wenglund wrote:Hi Keene,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. This is interesting to me.
No problem. This is quite entertaining.
All I am saying is that the family appears to be a microcosm of God and the universe even in your world view, and thus it may be useful to examine God and the universe using that microcosm (it is easier to wrap our minds around the simple and finite than it is the complex and infinite).
Well, I would also think that a bottle of booze sitting in the fridge is a microcosm of god. We can try to wrap our heads around that, too :) Reminds me of my first martial arts lesson. They put a stick in a bucket of water, sat it in front of me, and said "ponder the stick."
Actually, the paradox doesn't assume one reality and universe, it merely addresses the one reality and universe we happen to be conciously experiencing at this time.
And, if the other hypothetical realities and universes are subject to the same time and spacial limitations as the one reality and universe we are conciously experiencing now, then the paradox applies to those hypothetical realities and universes as well--that is, unless we are able to simultatiously and consiously experience the infinit other realities and universes (do you? I certainly don't.). In other words, the ad hoc hypothesis of an infinite other realities and universes does not resolve the paradox, but merely distributes it infinitely. Right?
But the other hypothetical realities and universes are not subject to the same time and spacial limitations as the one we are consciously experiencing. In fact, I don't believe that the reality we ARE consiously experiencing is limited, either. I think it's our beliefs that limit us. Or, more realistically, we are choosing to experience these particular limits on this particular run-through of life.
Isn't the lack of transferability of consciousness and memory between your infinite hypothetical realities, itself, a huge restriction on the mind?
If one tries to utilize a tool that one believes has restrictions, than that tool will only get one where one believes it will go.
These are two of the most critical elements (consciousness and memory) for determining reality and making choices. Absent these critical elements, then the ad hoc hypothesis of infinite realities and universes, is render virtually meaningless and valueless, particularly in terms of the reality and universe we are consciously experiencing.
I would agree. It is, at the current moment, impossible to prove. This could be because you live in a reality where you believe it is impossible, and cannot be proven. In that reality, there is a version of myself (the one typing this) that also believes this, at least on some level. We are conscious co-creators of our realities, this happens to be one in which we agree.
And, who is to say that the hypothetical infinite other realities and universes aren't separate states of consciousness. In other words, what is to say that you don't exist in alternative realities and universes, but rather an infinite of other consciences or people who are playing your role (in an infinite of different ways) respectively?
By the definition of infinite, it simply must be that way. And it must be more than that way. It must be that we are one. It must be that we are many. It must be that we are few. It must be we are none. Infinite MUST take on all these properties, or else it is no longer infinite.
By this reasoning, yes, the Celestial Kingdom as you understand it MUST exist. And so must much, much more.
In fact, isn't the very process of the mind distinguishing between what is reality and what is not, itself, a restriction on the mind? (The mind is no longer free to deem the unreal as real).
I believe this is a self-imposed restriction.
Otherwise, absent that restriction, wouldn't the notion of reality be rendered meaningless and valueless?
It would also be rendered completely meaningful and value-rich. It becomes as God sees it -- infinitely mutable, amazingly glorious. Of course, were this restriction removed, but a belief of badness instilled in the heart, then doesn't the understanding of Hell become that much more real? You consciously create the reality in which you are the most miserable.
I suppose for most people, the belief remains that the restrictions of the mind and body, and reality, are removed at death. I believe that the mind and body restrictions can be overcome during life.
Your imaginations became "real"? In what sense?
I traveled through my past, going to all the situations where I wondered "What if I had done differently here?" I then acted in the manner where I would have liked to act, rather than the way I did. Many of these situations were small, and didn't have much of an effect on my life, except for one incredibly notable difference.
Before I did that, I had no girlfriend. After I did that, my ex-girlfriend was suddenly and inexplicably living with me. She only stayed for about a week, because I fell into my old habits rather quickly, but I cannot shake the experience. I still hold the memories of both time-lines. I often feel my personality switching from the old-timeline me to the new-timeline me. The only noticable difference is the way I veiw the memories. In the new-timeline-me, I see all the events in the past as if I were the one living through them. In the old-timeline-me, I see those particular events as if I were watching them from outside myself. And vice-versa.
So, with that experience in hand, I get the belief that the limits on reality, the paradox as you describe it, are overcome with faith (not in god, necessarily, but in power in general), determination, and will.
To your way of thinking, is there a useful and reasonable distinction you draw between the imagined and the real? If so, what is that distinction--particularly in light of your supposing that imagination can become real?
For me, personally, the distinction comes from which set of senses I use. When I imagine something visually, it appears in my mind as if through a second pair of eyes that hover just over my head. When I imagine something auditorily, I hear the noise as if through an ear at the base of my neck. The power comes when I imagine something so strongly that the different sense overrides my current one -- Usually at that point, I feel a powerful vibration, and a distinct separation of consiousness into those second senses. From this point, I can explore the infinite in whatever way I choose. When the imagining became real, last time, I felt myself possessing a past self, and directing it towards a different line.
And, in your world view, do all imaginings become real? In otherwords, if I image that you believe as I do, will that become real in the reality I am currently conscious of? ;-)
I believe that all imaginings CAN become real. That they do or not depends on the belief of the imaginer.
I would also like to address the attracting power of the imagination -- even if you don't change reality on a fundamental level, the way I feel I did, the imagination will attract you to people, beliefs, and situations that match whatever you are imagining. This is an effect I have seen much more often, and is one that is well documented (The Secret, What the Bleep do We Know, Think and Grow Rich, The Power of Now, Awareness, The New Biology, just to name a few movies/books/lectures on the subject. I've got quite the library).
The question, then, is the reality you are now consciously experiencing the same as the reality you hypothetically were able to pick?
Yes.
And, if we are hypothetically unrestricted in our ability to pick and experience any "realities", and even formulate realities in our imaginations, why not pick a reality where pain is not necessary? In fact, why not pick a pain-free reality? Why not pick, for the sake of amusement and pleasure, a reality where things deemed logically contradictory in this reality, are logically consistent in the chosen reality--like square circles, inane is rational, your philosophical viewpoint makes sense (I am just teasing with that one). ;-)
Honestly, it's because on some level, I don't think it's possible. Or perhaps on a higher level of consiousness that I am as yet unaware of, I want to experience this life. Perhaps YOU want me to experience this life?
Were I to want badly enough to create a reality in which all was amusement and pleasure, I would do it. What I really want, though, is not amusement and pleasure, it's more closely described as Success. And it involves working through this particular reality right now.
Of course, I often imagine a world of amusement and pleasure. I sometimes even go so far as to travel there in my "other senses." What usually happens is, although I am satiated, I often get bored. Then I come back and go to work.
It seems you, ironically and paradoxically, restricted your belief (and thereby limited the freedom of your mind) to viewing guilt for masturbation as an unnecessary pain, rather than a pain that would teach and motivate.
You also seem to be restricting your beliefs to viewing rules and boundries as unnecessary pain, rather than pain that teaches and motivates.
Why not unrestrict your mind and free it to believe the latter? Why not imagine it to be so, and thereby make it a reality?
I could; but why? I can imagine rules as acting exactly how you say they act, as stepping stones. Or, I can imagine questioning and thought to be BETTER, and make that a reality.
Perhaps, as a co-creator of this reality with you, I would rather explore what we've created, finding better and better ways to utilize the tools we've given ourselves, than to run around changing everything all-willly-nilly. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I most enjoy doing. That's why I'm a computer programmer, and why I play video games. I like to explore what we've created, to see how it can be utilized in so many different ways.
In this particular case, I find it ultimately more pleasing to affect the way we use our minds, than to change the reality of how our minds work.
Actually, if the child is not already here in this world, then by procreating the child, you unavoidably bring it into the world--regardless of whether you believe it came from somewhere else or not. So, no, the statement doesn't fall flat, and the "reconciliation" may still be necessary.
Also, you seem to view the notion of "we" and "consciousness" differently than I do. I see "we" as a collection of individual consciousnesses or self-conscousnesses. In your world view, how do you draw a distinction between "we" and "consciousness" while reconciling that distinction with your belief that "we are all one consciousness"?
I suppose the distiction came when I tried to imagine what infinity would look like. I was on some powerful hallucinogens, and began to ponder the "zero point" feild as described in theoretical quantum physics. The image came to me as so many different things, all encased in just one. At one point, from one angle, it was a string. Turn it a bit, and it was a sphere. Turn it more and it was a fibonacci spiral. It seemed every possibility was encased in this object. When I looked closer on the string, I found it was very twisted up in on itself. I saw each twist and tangle constantly tying up and letting loose.
So, my belief is that "we" are points in the infinite where the string is more tangled than what is around us. I also saw this happening when I would look at others, and see a grid around them bend in to meet them. We are all the same string, but we're at different points along the way.
Now, when it was the sphere, I saw all the little tangles all moving across the surface, very quickly and steadily. I followed one tangle, and it seemed to follow the tangle in front of it. What this means, I believe, is that we will (and have) experience (and experienced), first-hand, exactly what others are experiencing (or experienced, or will experience, or COULD experience).
So, there isn't much disctinction for "we" and "the one consciousness" in my mind. This brings the golden rule into, I believe, much more powerful meaning. I treat you kindly, because I am you. I scoff at your ideas, because they are my ideas. I try to improve your situation, because it's my situation.
If you and I are one consciousness, then why was I not conscious of you until a week or so ago, and have limited consciousness of you now, and even at this moment am not conscious that you and I share the same consciousness?
How often are you conscious of your left middle toe? If you're thinking of consciousness as to what you can hold in your actively awake and thinking mind, then yeah, you're not going to be conscious of it. The consciousness I'm talking about can be more aptly defined as "Spirit." In order to access it, the limitations of the mind must be taken away. This is why people spend years meditating, and why it is taught that after prayer, you should quiet your mind. The mind is merely a survival tool for the body. The Spirit, or consciousness, is above and below it, and can be accessed through it, and through other means.
I seem to have some conscious control (choice) over my consciousness, but not yours (elsewise, I would just consciously choose for you to believe as I do). If we are one consciousness, then why can't I simply and freely choose to have you believe as I do, and have that become a reality?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
If we again use my analogy of the string, which part of the string are you using to make that descision? The top of the tangle can lean over and brush up against other tangles easily. But to make a change along the lines you're speaking, you would have to go a few levels deeper, and make the choice with the part of the string that holds us together, the level of string that is us as one.
But if you were to experience consciousness on that level (I know I haven't, although I came close on ketamine), would you want to make that change? Would the mind-as-tangle believe the same way as our-minds-as-one would? Or as the infinite would?