Before consciousness

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:39 pm

Moderator's note: This is a top-down thread, unlike most in this forum. Newcomers should read from the top, i.e. the following introduction, then follow it downward, so as to understand what this thread is about before commenting. Newcomers unwilling to do so are unwelcome in this section, but may find accommodating places elsewhere in this forum.
________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, this is not an easy topic I think. Some consciousnesses will think they are spawned by nature and evolution, some will think by some supreme being or group of beings. Some may be so bold as to think we each somehow create and recreate ourselves.

Now was there something before whatever our consciousnesses now are?
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Easy topic, if...

Post by greylorn on Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:36 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Ok, this is not an easy topic I think. Some consciousnesses will think they are spawned by nature and evolution, some will think by some supreme being or group of beings. Some may be so bold as to think we each somehow create and recreate ourselves.

Now was there something before whatever our consciousnesses now are?
Mayflow,

Here are my opinions on the matter.  They have found little agreement elsewhere and certainly will find none here, which means that you might as well blow them off.  I'll not be personally offended.  My opinions are as well considered as possible, given that I've been the one stuck with most of the considering, and I am insufficiently qualified by either intelligence or knowledge to devise correct opinions.  

This is evidenced by the history of these opinions.  I've changed them in major ways throughout their half-century of development, in response to better data.  

One who seriously studies various conventional theories of consciousness is likely to conclude, if he does his job thoroughly, that there are flaws and contradictions in each of them.  Many of these are apparent at the purely logical level.  Others become apparent only when compared to outside evidence from fields of serious but diverse study, such as the paranormal and neurological.  

The complexities arise because the current theories don't work, in that they don't make sense or don't fit the facts, or some of both.  Thomas Kuhn mentioned this in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  As a given theory, or paradigm, nears the end of its useful lifespan, it becomes increasingly complex, with kludges heaped upon kludges to force the theory into convergence with reality, like Ptolemy's epicycles within epicycles.  

A good theory removes the complexities.  Beon Theory was engineered to that purpose, and in my opinion it fulfills that purpose rather well.  However, were one to evaluate it from the discourse in this Section's other Topic, one would get an entirely different perspective.  

That is because Paul Martin has given Beon Theory his own spin.  He's tried to make it more complex.  So far as I can determine, his purpose is to adapt Beon Theory to beliefs he developed long before running across it.  He and I have discussed those beliefs.  I regard them as an extension of New Age metaphysics, but he objects to that label.  

I think I understand his reasons, although he's not expressed them.  I won't speculate about them here, but he and I must come to grips with them before making any progress toward anything like genuine agreement.  Until that happens, the Introduction to this Section topic will not reflect the inherent simplicity of Beon Theory.  

And that's a lot of complex stuff just to get to an answer to what you likely figured was a simple question.  Sorry about that!  

According to Beon Theory, three simple, primitive things preceded consciousness and the universe.  One, Dark Energy, has already been discovered, although it has not been interpreted properly.  I call the other "Aeon."  The third is simply a space of at least one higher dimension that contains the first two and permits an interaction between them.  My book/website contains more detail, including the three simple properties of these things.  

If I could provide the requisite background in this format, I could expand those concepts here.  No point in even trying that.  I do appreciate your curiosity.


Last edited by greylorn on Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:52 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Clarifications)

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:24 pm

My own ideas about consciousness is that it is eternal and has never been created (although it can create) and that the physical is divided into three things which can create pretend multiplicities and that those 3 things are action, potential, and the action/potential complexity, which leads to the multiplicities.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by greylorn on Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:28 pm

@Mayflow wrote:My own ideas about consciousness is that it is eternal and has never been created (although it can create) and that the physical is divided into three things which can create pretend multiplicities and that those 3 things are action, potential, and the action/potential complexity, which leads to the multiplicities.
Mayflow,

In the context of this section, I can distinguish your concepts, and to some extent their context, from those of Beon Theory.

B.T. proposes that the potential for consciousness has existed for a very long "time," well into a phase of existence in which the time concept was not meaningful.  The actualization of consciousness was a more definable event, and is different for each beon.  Your actualization and mine, for example, are both recent and ongoing.  

The incorporation of a beon within a human brain/body system is an attempt to actualize consciousness in the attached beon, via outside intervention.  

Beon Theory makes a point of distinguishing the phenomenon of consciousness from entities capable of manifesting that phenomenon.  

The entities are not created.  Consciousness is, in a sense "created," although a better word would be developed, because consciousness is the property of an entity, not the entity itself.  You, for example, are the creator and developer of your own consciousness.  A being who creates its own consciousness should not be declaring that consciousness is non-created.  It is the being capable of consciousness that is not created.  This is a critical distinction.  

Beon Theory is founded upon simplicity, and proposes that beon is essentially a non-created entity with the potential to develop consciousness.  It either does or does not.  

Of course, consciousness and intelligence are as interconnected and interdependent as taverns and beer, except worse: What fun is consciousness without intelligence?  What use is intelligence w/o consciousness?  Limiting a tavern's beer selection has an effect similar to limiting a conscious entity's access to ideas. You end up with a crappy dive bar, or the mental equivalent.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before Consciousness

Post by Paul Richard Martin on Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:26 pm

Greylorn,
@greylorn wrote:Paul Martin has given Beon Theory his own spin.  He's tried to make it more complex.  So far as I can determine, his purpose is to adapt Beon Theory to beliefs he developed long before running across it.
Guilty as charged except we should eliminate the word 'long'. The beliefs I hold have been under development continually right up to this writing. Some have been held for a "long" time but others are quite new.

You are right that my purpose is to adapt BT to my own beliefs. If they do not fit, then I examine my beliefs to see if they should be changed. In some cases they have. In other cases I think BT should be changed. I have been working with you to help you see why I think they should be changed. It is not simple and won't happen quickly. We need to spend a lot more time on it.
@greylorn wrote:He and I have discussed those beliefs.  I regard them as an extension of New Age metaphysics, but he objects to that label.
I object to being dismissed as a "New Ager" and my ideas being ignored as a result. If there is any similarity between my ideas and New Age metaphysics, it is purely accidental and unknown to me.
@greylorn wrote:I think I understand his reasons, although he's not expressed them.
Do you mean my reasons for adapting BT to my own beliefs? Or do you mean my reasons for objecting to being labeled a New Ager?

Let me express my reasons in both cases so that we may get on with our discussion.

My reason for attempting to adapt BT to my own beliefs is simply to continue questioning and testing my own ideas in order to improve them. A side benefit is the pleasure of finding someone else who holds at least some of my unorthodox beliefs. You and your BT help in both respects.

My reason for objecting to the New Age label is that I feel that by being pigeon-holed and labeled, my ideas are being unfairly judged and that I am not given the opportunity to defend them.
@greylorn wrote:I won't speculate about them here, but he and I must come to grips with them before making any progress toward anything like genuine agreement.  Until that happens, the Introduction to this Section topic will not reflect the inherent simplicity of Beon Theory.
I hope you can come to grips with those answers so you won't have to speculate. Now let's talk about that "inherent simplicity".
@greylorn wrote:According to Beon Theory, three simple, primitive things preceded consciousness and the universe.  One, Dark Energy, has already been discovered, although it has not been interpreted properly.  I call the other "Aeon."  The third is simply a space of at least one higher dimension that contains the first two and permits an interaction between them.  My book/website contains more detail, including the three simple properties of these things.
I don't think we disagree on any of this. But I think we can easily come up with important questions about them that neither of us can answer. For example, are any of these three infinite or are they all finite? As you know, I believe they were all finite but I might have a hard time proving it to you or to anyone else, but I think I could if you asked.

Another question is the exact dimensionality of reality at the beginning. It sounds as if you are guessing that there were three dimensions: one each for DE and Aeon and then the "one higher dimension" you mentioned. That sounds like a good guess, but I might try to reduce the number by one or two or maybe even three just to make things ultimately simple at the beginning.

Another question is, Exactly what is the nature of that mysterious "Aeon"?

Another question is the appearance of time, which would have to have started at least at the Aeon/DE collision.

I have questions about the thermodynamics of reality at the beginning. You have told me at different times that DE had entropy 0 and at other times that it had entropy 1. I don't understand the meaning of either one, so I look forward to you enlightening me.

I think we can make some sense of questions like these and maybe even come up with some believable answers. We need to get to work.

Best regards,

Paul

Paul Richard Martin

Posts : 20
Join date : 2015-07-25
Location : Seattle, WA USA

View user profile http://paulandellen.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:06 am

Ah, yes. The Beon Theory may be quite the exquisite brew, but this tavern should serve a wide variety of brews to be even more interesting I do suspect.

I think it may be of benefit to resurrect some aspects of conversations from the Lost Universe (an older alternative forum I have). http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/t285-essence-of-mind#5971

Of course you will recognize some of Johnathan's ideas there as well. Unfortunately I think the lovely
forum flower Lavender Orchid is no longer with us. Some flowers are just so exotic, and it is this variety in life that makes it so cool with all the unique ones with their own independent thinking styles.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Is this a shmoo tavern, or what?

Post by greylorn on Sun Aug 09, 2015 7:48 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Ah, yes. The Beon Theory may be quite the exquisite brew, but this tavern should serve a wide variety of brews to be even more interesting I do suspect.

Mayflow,

I've managed some form of socio-economic survival in a variety of environments, from classrooms run by stupid teachers (and others run by superb teachers), road construction crews, blue-sky research labs, faculty meetings, NASA control rooms, toxic biochemical development labs, etc., before skipping town in favor of the boondocks.  My common denominator throughout these environments has been taverns of all sorts in a variety of locations.  Comparing Beon Theory to a tavern is agreeable.

Beon Theory is analogous to a complex but inauspicious tavern with a spacious dance floor that holds a free dance lesson at 7pm, then fires up the floor at 8, or when the lesson is done, with a DJ who knows the difference between music that drives a flying two-step or a slow waltz, according to the abilities of whatever dancers show up for the night.  

A laborer could show up at this tavern after a day's hard work, just to drink a beer or two and hang out alone before making his transition to nagging wife, needy dog, and obnoxious offspring.  He might exchange some casual chatter with an old fart on a nearby bar stool, before going home to his programmed life, finding nothing in the tavern he'd safely visited that would compel him to return.  How could it be otherwise?

He'd shown up with a few bucks and a thirst for casual human contact, and returned with fewer bucks and reduced thirst, a fair trade.  Had the guy on the adjacent bar stool been a Nobel Laureate, he'd not have known.  His comments about the weather, the day's sports scores, or POTUS' lies of the day would not have elicited much of an exchange from the insightful genius next to him.  

Had he even noticed the world-class dancer passing by on her way to the manager's room, he might have measured her for a potential quickie, paying more attention to her basic physical form and noting that she was "older than he'd like," never noticing the precision with which she made every step, the kind of precision that comes from living a life devoted to successfully competitive dancing.  

Had he stayed for the basic dance lesson that followed, she'd have helped him find a partner from among the many singles who showed up ostensibly to learn a few dance moves, but mainly to find a roll in the hay.  He'd not have learned much, but might have learned just enough, took enough enjoyment from the process, to incite a desire to learn more.  He might have stayed to watch the serious dancing that started at 8pm, when the people who had already put in their lesson-times showed up for serious play.  

He'd have been better off watching than trying to participate from his limited knowledge, because he could not have known enough to either lead or protect any partner who accepted his invitation to dance.  (My tavern is a rowdy kind of place where the men wear Levi jeans and Stetson hats and the ladies wear skirts and long hair.)  Whatever his choice, he might have seen past the superficialities, past the outfits and styles, into the dynamic of an intensely social relationship that involved simple but conscious drinking and complex, often intricate dancing.  

Like Beon Theory, definitely not for everyone.  

On the country dance floor I can tell if the lady who's agreed to dance with me is just a woman who wants to be shown off in front of friends or better-looking guys, or a woman who is there to dance.  The first clue is her frame.  I'll put my right hand behind her left shoulder and pull her ever-so-gently towards me.  If she comes without resistance, she's an ordinary woman.  But if she places her left hand in front of my right shoulder and uses it to push back, resisting my pull, she's a dancer.  We can play, we do play, and it is always fun.  

People who pretend to kick around bullshit ideas are like the women who want to be shown-off on my tavern's dance floor.  They are pretty much shmoos, with nothing to offer, never a comeback to a probing question.  Your "Forum Physicist" is a perfect example.  He's never returned an answer to a tough question or any question I've sent his way, never re-adressed a weak presentation with an attempt to improve it. He's there to proselytize.  That requires more than a comely profiled beard.  It requires balls; translated: mental courage.  

If you find that my little tavern does not provide sufficiently interesting fare, I propose that this is because you have become too accustomed to the Buddhist way, content to sit on the sidelines and watch the dancers, even better, to judge the dancers.  You won't know what delights my tavern offers until you work up the courage to engage a partner and step out onto the dance floor.  

Doing so entails the risk of being judged from the sidelines.  It will happen.  It will rarely include approval. The process leads to the growth of mental cojones.  

Consider the possibility that you invited me into your forum to tell you this, because no one else could.

@Mayflow wrote:
I think it may be of benefit to resurrect some aspects of conversations from the Lost Universe (an older alternative forum I have). http://exploringyourmind.forumotion.com/t285-essence-of-mind#5971
Of course I checked this out at your behest.  I'd run across it before but did not follow up because of the ugly white-on-black format which I find annoying and unreadable.   So I made a copy of what I suppose is the homepage, reproduced here in a format more amenable to the normal human eye-brain symbolic information-gathering mechanisms:

The essence of mind is somewhat difficult to explain, so we look at it from the
negative point of view, that is, what mind is not. First of all, we see that it is not
something which arises or ceases or abides. It is free of these three things.
From beginningless time, there is no arising, no cessation and no abiding in terms of
staying in one place, not moving, or not changing. It is completely free of all three of
these.

It is also free of being a thing or a substance composed of particles.
The essential entity, or substance, of mind is not something that can be defiled or
stained by grasping at subject and object.
It is completely free of the stains from those activities.

Further, when we look at the essential substance of mind,
we find that no matter how much we search for it,
no matter how much we analyze it, there is no thing there to be found.
There is no entity that we can come up with by searching, evaluating, and analyzing.
No matter how much we seek for its essential substance, we cannot find it. The
searcher, the one who does the search for essential substance of mind, cannot find it.
Therefore it is said that the essential substance of mind itself is emptiness.

by: The Practice of Mahamudra by Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche, page 48.


If there was a contest for the most useless, most meaningless definition of the human mind ever devised, this would be a first-prize contender.  

This is religious crap at its absolute worst.  What's with this "stain" nonsense?  It smacks of the filthy attempts to denigrate consciousness inspired by the Catholic Church, the institutional master of the Inquisition: Believe our bullshit or we will pull your limbs from your body, as slowly as possible, with excruciating pain.  

This is programming for weaklings, for mindless shmoos who fancy that because they can memorize passages from a religious tome, they have a mind.  This is programming designed to inspire rats who have figured out how to navigate the maze and find their precious cheese to become the really Big Rats.  This is an example of Religious Programming for the Mindless, 101a-- "Why there is no point in having a mind."  

There is nothing positive that I can say about it.  

But of course I'm writing from the perspective of Beon Theory, analogized by my favorite tavern, where if a man invites a lady to dance and she agrees, upon taking the floor he leads!  If the music is Sara Evans' "Suds in the Bucket" he'd damned well be ready to lead her through a flying two-step complete with spins, turns, pivots and come-arounds, keeping her safe the entire time, while bumping her heartbeat rate 30 ticks.  

Imagine the wimpy alternative-- the man gets his lady to the floor, whereupon Sara starts singing. Instead of dancing, he listens thoughtfully.  Then he says, "Well, gee, this doesn't sound like a waltz.  Good thing because I don't waltz very well anyhow.  And I'm pretty sure it's not a cha-cha, so let's not do that. Maybe we could fit a West-coast Swing into this if we danced about quarter-time, but it seems a little fast even for that.  Now there's the Night Club Two-step, very popular in California-- but I think we'd have to half-time it.  No, probably quarter time.  But you know, I used to do some ballroom dancing, and maybe we could fit a nice Fox-Trot to this.   Oh-- you're not 90 years old and don't do Fox Trot?  How silly of me. Let's just go back to the bar and have a drink, if we can do so without getting run over by these couples flying around the floor pretending to be having a good time of it.  

Not in my tavern.  Participate or drop out.  Play or sit on your ass drinking beer.

The icon of Buddhism is a fat man sitting on his ass.  It is a well-chosen symbol.  Nice, gentle, harmless, and useless-- dependent upon wealthy family and working followers to fill its feeding trough.  Maybe dependent upon a hoist and crane to lift him off his fat ass to a warm and comfy place where he can take his private shit, six times daily after every meal/pig-out.

Have you watched the Star Wars movie, #3 I think, where Jabba the Hut was modeled after the fat and well-ensconced Buddha?

@Mayflow wrote:Of course you will recognize some of Johnathan's ideas there as well. Unfortunately I think the lovely forum flower Lavender Orchid is no longer with us. Some flowers are just so exotic, and it is this variety in life that makes it so cool with all the unique ones with their own independent thinking styles.
Because of the inhospitable format I did not read past the front page.  The prospect of finding more of Jonathan's ideas by doing so was insufficient incentive.

I love flowers.  Flowers bring a semblance of truth to creationist theories, and show the dark, simplistic lie behind Darwinism.  Desert flowers are the more precious for their scarcity.   I regularly send photographs of flowers to my few personal correspondents who appreciate them.  The Lotus' color was washed out on that site, and should not have been unfaithfully presented (IMO).

Let us return to your opening comment: "
@Mayflow wrote:Ah, yes. The Beon Theory may be quite the exquisite brew, but this tavern should serve a wide variety of brews to be even more interesting I do suspect.
"

There is a dreadfully lowbrow satellite TV program called "Bar Rescue."  I recommend that you spend a year watching at least one program weekly, no matter how dreadful and uninsightful you find the program. Treat it as daily pushups for the common mind.  (Mystical bullshit notwithstanding, your mind and mine are common examples of the marvelous phenomenon of mind.  Neither a big deal.)

At the end of that year, if you attend honestly to my little assignment, you will have learned more about human nature than the Dali Lama could teach you in a lifetime.  

You will learn about business and markets.  The run-of-the-mill successful businesses appeal to the shmoo market, the glut of low-intelligence individuals who eat at Dairy Queen, Sonic, McDonalds, KFC, Tits 'R Us, etc.  Then you can choose your course.  If your goal is to make big bucks via advertising income, you should stick with the shmoo plan and eliminate people like me.  Make your forum into a place where any promoter who can confuse the nitwits with allusions to arcane physics notions gets the title "Forum Physicist."  On such a forum the title might as well be "Forum Bullshit Artist."  

Your forum, your choice.  

There is another way to success.  Seek ideas that could actually make a difference.  Tough job.  I doubt that a Buddhist could master it.  

Finally, a more succinct summary to DKCP's religious meandering is: 'What you mean, "we," Kemosaby?"'

Respectfully,
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:14 am

This is a bit lengthy but it is a bit of Edgar Cayce's stuff about consciousness and how things developed way back when...

Edgar Cayce Talks About Consciousness

In5D February 26, 2015 Spiritual Awakening
Share Button

Pin ItEmail
inShare
Edgar Cayce Talks About Consciousness

by Kevin Williams

This source of answers to the mysteries of life has no unifying name for its body of knowledge. Various parts of its principal concepts are actually scattered throughout different cultures and countries with no central collection point for the ideas. Because of this, and because many of its ideas are not widely known (often the adherents of these ideas have purposefully withheld them from the public), this school of thought can be referred to as the “secret teachings.” But it is not a single school of thought; rather, it’s a hodgepodge of concepts from many diverse and often unrelated sources that reveal a very similar view of life and its meaning.

The Beginning of Consciousness

Science might categorize the secret teachings as metaphysical, meaning “beyond the known laws and observations of physics.” Religion might refer to them as mystical, meaning that they belong to a collection of thought considered too mysterious to consider or of dubious origin.

It’s interesting to note that the great religions had sects that knew of and ascribed to some or all of the secret teachings. In Islam it was the Sufis; in Judaism, the Kabbalists; in early Christianity, the Gnostics and later, from the Middle Ages through the Reformation to even modern times, the many Christian mystics.

Science, too, has had its adherents to concepts held by the secret teachings. Many quantum physicists have written about theories of life beyond the physically observable. In the field of medicine, doctors have found that some patients, who have been declared dead and later revived have had near-death experiences that confirm many of the concepts found in the secret teachings.

According to the secret teachings, the universe was not first created out of matter, but existed prior to material creation in spirit form. Imagine a consciousness similar to our own, except that this first consciousness was boundless, a Universal Consciousness. At some point, the Universal Consciousness desired to express itself. It began to conceive, to imagine, and to express Its inner promptings. And so the creation began – light, sound … eventually stars, galaxies, trees, and rivers. This point in creation was still prior to the physical creation of the universe that science records. This was a realm of thought; no physical forms existed, only thoughts in the consciousness of the Universe. The physical universe had not yet been created.

According to the secret teachings, there came a point in this creation where the Creator’s Consciousness desired to bring forth companions, creatures like unto Itself that would share in this expression of life. In order for the creatures to be more than creations, they had to possess individual consciousness and freedom so that they could choose to be companions. Otherwise, they would only have been servants of the Original Consciousness. So within the One Universal Consciousness many individual points of consciousness were awakened and given freedom.

It’s important for us to realize that at this point in our existence we did not have physical bodies. All of what has just been described occurred within the Mind of God. Consequently, its “form” resembled that of thought rather than physical objects. In the very beginning we were individual points of consciousness within the one great Universal Consciousness.

At first we were quiet, our wills content to observe the wonders of the spiritual creation as they flowed from the Mind of Universal Consciousness. In these early periods we were so much a part of the Creator’s Consciousness that we were one with It, virtually indistinguishable from It. However, it wasn’t long before some of us began to use our wills and express ourselves. At first, we simply imitated the Creator, but eventually we gained experience, and with experience came knowledge and confidence. Then, we truly began to create on our own, adding new realms to the spiritual creation, much like a second voice adds to a song by singing harmony with the main melody.

This was exactly why we had been created – to share in and contribute to the great expression of life and to be Its companions. To fulfill this purpose we were created in the image of the Creator: consciousness with freedom, capable of conceiving, perceiving, and remembering; capable of communicating directly with the Creator and the other companions.

Consciousness and free will were the greatest qualities given any creation, but they came with equally great responsibility for their use or misuse. Of course, the all-knowing Universal One knew the potential dangers in giving beings complete freedom to do as they desired. However, the potential joy of sharing life with true companions, not servants, was deemed worth the risk. Therefore, each of these new free-willed beings would simply have to learn to take charge of themselves and to subdue harmful desires in order to live in harmony with the other companions and the Creator. To do otherwise would only bring chaos, suffering, and separation.

Unfortunately, chaos came. As we continued to use our godly powers, w became more fascinated with them. We began to focus more and more on our own creations and became less concerned with and attentive to their harmony with the Creator, with the Whole. The more we thought of just ourselves and our own desires with less regard for the Whole, the more self-centered we became, eventually perceiving ourselves as separate from the Whole.

Of course, this sense of separation was all in our minds, so to speak, because there really was no way we could exist outside of the Whole because everything was of spirit. It was more a result of our sustained focus of attention on ourselves and our self-interests that resulted in a heightened sense of a distinct and separate self.

This was the beginning of trouble. It led to a very long fall for us. A fall that eventually left us feeling alone and separated from the rest of life, even to the point that we, who were actually companions and co-creators with the Universal Creator, today come to think of ourselves as little more than dust-like creatures, descendants of apes and inhabitants of a planet on the outskirts of a typical galaxy in the endless and diverse universe.

This chaos occurred in spirit when no physical universe existed. To know ourselves and yet be one with the Whole was the ideal condition, but the centering of awareness on self alone resulted in a sense of separation from the Whole. The more we exercised our individual consciousness and free will for self-interest, self-gratification, self-glorification, and self-consciousness, the more we heightened our sense of self apart from the Whole.

The resulting loss of contact with the Source of our life and the purpose of our existence was the beginning of darkness and evil, which is ignorance. Without a clear sense of our relationship to the rest of life, many of us began to use free will in ways that were never meant to be. Others simply let themselves be carried along with the current of life, abdicating their free will to the will of others. In both cases, these were things that would make it very difficult for us to be companions to the Creator.

However, the Creator foresaw this potential and, prior to creating companions, It created a Universal Law: Whatever one did with its free will, it must experience the consequences. The law was not intended as punishment or retribution for offenses, but as a tool for education and enlightenment. Thus, as we used our freedom, we experienced the effects. In this we came to understand and learn.

Interestingly, both science and religion recognize this law. In science it is often stated, “For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” Its religious counterparts are, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; “As you sow, so shall you reap”; and “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” Even today’s common knowledge expresses this principle in the saying, “What goes around, comes around.”

This is the law of karma, of cause and effect. It was, and is, the great teacher of the companions-to-be and it is an integral part of the secret teachings. Once this law was established, the Creator conceived and freed countless independent points of consciousness within Its own infinite consciousness and the companions came into being, each conscious and free. What a trembling wonder it must have been in those first moments!

Again, it’s important to realize that the companions were not physical bodies. They were like “ideas” in the mind of the Creator that were given freedom to be independently conscious. As they used their freedom, they developed into unique points of thought, feeling, desire, expression, and memory. Each was slightly different from the other by virtue of its different vantage point within the Universal Consciousness. Each companion had a spirit, mind, and a soul. Spirit is the essence of life. Remember the condition of the Creator before the creation; alive yet still. This is Spirit. It is the living stillness in the midst of activity. So often we identify life with motion, but the essence of life was there before the motion. Spirit is the essence of life.

Life in motion, or the power to move and shape ideas and even physical forms out of spirit, is mind. Mind is the sculptor, the builder who conceives, imagines, and shapes ideas out of the essence of life. Spirit is life; Mind is the power to use it.

Each of the companions had spirit and mind. As they used their life forces, they developed experiences, memories, desires, fears, etc. This caused them to become unique from one another – each having its own collection of experiences and aspirations; each its own story. This individual aspect of the companion is its soul. Soul is the sum total of all that the companion had done with its free-will consciousness. It’s the companion’s story, its complex of memories. All of the companions have spirit and mind, but each developed a unique soul, because each built a different collection of memories and experiences, resulting in different desires, hopes, and attitudes about life. Thus, spirit is the life force, mind is the power to use it, and soul is the being that develops. All are one in consciousness.

The Division of Consciousness

The creation then progressed from essence to thought, thought into thought-form, and from thought-form into particle-form or atomic-form; in other words, matter. There are many realms to life. One of these realms is the third dimension – physical form, as we know it today.

The companions, filled with their newfound consciousness and freedom, went out into the vast universe to experience life and to learn about themselves, the Creator, and their relationship to it. In their travels through the cosmos, some of the companions entered the three-dimensional influences of the planet Earth where they entered into physical form for the first time. Here they became so encapsulated in the physical that they began to identify themselves more with their form than with their consciousness. They began to think of themselves as physical entities rather than free, living consciousness. Incredibly, they began to think they were only terrestrial beings and their celestial origins began to be forgotten. Form was so substantial, so captivating that it was difficult to hold on to the more delicate reality of spirit-thoughts, pure point of consciousness in a Universal Consciousness.

To have an individual body was also the ultimate in self-identity and self-expression. It then had the power to separate the individual from the Whole and the formless spirit-thoughts of higher realms.

Strong identification with the physical made the companions subject to the laws of nature, and, of course, a part of nature’s cycle is death. The body would come to life according to the laws of nature, live for a time, and then die. In their original state, the companions were continually alive, but those that began to strongly identify with their physical bodies were now affected by death. Since they thought they were their bodies, they considered themselves dead when their bodies died.

This led to great confusion, and when the companions who had not become involved in the material universe saw what had happened to the others, they decided to help those in the flesh regain their former state. However, it was not going to be easy.



In addition to the influences of the physical dimension, the souls were building reaction patterns (karmic patterns) with their willful activities in the physical universe. According to Universal Law, these actions had to be met – properly met in the physical universe where they had been initiated. The more one acted in the physical dimension, the more one built debts that had to be met in the physical. Death changed nothing except those with karmic debts to be paid had to pay them by incarnating into another physical body. The result of this was reincarnation.

Another effect of entering the physical dimension was the division of consciousness. According to the secret teachings, as an individual entered deeper into the physical, its consciousness separated into three divisions of awareness. Two of these divisions we acknowledge today: the conscious and subconscious. The first entails the physical realm where the human body required a three-dimensional consciousness to function. It has become the part of our consciousness we are most familiar with, what we have come to call the conscious mind. Many of us would consider it to actually be the “I” or “me” of ourselves. It is within this part of consciousness that we experience physical life, and our personalities are developed.

The second part of consciousness is shadow-like while one is incarnate in the physical dimension. It lives life as a shadow, always there, listening, watching, remembering, and only occasionally making its profound and sometimes frightening presence known. We have come to call this part of our consciousness the subconscious mind. From out of this area come dreams, intuitions, unseen motivations, and deepest memories.

According to many teachings, the subconscious is the realm of the soul that uses the conscious mind as a mechanism for manifesting in the physical realm through the five senses. Often the thoughts and interests of the conscious mind, combined with the desires of the body, become so strong and dominant that only its activities seem important and real; the subconscious seems illusionary and unrelated to outer life. But in truth, the real life is occurring in the subconscious.

The third area of the now divided consciousness is the most universal. It is the part we can perceive and commune with the Universal Consciousness. We have different names for it: the Collective Mind, the Universal Mind, the Collective Unconsciousness, and the superconsciousness.

The more one’s attention moves into the conscious mind, the more narrow and limited the focus and awareness becomes. The more one moves toward the superconsciousness, the more one becomes aware of the Whole, the Universal Forces, the Creator.

It may be more difficult to perceive the infinite when one is grossly involved in the finite, but the Universal Consciousness and the potential for attuning oneself to It remains. Curiously, access to it is through the inner consciousness of the incarnate individual and not outside of it, making it a very mysterious passage for a physical being.

In time, however, the companions trapped in the physical dimension could again become aware of the difference between terrestrial and celestial life. They could again come to know their original state and purpose, and regain their celestial birthright of companionship with the Creator. In time they could again come to realize that the conditions in their present physical life were the result of their free-will actions and choices before the present life.

If the companions trapped in the physical dimension could genuinely begin to believe that the physical cannot possibly be all there is to life, they could begin the long journey back from form to spirit, a very difficult journey. In many ways we, as human beings, are no longer spirit. Flesh has become very much a part of us, not just physically but mentally as well. Even when we are out of the body (through death, deep sleep, or some altered state such as meditation), bodily manifestation is still very much a part of us. Otherwise, there would certainly be no reincarnation. We would simply leave the physical dimension and never return.

The great paradox of humankind is that we are now both spirit and flesh. That’s like saying we are a combination of oil and water, two substances which do not combine. The mystical analogy would more properly be fire and water; these, too, don’t combine. How can anything be made up of two substances that are impossible to combine? Yet, such is the nature of humanity. We are constantly forced to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable: mercy with justice, cooperation with independence, unity with diversity, tradition with change, feeling with thought, love with truth, and on and on.

The Consequences of the Division

In order to fully appreciate the secret teachings, we need to understand how the Universal Law of cause and effect works. It’s easy to say that the experiences in one’s life are the result of past activities, but the forces of this law are greater than we may first imagine.

Every action, every thought, every idle word sets up reactions, according to the Universal Law. When one thinks a thought, that thought makes an impression on the Universal Consciousness. Nothing is lost or done in secret. Everything is done within the Universal Consciousness, and the Whole is affected by it (as well as all others within the Whole).

This isn’t easy for us to believe, living in our own little worlds. The words “secret”, “private”, “alone”, and “separate” are active words in our vocabulary. This is due to our current separation in consciousness from the Whole. In the higher realms of consciousness, there is no space. Things and people are not separate, but part of a Whole. All is actually One. All is within the Whole. By increasing the focus on self, we have created the illusion of a self separated from the rest of life, but it just isn’t so. Our individual actions and thoughts make an impact on the Mind of the Universal One (the Whole).

Thoughts are things. Thoughts are real.

Reactions to past thoughts and actions become our fate, destiny, and karma. An individual’s fate is simply the rebounding effects of previous choices remembered by its soul. The reason the effects of these previous choices often seem unfair to the conscious mind is because the personality doesn’t see beyond its own life for sources of current conditions.

As companions of God, we are free to live and choose and grow almost as we desire, but not without being subject to the Universal, Spiritual law. Through meeting our thoughts, actions, and words we learn to discern wisdom from folly, lasting strength from weakness, and true life from illusion. In turn we become more able to fulfill our ultimate purpose for existing: to be a companion to the Universal Creator. The law is actually a magnificent tool for perfect learning. It is completely impersonal – everyone experiences it equally and for the purpose of enlightenment.

The law of karma is not some fierce god in the sky keeping track of everything so that it can zap people when they least expect it. Most karmic reactions, in fact, come from the individual’s own deep memory of what it has done.

Karma has been described as memory. Karma is memory coming to consciousness again. What has occurred in the past is recalled and has an effect on the present. Now, the recollection may not surface to the conscious level; the personality may have no awareness of the memory, in fact. Yet, it exists at the deeper, soul level. Nevertheless, the soul sees through the same eyes as the personality and is reminded of its past use of free will and consciousness. Naturally, some of these memories will be compatible with the Universal Mind and some will not. Memory is an important concept in understanding how the law of karma works.

As a soul draws closer to the Universal Mind, it becomes aware that some of its memories are not compatible with the Creator, and since its ultimate purpose for being is companionship with the Creator, it seeks out opportunities to resolve these incompatible memories.

Suppose a soul criticizes another soul among its peers and behind its back. As it becomes more aware of its true nature, it will recall this wrong and, because of its incompatibility with the Creator, will seek to correct it. Now, the resolution could take many forms. The soul might seek out an opportunity to work closely with the injured soul as a supporter, assistant, publicist, agent, or the like. Or perhaps it would seek to re-create the original scene – putting itself in a position to criticize the other soul again in front of the same peers. The test would be to see if the soul would choose not to criticize this time, even if it meant a certain loss of position for itself. Throughout all this the soul grows wiser and more compatible with the Creator.

If, however, a soul has gotten so far away from its true nature that it has no conscience, then the law of karma can become a formidable obstacle to any further free-will action. Such a soul becomes surrounded by its karma; everywhere it turns, it meets the terrible effects of its previous action and thoughts. Yet, even a soul who has gotten in this pathetic situation can return to perfection because there is no total condemnation from the Creator or the law. If the soul turns away from its self-centeredness and begins acting, reacting, thinking, and speaking like a companion to the Universe, then the law is just as perfect as it is with error; and the reactions begin to build and establish a new destiny for that soul.

Karma is memory. As one recalls or relives situations, one meets self again, and a new decision point, or crossroads, is presented to the soul. In life, “good” would be equated with compatible, harmonious actions and thoughts which consider the needs and desires of others, along with self’s needs and desires. “Evil” would be equated with actions and thoughts that are motivated by a self-orientation that pays little or no attention to the needs and desires of others and the Whole. Metaphysically speaking, good results in oneness, and evil results in a sense of separation. Decisions in one’s life could be approached by evaluating which choices promote greater oneness and which promote separation.

One must meet every bit of one’s karma. However, there is a way that it can be modified, softened, even ameliorated. If a soul, knowing another soul has wronged it, forgives that soul and holds no lingering resentment – perhaps has even forgotten the wrong in the depths of its forgiveness and understanding – then it begins to take hold of the power of forgiveness. The more it forgives, the more it perceives an understands forgiveness. Then, when it approaches the Universal Consciousness and realizes it possesses memories that are incompatible with It, forgiveness is much more viable, removing the barrier of separation. The law is so precise (what one gives one receives; no exceptions) that if one begins having mercy on and forgiveness of others, one begins to receive mercy and forgiveness upon oneself. Unless, of course, one refuses to forgive oneself.

All of one’s karma has to be met. And yet, no soul is given more than it can bear to carry – this is the paradoxical blessing hidden in the limitations of time and space. A soul is given the time it needs to turn away from its selfish ways and, like the prodigal son, return home to a feast of joy and welcome from our Creator. Reincarnation is not a way to avoid judgment and responsibility; it is a way to allow the soul enough time to correct its mistakes and develop itself.

“All you may know of heaven or hell is within your own self.” – Edgar Cayce
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by greylorn on Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:07 pm

@Mayflow wrote:This is a bit lengthy but it is a bit of Edgar Cayce's stuff about consciousness and how things developed way back when...

Edgar Cayce Talks About Consciousness

This source of answers to the mysteries of life has no unifying name for its body of knowledge. Various parts of its principal concepts are actually scattered throughout different cultures and countries with no central collection point for the ideas. Because of this, and because many of its ideas are not widely known (often the adherents of these ideas have purposefully withheld them from the public), this school of thought can be referred to as the “secret teachings.” But it is not a single school of thought; rather, it’s a hodgepodge of concepts from many diverse and often unrelated sources that reveal a very similar view of life and its meaning.

The Beginning of Consciousness

Science might categorize the secret teachings as metaphysical, meaning “beyond the known laws and observations of physics.” Religion might refer to them as mystical, meaning that they belong to a collection of thought considered too mysterious to consider or of dubious origin.

It’s interesting to note that the great religions had sects that knew of and ascribed to some or all of the secret teachings. In Islam it was the Sufis; in Judaism, the Kabbalists; in early Christianity, the Gnostics and later, from the Middle Ages through the Reformation to even modern times, the many Christian mystics.

Science, too, has had its adherents to concepts held by the secret teachings. Many quantum physicists have written about theories of life beyond the physically observable. In the field of medicine, doctors have found that some patients, who have been declared dead and later revived have had near-death experiences that confirm many of the concepts found in the secret teachings.

According to the secret teachings, the universe was not first created out of matter, but existed prior to material creation in spirit form. Imagine a consciousness similar to our own, except that this first consciousness was boundless, a Universal Consciousness.  At some point, the Universal Consciousness desired to express itself. It began to conceive, to imagine, and to express Its inner promptings. And so the creation began – light, sound … eventually stars, galaxies, trees, and rivers. This point in creation was still prior to the physical creation of the universe that science records. This was a realm of thought; no physical forms existed, only thoughts in the consciousness of the Universe. The physical universe had not yet been created.

According to the secret teachings, there came a point in this creation where the Creator’s Consciousness desired to bring forth companions, creatures like unto Itself that would share in this expression of life. In order for the creatures to be more than creations, they had to possess individual consciousness and freedom so that they could choose to be companions. Otherwise, they would only have been servants of the Original Consciousness. So within the One Universal Consciousness many individual points of consciousness were awakened and given freedom.

It’s important for us to realize that at this point in our existence we did not have physical bodies. All of what has just been described occurred within the Mind of God. Consequently, its “form” resembled that of thought rather than physical objects. In the very beginning we were individual points of consciousness within the one great Universal Consciousness....

Mayflow,

This theory is a useful addition to this section, if only by way of contrast.  I confess to being greatly interested in the Cayce material, with several old books still in my library.  It became obvious to me, however, that the material's source was not Edgar Cayce himself, but rather a consortium of spooks who used his brain and body to communicate.  E.C. as beon was genuinely unconscious during his readings, and had no part in them except to deliberately accept the requisite trance state.  

The psi-phenomena writer Susy Smith actually visited the library where the original reading transcripts were (presumably still are) stored, and told me that most of the material is barely-decipherable gibberish.  She ended up doubting the validity of the transcribed and published teachings on the grounds that someone had to be filling in the blanks.  

Before learning this from Ms. Smith personally I had accepted the published Cayce material at face-value, including the thoughts you've put into your post.  By that I mean, accepting that some spooks with access to ways of seeing into human bodies, and locating obscure OTC medications in the backroom shelves of pharmaceutical chemists-- entities who knew a lot more than can be conveniently be explained-- were trying to tell us something.  

Since neither they nor Cayce were getting rich from their efforts, they are likely to have believed the ideas they were espousing.  However, many of those ideas failed to meet my standards for acceptance, then and now.  There are two big reasons for this:

1.  The ideas, like those of others, are mainly religious in nature, their value totally dependent upon the authority and credibility of their source.  The spooks put a lot of energy into their healing readings to establish this all-important credibility, exactly as Christ performed the occasional flashy miracle, and for the same reason.  

     However, the Cayce/spook religious teachings have no independent basis for their potential validity.  They cannot be verified.  Thus there is no reason to accept them as superior to any other religious teachings, except perhaps personal preference.

2.  Lack of sensible motivation.  As an explanation for the beginnings of things, atheism offers a distinct advantage over religions in that its hypothetical sources seem to require no reasons or motivations.  The cosmic micropea/singularity/whatever needed no reasons for blowing up into the Big Bang.  Ordinary muck needed no reasons for organizing itself into living biological cells on the primeval earth.  

    Any metaphysical scheme that tries to use a conscious entity (let's say, God) to jump-start the universe is logically required to explain why God created the universe.  That is not so difficult.  However, it is impossible to sensibly explain why an entity capable of creating mankind would have done so.  No religion has explained the existence of humans effectively.  

