Ruy Lopez

I have already discarded all beliefs of organized religions as folklore or myth but find intriguing and alluring what philosophers and mystics claim that all being is one or we are all one. After some thought and readings, came up with the fol:

First the physical world. Since all elemental atoms in the universe came from the same source and are interchangeable and transferrable, one could say we are one. The calcium in an asteroid finds its way into my bones after a billion years. Carbon atoms in a tree used to be the muscle of a neanderthal etc..

Second and more pertinent involves human consciousness or awareness which can be described as highly profound and penetrating but still limited. You could assume for the sake of discussion that our consciousness is non-material or spiritual. Are all 6 billion individual awarenesses also one like originating from a universal consciousness.

Am I engaged in fantasy or does someone know more?

victorialis

Is there a third option I could select?

There's nothing I know of to disprove your model. You've just broadened the Gaia Hypothesis beyond Earth, is all. Seems allright to me. Consciousness is far from being understood.

<a href="http://www.hula.net/~hulaboy/consc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hula.net/~hulaboy/consc.htm</a>

If anybody can point me toward some more recent scholarship, please do.

boneyard bill

Of course, Buddhism makes the claim that we are all one, but let us try to understand this in concrete terms. According to Buddhists, there is no consciousness without content. Condsider what this means.

A Buddhist looks at a tree and says, "I am the tree." This sounds ridiculous. But what is the "self." Well, consciousness is part of the self and there is no consciousness without content. So I "am" what I am experiencing, and if I am experiencing a tree, I am the tree. Of course that doesn't mean I'm covered with bark and derive energy from photosythesis.

But it means that we are all united with each other and with the universe because we have no conscious existence without content. In other words, we are not a consciousness that is aware of objects outside ourselves. Those objects actually constitute our consciousness and therefore they constitute what we are.

victorialis

"The light that you see is the light that sees -- not the light that is seen."

But that's not Buddhism; that's a Sufi idea (Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan).

Corwin

Let's propose something else for the modern world with a bit less unfounded mysticism...

AdamWho

No, we are individuals, but I have guess why some might think that "we are one" and all the other religious stuff.

1. We are social animals that need (psychologically and physically) to form up in groups.
2. Our minds seek out patterns in order to interpret the world.
3. Imagination.

People see "cycle of life" and extrapolate the patterns into reincarnation. People see dramatic physical phenomena and create gods. The need to form groups codifies the belief into tradition and religion.

If a person sees the rich interconnectedness of a ecosystem they might create the idea of oneness. The need to form up in groups would reinforce the idea, and the imagination extends it to cosmic proportions.

I have felt "oneness" at times long before I ever heard of eastern religions so I believe that it is just a brain state, a question for chemistry. Drugs might give you the feeling of "oneness" but that is just your pattern forming abilities operating under the influence.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

victorialis

Ruy Lopez

[QUOTE]Originally posted by victorialis:
[QB]Is there a third option I could select?
There's nothing I know of to disprove your model. You've just broadened the Gaia Hypothesis beyond Earth, is all. Seems allright to me. Consciousness is far from being understood.
----------

You mean by the third option, Gaia Hypothesis? I'm still reading your hyperlink and its like punching the wind but I'll figure it out.

My thinking follows more of Adamwho's which entail heretofore unknown or less understood functions of the brain. It was Discovery Channel, I think that featured an Alpha state inducement research in Sudbury, Ontario.

But if somebody can show me otherwise, I'm game.

victorialis

demon-sword, I was looking for a third option in addition to (1) your being engaged in fantasy and (2) someone knowing more, because neither approximation satisfies me.

The Gaia Hypothesis seems more like fantasy than knowledge, to me: it has the dubious advantage of being impossible to disprove at present, which is more than enough for some adherents.

I posted the link to Chalmers to show that the nature of consciousness is not understood well enough to justify explanations like "it's just a brain state."

I don't deny that such experiences are brain states, but that's no better than saying Beethoven's 9th is "just an atmospheric disturbance." Such statements are true but uninteresting, and their lack of interest centers upon the word "just." The reductive approach has serious empirical limitations.

But in their defense, I'll say that AdamWho's conclusions do have the advantage of being beyond social manipulation. That's excellent: it's vital to remain beyond social manipulation while you're making up your own mind. Not to maintain such a position is to have your own mind made up for you (boo, hiss, thumbs down).

Corwin's quote does represent "a bit less unfounded mysticism," and I'm in favor of that.

The inquiry won't go forward, though, if our only criterion is avoidance of mysticism. Any answer to the question of the OP demands speculative thought outside our established paradigms... and a willingness to look silly.

D.H. Cross

Read Ken Wilber's books.