An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:12 am

Lizzie
Try reading Jung (a materialistic, uniformitarian nit-wit) rather than the new age nit-wits who name-drop Jung in order to give their theories some sort of supposed scholarly kudos.
Jung has little if anything to do with either holistic or cosmology.
Synchronicity is the very antithesis of acausal.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby lizzie » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:42 pm

Plasmatic said: "Can we agree" that there is nothing that exists that is "acausal" or violates the principle of causality.


If we are supposed to agree with the principle of causality, then shouldn’t we define it first?

Gray Cloud said: Lizzie, try reading Jung, a materialistic uniformitarian nit-wit, rather than the new age nit-wits who name-drop Jung in order to give their theories some sort of supposed scholarly kudos.


I see. I could gain a better understanding of causality and synchronicity if I read Jung, a materialistic uniformitarian “nitwit” rather than the works of “pseudo scholarly” new age "nitwits"? Some nitwits are more "worthy" than others? Is there documented evidence that Jung is a nitwit or is that your personal opinion?

Gray Cloud said: Jung has little if anything to do with either holistic or cosmology


Jung has presented us with the concepts of archetypes and collective consciousness. Yet you think his ideas have nothing to do with promoting a holistic cosmology?

Grey Cloud said: Synchronicity is the very antithesis of acausal.


Some people don’t see the issue in such “black and white” terms.

Synchronicity, Causality, And Acausality
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_60054223

Much criticism has been leveled at C. G. Jung's theory of synchronicity, usually as a result of misunderstanding certain key, but often obscure, concepts used by Jung in his major essay Synchronicity (1960). The issues of meaningfulness, causality, and acausality are discussed, because synchronicity is by definition "a coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same or a similar meaning" (Jung, 1960, para. 849). Synchronicity is contrasted with coincidence as a "meaningless chance grouping," and the Law of Large Numbers is shown not to give account of all cases of ostensible synchronicity


SYNCHRONICITY
THE BRIDGE BETWEEN MATTER AND MIND
http://twm.co.nz/ISSS_synchr.html

Synchronicities represent a bridge between matter and mind and the concept of causality is clearly not appropriate to the world of mental events. By probing causality to its limit, it has been discovered that "everything causes everything else" and that each event emerges out of an infinite web or network of causal relationships. Causality therefore remains an idealization that can never be put into absolute practice.


Processes and Causality
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/causal.htm

Yet all concepts and theories of causality, even those of modern physics, are only approximations to the still incompletely known principles of causation that govern the universe. For certain applications, the theories proposed by philosophers, physicists, and engineers may be useful approximations.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:36 pm

Lizzie wrote:
I see. I could gain a better understanding of causality and synchronicity if I read Jung, a materialistic uniformitarian “nitwit” rather than the works of “pseudo scholarly” new age "nitwits"? Some nitwits are more "worthy" than others? Is there documented evidence that Jung is a nitwit or is that your personal opinion?

Nope. I meant get your Jung from Jung - get it from the horse's mouth.
There are lots of psychologists and psychiatrists who do not hold Jung in high regard.

Jung has presented us with the concepts of archetypes and collective consciousness. Yet you think his ideas have nothing to do with promoting a holistic cosmology?

No. Jung has presented us with his interpretation of the words archetype and collective conscious. He didn't invent these concepts. And whuile we are here, where does this collective consciousness live (according to Jung)?
As I understand it, Jung's CC bears little or no relationship to holistic and I fail completely to see where cosmology (the study of the cosmos) enters into it.

Some people don’t see the issue in such “black and white” terms.

And some do.

because synchronicity is by definition "a coincidence in time of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same or a similar meaning" (Jung, 1960, para. 849).

By whose definition, Jung's? Ooh, all bow. Sychronicity has nothing to do with coincidence which in any case does not exist. All is cause and effect. Just because one cannot see the cause it does not mean it does not exist. That is ignorance not coincidence.

Synchronicity is contrasted with coincidence as a "meaningless chance grouping," and the Law of Large Numbers is shown not to give account of all cases of ostensible synchronicity

This second chunk of the quote contradicts the first part. 'synchronicity is by definition a coincidence...' - synchronicity is contrasted with coincidence...'.

Synchronicities represent a bridge between matter and mind and the concept of causality is clearly not appropriate to the world of mental events. By probing causality to its limit, it has been discovered that "everything causes everything else" and that each event emerges out of an infinite web or network of causal relationships. Causality therefore remains an idealization that can never be put into absolute practice.

