Belushi...

Actually, I suppose if one believes that 'God' could have created all possibilities and then just walked away, I suppose it could be considered perfect, could it not?

That would not be in agreement with the concept of a 'God' who meddles though. So a redefining construct would be necessary.

Honestly Michael, I'm quite shocked at your response here. I seriously thought I knew you better than this.

I don't necessarily agree with everything JB says. In fact, there are quite a few things that I would highly question that she asserts. Even so, I haven't seen any indication where she is being 'egotistical' about anything.

You often talk about our own personal perceptions and how we perceive others. Evidently you are perceiving JB to be getting into some kind of an egotistical battle with you, but reading her posts I can never see it. All I see is her attempting to support her position and explain why she believes your to be misguided (that's hardly being egotistical considering it a discussion forum).

Also, I still haven't seen the proof that you claim has been proven 'over and over', yet you continue to assert these things as fact without citing this proof you spoke of. It just looks to me like you are trying to claim to have the final answer but you are unwilling to produce the evidence you claim to have.

And finally based on the following,...



I have to ask, if you are now taking the stance of atheism? I'm just curious because I know at one point not too awfully long ago you were very close to being (or possibly even were a Christian). Then you seemed to move into a more nebulous state of spirituality and at one point you appeared to be embracing pantheism in some form.

Now you appear to be taking a very direct (almost hardcore) atheistic stance.

I'm not in any way judging you. I think it's perfectly fine to change your mind as you continue to investigate things and seek new information. I'm just wondering where you actually stand anymore. Have you indeed been convinced of atheism? Your above quote certainly appears to be stating the atheistic view.

You appear to be stating that we are nothing more than our physical form and that when we die then it must then be lights-out. Because what you seem to be saying is that if there is no physiological construct then there can be no perception, thought, or anything else.

So may I ask, Have you indeed become a full-fledged atheist?

If you have I just never realized that you made that transformation. I always thought you were quite spiritual albeit philosophical too.

I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just curious because at one point in time you seemed to be quite spiritual.

There are only two people on this entire site I have a problem understanding and communicating with. One is you, Creativesoul, and the other one is Wouldee.

You use circular logic which (in my opinion) is based on a faulty premise and then you build your conclusions on that, one on top of the other in a maize of confusing conclusions until I get lost trying to follow that path. When I do get to the end of your path, I have no idea what your point is.

Now, perhaps the fault is mine. Perhaps I am just too dense or too stupid to understand your extrapolations. If this is the case I would like to ask someone else who does understand your point to please explain it to me in a simple form so my inferior brain can understand it.

Not you, Creative, but someone else. If anyone else can please explain to me what the heck Creative is talking about, speak now please.

Jeannie

James,

I am no different, just entertaining a different place in perspective(out loud). It is not all about me.

I have no label...

Neither does my belief system...

The Tao is the closest, as is true pantheism... Spinoza's kind without personification...



Regarding JB...

If you can go back and read through her and my exchanges, I can garauntee that you will find many an unwarranted and errant condescending remark from her towards me, accompanied by assumptions which lead her away from what I actually had said. It is far too time-consuming for me to go back and do this for you, or I would so you could see a different perspective.

I am not offended really... just getting tired of correcting the misconstructions of my words, meanings, and intent.

If I am not mistaken, each of the 3 or 4 lengthy conversations started and ended with me saying the same thing. The entire middle section(s) was/were long and drawn out re-directions of misunderstandings, often based upon her personal immaterial responses to my statements. Many of which I had/have no idea how she had arrived at those places in the conversation. Her expressions within our conversations are riddled with inappropriate personal character jabs of some sort or another.

Seeing how I know that those reflections are not of me, they must be of her. Therefore, it follows that it is through the worldly fingerprint that she views in my direction. It(ego) gets in her own way of perceiving what I have actually said, and contorts my words and my meanings based upon her own personal internalizations.

I hold no ill will, just do not feel like being a translator right now...

Too bad Alex or Di are not around, they may be willing to translate.

I try not to take anything personal...

Spirit does not get offended, ego does.



Consciousness(thought) requires perception.

Creative, I think it is you that should go back and read my posts. I believe I have made very good points which you simply disregard and ignore. I think it is your ego that is bruised.



Like what?



Who do you think your are kidding?



Excuse me?

(This is the introversion technique. ~Turn it around and point it at the other person. ~ Its my problem after all ~ Yeh right, creative. Please, not that again! You have done this to me twice before. Its getting old. )





Sorry, nobody can translate your posts.





So you are implying/ saying that you are "spirit" and I am "ego."



That sounds like ego to me.

I always suspected that you had a giant ego creative, (but I had no idea how huge it really was.)

Goodbye, its been fun.

Jeannie

Oh I think you do.

See what I mean James?

I am sorry, truly JB...

I am sorry that you feel this way about me. It very much goes to show exactly what I stated earlier. I do not recognize this portrait that you continually paint of me.

For that, I can only hope that you find a true understanding of the nature of that which you perceive.

The reason I feel "this way" about you is because of you.
You paint your own portrait Creative. It is a self portrait.
You seem to dislike me because I disagree with you, or question you.

My perceptions are very accurate. I see you very clearly creative. Very clearly.

You have demonstrated your vindictive character, your anger, and your ego.

Jeannie

I wish you only peace...

I think a lot of the differences simple come down to the fact that you people are using words to mean different things.





Here you're just arguing semantics over words.

I run into these kinds of problems all the time. Even when I'm trying to figure things out by myself.

Words fail when you get down to this level because words aren't really meant to be that precise.

I do agree with JB however concerning your statement here,...



You are defining the word "Awareness" to be the ability to think consciously.

I don't agree that the ability to think consciously requires perceptual capability. We may not be able to do much without perceptual capability, but it's not required for 'awareness'

And taking away the senses one by one is a good example.

Being blind doesn't stop a person from being aware.

Being deaf doesn't stop a person from being aware.

In fact, take all the senses away and it doesn't stop a person from being aware.

At best they will be 'aware' that they are no longer sensing anything.

Thus demonstrating that perceptual capability is not required for awareness.

(that's just the opposite of what you claimed Michael)

It's just the opposite. Perceptual capability is useless if you don't already have awareness.

It's backwards, from the way you have it proposed it Michael.

In that sense I have to agree with JB. On purely logical reasoning.

I can imagine being 'aware' that there is nothing to perceive.

And so for me, I can imagine a God being 'aware' before it has created anything to perceive or has any sensors with which to perceive

So if it can create via pure thought (as Jeannie suggests), then whatever it imagines it will create.

Makes sense to me in the most philosophical sense.

How to transform that into physiological being is a whole other story.

But I can imagine an awareness that has nothing to perceive.

That's an idea that I can wrap my mind around. How I can justify that idea physiologically is a whole other story. But that's not the question here.

The question is can we imagine awareness without perception.

My answer is yes, I can imagine that.

Given awareness (the ability to think consciously) and given that thoughts can create physiological things (Jeannie's assertion), Then awareness can give rise to perception.

I follow that logic. And that's what Jeannie is suggesting. I'm not saying that she's proven anything by it, but rather that it can't be overturned, by your claim that perception is required FIRST.

Well at least no dishes got broken.

James...

Truly, come on now... think about what you just stated.



Yes it is...



No, it does not stop someone from being aware, they still have the other senses of perception to compensate.



Same answer as above.



Now here is where your logic falls apart. That person which you are describing had already had perception, so they can remember having it.

What if they never had it to begin with James? THAT is the question at hand here.



I must disagree... once again, you have described a situation with perceptual elements to describe why they are not required.

What could you possibly be aware of without the ability to perceive anything?

You are aware of self.

You are aware that you exist.

Without ever having the five senses, one would have no frame of reference... no input to compute of self.

Without input, there can be no thing to become aware of.

Not correct. Awareness of self is possible without any input.

One first becomes aware of the "appearance" of nothing.

(But "nothing" cannot "exist.")

Self exists.

Darkness. Self then identifies with the darkness.

"Truth is darkness, there is no light."

"I am truth."

"I am darkness."

This is the first image of self, and it is called the void.

JB

I have no idea how one can say that awareness is possible without the ability to perceive.

Perception equals the ability to collect information.

Without this ability to perceive, there is no information perceived.

Without the perception of information, there can be no awareness of it, that includes the information of self-existence.

Self does have the ability to perceive.

But there is nothing to perceive but itself.

So It perceives Itself being.

And It perceives the appearance of darkness.

And it identifies with the darkness.

I am.

I am the darkness.

I am all there is.

This is the void.

This is the I AM.

I have clearly laid out a logical discourse over the past few hours...

What you have just stated has absolutely no basis in fact.

What does self perceive with, when self does not exist?

Self is this human form with a neo-cortex.

All animals which have this feature in their brain are also self-aware.

Those that do not, live on instinct alone.

First was I AM.

Then there was the Word.

The Word was a vibration.

The vibration was caused by the awareness of I am and the awareness of the appearance of darkness and the shifting of attention between these two things which were "something" that was perceived by the observer.

In the center of the void, the shifting of attention caused a great vibration because it was a thought and the thought moved.

The movement was a vibration and it was the WORD.

And the WORD was with the self.

And the self identified with the word.

"I am the word."

And the word was the self.

But you can't know what there might be to be aware of.

You're just assuming that physical sensations are all that can exist.

When sages meditate they can get into a state of pure "white light"

I actually experienced that myself twice very briefly.

What is that? It's not physical light. It's not photons stimulating the retina of an eyeball.

In fact Sages claim that it's a 'spiritual light'.

Atheists will argue that it's some kind of physiological sensation produced by the brain.

Who's to say which is true?

How can you know that physical sensations are all there is?

If there is such a thing as 'spiritual light' maybe it doesn't require sensors at all. Maybe the light doesn't 'come' from anywhere. It's not like physical light. Maybe we are light-beings. Maybe we are the spiritual light.

The bottom line here is that it cannot be proven or disproved. If fact it could be proven or disproved then we'd basically be able to prove or disprove whether or not we are spiritual beings.

You're claiming that it's been proven that without sensory input thought would be impossible.



You claim that this has been proven over and over. I still ask to see a citation for any such proof.

If the proof is valid then I guess atheism has been proven. And so all spiritual people can just give up and become atheists.

I've struggled with this very concept quite deeply. My conclusion is that I can't prove or disprove it.

And I think this comes down to a very similar question.

Are we the form, or the thing that is taking the form?

To me that is the ultimate question.

Are we the clay? Or are we the sculpture?

If we are nothing more than the sculpture, then atheists are right. And we die when the sculpture ceases to exist.

If we are the clay, then we can come back and take many forms (i.e. reincarnation)

I believe that I'm the clay.

You are beginning to sound like you believe that you are the sculpture.

Up to this point, I can't prove either one. And I have no more reason to believe one more than the other. But I lean toward being the clay.

Because to me the clay is my true essence of what I am.

The sculpture is merely the form that, I the clay, am taking.

Can we ever know or prove that we are just the form, or that which is taking the form?

To me, it seems obvious that we must necessarily be the thing that is taking the form. Because that is what truly exists.

The form is merely a fleeting pattern. But we are the substance that gives rise to the patterns.

That's the pantheistic view and that's what I'm leaning toward very heavily.

After all, if we are just the form (which is truly nothing) then what is the 'stuff' that gave us that fleeting form?

I don't see how we can be anything but the stuff to be honest about it.