Thread: Are You Truly Self-aware?

The eternal moment and everything in it as it exists right now.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The eternal moment and everything in it as it exists right now.

So, you recognizing the extension of myself is your perceptions of me?
~

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Since everything essentially came from the same singularity in space, it means you and all that surrounds you are an amalgamated randomized ever-changing interpretation of itself perceptually aware of the the countless randomized branches extending outward, at any given moment. Which when you think deeply about it, is actually a glance into the many faces of your true self. Some of those faces are easier to relate to than others, some are frightening and hard to accept, others are exciting. All of them are inescapably a part of you as the self-aware universe.

I share your distaste for 'good' and 'bad', but I also extend this to 'positive' and 'negative' - they are just as contrived, really. But whatever.

I hope this isn't redundant, but the one leap I'm not following you on here is the assumption that the universe is self aware on a large scale. It's true that we are technically just a small knot of universe ourselves, and we are clearly experiencing this thing we call 'self-awareness'. However, I don't see how this destroys our individuality.

Just because two buildings are both made of the same bricks does not make the buildings 'as one', does it?

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really justifying making any blanket assumptions about the entire plant itself from your vantage point as a leaf. Try as we might, our view of the whole will forever be muddled by our existence as a part. Do you think it's impossible for the universe as a whole to lack awareness, for awareness to simply be a property of life forms which exist on a small scale?

We'll never get any evidence either way anyways, I don't think. But do acknowledge the possibility of an unconscious whole?

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

Are you using 'universe' and 'elementary particles' interchangeably? Your argument seems similar to the cell saying 'I am the bear that I am a part of', instead of 'I am made up of the same elementary particles as the rest of the bear that I am part of'. We aren't really the universe, we just part of it. If anything, we are quarks (or whatever smaller particles are as yet undiscovered).

How about a more concrete example, like a chair? The chair is not a part of my body. It is made up of the same stuff as I am, and we are both parts of the larger universe, but my self-awareness does not seem to extend to the chair in any way.

Ego - The False Center
A quick overview of one small part of our universal body

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance. Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body. Now, which of those single cell clusters in your brain are the ones carrying around that idea of self, assuming such a thing were possible in only a few cells?

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

Do you think that the other cells without that self-awareness ability are unimportant or expendable parts to the body because they don't carry around that self-awareness? Just because our hair or fingernails don't have self-awareness doesn't make them less a part of us than our pineal gland. And just because the chair or table doesn't have self-awareness doesn't make it less a part of us, universally speaking.

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

Are you implying that I am the manifestation of your thoughts?

You're logic and rationale here is still very similar to solipsism. In fact, the more I read it, the more it seems that you are a solipsist.
~

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance.

Why should we have a role? Doesn't that imply a conscious entity behind our existence? And what do you mean by 'balance'?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body.

The pineal gland is the hub of our body?
Isn't that Descartes's theory about the soul communicating with the body via the pineal gland, and using 'animal spirits' to control our limbs? That's a terribly unfounded and ignorant theory, if that's what you're referring to

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

Here again, though, you assume that the whole is conscious. If we as The Whole were not conscious, our cells wouldn't have a function. The only reason we ascribe functions to them is because we want to stay alive - that is our purpose, and so that is the purpose we extend to them. If we weren't conscious, it wouldn't matter if they destroyed the rest of us. In the same way, if the universe is not a conscious entity, there is no reason for us to have a 'purpose', or for us to care what we do to the other parts of the universe.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?

Why assume that the input is fed into this 'self-awareness'? You seem to be thinking of it as a particular thing. I believe self-awareness is an emergent property of the human brain (and possibly body). As such, the 'other body parts', as well as the perceived inputs, ARE the self-awareness.

In combination with what I said in my last post; here's a question I would like to know the answer to:

- What could prove this theory of yours wrong?

