Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/15/2009 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

It's time for you to re-read "The Self-Aware Universe: How Conciousness Creates the Material World" by Amit Goswami.

Trust me.

If you want to, go directly to Chap. 13: The "I" of Consciousness...particularly the section called "The Emergence of the Ego"

yeah...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/15/2009 10:24:05 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/15/2009 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

When I get home. Ha. Don't have it here!

T

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/15/2009 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

Sounds like a Hindi name, so he's probably too monistic for my tastes. ;o)

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/20/2009 8:07 PM (GMT -6)

Tom,

Seriously, man. Just order it.

I REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALY think you'd find it interesting now.

He has a whole chapter called "I Choose, Therefore I Am" and it really ties to the whole "strange loop" thing Loder talks about.

What Penfield discovered was not evidence for the Cartesian dualism, but rather what he found in tangible, neurological, and experiential terms was the "strange loop in the brain" which we call self-relatedness. It is a strange loop because the statement of the patient is invariably made in his own language and formulated as a clear idea recognizable to all who speak his same language. That is, it is within a system of language and thought that the transcendence of the "I" appears, and yet it expresses itself as being in some other respect outside that system of language and thought. The meaningful combination of contradiction and continuity makes this strange loop which resides at the very core of what we take to be distinctively human: namely, our powers of self-relatedness in choice, meaning, and belief.

Bottom line: Regardless to what cuturally-defined persona may be using the the self-trancendent agency of the human mind/brain unity, personal responsibility for things doesn't get taken for that we don't sense we have "chosen", even if we are experiencing direct sensori-motor and memory experience in our brains and bodies. Hence, the "I didn't do that, YOU did" thing.

Both Loder and Goswami seem to indicate this.

Dude, just get it, man. Trust me.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/20/2009 8:32:55 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/21/2009 12:47 AM (GMT -6)

I try. Just placed an order not too long ago, and Anita has me on a tight leash! ;o)

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/21/2009 10:21 AM (GMT -6)

This doesn't substitute for reading the book itself at all...but it does gives some encapsulation...

Take the meat, spit the bones...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/22/2009 6:35 AM (GMT -6)

No doubt Gaswami is on to what many others are on to. I like much of what he says, but I don’t like ‘monism’. But what option does he have? He doesn’t distinguish between the ‘essence’ (ousia) of God a and creation. But maybe that’s because he doesn’t believe in an ontologically distinct, personal Creator. Correct that, and his insights are palatable.

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/22/2009 6:50:41 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 6:43 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
No doubt Gaswami is onto what many others are on to. I live much of what he says. I don’t like ‘monism’. But what option does he have. He doesn’t distinguish between the ‘essence’ (ousia) of God a and creation. But maybe that’s because he doesn’t believe in an ontologically distinct, personal Creation. Correct that, and his insights are palatable.

I don't like Goswami's type of monism either. It's not mandated by Hinduism per se because they have views of a panentheism with a personal Creator (Achintya Bheda Abheda) but it seems like he keeps to Advaita Vedanta, which is totally monistic. You can take Nesteruk's "antinomial monodualism" and/or our "attributive monism", and everything's gravy.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

I think that he has the best reasoning for HOW the ego/personality develops in the mind/brain functioning that I've yet seen. It makes total sense...and ties very well with Loder's insights. His distinction from the quantum self and the classical self...and how the intellectual soul emerges from self-referential operation of the mind/brain relational unity...is tight!

He believes that the distinct, created, self is an "EMERGENT PHENOMENON" (his words!) from this operation.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/22/2009 6:52 AM (GMT -6)

Might have to get that book. I put you on to it after all. Dang.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 7:22 AM (GMT -6)

Dude, you put me on to Goswami and Loder both.

Ain't the world funny?

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 7:26 AM (GMT -6)

Something here...

"In conditioned behavior, the dual quantum system/measuring apparatus becomes virtually classical. In the limit of a new experience, the brain mind's response is creative. Experiences such as near-death can instantly release much repressed unconscious conditioning, as does therapeutic ego death. The psycho-social contexts of living are no longer absolute to the truly fluid identity."

THIS is what I'm describing when I say...

The risk of creating created consciousness, as I see it, is that because of the possibility of "self-reference" at different levels, particularly at the brain/mind level, a self-transcendent agency of the mind/body relationship can "get trapped" in it's self-referentially created worlds from their embodied experiences. It's like an actor that's played a role so long that they don't know how to "get out of it." The true silent presence that exists as my self-trancendent agency...my "chooser"... can have it's self-referential powers without falling into the illusion of self-sufficiency, independence, and "aloneness"; I can be an authentic human being without having to believe "I am Dwayne Polk". I now USE my name and my history for transcendent purposes (New note: CHRIST'S PURPOSES!) , I no longer directly ASSOCIATE my very core self with my name or family history.

I think that this represents FREEDOM from "biological hypostasis" because of one's relationship to one's "true self", which in separably connected to the Creator Spiritus.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/22/2009 7:31:30 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 7:32 AM (GMT -6)

Sermon comin' up.

PRAY, Y'ALL!

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/22/2009 7:37 AM (GMT -6)

There's nothing I'm disagreeing with so far.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/22/2009 6:07 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
There's nothing I'm disagreeing with so far.

Sweet. smilewinkgrin

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/7/2009 1:15 AM (GMT -6)

Yo, Tom.

Amit Goswami on YouTube: Quantum Physics & Consciousness (3 segments)

Here's the first one.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/7/2009 1:35 AM (GMT -6)

Hey, Tom...

As I see it, HESYCHASM (particularly the removal of images from the mind, bringing "stillness" ) moves one into perceiving the panENtheistic antinomial monodualism (the "inconceivable oneness and difference"; also the essence/energies distinction linked with hesychasm) that exists with the Absolute Unity of Being: the Holy Spirit of God. This is when we see our true unity in and through the Logos of God through "returning into oneself" (Page 92), experiencing one's own individual logoi, and thus their participation in the One Logos via the Holy Spirit.

It pushes one PAST the "subject/object" divide into what is described in BHAKTI...or SYNAPHEIA...where the distinctions (particularly between Uncreated and Created) remain, but are relativized by the mutual love between the Creator and created...AND contemplation on the Absolute Unity of Being.

In this type of highest Bhakti all attraction and attachment which one has for objects of enjoyment are transferred to the only dearest object, viz., God. This leads the devotee to an eternal union with his Beloved and culminates in oneness.

and...

The devotee regards the Lord as his Lover. This was the relation between Radha and Krishna. This is Atma-Samarpana. The lover and the beloved become one. The devotee and God feel one with each other and still maintain a separateness in order to enjoy the bliss of the play of love between them. This is oneness in separation and separation in oneness.

Actually, look at what Meister Eckhart has to say as one of his 24 tractates of "Signs of the True Ground"...

The eighth sign: so closely do they fit and bind themselves to God and God to them in the power of love, that God does nothing without them and they do nothing without God.

So...

Whatcha think, dude? Making sense or what? Holla back...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Post Edited (One Love) : 5/7/2009 2:06:43 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/7/2009 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

I agree that we only see our true identity in/through Christ the Logos. How could we ground our identity anywhere else? Impossible. Right. So we agree that there's no fulfillment of creaturely personhood and personal being apart from Christ. Only God can tell us WHO we are. For me, being one with God means being all the 'WHO' we CAN be, i.e., fully actualizing our personal potential. I think that requires that the creature have a measure of freedom to determine creative self-expression. So we still disagree on that. I locate the unique and irreducible non-divine creaturely person to that free space where creative and loving self-expression occurs. Without that, I'm lost.

T

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/7/2009 4:30 PM (GMT -6)

See what you get out of this. Again, take the meat, leave the bones...

from here...