What utter rubbish. What is 'the world of mental events'? Does he mean thoughts? My stomach rumbles so I think I'm hungry (or I think I'm hungry because my stomach is rumbling).
By whom and how was 'causality probed to its limit'? Who says causality has a limit? Who and how was it discovered that 'everything causes everything else'? Did me posting this cause the Pyramids to be built? Or the moons of Jupiter to follow their current orbits?
This also passage contradicts itself. 'that each event emerges out of an infinite web or network of causal relationships' - 'it has been discovered that "everything causes everything else"' versus Causality therefore remains an idealization that can never be put into absolute practice'.

Yet all concepts and theories of causality, even those of modern physics, are only approximations to the still incompletely known principles of causation that govern the universe.

Of course they are approximations. Language is relative, the principles which govern the Universe are absolute.
This passage also undermines the definitive statements in the other passages.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby lizzie » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:15 pm

Grey Cloud said: Nope. I meant get your Jung from Jung - get it from the horse's mouth.


Jung is only one source and the most well known. I try to present different viewpoints on a subject even if the authors are perceived by others to be “new age nitwits.”

Grey Cloud said: No. Jung has presented us with his interpretation of the words archetype and collective conscious. He didn't invent these concepts


Isn’t it common practice for authors to present their own interpretations of the subject matter? Does one have to invent new ideas to make a unique statement; or can one reinterpret the old in a new light? Did Jung help to popularize the ideas of archetypes and the collective unconsciousness even if he did not “invent” the concept?

Grey Cloud said: As I understand it, Jung's CC bears little or no relationship to holistic and I fail completely to see where cosmology (the study of the cosmos) enters into it.


Do we have to accept Jung’s description of “collective unconsciousness”? Can humanity today expand upon his ideas? Is there instead a “cosmic consciousness”? If this were true, then it could be said that such a “cosmic consciousness” would influence cosmology.

Lizzie said: Some people don’t see the issue in such “black and white” terms.


Grey Cloud said: And some do.


Are people on both sides of the issue capable of presenting reasonable arguments? Is one side “more correct” than the other? Do we believe that people who think the same as we do are intelligent, and those who do not are nitwits? Should we dismiss everything we disagree with as rubbish?

Grey Cloud said: Synchronicity has nothing to do with coincidence which in any case does not exist
.

Is this a “fact” or is this your opinion?

Grey Cloud said: All is cause and effect. Just because one cannot see the cause it does not mean it does not exist. That is ignorance not coincidence.


There are people who believe that synchronicity is simply “cause and effect” that cannot be understood. I happen to believe in cause and effect; but I can also see how some people would see synchronicity as a type of cause and effect.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby moses » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:12 pm

'All is cause and effect' is religious doctrine. We do not know whether
action can form from nothing. We do not know whether consciousness
can produce action. If this cause of action is from beyond time is this
action acausal ? The materialist doctrine does not allow action arising
from a non-physical cause.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:47 am

moses wrote:'All is cause and effect' is religious doctrine. We do not know whether
action can form from nothing. We do not know whether consciousness
can produce action. If this cause of action is from beyond time is this
action acausal ? The materialist doctrine does not allow action arising
from a non-physical cause.
Mo

How is the notion of cause and effect a religious doctrine. Aristotle for one, wrote on this subject.
Getting something from nothing is impossible according to every philosopher of the last several thousand years, from any continent. Thought precedes action. Potential precedes its realisation.
If the cause of an action is from beyond time then that from beyond time caused the action.
It does not matter what materialist doctrine allows. As I've just stated, thought precedes action. Thought is non-physical. So are love, fear and so on.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby lizzie » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:39 am

Moses said: 'All is cause and effect' is religious doctrine. We do not know whether
action can form from nothing. We do not know whether consciousness can produce action. If this cause of action is from beyond time is this action acausal? The materialist doctrine does not allow action arising from a non-physical cause.


I agree. We do not KNOW whether action can form from nothing. Some people believe that there is an (acausal) Eternal Domain (the realm of God?) that exists beyond the (causal?) physical realm.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Divinity » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 am

[/quote GreyCloud]
How is the notion of cause and effect a religious doctrine. Aristotle for one, wrote on this subject.
Getting something from nothing is impossible according to every philosopher of the last several thousand years, from any continent. Thought precedes action. Potential precedes its realisation.
If the cause of an action is from beyond time then that from beyond time caused the action.
It does not matter what materialist doctrine allows. As I've just stated, thought precedes action. Thought is non-physical. So are love, fear and so on.[/quote]

[/quote Lizzie]
I agree. We do not KNOW whether action can form from nothing. Some people believe that there is an (acausal) Eternal Domain (the realm of God?) that exists beyond the (causal?) physical realm.[/quote]


If thought precedes action, then we are getting something from 'nothing but thought' constantly, surely? I agree thought precedes action and potential precedes its realisation. If we stopped looking to religion for answers and started to look at science, one would see Junglelord has already spelled out his belief (for example) that everything starts from a non-material structure, develops into a vortex and then onward into geometric shape and atomic structure. Thought/idea is the non-material structure in an Information Universe, and yes, it's non-physical until it reaches the vortex stage.

Every reality starts as a vortex. Every vortex starts as a non-material structure. The vortex is the first thing we 'see' as it enters the Universe. What's on the other side of that vortex? Perhaps another vortex? Perhaps the question we should be asking now is 'what is this domain on 'the other side''?

;)
Love Divinity
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:04 pm

Divinity wrote:
If thought precedes action, then we are getting something from 'nothing but thought' constantly, surely?

Note the word 'but' in your sentence. We get elephant crap from nothing but elephants.
Without getting metaphysical and talking about mind, generally, the thought is caused by sensory input, which itself is caused by other things, which are in turn caused by others.....

If we stopped looking to religion for answers and started to look at science, one would see Junglelord has already spelled out his belief (for example) that everything starts from a non-material structure, ...

Who is looking to religion for answers? I mentioned Aristotle. Your own faith in science is no different than another's faith in religion. You are misreprenting Junglelord. He is not saying that you get something from nothing but from a non-material structure which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
I have yet to see any proof that science is the solution to anything, can you furnish any?

Hate (for the sake of balance and harmony), GC. :twisted:
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Divinity » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:50 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Divinity wrote:
If thought precedes action, then we are getting something from 'nothing but thought' constantly, surely?

Note the word 'but' in your sentence. We get elephant crap from nothing but elephants.
Without getting metaphysical and talking about mind, generally, the thought is caused by sensory input, which itself is caused by other things, which are in turn caused by others.....

If we stopped looking to religion for answers and started to look at science, one would see Junglelord has already spelled out his belief (for example) that everything starts from a non-material structure, ...

Who is looking to religion for answers? I mentioned Aristotle. Your own faith in science is no different than another's faith in religion. You are misreprenting Junglelord. He is not saying that you get something from nothing but from a non-material structure which is a different kettle of fish altogether.
I have yet to see any proof that science is the solution to anything, can you furnish any?

Hate (for the sake of balance and harmony), GC. :twisted:


Sorry, I don't understand your analogy about elephants/elephant crap. Perhaps I shouldn't have used a double negative. I will rephrase:

"Thought creates matter and events". Thought precedes all matter and events in the Universe.

Certain other posters are looking to religion. You look to philosophy and I look to science. That's why I'm on a science forum, the likes of which happens to be the most cutting-edge/important development in the history of mankind, IMO: the revelation that the Universe is Electric. It is not faith-based because it can and will be proven.

Grey Cloud said:
>>You are misreprenting Junglelord. He is not saying that you get something from nothing but from a non-material structure which is a different kettle of fish altogether...>>

So, would you define the term: 'non material structure' for us please,Grey Cloud?

Yes, science hasn't done too badly so far...let's see, we've had the contraceptive pill, the jumbo jet, heart transplants and the internet. Some science has solved many many human problems. ;)

Forgive me, Jungelord, for quoting you:


If we could marry non material dimensional quantum structure with functions (force, field) and if one could use tensegrity from the very first level of reality, the dimensional, all the way to the galactic, one would have almost completed the TOE.

The universe galactic web is a tensegrity structure.

The way the Electric Universe speaks of continuous electric field, distributed charge, is the first element of the tensegrity model.

With the stars as discontinuous compression members we have a tensegrity structure. What if we could also do that at the finest level?

The vortex is the structure of the dimensons of charge. That is the non material structure of the fourth dimension in APM and that creates function (field, force) (structure and function cannot be separated).

The fourth dimension of continuous tensional charge over layed by the discontinuous compressive of angular momentum forms matter (sub-atomic particle) the structural engineering principle that applies is Tensegrity (continuous electric charge tension with discontinuous compression spin.)

Therefore Tensegrity is the structural engineering principle that creates material from non material.

One will notice that all matter is structured by the principles of Tensegrity from every level of material reality.

That is because Tensegrity was the structural engineering principle that made matter from the non material dimensional structures!




Love Divinity
:twisted:
(Hate isn't in my vocabularly any more, lol!)
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby moses » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:00 pm

If the cause of an action is from beyond time then that from beyond time caused the action.
Grey Cloud

You missed it - if the past causes the future and the future causes the past
then where is the initiator ? Also the experiencing of thought is non-physical,
but the generator of thought is physical.

Our minds create our 3D reality. In actual fact reality is probably multi dimensional,
it is just that we translate the multi dimensionally received info into a line of nerve
impulses and this induces experiencing which we treat as being 3D. Now this opens
the possibility of something that is far away in another dimension coming close to
us and thus effecting us. Thus this something was not measurable before coming
close to us, and then suddenly appeared out of nothing. Consciousness or experiencing
exists in another dimension.

It is of no use to say that the cause of something is beyond the physical.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Divinity » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:26 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:I agree with Plasmatic on this one.
You cannot have acausal. This has been known and understood by philosophers from every continent for thousands of years. Just because some New Age nit-wit decides he has to come up with something different to shift product it doesn't make it so. If the cosmos was acausal then it would be chaotic (in the modern sense of the word). It most certainly would not be 'holistic' which, incidentally, is what this thread is supposed to be about.

On a related note: Divinity's signature is incorrect for the same reason. What he is referring to as god is the First Cause. If D's god is the 'effect of effects' then it implies that there is a prior cause. Even in my system where 'god' doesn't appear until step three, the logic holds.


Hello! God is the Supreme Effect of Effects - It's not a/the Cause. Correct. And it most certainly IS holistic. The Universe (Complex, Steady State, entangled, tensegrity, system) is order. Do you have proof that it isn't?


Quoting Junglelord again:

>>Energy is not an elemental expression of the universe, yet we are taught that it is, that is a very grave error in what is elemental. Energy is a product of three elemental dimensions, it is not elemental, it is a product of the elemental...>>

Just because Energy looks like its a cause doesn't mean it is the cause. Energy, magnetism, gravity, electricity, etc. are effects.

I reiterate:

Perhaps the question we should be asking now is 'what is this domain on 'the other side''? :geek: :ugeek: :geek:
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby lizzie » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:48 pm

Gray Cloud said: Thought is non-physical. So are love, fear and so on.


Love and fear are non-physical? You could have fooled me on that one.

Divinity wrote: If thought precedes action, then we are getting something from 'nothing but thought' constantly, surely?


Note the quotes “nothing but thought.” That sentence could be read as follows: “If thought precedes action, then we are getting something for nothing from thought.

I could restate it yet another way for those who missed it the first time.

If thought precedes action, then we are getting something for nothing. Do we pay for thoughts?

Gray Cloud said: Note the word 'but' in your sentence. We get elephant crap from nothing but elephants. Without getting metaphysical and talking about mind, generally, the thought is caused by sensory input, which itself is caused by other things, which are in turn caused by others


Note the word “but” in the above sentence. We get elephant crap from elephants, no buts about it. :D
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby Divinity » Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:56 pm

moses wrote:If the cause of an action is from beyond time then that from beyond time caused the action.
Grey Cloud

You missed it - if the past causes the future and the future causes the past
then where is the initiator ? Also the experiencing of thought is non-physical,
but the generator of thought is physical.

Moses said:
>>Our minds create our 3D reality. In actual fact reality is probably multi dimensional,
it is just that we translate the multi dimensionally received info into a line of nerve
impulses and this induces experiencing which we treat as being 3D. Now this opens
the possibility of something that is far away in another dimension coming close to
us and thus effecting us. Thus this something was not measurable before coming
close to us, and then suddenly appeared out of nothing. Consciousness or experiencing
exists in another dimension.

It is of no use to say that the cause of something is beyond the physical.
Mo>>


Our minds create our 3D reality, subject to natural law (i.e. the buck stops at the Universe's will). If we totally created our own reality alone, the alchemists would have turned lead into gold aeons ago... :)

To me, the 'Universe' is Everything which isn't Me (so that includes you). BUT there is something else which supports this Universe.

You said:
>>Now this opens the possibility of something that is far away in another dimension coming close to
us and thus effecting us. Thus this something was not measurable before coming
close to us, and then suddenly appeared out of nothing. Consciousness or experiencing
exists in another dimension. >>

I agree with all else you say, Mo, except it's not another 'dimension'. The physics of this other 'realm' is slowly being revealed to us, in fact science uses it today as I have posted in other threads. Consciousness exists 'here' too but at a different....?????
:D :D :D
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: An Holistic Cosmology For the 21st Century

Unread postby moses » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:22 pm

Love and fear are non-physical? You could have fooled me on that one. Lizzie
Is the love or fear that you feel a bunch of electrical impulses ? Do you
know where this feeling is ? It's not easy to see, but the actual feeling
is completely different in nature to a bunch of electrical impulses.

If thought precedes action, then we are getting something for nothing. Do we pay for thoughts? Lizzie
The machinery of the brain or mind churns around and spits out a bunch
of electrical impulses that induce the experiencing of something that we
associate the word 'thought' with. So we are not getting such thoughts for
nothing, and all that churning means we are paying for the thought.
Maybe a thought can originate from consciousness alone, however this is
unsettling to consider. Easier to consider that a feeling arises from
consciousness or experiencing, because this is the nature of consciousness.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest