Acausality boggles my mind

[Songtsan]

Where Macroverse is defined as the sum total of all that exists, or has the potential to exist (even if it is nonexistent temporarily), including alternate universes, void, however many dimensions there are, how the hell is something unborn/acausal? Can there ever truly be nothing? Absence of anything? Acausality confuses me....

[blue eyed snake]

Where Macroverse is defined as the sum total of all that exists, or has the potential to exist (even if it is nonexistent temporarily), including alternate universes, void, however many dimensions there are, how the hell is something unborn/acausal? Can there ever truly be nothing? Absence of anything? Acausality confuses me....

 

as long as you keep thinking about it, it will confuse ( the) you.

 

stop thinking, it'll become totally clear ( for 2 seconds, then you'll start thinking again  )

[Songtsan]

I know! I'm not truly interested in stopping thinking yet. If I were, it probably would have happened by now....I'm close though...

[blue eyed snake]

I've never been interested in it...just happens sometimes, ( for 2 seconds   )

[Songtsan]

I've seen it happen a time or two my selvsies, when I wasn't trying to do anything...

[maldor]

I do not understand what is so baffling? We can simply say that not temporal "things" are beyond our comprehension (They do not exist in the temporal sense we know. Ergo they are not "they"- nothingness).

[Songtsan]

How can something just always have been here? Where did it come from? Even if it be a sea of unformed energy, or space, where the hell, or how the hell did it happen?

[maldor]

How can something just always have been here? Where did it come from? Even if it be a sea of unformed energy, or space, where the hell, or how the hell did it happen?

 

We are "beings".That means we only know time. There cannot "be" anything before by the definition of the words you are using.

 

Without time there is no space, without space there is no matter, without matter there is no time. Our comprehension breaks down because we can only comprehend temporally.

 

I've heard a similar mistaken question before. "What happened before the big bang?" There is no "before".

 

Some questions seem reasonable but they are false. We think causally, that is why we are "beings". We cannot think non-causally. It is possible there are "entities" (I refrain from using the word "beings") that are non-causal. It doesn't take much looking to see that we can only talk about this "possible" (another highly temporal term) in an extremely abstract and inventive sense.

 

Acausality is an abstract concept wholey beyond the conprehension of a "being". Have a read of "Being and Time" - Heidegger. The book is about defining what we mean by "being" and what we mean by saying we are beings. He uses the term dasein.

[Nikolai1]

Causality and acausality are simply judgments made in ignorance. They are not processes in reality. It is only when we think they are, that we ask erroneous questions about reality, like 'what happened before the big bang?' If we imagine that reality can be thought about then we are bound to find ourselves in this confusion.

 

Just learn to 'see' the causal thought or the acausal thought as events in themselves, that are not 'about' any reality but are themselves their own reality. Then reality becomes clear and stable and we can relax into it. They will continue to appear but we will no longer troubled about what causality and acausality thoughts signify because we see that they signify nothing beyond themselves. There is no signifier and no signified - both are the same thing.

[maldor]

I think we are talking about something happening with nothing prior to it. In which case it is a fallacy.

 

Acausal is a term used in psychology that does not really fit into this. You cannot have a literal "acausal" thought because experience constitutes what the thought is in the first place ... and in time.

[Nikolai1]

All the arguments that apply to causality and acausality also apply to time and space. All of these are fallacies, in that they are equally true and false.

 

For example, Time exists nowhere else except as memory or anticipation. But these are always, and of necessity, present moment events and are therefore nothing other than beng itself.

 

The solution is to recognise thoughts of time, space, causality and acausality as being instances of being. This is the process of philosophical truth evolving into Truth itself.

[maldor]

Time is a physical phenomenon

[blue eyed snake]

Time is a physical phenomenon

 

is it?

[maldor]

Er... yeah ? We didn't create time in our head it is a natural phenomenon as much as matter or energy.

[blue eyed snake]

there is more to say about it, you might like this:

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/37597-the-domain-of-the-rational-mind/?p=608121

[Perceiver]

"Nothing" can not exist.

 

It is inherent to the word. If it is "nothing", then it can not "be".

 

Only "something" can exist.

 

"Something" must by definition always have existed, because "nothing" could not exist before it.

 

And the "something" is by necessity oblivious to its own cause, as the knowledge of one's cause would indicate an ever new "something" before the "something".

 

We live in the mystery that is. The paradox of spirit.

 

Ain't it the coolest thing in the world?

[woodcarver]

Acausality confuses me....

Precisely!

[Songtsan]

Is there a way to break that down? 'That which is without cause, confuses that which it causes...' Now, my parents confused me when I was a baby, I am sure! Who/what the hell are these funny looking faces looking down at me!? Ahhh!

Edited May 19, 2015 by Songtsan

[Nikolai1]

Hi Maldor,

 

We didn't create time in our head it is a natural phenomenon as much as matter or energy.

You are right that time and energy belong in the same category, so let's talk about energy.

 

Energy is not something we can ever directly perceive.  We infer its existence through the behaviour of reality. For example, if the logs have turned to ashes, and the pan of water is now boiling - we infer that energy has transferred from the wood to the water.  The energy itself we never see.  It is purely a product of our imagination.  Energy is therefore an intellectual device that we use to explain the changes in reality and is entirely rational in nature.

 

Like all things that are purely rational, there is no reason why we couldn't substitute 'energy' for another purely rational term.  For example, we can just as legitimately say that 'love' or 'hatred' passed from the wood to the water, or even 'holy spirit'.  When a phenomenon is unseen, there is no limit to the number of labels that can be used to name it.  This causes us extreme consternation when we see others explaining reality through logically opposite terms and is the setting for nearly all academic fights, as well as the squabbles between those who use scientific terms for reality and those who use theological terms.  

 

Time, by the way, is exactly the same as energy.  It is not something that can be seen: it is a category of understanding reality - purely rational in nature.  It can cause us immense confusion when we notice that time is the same as eternity.  Both can be legitmately used because we only talk about time in the Now, which itself, is not in time and is therefore eternity.  The now is the place where all talk of time and space occurs, to put it metaphorically.

 

In order to stop mistaking unreal terms like energy for the real we must gain the necessary distance to see all this going on.  We must have discovered a truth that is much more stable and solid and gives us the grounding to actually view all this dispassionately.  We either have this or we don't, but it comes as a fruit of spiritual practice. It is not intellectual in nature, but is rather a felt truth that all intellectual enquiry is in search of whether we realise that or not.  We realise this quite distinctly when we get it, and from this moment on we see intellectual truth in the proper light.

 

Words like energy, time, space, mater and causality, from this moment on, take on a different reality.  Just like a certain sound is heard when you see a blackbird, these are the words that you hear when you meet ignorant people.  They come out of their mouths, or appear in what they write. They are real but represent the unreal, but all of this is real.

[maldor]

Here is my thinking:

 

"Energy is not something we can ever directly perceive."

 

We cannot "directly perceive" anything then?

 

 "We infer its existence through the behaviour of reality."

 

How? By perception? ... but we cannot directly perceive it (see above).

 

"When a phenomenon is unseen, there is no limit to the number of labels that can be used to name it."

 

Phenonemon is something that can be seen, felt, heard etc., it is something that is sensed. All energy can be sensed.

 

I can see where this is going. Either we can look at the OP as asking what is time, we can look at it as meaning what do we mean by time or we can look at is as what is meaning? I have gone for the 2nd and 3rd options. Acausal is something we direct any meaning towards. It is not in the scope of language and beyond our imagination.

 

You talk about "direct perception". This is a fallacy of language. It is a very intriguing point though nevertheless! It is akin to me only knowing me and not ever fully knowing you. I can only know you by way of being me. To fully know you I would have to be you and could therefore not be me at all. I cannot have direct perception of you by being me, I can only perceive you not be you. The common terminology is phenomena and noumena, noumena being beyond perception yet the cause of perception ... that is a huge oversimplification but boils down to the idea of questioning what is meant by reality and our perception of it. Is there a difference, how can we determine a difference, need we determine a difference, what is the use/purpose of doing so ... the list goes on.

 

This is a very intriguing passage:

 

"Time, by the way, is exactly the same as energy.  It is not something that can be seen: it is a category of understanding reality - purely rational in nature.  It can cause us immense confusion when we notice that time is the same as eternity.  Both can be legitmately used because we only talk about time in the Now, which itself, is not in time and is therefore eternity.  The now is the place where all talk of time and space occurs, to put it metaphorically."

 

There is a big problem with the line "Now, which itself, is not in time and is therefore eternity". Does this actually have any meaning at all?

 

Time is an intriguing and puzzling phenomenon ... being a phenomenon how is it we perceive it? How can we perceive it? Are these questions that are appropriate within verbal language?

[Nikolai1]

Hi Maldor,

In my post I talked about how the understanding of the true nature of energy can only come as a fruit of spiritual practice. The essential breakthrough is when we personally experience pure awareness, which is awareness totally unmediated by thought. After this moment it becomes very clear that thoughts are just passing events within awareness, and are not awareness itself.

This gives us a new perspective on reality. Things that we thought were real, like energy, are actually just thought forms. Energy is simply a thought word. This word is entire in itself, and does not refer to anything.

Reality itself is unthinkable. A thought cannot symbolise it, as any given thought is itself it.

With this secure vision we no longer need to conceptualise reality. We no longer need to say things like energy has material reality.. It is abundantly clear to us that nothing has material reality. Then we notice that energy itself can never be seen, but is rather an inference drawn from the behaviour of other nameless things.that can't themselves be seen.

In your thread describing your mystical experience you said: 'Within the experience everything was ... a word that does not exist in the human vocabulary.'

It is interesting that you perhaps think it could be described, but no-one has yet coined the terms. With further insight you will see that language, which is intrinsically representative, can never - and this is necessarily so - can never describe your special experience, or indeed any experience. It is the core assumption of language that there is a difference between the word and what the word represents. This difference is the illusion that we overcome.

In that same thread I told you that you must go through several years of confusion if you are to integrate that experience into your practical understanding. Conversations like this are part of that process.

 

Time is an intriguing and puzzling phenomenon ... being a phenomenon how is it we perceive it? How can we perceive it? Are these questions that are appropriate within verbal language?

 

Firstly, we see that time only appears in the form of thought.  Thought only appears now. So the present and the past/future become experientially indistinguishable.  This leads us to take linear time less seriously, which sets the stage for the second insight:

 

There is an ingredient that is present in each passing moment, without fail, and we start to take it seriously.  It is awareness itself.  As we focus more and more on this ubiquitous ingredient, our perception of constant flux reduces.  This is because we are fixated on that which doesn't change - the ingredient common to each moment.

 

Time simply ebbs away from our experience because time is dependent on the notion of change.  When there is no change for us, there is no time for us. I should say though that this is a gradual process for nearly everyone.   The feeling of existing in time can return, its just that we feel that we are living more and more out of time.  Sudden events can suddenly shift us into the eternal, but unless there is a stable intellectual scepticism of time alongside a felt affinity with pure awareness, these sudden events will simply fade away...with time.

Best wishes to you

Edited May 20, 2015 by Nikolai1

[maldor]

My apologies ... I feel this thread may go a little astray.

 

Language is a very important thing. Language can be merely verbal or it can be more. We are using verbal language to communicate now as well as something else ... it is this other language that deeply interests me.

 

Anyway I have to go now ...