-------------------------------------------

Antaḥkaraṇa - the inner instrument

Antaḥkaraṇa, also called the internal organ, is part of the pure-impure tattvas. Activity in these tattvas is subjective cum objective. Antaḥkaraṇa contains five tattvas: manas, ahaṃkāra, buddhi, prakṛti and puruṣa tattva.

manas - the lower mind

The manas name comes from the verbal root man - to think. Manas is the instrument for the creation of vikalpa (dual thoughts). Its state is described as always agitated. Manas is the hub connecting the ten organs of action and senses to the upper tattvas (intellect, ego and soul). It does not simply transit the sensations, but also filters and assembles them into a coherent vision. Manas operates based on learned behavior, instincts, habits and automatisms, like a complex computer processing data (from the senses) and transmitting commands. Because of its agitated nature, manas is termed "the undisciplined mind", fraught with contradictions: doubt, faith, lack of faith, shame, desire, fear, steadfastness, lack of steadfastness.

Manas interprets everything in terms of attraction and repulsion. While the ego (ahaṃkāra tattva) can understand and assume a moral code, the notions of good and evil, manas is limited to the complementary pair of pleasure and pain, acting only on the desires that arise. Its program is Repeat pleasure and avoid pain ^[35].

Manas operates both in the subtle and the physical plane (brain). Manas is the center of logical reasoning while buddhi is the center of intuition, discrimination and will. Depending on the state of consciousness, manas can act either as a cause of conditioning and bondage or as a path towards freedom. The latter is possible for poets, artists and those who are illuminated (can operate within the pure tattvas, beyond māyā).

ahaṃkāra - the empirical ego

Ahaṃkāra tattva is the first seat of subjectivity. Ahaṃ means "I" and kāra means "to do", thus, ahaṃkāra - the instrument of Ahaṃ (the Spirit), the principle of individuation, acting as an independent conscious entity within the impure reality - yet, it does not have consciousness of its own. ahaṃkāra is a receptacle of Cit śakti, its consciousness is but a small spark from Cit, the universal consciousness. Its operating mode is assuming authorship of all the actions of buddhi, manas, the senses and organs of action.

Ahaṃkāra lives in the sphere of duality, in a state of identification with the physical body, its needs and desires. In ahaṃkāra predominates rajas guna (agitation). Because it identifies only with a small part of the creation (the body) and rejects everything else as "not me", it becomes subject to a series of afflictions such as: pride, egoism, competitiveness, hate and jealousy.

On the other hand, with ahaṃkāra tattva appears, for the first time, individual will, determination, a sense of morality and ethics and it is thus the first step on the spiritual path. Without a sufficiently harmonious and powerful ahaṃkāra (personality) it is impossible to exert the level of effort required to accede to a higher spiritual level.

The position of ahaṃkāra and buddhi are sometimes presented in reversed order because, as the principle of "I-ness", ahaṃkāra is allowed control over the manas (sensorial mind) and buddhi (superior intellect, intuition). Yet, buddhi is a superior tattva, and ahaṃkāra is only allowed from a functional point of view a superior position to buddhi. From an absolute point of view, ahaṃkāra is created by buddhi and thus subordinated to it.

buddhi - the intellect

Buddhi tattva represents the intuitive understanding, the superior mind, which can rise above ego and the sensorial. It does value judgments, discriminates between possibilities, decides and determines, based on the information presented from the lower tattvas. In buddhi tattva there is a predominance of sattva guna (purity) and the energy of jñāna śakti - the energy of knowledge.

The name buddhi contains the Sanskrit radical dhi, meaning reflection, intuitive penetration and higher awareness. Other notable terms containing dhi are samadhi (yogic ecstasy) and dhyana (meditation). One of the prescribed ways of developing buddhi is the study of sacred texts. In Kashmiri Shaivism, Bauddha Jñāna (the intuitive and conceptual understanding) is considered the foundation of illumination because once profoundly understood, something is always accessible, while the second type of knowledge, Paurusha Jñāna (to know through direct experience) is limited only to the moments of inspiration.

--------------------------------------

I think the "buddhi" is analogous to the "nous."

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:18 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual