some words sound the same as others, and these also can have contradicting meanings. So if you are even just listening to a conversation with someone you don't know well, there is every possibility that you won't even be in the ballpark of hearing the same concepts that they think they are saying.

[Carnate]

Originally Posted by organic born

"Awakening" is always a good thing to discuss. :) And yet you are correct, the subject is often more semantically explored.. while I tend explore it's implications as a more tactile experience. We are all currently awakened to some degree. I notice you and you notice me, so a certain degree of awakening is required for such an identity process to take place.

It's in the attempt to describe what an awakened person should look/feel like is where we tend to run into confusion.

To me it's not words or ideas. It's presence. As we flush-out the mental imagery, and the words that they're wrapped in, we awaken to our-presence-of-being. Now to read this it all sounds semantic. While the experience itself is absent of such complexity. The experience is just awakening to our ongoing self.

Then, there's the idea of 'just-being' as an experience of pure boredom. I thought this at first until the implications settled-in as this experience of continual-presence deepened. I'm finding we have full access to our memory, only we don't need to remind ourself of anything to gain access to this memory. If we've taken the time to explore a particular subject we don't need to keep this at the surface of our thoughts. When we 'need' the information it will surface quite naturally, in response to direct stimulus, and will drift back into the quite space when the stimulus recedes. We don't need to continually identify with information, so we don't need to clutter our thoughts with such obsessions.

When information is important we can engage and apply it, when the importance recedes we let-it-go.

So "awakening/awakened" itself is not an intellectual process, nor is it based on the titles we give it. It's this organic experience of who we are on an on-going basis, quite free of the complications of mentally derived images. :)

My understanding of awakening takes a different approach; I'm mostly explaining this to expand on the semantic differences between our understandings of the term.

We previously held a much higher spiritual position; similar to angels. We experienced a fall a long time ago, that resulted in us losing our connection to the Source (or Light, or God.. or however you wanted to see it). By 'awakening' we're regaining the memories we had in the past.. reconnecting to the Light, and remembering a great many spiritual truths (wisdom) and techniques. At this stage, learning is no longer necessary.. there is no need to study, because knowledge of all things physical will be readily available.

My mother had progressed a fair way along this path, and had access to all languages; she could speak any/every language. We'd occasionally play a game where we'd pick a language and have her speak a sentence or two in that language.. even rare languages were spoken fluently without hesitation. And this example is only one portion of what 'awakening' means.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

very much agreed. It gets even harder though that even the 'known' connotations of a word (as defined for example in a dictionary) can be all over the place, and even contradicting each other. So even from the point of view of the known, two people could take exactly the same word and mean vastly different and sometimes even opposing things. When you start blowing it up into phrases and sentences it gets to be a real mess... and what is even worse is that some words sound the same as others, and these also can have contradicting meanings. So if you are even just listening to a conversation with someone you don't know well, there is every possibility that you won't even be in the ballpark of hearing the same concepts that they think they are saying.

I completely understand what you're saying. :)

And this is what I like about the "natural" language of organic interaction. As I work with the soil and encourage an environment that is helpful to the plants that I'm growing I'm adapting to the language of nature. Such things are not open to interpretation in a semantic sense. Nature responds to a dance that's been in play for billions of years, with a syntax that's well understood by the players. While we humans float about with "ideas about things" and give our "imaginings" precedence over the long-enduring natural rhythms. As a result we are not "grounded". Which leaves us attempting to construct our experience around ideas without viable roots.

We've become disembodied merchants of dream-thought, where our ideas seem more important that the reality that confronts us. Is it any wonder that we're so generally confused?!