    They've made various bad stabs at it, but typically those come down to the notion that God created mankind because he craved companionship.  That is an absurd belief.  Imagine a brilliant but lonely scientist/engineer creating little robots for company, programming them with some semblance of artificial intelligence, enough so that they could play a decent game of chess and occasionally confuse the judges at Turing Test competitions, thereby showing them to be non-intelligent.  Then imagine him bringing the robot home, telling the robot that he loves him, then giving him a bunch of behavioral rules knowing in advance that he won't comply with them, and then condemning the hapless 'bot to a billion years of pain and suffering for its failure to comply.  

    Normal people would lock up the lonely but demented scientist in a padded cell.  Yet variations on apparently normal people are willing to worship a "God" who does even worse.  

   Back in first-grade Catechism class we were taught that God made man to know him, love him, serve him, and be happy with him forever in heaven.  Those words might make sense if all humans were kind, thoughtful, and absolutely truthful; if none ever stole anything or hurt another; if a person's normal day was punctuated by spontaneous acts of worship; and if the average I.Q. was at least one order of magnitude higher than its current value.  

    The Cayce creation-story is more convoluted than the Catholic version, meaning only that it contains more unverifiable opinions.   Yet it boils down to the same old belief that an omniscient God created man, ostensibly for our benefit, to assuage his unbearable loneliness.  That makes it just another religion.  

I do not understand human nature.  Why do so many people insist upon believing in an all-powerful creator who created and actually cares about individual humans?  Why do atheists insist that their beliefs are founded on science, when in fact, they are barely different at their core from those of religionists?  Perhaps an insightful person will appear in this Forum and enlighten me.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:35 pm

There is actually quite a lot in some Buddhism which I resonate with, and it does not revolve around a God or creator. It is said that there is no God or creator to save us and no one but ourselves may or can.

If I believe in anything, I believe in me. Not just my conscious mind, but the subconscious, and the dreams and maybe something like a superconscious. IT is called by me "self responsibility" - I have also found this same idea in some of the Shamanism which I was trying to use to enhearten our fellow member emoallen. It is not for me to allow myself to be owned by anyone but me. Off note, I do not have cats as pets, I do not believe in owning creatures. If some wish to come around and visit sometimes, that is fine and dandy, but for all beings I do believe in self responsibility.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Beliefs and stuff.

Post by greylorn on Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:29 am

@Mayflow wrote:There is actually quite a lot in some Buddhism which I resonate with, and it does not revolve around a God or creator. It is said that there is no God or creator to save us and no one but ourselves may or can.

If I believe in anything, I believe in me. Not just my conscious mind, but the subconscious, and the dreams and maybe something like a superconscious. IT is called by me "self responsibility" - I have also found this same idea in some of the Shamanism which I was trying to use to enhearten our fellow member emoallen. It is not for me to allow myself to be owned by anyone but me. Off note, I do not have cats as pets, I do not believe in owning creatures. If some wish to come around and visit sometimes, that is fine and dandy, but for all beings I do believe in self responsibility.
Mayflow,

Thanks for sharing a few personal thoughts.  I'm reflecting on how often I've been unexpectedly exposed to Buddhism.  After a fair bit of study and questioning I've concluded that of all the religions I learned about, classical Buddhism is the most metaphysically rational.  However, it is not the form practiced by the Buddhists I've met, possibly not by any of those I'll never meet, probably because most everyone prefers a religion that promises an afterlife.  Personally I like the classical notion of nirvana, and hope to reach that state, if allowed.  

I once spent a week as guest with a family in Bangkok.  My host was a fairly high-ranking government official, first secretary to the minister in charge of Buddhism, their official religion.  I was well fed; there was plenty of animal flesh at their table (as with the city's many excellent restaurants and street food carts) despite the Buddhist prohibition against killing living critters.  This is possible because it is okay to eat meat from a critter that someone else has killed.  Thailand employs a thriving population of non-Buddhist butchers and fishermen.  This practice strikes me as absolutely hypocritical.  Disappointing; but consistent with human nature.  

You wrote, "It is said that there is no God or creator to save us and no one but ourselves may or can. "  What exactly is the "us" in this sentence, and from what does it need to be saved?

You also claim to believe in yourself, but then expand upon your theory of the self: "Not just my conscious mind, but the subconscious, and the dreams and maybe something like a superconscious." But what does that mean?  What exactly are these varieties of mind that you regard either as yourself, or as components of yourself?  The book "Consciousness and the Universe" contains 69 thoughtful essays/papers/articles about consciousness, written by first-rate thinkers (edited by Roger Penrose and others) who fail to elucidate the mystery of consciousness.  

Your sentence begins, "Not just my conscious mind....  Here you clearly refer to mind as something that you have, not what you are.  

If you are an entity who possesses a mind, you cannot be that mind.  What, then, are the properties of the possessor?  How did it come into existence?  Why?  And can it exit that existence?

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:57 pm

Oh,  good questions! So now we go into Sorcery - not as bad as it may sound to you.

What do you think of sorcery? Do you think a beon could be a sorcerer, or a socerer a beon? An aeon?

Do you think we may live in parallel worlds where we can be pure creativity itself and also a part of that which we create? Would you propose a trinity such as Aeon, Beon, and peon (hehe, sort of had to go there), the peon would be the temporary physical manifestation of course. But there is nothing wrong with nature and peons I don't think. The conservation of energy idea may make them permanent. What if I take that idea away, will the Universe cease to exist? What kind of a bar did I walk into? The beer seems good though.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sorcery and Beon Theory. Hey, you asked!

Post by greylorn on Sat Aug 15, 2015 5:31 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Oh,  good questions! So now we go into Sorcery - not as bad as it may sound to you.

What do you think of sorcery? Do you think a beon could be a sorcerer, or a socerer a beon? An aeon?

Do you think we may live in parallel worlds where we can be pure creativity itself and also a part of that which we create? Would you propose a trinity such as Aeon, Beon, and peon (hehe, sort of had to go there), the peon would be the temporary physical manifestation of course. But there is nothing wrong with nature and peons I don't think. The conservation of energy idea may make them permanent. What if I take that idea away, will the Universe cease to exist? What kind of a bar did I walk into? The beer seems good though.
Mayflow,

You walked into a country dance hall, past a row of motorcycles shielded by a row of motor-homes.  It would appear, perhaps incorrectly, that you're content to park yourself at the bar, enjoying the beer, figuring that no one will ask you to dance.  The idea of getting your ass out there on the floor and playing with your own mind, from your own heart is, naturally, a bit intimidating.  Perhaps it's time to admit why you're in a dance hall drinking $3 beers that you could pull from your own icebox at a buck a pop.  Maybe  it's time to put yourself out there and take the floor.  

The worst you can do is write some dumb things and embarrass yourself in front of a handful of anonymous internet strangers whom you'll never meet in person.  Much safer than learning to dance in a bar full of strangers who you will encounter again.  

I accept the reality of sorcery.  I've seen it at work and have used it once, without training, to protect a woman I had never met from an evil person who I also had not met.  Sorcery is a very serious application of beon-level reality which I hope that I never feel compelled to repeat.  I would not recommend that anyone attempt it without guidance of some sort.  

Sorcery, magic, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. are tools that can only be employed by beon.  There is nothing evil in a tool.  How a knife is used is a function of the person who holds it: that could be a skilled chef or a drunk in the kitchen about to mistake a finger for a carrot.  The person holding the blade could be a murderer or a brilliant neurosurgeon.  There cannot be any "badness" in a tool.  Sorcery is merely a tool.  

No one who has actually studied Beon Theory to the point of understanding would ascribe the notion of personal identity to Aeon, a once-undifferentiated space, inherently incapable of consciousness or intelligent action.  

I know of no one who has actually grasped the core principles of Beon Theory, except my book's editor. This once surprised me, because I know how fundamentally simple it is-- at least two orders of magnitude simpler than the Cayce beliefs you presented earlier in this topic.  Now I realize that the failure to understand B.T. occurs because it is fundamentally different from all other theories about the beginnings. The human mind deals poorly with extremely alternative ideas.  The brain's first reaction to them is fear and rejection, with all the concomitant effects-- none of them conducive to comprehension.

You asked, "Do you think we may live in parallel worlds where we can be pure creativity itself and also a part of that which we create?"

Those are three questions.  My answers:

1.  No.  Parallel worlds are the concoctions of Dr. Caca and other incompetent TV cosmologists who are confused by the universe because they stupidly insist that consciousness is an effect, rather than a cause.

2. You can be pure creativity in this world.   Better master that first.  

3.  Sure.  The easiest way to see that in action is to learn to heal others using your mind, then put that ability to work on yourself.  

You wrote, "Would you propose a trinity such as Aeon, Beon, and peon (hehe, sort of had to go there), the peon would be the temporary physical manifestation of course. But there is nothing wrong with nature and peons I don't think."

I like the concept of a trinity, but you might want to evaluate the trinity-concepts I've already proposed. Your notion is cute enough, but it has problems.  Aeon is not conscious.  Beons and peons are essentially the same thing, differentiated not in kind, but in terms of quality.   I do not employ "peon" in descriptions of B.T. because of its connotations, which would confuse politically-correct progressive-liberal pinheads all the more.  

My book introduces the concept of Geon, a new word with obvious implications.  Therein I wrote that Geon must be at least a pair of extraordinary beons; now, I prefer the idea that Geon is a triplet of beons. Dreadfully Catholic, I know.  But I see triplets throughout the universe, even down to hard core atomic physics and the codons required for the construction of proteins within biological cells.

The triplet assumption feels right, although I cannot logically justify it. Any help from out there?

Like you, I've played with other variations of the -eon suffix.  Seeing no reason why beons cannot be sexed according to that of a previous lifetime-group, why not heons, sheons, bions?  If we want to categorize them according to personality traits, we could describe politicians as meons and the nits who voted for them as shitons.  Etc.  

Beyond its handful of basic principles, Beon Theory is open ended.  It was derived from physics, not religion.  No stone or golden tablets were involved in its origin.  So, have fun within the open-ended part.  

The First Law of Thermodynamics is important to physics.   If you could somehow cause it not to apply to the universe, the universe would go away.  Luckily, neither of us has the ability to change fundamental principles of physics.

This particular principle does not apply to beons or aeon, neither of which is a form of energy.  

Kindly read my statement of purpose for this Forum Section.  Please consider studying my website or book before generating more questions-- questions that an honest critic/evaluator of Beon Theory would not need to ask.  Thank you!  

I know that asking this of an ordinary ignorant-and-figuring-on-staying-that-way forum poster would be an absurd, even ridiculous request.  However, asking it twice of an inquisitive, but conscientious and intelligent Forum Administrator seems unnecessary.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:06 am

Okydokey. I have created a new forum section called simply "Mind" - I will carry on my wandering wonderings over there.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by greylorn on Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:01 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Okydokey. I have created a new forum section called simply "Mind" - I will carry on my wandering wonderings over there.
Mayflow,

Why, when the Beon Theory Section, which is not only about mind, but is also about the many relating factors essential to the realization of consciousness, is the perfect place to discuss mind?

Oh-- did you expect every utterance to be greeted with immediate acceptance? That's too bad. Won't happen on my watch.

Did you instigate this forum (and thank you for doing so) expecting to be inundated with praise and approval for every word you typed? How did that work out for God?

Get your ass back here. It's the start of NFL football season, a time for blocking and tackling, bringing the best out of a participant or sending him to the sidelines, trying things out to see what works, and above all, learning. I kind of figured that you were here to learn, and to facilitate the learning of others, not to retreat.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:05 am

Make up your mind fella. First you say you don't want this stuff in your section, now you say you do. It really won't matter as long as you root for the Minnesota Vikings.

Of course I am here to learn and facilitate learning, and have a little fun along the way.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Making up whatever passes in me for mind.

Post by greylorn on Mon Aug 17, 2015 2:25 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Make up your mind fella. First you say you don't want this stuff in your section, now you say you do. It really won't matter as long as you root for the Minnesota Vikings.

Of course I am here to learn and facilitate learning, and have a little fun along the way.
Mayflow,

Alas, I put in my last three years of HS in Green Bay.  Vince Lombardi Jr. was a senior year classmate.  Green Bay was where I found and lost my first love, ran my home-modified '50 Pontiac against a factory-hot '59 Chevy V8 with a 4-speed box, supposedly the fastest car in town, and won a midnight drag race.  Green Bay is where I lost my virginity and found my first and only philosophy mentor (not the same person).  It's where I had my first major car wreck and illegal beer (not related).  Even worse, I'm an Ice Bowl veteran!  So, despite many childhood years in Minnesota (where the mosquito is the unofficial State Bird and ice fishing is regarded as fun), me rooting for the Vikings is not likely.  

So, we will have to make this little issue (where do you post) matter.  

Since this is your Forum, of course you get to post wherever you choose.  There are not many who understand physics and are also interested in the issue of consciousness.  I'd hate to lose you as an interlocutor, but let me know if you prefer that I do not comment in your new "Mind" Topic.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:23 pm

Everyone is free to post here as they wish. I have not moderated anything and I don't think I will have to, but you are free to moderate your own area as you wish to.

In short, I not give a crap where anyone wishes to post or what they wish to post wherever, that is everyone who comes or visits here's right to me. You choose to moderate the section of your own as you wish, but I do not have any plans or intentions to interlude in any way of power (lowly power in my opinion) of preventing freedom of speech on the forum overall. You wish to keep the Beon theory pristine of other ideas and all about beon theory, it is your area and your choice.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by greylorn on Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:28 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Everyone is free to post here as they wish. I have not moderated anything and I don't think I will have to, but you are free to moderate your own area as you wish to.

In short, I not give a crap where anyone wishes to post or what they wish to post wherever, that is everyone who comes or visits here's right to me. You choose to moderate the section of your own as you wish, but I do not have any plans or intentions to interlude in any way of power (lowly power in my opinion) of preventing freedom of speech on the forum overall. You wish to keep the Beon theory pristine of other ideas and all about beon theory, it is your area and your choice.

Mayflow,

I've not made my position re: Beon Theory clear.  Or, I have, and have been misunderstood.  Doesn't matter when the result is the same.  

The development and expression of Beon Theory is a half-century long project, unsuccessful after two published books.  You'll understand that I'm frustrated by my decades of failures. Over time I'm coming to understand the causes of those failures.  

I hate writing because it is time consuming and the feedback on a book is slow to arrive.  I've written about nine worthless manuscripts.  I'd prefer to explain Beon Theory upfront and simply, ideally via the spoken word.  That's not been possible.

Unfortunately, B.T. is a radical set of ideas about the Beginnings of things that impinges on all other beliefs and ideas related to that subject.  Everyone older than 10 years already has their own beliefs.  Those beliefs become more deeply held with age.  

As a result, every attempt to explain B.T. is interrupted very early on with complaints or questions.  That's happened here, plus, it's been interrupted by the proposal of alternate theories.  That's very frustrating for me.  

That's not because I'm certain that Beon Theory is the only possible explanation of the beginnings.  It may be absolutely wrong.  But how will I know unless it gets a fair hearing from other minds willing to examine it?  

Do you have some insights you'd be willing to share as to how I might arrange such a hearing?  

I'd be happy to answer questions about B.T. here, and to receive criticisms.  But there's no point in addressing anyone who lacks the intellectual curiosity to study the freely available material first.  That doesn't seem like too much to ask, but evidently is.  
I'd even be willing to detail Beon TheoryEveryone is free to post here as they wish. I have not moderated anything and I don't think I will have to, but you are free to moderate your own area as you wish to.

In short, I not give a crap where anyone wishes to post or what they wish to post wherever, that is everyone who comes or visits here's right to me. You choose to moderate the section of your own as you wish, but I do not have any plans or intentions to interlude in any way of power (lowly power in my opinion) of preventing freedom of speech on the forum overall. You wish to keep the Beon theory pristine of other ideas and all about beon theory, it is your area and your choice.  here, and might undertake that project later, when I need another round of frustration.  For the time being I'll get on with other projects and continue to insist that anyone commenting on something ought to know what they are commenting on.  

We've already seen what happens when I ignore that simple and courteous principle.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:55 pm

When I talked about mind as a closed loop. I was talking about how you make a closed loop around all you talk about as relating not to everyone and everything, but to your own pet theory. My honest opinion is that your book is just boring and almost sounds like an infomercial telling us about how all other theories are wrong and not as unique and insightful, but there is no math, not anything to say anything new at all.  

