from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Metacrock » Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:58 pm

s fundamental property of nature the same as fundamental property of matter?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Superfund
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:33 am

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Superfund » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:50 pm

Metacrock wrote:s fundamental property of nature the same as fundamental property of matter?
Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. So the fundamental property would be energy? So matter like a rock although it doesn't appear so is full of moving energy is it not.

"Those who think a great deal are very materialistic because thought is matter. Thought is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone, are matter. Energy functioning in a pattern becomes matter. There is energy and there is matter. " and "Matter and energy are interrelated" (Krishnamurti)

I found it interesting because David B Hart gets to indistinquishing consciousness and being in his book.

I suppose that is why I enquired of you about a kind of transcendant non classical pan-theism which is tricky because it gets into 'new age' sounding stuff.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by met » Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:41 am

According to Relativity matter and energy are the same. But then energy is just a measurement of changing relationships amoung bits of matter....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Metacrock » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:35 pm

Superfund wrote:
Metacrock wrote:s fundamental property of nature the same as fundamental property of matter?
Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. So the fundamental property would be energy? So matter like a rock although it doesn't appear so is full of moving energy is it not.

"Those who think a great deal are very materialistic because thought is matter. Thought is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone, are matter. Energy functioning in a pattern becomes matter. There is energy and there is matter. " and "Matter and energy are interrelated" (Krishnamurti)
No offense but that's silly. Being materialistic is not being physical. That's like saying being greedy means you are made of paper because cash is paper. Materialistic is a philosophy.
I found it interesting because David B Hart gets to indistinquishing consciousness and being in his book.

I suppose that is why I enquired of you about a kind of transcendant non classical pan-theism which is tricky because it gets into 'new age' sounding stuff.
[/quote]

classical pantheism is deification of nature.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Metacrock » Thu Sep 24, 2015 12:36 pm

met wrote:According to Relativity matter and energy are the same. But then energy is just a measurement of changing relationships amoung bits of matter....
go0od point Met
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Jim B. » Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 pm

Metacrock wrote:s fundamental property of nature the same as fundamental property of matter?
I would say no, since I doubt that nature is nothing more than matter. Only a strict materialist would say that.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by met » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:29 pm

Metacrock wrote:
Superfund wrote:
Metacrock wrote:s fundamental property of nature the same as fundamental property of matter?
Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. So the fundamental property would be energy? So matter like a rock although it doesn't appear so is full of moving energy is it not.

"Those who think a great deal are very materialistic because thought is matter. Thought is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone, are matter. Energy functioning in a pattern becomes matter. There is energy and there is matter. " and "Matter and energy are interrelated" (Krishnamurti)
No offense but that's silly. Being materialistic is not being physical. That's like saying being greedy means you are made of paper because cash is paper. Materialistic is a philosophy.
I think the way Krishamurti means it is like..... Thought is material in the sense of the brain being a pattern matching machine based in matter, made from the same stuff and subject to the same rules. For him - the way I read him here,,at last - "thought" (as he's referring to it) is limited & unable to penetrate to spiritual truths and depths. But there's a knowing beyond thought in eastern thought, like the "no mind" concept, related perhaps to the concept of "unknowing" as one famous, anonymous Western mystic expressed it.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Jim B. » Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:08 am

met wrote:


I think the way Krishamurti means it is like..... Thought is material in the sense of the brain being a pattern matching machine based in matter, made from the same stuff and subject to the same rules. For him - the way I read him here,,at last - "thought" (as he's referring to it) is limited & unable to penetrate to spiritual truths and depths. But there's a knowing beyond thought in eastern thought, like the "no mind" concept, related perhaps to the concept of "unknowing" as one famous, anonymous Western mystic expressed it.....
I have a hard time seeing how thought can be material, at least conscious thought. But even the thought of an automaton, how could that be material? Maybe it is, if you think something like digestion is material, but it makes more sense to say that digestion is a physical process that's sustained by different kinds of matter.

To know has at least 3 different meanings in English, Most other languages have at least 2 different words for to know. Aren't mystics talking about knowledge in the sense of "knowing that"?

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by met » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:19 am

Jim, maybe it's more of a muddle than that? There's no ultimate difference between the particles in a river and the energetic rules governing them, according to Relativity. But energy is just a measurement of change, so this strikes me as related to Malabou's concept of 'placticite' - ie that being is change.

I think Kriashnamurti's main implicit point here is more the psychological one that thought - common forms of thought anyway - are non-transcendent and earthbound. But perhaps SF will comment more...

I think 'unknowing' is meant to be more like that...um, third English sense of knowing. "Participating in", the dissolution of the subject/object boundary, as in the eastern concept of "samadhi"
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: from superfund's discussion on consciousness

Post by Jim B. » Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:53 pm

met wrote:Jim, maybe it's more of a muddle than that? There's no ultimate difference between the particles in a river and the energetic rules governing them, according to Relativity. But energy is just a measurement of change, so this strikes me as related to Malabou's concept of 'placticite' - ie that being is change.

I think Kriashnamurti's main implicit point here is more the psychological one that thought - common forms of thought anyway - are non-transcendent and earthbound. But perhaps SF will comment more...

I think 'unknowing' is meant to be more like that...um, third English sense of knowing. "Participating in", the dissolution of the subject/object boundary, as in the eastern concept of "samadhi"
There's also a possible fourth sense of knowing that I haven't seen anyone talk about: knowing through identity, where what I am, or an aspect of what I am, constitutes what I know and doesn't merely cause it. Maybe this is something like samadhi?

Post Reply