Edit: This is directed to SolSkye.
~

Nothing logically could prove it wrong, because it isn't... It's a timeless realization. It's a matter of one being receptive to it, not.

The difference between solipsism and this view is, I don't think 'I' (in the separate subjective sense of the word) am the only thing that exists, I just fail to see a separation between 'myself', 'yourself', and others and see everything as one, seemingly separate, but implicitly connected organism.

The Spirit of the Age

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The pineal gland is the hub of our body?
Isn't that Descartes's theory about the soul communicating with the body via the pineal gland, and using 'animal spirits' to control our limbs? That's a terribly unfounded and ignorant theory, if that's what you're referring to

Third Eye- Pineal Gland
The Pineal Gland and Melatonin
Antidepressant Facts: Pineal Gland, Serotonin & SSRI's side effects (Page 1.) (Page 2.) (most noteworthy being page 2)

I feel we are stepping back into a debate of prickles and goo, but if you want to get technical about it the pituitary gland is mostly known as the master gland. In the context of what I was talking about it still holds true. I believe the pineal gland in conjunction with the pituitary gland is much like the OS for your system, regulating sleep, your bio rhythm and mood through the release and breakdown of serotonin, your disposition and overall personality, reproduction, and pretty much all other ideas of self. Not to mention, the pineal gland being a photosensitive organ much like an eye. I don't understand how you could think it was unfounded to point out. The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger organ, so I'm pretty sure there are still plenty of mysteries surrounding the functionality of the different parts of the brain. Have you looked into Rick Strassman's study on the pineal gland and the DMT connection, yet? DMT: The Spirit molecule

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

From a limited, conditioned point of view there appears to be a difference, but from the metaphysical point of view none actually exists. You are identifying yourself here as the physical aspects you perceive, and so in that sense 'you' are not identifiable with the 'universe'. But what would happen if you identify yourself not with these limited aspects, but with that which is perceiving these aspects? The center of your being is not subject to the constant changing of the sensory world. It is the motionless point around which all distinction and individuality revolves. This principle is the Infinite; it does not 'exist' in time or space, and therefore cannot be found there.

When one realizes that in Reality they are 'That', they simultaneously realize that no separation actually exists. Our rational mind wants to separate experience into categories, but this only comes after the experience. The experience in itself is Whole, but since our limited minds cannot comprehend it as a Whole we inevitably fragment It into parts. One cannot piece together the Whole from the parts because the Infinite is in Reality without parts (it is only relative to a limited being that parts appear to exist). This is why the way to 'understand' this (and why one cannot argue logically against it, as Solskye said) can never be to conceive of it analogically (subject vs. object), but only to experience it intuitively (subject and object are two complementary aspects of one principle).

You see the problem though, SolSkye? There is nothing that can show your theory to be correct so, analogously, there is also no reason to believe that you are correct.

You say there is no difference with solipsism because you fail to be able to separate our manifestations, but you just recently said that I am manifested from the "origin" - it seemed that you were saying that the origin was someones perception which perpetuates existance. However, if I am a branch of your perception - then you are a solipsist!

And this is where I think your theory relies; solipsists are unfalsifiable because there is no way for me to show you incorrect unless we were the share the same consciousness and existance. And, even then, your theory would still continue to be correct until we are all the same manifested being. But you'll make the step to say that we are the same manifested being, but in a diverse amount of variables. Hence, there is no reason to believe you, and no real justification for your beliefs.

If I am wrong somewhere, please help me out.
~

How would one not be manifested from the "origin"? Did you somehow not come from your mother's womb, and her from hers', or me from mine? As one perceives themselves within their finite shell with their finite senses it's real easy to get caught up in the output and think that the buck stops with you. Let's entertain the concepts, 'you' and 'I', for a quick second. What does that signify? Something outside your current definition of 'self', and what you can easily relate to as 'self'... so again, we come back to one's own willingness and perceptions. It's just a question of how open and ready you are to relate to everyone as yourself, or not?

It's impossible to prove me or anyone wrong on any stance of where 'they' and 'you' stand, because technically both parties are right and wrong in their own right, since it's all a matter of their own perception. That's all we ever deal in, and with. Once you attempt to falsify one's perceptions, deny them existing, or attempt to call them explainable variables you enter the realm of absurdity since you are using the very perceptions to assign labels into the nature of themselves. If you have to give it a label, you don't understand, and if you put it into words, the meaning is already lost.

It's like the one of the cells of a fly's eye denying and debating about how separate and different each of the sections of the perceiving eye is, and the other saying we are actually all connected to the fly...


If that's what the parts of the eye choose to look at, that's what they'll see. If they choose to understand and see they are connected to the fly, they'll see that...

Both and neither, are right or wrong, because there will be an equal number of parts to the eye denying and accepting that part to their own perception. I choose to see the fly.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

How would one not be manifested from the "origin"?

This highly depends on what you are defining as "origin". You still seem to be implying that the "origin" is you or the perceiver. (Which is still you; being whoever is reading this)

Did you somehow not come from your mother's womb, and her from hers', or me from mine? As one perceives themselves within their finite shell with their finite senses it's real easy to get caught up in the output and think that the buck stops with you. Let's entertain the concepts, 'you' and 'I', for a quick second. What does that signify? Something outside your current definition of 'self', and what you can easily relate to as 'self'... so again, we come back to one's own willingness and perceptions. It's just a question of how open and ready you are to relate to everyone as yourself, or not?

When speaking of the trascendental, we cannot utilize words to express their meanings because these words are restriced and concrete. They cannot properly express the meanings you are tyring to convery and are simply the result of the rules of play in which they are used. The "I" and "you" are simply relative terms to each individual and have no trascendental reference as propositions cannot properly express the transcendental.

It's impossible to prove me or anyone wrong on any stance of where 'they' and 'you' stand, because technically both parties are right and wrong in their own right, since it's all a matter of their own perception. That's all we ever deal in, and with. Once you attempt to falsify one's perceptions, deny them existing, or attempt to call them explainable variables you enter the realm of absurdity since you are using the very perceptions to assign labels into the nature of themselves. If you have to give it a label, you don't understand, and if you put it into words, the meaning is already lost.

I don't see why you don't admit to being a solipsist then - this is exactly the defense of a solipsist.

It's like the one of the cells of a fly's eye denying and debating about how separate and different each of the sections of the perceiving eye is, and the other saying we are actually all connected to the fly...

This does not seem to be following the same logic as you are using in other places. You say that the perceiver is integral to the universe they create, but then say we are all connected. You say that we only perceive individually perpetuated manifestations of other people, but that we are all separate entities? Can you help me clear this up?

If that's what the parts of the eye choose to look at, that's what they'll see. If they choose to understand and see they are connected to the fly, they'll see that...

Both and neither, are right or wrong, because there will be an equal number of parts to the eye denying and accepting that part to their own perception. I choose to see the fly.

You seem to imply that the "fly", being a source that perpetuates all existance, is a separate entity but exclusive to the individual perceiver. Is this not contradictory? How can we all share the same perception if we are all perceiving different things? How can we all share the same mind if we all think different things? Perhaps you mean that we began as "the one" or that we all have an energy that eventually links together..?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I don't see why you don't admit to being a solipsist then - this is exactly the defense of a solipsist.

I fail to see how putting an easy label or package on something so vast and in-comprehensive is even possible. I am not simply saying that the self (at my finite level of understanding and perception) is the only thing to exist. I am saying that everyone and everything at any moment, is the true self manifest. It makes the coupled letters S. E. L. F. pretty hard to wrap your head around, don't you agree? There is always a place where you can start-- your 'self'. However, wiping your hands free of something by cataloguing and filing it away like an overdue library book by titling it 'solipsism' and giving it no more thought isn't giving the concept, or your 'self' for that matter, enough credit. So, let's not sell ourselves short, shall we?


Conversely, why do you consider everything separate of you? Where exactly do you draw the line of self, and why? I fail to see a line... please show me one, if you know something I don't.

Other than fear, I can't see a reason how or why anyone would deny it being true. Everyone came from someone, who came from someone, who came from someone, who came from the earth as the same clean slates, which came from swirling gases, which came from a single point in space. You can look back through history like a mirror, and see your implicit connection clear as day. Why deny it still existing through to the eternal moment as it is right now? String theory doesn't, and there is more and more evidence and credence pushing towards an actual string theory holding true.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This does not seem to be following the same logic as you are using in other places. You say that the perceiver is integral to the universe they create, but then say we are all connected. You say that we only perceive individually perpetuated manifestations of other people, but that we are all separate entities? Can you help me clear this up?

You seem to imply that the "fly", being a source that perpetuates all existance, is a separate entity but exclusive to the individual perceiver. Is this not contradictory? How can we all share the same perception if we are all perceiving different things? How can we all share the same mind if we all think different things? Perhaps you mean that we began as "the one" or that we all have an energy that eventually links together..?
~

The perceiver is integral in the sense that, without the perceiver there would essentially be nothing there to perceive even though there is undeniably something there. We are the universe giving itself substance and meaning.

I don't think we share the same exact same perceptions, so much as, we are each a one-sided story being told from all different angles. Subjectively speaking, the story may seem very different, but it never actually changes. I have learned to look at and accept myself through the varying kaleidoscope eyes of everyone and everything.

I don't look at the fly as this separate mysterious entity, more of something we are all a part of, and perpetually forget. Even though, it pervades through every breath you take, every baby you make, and every cookie you bake. It is all-encompassing in each moment... for it is the moment and everything in it. There is no way to prove it wrong because in order to do so, you'd have to blatantly deny the simple truth of your 'self' in the eternal moment by purposefully and subjectively falling short of it.


Cosmic Giggle

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I fail to see how putting an easy label or package on something so vast and in-comprehensive is even possible.

Are you saying that we should not label the universe "the universe" because it is so vast and in-comprehensive??

I am not simply saying that the self (at my finite level of understanding and perception) is the only thing to exist. I am saying that everyone and everything at any moment, is the true self manifest. It makes the coupled letters S. E. L. F. pretty hard to wrap your head around, don't you agree? There is always a place where you can start-- your 'self'. However, wiping your hands free of something by cataloguing and filing it away like an overdue library book by titling it 'solipsism' and giving it no more thought isn't giving the concept, or your 'self' for that matter, enough credit. So, let's not sell ourselves short, shall we?

So, you're saying that I should not try and see the difference between what you are talking about compared to Solipsism because that would deem it a label?

We call the universe the unvierse and that does not take away from its majesty. Same with the human psyche, sex, love, etc.

What you are saying here does not seem to do your philosophy good justice.

Conversely, why do you consider everything separate of you? Where exactly do you draw the line of self, and why? I fail to see a line... please show me one, if you know something I don't.

Are you asking me to necessarily point out where you and I separate? For the sake of brevity, our thoughts are simultaneously different. You rely on opposites so heavily but in recognizing opposites you must also note that if there no such thing as opposites then everything would be the exact same and there would not be a diverse universe as we would all collectively be one object. However, that is not true and the most you can argue here is that we all have a combining nature such as a self, soul, energy, etc. Although, manifestly, everything is different. Even if you believe in a universally binding variable, it manifests differently in each object.

Other than fear, I can't see a reason how or why anyone would deny it being true.

So I should believe you because if I do not than I am fearing something..? I fail to understand what I would be fearing.

Everyone came from someone, who came from someone, who came from someone, who came from the earth as the same clean slates, which came from swirling gases, which came from a single point in space. You can look back through history like a mirror, and see your implicit connection clear as day. Why deny it still existing through to the eternal moment as it is right now? String theory doesn't, and there is more and more evidence and credence pushing towards an actual string theory each day.

This is intriguing. In the first part here you make reference to the law of conservation of energy where energy is inevtiably passed on from generation, object, to object/generation. Then you make the leap to say that this never really happens and that we are always the exact same energy? As I said before, even if we are all binded by some universal energy, we are still all manifestively different. If it were otherwise, then you and I would share the same consciousness and would not be having this debate.

I get the feeling you may take the leap here and say that we are the same consciousness. If that is so, please explain how as I can cleary see that we do not by simply experiencing my consciousness. Manifestive consciousness and experiencing consciousness are two separate things; even in dualistic theory.

The perceiver is integral in the sense that, without the perceiver there would essentially be nothing there to perceive even though there is undeniably something there. We are the universe giving itself meaning.

This is confusing. Maybe you can see my problem with your theory here. In the former part you imply that there is 1 perceiver but then say "we are the universe...".

Either way, it seems like you are fringing here at arguing "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I don't think we share the same exact same perceptions, so much as, we are each a one-sided story being told from all different angles. Subjectively speaking, the story may seem very different, but it never actually changes. I have learned to look at and accept myself through the varying kaleidoscope eyes of everyone and everything.

Right, we all experience different things. Opposites do exist and varying experiences do exist. You're contradicting yourself now. If there were no opposites, then opposing experiences or opinions would not exist; but they do. Things do change, if things did not change, then our world would be collectively whole and linear.

I don't look at the fly as this separate mysterious entity, more of something we are all a part of, and perpetually forget. Even though, it pervades through every breath you take, every baby you make, and every cookie you bake. It is all-encompassing in each moment... for it is the moment and everything in it. There is no way to prove it wrong because in order to do so, you'd have to blatantly deny the simple truth of the eternal moment by purposefully and subjectively falling short of it.

What is the eternal moment? What is it that pervades through all of us?

Arguing by analogy or arguing from experiences does not properly explain your theory nor give it justice. More importantly, it falls short to enlighten anyone else besides yourself.
~

In my defense, there are no words anyone can arguably say or type that can pass on experience or meaning to another person to give their argument justice. All one can do is, show a door to understanding the way they see it, and offer up analogies that paint a faint picture or image of that understanding... but unfortunately the understanding itself is always lost in translation. It is up to the listening party to cross that threshold of understanding for themselves.

So yes, attempting to give something labels, is just another way to write something off. Be it; love, truth, happiness, or self... or any other term we immediately brush off and take for granted. I just don't think people should take themselves for granted, and should ponder into their own nature. Answers start to reveal themselves at that point.

I don't think that my view is that unique. I think it is quite universal and rings true across the board.

About our differences, I said it before on page 2...

The ability to discern difference doesn't make something different. It's only different, if you think it's different. Which, yes, is all a matter of perception. However, the fundamental reality of the situation is they are unequivocally indistinguishable from one another; the clock hand, the clock, and the table are all imagined or created of one thing- the mind. No matter how distinct you may see them in your mind as separate entities, ultimately they all boil down to one object, thought, or image in your mind. That is a perfect analogous breakdown of reality, as well.

Therefore, the fact you can sit there, and point out distinct differences between us, shows that you must also be able to step back enough to understand the relation between them that makes them different. Just like any dichotomy.

I recently read some interesting articles in this month's New Scientist magazine, one of which was about dark matter and how simply observing it affects cosmic expansion, and the other was talking about the first potential findings of evidence into parallel universes by looking into the voids of space, so needless to say there are many things that go unanswered about the consistency and makeup of matter and energy. Therefore, sticking only to the simple rules of conservation of energy still shows lateral thinking. I try and use what I learn and observe to further build ground for my case. Unfortunately, I can't show you what I see and experience... words only get in the way and constrict how I actually see it.

"The tree in the forest...", and "The sound of one hand clapping..." thought processes are those of buddhist monks and the koans they use to reach enlightenment. Quite nice meditative tools. I also find trying to imagine a 5th prime color works, too.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

In my defense, there are no words anyone can arguably say or type that can pass on experience or meaning to another person to give their argument justice.

We can, to a degree. Have you seen my threads on how language is not transcendental..?

All one can do is, show a door to understanding the way they see it, and offer up analogies that paint a faint picture or image of that understanding... but unfortunately the understanding itself is always lost in translation. It is up to the listening party to cross the threshold of understanding themselves.

You see though, I think I do have an understanding of what you are saying and am questioning it. Can you see my point now? Your response is the same as "you have to believe it in order to see it". Although it may make common sense, I do feel I have an understanding and because of that, I am questioning it.

So yes, attempting to give something labels, is just another way to write something off. Be it; love, truth, happiness, or self... or any other term we immediately brush off and take for granted. I just don't think people should take themselves for granted, and should ponder into their own nature. Answers start to reveal themselves at that point.

Oh on the contrary. We have a label for love and yet we continue to debate about its very definition. However, we still have a label for something that we all fundamentally understand. Does that take away from its meaning? Of course not!

I don't think that my view is that unique. I think it is quite universal and rings true across the board.

About our differences, I said it before on page 2...

I recently read some interesting articles in this month's New Scientist magazine, one of which was about dark matter and how simply observing it affects cosmic expansion, and the other was talking about the first potential findings of evidence into parallel universes by looking into the voids of space, so needless to say there are many things that go unanswered about the consistency and makeup of matter and energy. Therefore, sticking only to the simple rules of conservation of energy still shows lateral thinking. I try and use what I learn and observe to further build ground for my case. Unfortunately, I can't show you what I see.

Interesting, I will have to read this.

Though it seems that you are using this to show how the perceiver propogates the universe. Which is where my questioning begins. I fundamentally agree with you, but it seemed to me that you took the leap to say something about how we originated and that seemed too similar to solipsism.

"The tree in the forest...", and "The sound of one hand clapping..." thought processes are those of buddhist monks and the koans they use to reach enlightenment. Quite nice meditative tools. I also find trying to imagine a 5th prime color works, too.

Yes. What is the difference in meditating on these things and meditating about nonsense..?

ie. "Ohmmm.." compared to "shoogle-shaggglleee.."?
~

And another question Solskye - please don't miss it: What would you think if the Big Bang theory was proved wrong?

Originally Posted by really

And another question Solskye - please don't miss it: What would you think if the Big Bang theory was proved wrong?

What? It has already been fundamentally proven true. Do you mean the cause of it..?

What, specifically, are you referring to here as "proved wrong"..?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What? It has already been fundamentally proven true. Do you mean the cause of it..?

Obviously then, I mean that if it was replaced by a more supportive theory. I think that's pretty unlikely at this stage, but I am still posting a "What if" question. Yes, thus I mean the cause of the universe. Then, if the Big Bang theory was disproved and replaced by another theory, many ideas in this thread would be lost with many extremes.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What, specifically, are you referring to here as "proved wrong"..?
~

Not specifically, hypothetically. As if another theory of greater support could explain it better.

Well, I just came back from a space flight and did acid this weekend, and was thinking about fractals alot this time, and saw that every observation and every system of order is just a fractal in an endless system of other fractals. Fractals being unique and endless interpretations of infinity.

Time starts and ends in on itself as one asymptotic spiraled fractal.
Language is just another finite fractal of communication.
Music is another fractal observing and playing with the fractal of mathematics and waves.
DNA is just another fractal of life and observation.

Pretty much all systems are endless manipulations of fractals reaching into asymptotic realization... eventually curling up into itself but having an endless amount of other curls to dive off of at any point in observation.

Fractals




...perhaps this makes no sense...but it made sense to me at the time.