I have tried to stay nice and let you get a clue, but now, no more. It is not cool the way you bad mouth people like emoallen on this forum and call them bad things. Get nice, get real, get over the idea that your book is any good, because it is not very good at all. You are still welcome here, but I want you to see what I think so far and if you can get more real and more accepting, fine. If not, feel free to move on down the line.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

fair enough

Post by greylorn on Fri Aug 21, 2015 12:31 am

@Mayflow wrote:When I talked about mind as a closed loop. I was talking about how you make a closed loop around all you talk about as relating not to everyone and everything, but to your own pet theory. My honest opinion is that your book is just boring and almost sounds like an infomercial telling us about how all other theories are wrong and not as unique and insightful, but there is no math, not anything to say anything new at all.  

I have tried to stay nice and let you get a clue, but now, no more. It is not cool the way you bad mouth people like emoallen on this forum and call them bad things. Get nice, get real, get over the idea that your book is any good, because it is not very good at all. You are still welcome here, but I want you to see what I think so far and if you can get more real and more accepting, fine. If not, feel free to move on down the line.
Mayflow,

Thank you.  I appreciate the rare upfront comment.  I realize that people commonly communicate in symbolic, indirect terms, but I've never mastered those, or many other social arts.  Consider me socially and symbolically challenged.  I do understand upfront complaints.  

I cannot imagine how I could possibly translate your "closed loop" comments as personally applicable.  If you are a female I can understand how you'd have expected me to do so, and that might have affected my interpretations of many things, since I've had enough training to know that women expect a guy to read their minds.  I've just not learned how to do that without personal contact.  Or, perhaps, I've treated the doing of it as an exercise in futility.  It doesn't matter.

I'm not here to develop "friendships" which, from an objective perspective, consist only of strings of digitally encoded alphabetic symbols.  Those symbols are useful for the exchange of ideas and concepts, but not much else.  Nonetheless I occasionally lose my mind and slip into "feelings" mode.  I've tried to apologize for the results, which are never good.  

I'm here for the solitary purpose of expressing useful ideas to the 3% of individuals capable of logically evaluating alternative concepts.  First step in doing that is getting someone to actually read them. Because they are contrary to accepted ideas, that is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible.  I got it that you claim to dislike my ideas, but you've not studied them.  That you've accused me of "no math" means that you've not read Chapter 5.  Only those who've not read my ideas have declared them to be "nothing new."  That's a common reaction I get from those whose current belief systems are so well entrenched that they literally cannot read alternatives.  I can't do anything about that.

Perhaps you merely dislike me.  That's okay.  No point in trying to disengage me from my ideas, or the ideas from me.  We're at where we're at.

I've already apologized for my disparaging comments to emoallen.  I was mistaken.  My apology was genuine, and came without prompt or threat, from my personal assessment of my own errors.  If you'd like a forced apology, for whatever reason, okay.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I appreciate your willingness to let me hang out here.  I'll do so if it works, else leave.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:25 pm

I read chapter 5 today. You apparently postulate dark energy in a vast and comotose state as the creator of the Universe, or perhaps may it be the medium for the creation to occur in?

If the dark energy is in complete entropy, what energises it? If all that supposedly is is at absolute 0, how does potential energy go kinetic?
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Perfect questions.

Post by greylorn on Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:44 pm

@Mayflow wrote:I read chapter 5 today. You apparently postulate dark energy in a vast and comotose state as the creator of the Universe, or perhaps may it be the medium for the creation to occur in?

If the dark energy is in complete entropy, what energises it? If all that supposedly is is at absolute 0, how does potential energy go kinetic?
Mayflow,

Thank you!  Your excellent questions are proof that you did indeed read Ch.5 and understood its implications, particularly with respect to the entropy concept.  Few others have done that, so I'm both pleased and impressed.  I hope it means that I've finally engaged your interest.  

I'm tempted to try to answer your questions, but don't feel that this is the time or venue for it.  They are, of course, all answered in subsequent material, and I hope that your curiosity will invite you to read it.  One reason why I'm making the material freely available via your forum is to obtain as much feedback as possible, but if I prematurely answer questions already covered in subsequent chapters, I'll never find out if the book addresses those questions adequately.  So please bear with me.  

Part of the subsequent material will include attempts to engage readers' interest in the questions you've already recognized.  So some will be redundant for you, but I think not so much as to induce boredom.  

There are some questions I've already looked at which are not covered in the book, and a few issues I'm in the process of re-evaluating.  I'll happily do my best to address these directly if they arise for any reader.  

Of course there are questions that I do not even know exist.  I'm hoping that better minds than mine will raise them.  I'd be delighted if better minds also resolved them.  I'm getting old.  
__________________
While considering your post I got wondering if perhaps you'd skipped directly to Ch. 5 after considering my last post, without reading the previous chapters, or by rejecting their content because of interference with existing beliefs.  I run into that a lot, especially from hardcore atheists and religionists, but you don't seem to fit those profiles.  

Nonetheless, your previous comments about Beon Theory struck me, as I mentioned, as coming from someone who had not come to an understanding of it.  Given your clear understanding of Ch.5 and its implications, I'm thinking that if you also understand the main points in 2, 3, and 4, your comment and question, "You apparently postulate dark energy in a vast and comotose state as the creator of the Universe, or perhaps may it be the medium for the creation to occur in?" might have been posed differently, and would have excluded the word "perhaps."

If that is not the case, i.e. if you are not a clear on the main points of those earlier chapters, the explanations following Ch. 5 will not make complete sense.  
 
BTW, I love the term "comatose."  I'd borrow it for future descriptions except I think it only applies to an entity or substance that had a prior state.  

Ultimately, you're the reader, and your style of reading must work for you, else we'd not be talking about these kinds of ideas.  Nonetheless, it is important to me to write in a style that is clear and engaging for as many readers as possible.  Therefore, your feedback is welcome.  

I'm already wondering if the book is written in the wrong style for speed-readers.  If a few readers confirm that, I can try to figure out an alternative style.  Anyway, thanks for getting this far.

_________________
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Mayflow on Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:42 am

Ok, I skimmed through the book and I have some questions. How can dark energy be energy if there is no energy? We define dark energy by the notice that there is something we cannot measure but seems to exert a force of expansion, and as far as I can tell it is an expansion of space itself but what is expanding from what?

Very distantly it seems that everything is speeding away from everything else at an increasing rate, but more relatively locally, there is too much gravitational force for dark energy to overcome. To my viewpoint dark energy is an opposing force whereas gravity is a contracting force.

Now, how about dark matter? You didn't mention dark matter in your book, but we think it makes up a substantial portion of the Universe. Much more than chemical matter does, but less than dark energy does.

Dark matter though has opposite forces than dark energy. It is most noted in "halos" surrounding galaxies and galaxic groups and clusters, and has the effects of very powerful gravitational pull. In fact, by all appearances, our Milky Way Galaxy appears to be on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

We can stop here.

Post by greylorn on Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:24 pm

@Mayflow wrote:Ok, I skimmed through the book and I have some questions. How can dark energy be energy if there is no energy? We define dark energy by the notice that there is something we cannot measure but seems to exert a force of expansion, and as far as I can tell it is an expansion of space itself but what is expanding from what?

Very distantly it seems that everything is speeding away from everything else at an increasing rate, but more relatively locally, there is too much gravitational force for dark energy to overcome. To my viewpoint dark energy is an opposing force whereas gravity is a contracting force.

Now, how about dark matter? You didn't mention dark matter in your book, but we think it makes up a substantial portion of the Universe. Much more than chemical matter does, but less than dark energy does.

Dark matter though has opposite forces than dark energy. It is most noted in "halos" surrounding galaxies and galaxic groups and clusters, and has the effects of very powerful gravitational pull. In fact, by all appearances, our Milky Way Galaxy appears to be on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy.
I mentioned that speed readers have trouble with "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" because the core concepts are so different from their current beliefs that they do not register in the minds of speed readers.   Do you really believe that skimming will produce better results?  

There is no point in trying to answer your question, because it isn't even descriptive of the dark energy properties I propose.  Here's a snap quiz: Name the four characteristics I attribute to dark energy that differentiate it from conventional energy forms.  You cannot, of course.  Nor will you be able to open the book to their descriptions and explanations.  What's the point of another attempt to explain?  Let's quit this silly dance.  

I do request one favor: Complete honesty.  Please do not ever say, write, or imply that you have read my book.  When you next declare that you do not like Beon Theory, or however you choose to express your feelings about it, please do me the courtesy of declaring at the same time that you have not given it an honest read and therefore do not actually understand the theory.

Thank you.  
Greylorn
avatar
greylorn

Posts : 100
Join date : 2015-07-11
Location : Arizona

View user profile http://beon-cpt.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Before consciousness

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum