Science for the awakened

[Marblehead]

 

No, I don’t believe that it's fully preprogrammed. But it seems to be equipped with some information from the onset of an incarnation, which only needs to be "remembered".

That caused me a chuckle.  Sorry.

[Marblehead]

 If we are born as blank slates with cognitive and emotional capacity, then there is no requirement for reincarnation or karma.

Duh.

[Michael Sternbach]

Be honest Michael. Doesn't your philosophy feel a bit fuzzy to you ? A bit floaty and patchy ?

 

You are not fully an intrincisist and you have demonstrated pragmatism to paper over the cracks, by suggesting knowledge is partially intrinsic ( from memory of past life) and partially cognitive-which is a pragmatic view point. It's a compromised philosophy. If pushed you will be forced to slide into full subjectivism.

 

I would define myself as a spiritual scientist. My approach to metaphysics (and to life, for that matter) is generally an experimental one. So I continuously formulate hypotheses, avoiding to assume them to be ultimate answers. At once, I try to remain open to empirical findings that don't seem to fit in. It is often the cracks in one's world view that lead to expanded understanding eventually. So I am ready to adjust and extend my theories, making them more comprehensive. The search for truth presumably never ends for good.

 

Does it make sense that you are born with some intrinsic knowledge, but not all intrinsic knowledge ?

 

I am not sure why it shouldn't make sense. The further my search advances, the more I realize that opposite truths are generally complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

 

What specific memory is retained ? How is that selected ?

 

Good questions. It seems like there is a Central Intelligence Agency - LOL. Some people call this the higher self or the inner self. It also ties in with the superconscious I mentioned previously. Perhaps it is synonymous with what Des referred to as the heart?

[Michael Sternbach]

That caused me a chuckle. Sorry.

Be my guest. (I could quote the DDJ on the different levels of sages here, but that would be mean.)

Edited December 12, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Karl]

I cannot tell you 'exactly'.. I can say that I don't understand why you ask questions, formulate a response for others (without giving them a chance to answer the query), and then argue against the answer you provided, as if you are arguing with someone other than yourself. It's really kind of interesting to watch - especially since I'm pretty sure I've done this myself.

 

As long as it's interesting. :-)

[ilumairen]

As long as it's interesting. :-)

 

It is.

 

I'm glad you don't mind.

[Karl]

It is.

 

I'm glad you don't mind.

 

Then all is well.

[Marblehead]

Be my guest. (I could quote the DDJ on the different levels of sages here, but that would be mean.)

Being mean is not one of your character traits.

[ilumairen]

It seems like there is a Central Intelligence Agency - LOL. Some people call this the higher self or the inner self. It also ties in with the superconscious I mentioned previously. Perhaps it is synonymous with what Des referred to as the heart?

 

For me the 'heart' is the spring from which positive attributes flow. It is only a 'capacity' in that this flow can be restricted by our own defined parameters and limits. I think that how much we are able to recognize this is dependent upon not only how we define ourselves and the world we are a part of, but on how we have lived. Perhaps this also pertains to past lives, but this would only be secondary. It is this life, and this moment that is of consequence.

 

Does this sound like your CIA Michael?

 

 

 

(P.S. Thank you for leaving space for me to respond.)

 

[Michael Sternbach]

For me the 'heart' is the spring from which positive attributes flow. It is only a 'capacity' in that this flow can be restricted by our own defined parameters and limits. I think that how much we are able to recognize this is dependent upon not only how we define ourselves and the world we are a part of, but on how we have lived. Perhaps this also pertains to past lives, but this would only be secondary. It is this life, and this moment that is of consequence.

 

Does this sound like your CIA Michael?

 

 

 

(P.S. Thank you for leaving space for me to respond.)

 

Some traditions remind us that at our innermost core, we are literally identical with God (in Hinduism: Atman is Brahman). Is that the part which remains after physical life and reincarnates? This must be true, yet I observe that pretty specific past life information finds its way back into incarnation as well.

[Karl]

For me the 'heart' is the spring from which positive attributes flow. It is only a 'capacity' in that this flow can be restricted by our own defined parameters and limits. I think that how much we are able to recognize this is dependent upon not only how we define ourselves and the world we are a part of, but on how we have lived. Perhaps this also pertains to past lives, but this would only be secondary. It is this life, and this moment that is of consequence.

 

Does this sound like your CIA Michael?

 

 

 

(P.S. Thank you for leaving space for me to respond.)

 

Putting aside the terms you have used I get the sense that you are actually referring to rational morality. I hope so :-)

[Michael Sternbach]

Putting aside the terms you have used I get the sense that you are actually referring to rational morality. I hope so :-)

 

"Rational morality" requires conditioning and is based on social convention, not on 'the heart' as the source of positive attributes.

 

That's why Laotzu wrote that the sage acts on natural virtue (which he is barely aware of), not on virtue as a set of programmed "dos" and "don'ts". Jesus taught the same.

[ilumairen]

Some traditions remind us that at our innermost core, we are literally identical with God (in Hinduism: Atman is Brahman). Is that the part which remains after physical life and reincarnates? This must be true, yet I observe that pretty specific past life information finds its way back into incarnation as well.

 

For me it isn't 'identical'. We are human with human limitations, and 'infused' with the light often referred to as 'divine' as well. This light can shine forth illuminating the world we inhabit, and it can be obscured leaving us to feel we live in a world of darkness.

 

I've read that there can be unfinished business which calls a soul to continue to play out patterns. In this life I have actually experienced the playing out of said patterns. When I consider every moment a springtime/rebirth it becomes clear that unfinished/unexamined patterns (past life information) does indeed find it's way into the incarnation of this moment. How far back this has been going on is not as important to me as being aware this moment.

[ilumairen]

Putting aside the terms you have used I get the sense that you are actually referring to rational morality. I hope so :-)

 

Why do you hope so?

[Karl]

"Rational morality" requires conditioning and is based on social convention, not on 'the heart' as the source of positive attributes.

 

That's why Laotzu wrote that the sage acts on natural virtue (which he is barely aware of), not on virtue as a set of programmed "dos" and "don'ts". Jesus taught the same.

 

Absolutely wrong. It does not require conditioning based on social convention, it only requires the rational mind of man to actively look for and maintain his only moral values in accordance with existent reality.

 

Intrincisists believe morality comes from some higher source such as a deity/the great all/heart or whatever. They believe it is intrinsic and all that is required is to still the mind for those moral values to become clear.

 

An intrincisicist automatically assumes that the alternative is subjectivism/rationalism in which moral values are imprinted on man by simply turning to reality.

 

I'm shortening both these descriptions.

 

Intrincisists, subjectivists and objectivist so find alternative common ground, but their philosophies are greatly different. You appear to have regarded my comments as subjectivist, but they are not, I'm firmly in the objectivist camp.

 

In other words you are free to determine your own moral values in accordance with existent reality. No God, no social conditioning, just volitional conceptualisation by the independent rational mind.

 

It is the thinking rational mind that can be viewed as the heart if you will. That it is following these moral values that man survives because man is not automatic, he has to take regard of the long range future as well as the immediate present.

 

Both the intrincisist and subjectivist philosophies are attempts at man giving up his only means of survival-his mind. Instead, both are concerned with the primacy of consciousness-either by way of the supernatural or by collective consciousness. I support neither. I support the primacy of existence.

[ilumairen]

It is the thinking rational mind that can be viewed as the heart if you will. That it is following these moral values that man survives because man is not automatic, he has to take regard of the long range future as well as the immediate present.

 

Both the intrincisist and subjectivist philosophies are attempts at man giving up his only means of survival-his mind. Instead, both are concerned with the primacy of consciousness-either by way of the supernatural or by collective consciousness. I support neither. I support the primacy of existence.

 

My heart is not equivalent to rational mind by any stretch of the imagination. And I have little concern about an imaginary long range future that may/may not happen, and I may/may not be a part of. Nor do I overly concern myself with ideas of the supernatural or a collective consciousness.

 

Experience is not the definition of, or the words used to describe, said experience. It just is. In the same way I just am.

 

(PS You are doing that thing again - creating arguments for others, and then knocking your own argument down. )

[Karl]

Why do you hope so?

 

I always hope for good things for good people. :-)

[Karl]

My heart is not equivalent to rational mind by any stretch of the imagination. And I have little concern about an imaginary long range future that may/may not happen, and I may/may not be a part of. Nor do I overly concern myself with ideas of the supernatural or a collective consciousness.

 

Experience is not the definition of, or the words used to describe, said experience. It just is. In the same way I just am.

 

(PS You are doing that thing again - creating arguments for others, and then knocking your own argument down. )

 

OK so how do you describe this heart? What does it do ? How does it operate ?

 

You never consider the future ? How you will earn money, what you will eat, your health and well being ? Nothing matters at all ?

[ilumairen]

Edited December 13, 2015 by Des

[ilumairen]

OK so how do you describe this heart? What does it do ? How does it operate ?

 

You never consider the future ? How you will earn money, what you will eat, your health and well being ? Nothing matters at all ?

 

Why would you assume nothing matters?

[Karl]

Why would you assume nothing matters[

Why would you assume nothing matters?

 

You said you lacked of interest in anything beyond the present i.e imaginary long range future as you put it.

[ilumairen]

You said you lacked of interest in anything beyond the present i.e imaginary long range future as you put it.

 

I can't say with any certainty what a long range future holds, and I can't say with any certainty that I will be a part of what ever may come up in a future I can only conjecture about at this point. So I have the option to play out imaginary futures in my mind, or I can listen to the thunder and enjoy this moment.

 

I like the thunder.

[ilumairen]

BTW Karl, this is, to me, still about which label you choose to ascribe to me, and the difference between rational mind and heart. I still work, pay my bills, and feed myself.

 

To me it is strange that you would think living primarily in the now would somehow negate these things.

 

And yes, to an extent the future is predictable...

 

(But again, you were insistent on 'long range'.)

[Karl]

I can't say with any certainty what a long range future holds, and I can't say with any certainty that I will be a part of what ever may come up in a future I can only conjecture about at this point. So I have the option to play out imaginary futures in my mind, or I can listen to the thunder and enjoy this moment.

 

I like the thunder.

That's all any of us can do Des, but you still have to plan long range, unlike an animal that is on automatic pilot, you need your mind to plan the next pay cheque, next meal and beyond. The success of your planning determines your survival into that future.

 

I like thunder too.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

BTW Karl, this is, to me, still about which label you choose to ascribe to me, and the difference between rational mind and heart. I still work, pay my bills, and feed myself.

 

To me it is strange that you would think living primarily in the now would somehow negate these things.

 

And yes, to an extent the future is predictable...

 

(But again, you were insistent on 'long range'.)

 

I don't ascribe any label to you other than rational human being. I'm only interested in the philosophy you hold, what were its origins and what its success at achieving happiness.

 

Neither do I decry living in the now, or the value of emotions. I'm saying that we cannot live in the now in the way of an animal, by doing so we effectively ignore our minds and thus the survival mechanism that brings us happiness. We might pretend we can live as animals, but that involves devolving our reason to some other entity and abandoning our minds. Effectively we let someone else do the thinking for us and walk around like zombies staring at the first thing that comes across our path.

 

If there was ever such a thing as sin, I believe it is the refusal to use the capacity to reason and to act like mind slaves or animals. We are not and we should not IMO.