Return Home
It is currently Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:41 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:00 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:42 pm
Posts: 16
Hi all,

I'm pretty sure that this question has its source in my rather limited understanding, but here I go anyways. Maybe someone can shed some light on this for me. :)

In book 1, chapter 26, Tom describes how the AUO (primordial substance of consciousness, an apparently infinite potential energy) begins to create distortions and to differentiate itself into reality cells. I understand this to be part of the Fundamental Process. Then somewhere down the road time gets invented. I guess the confusion in my head is this: to me a process always involves time, and I'm not entirely clear on how change can take place or how something can evolve without time. If there is no time, that implies some sort of timelessness, and then I start to wonder why did AUO ever start creating distortions, if "start" is even the right word to use here. How does one start something if there is no time? And why would it start in the first place? How does the Fundamental Process exist without time?

I feel like I'm thinking out loud more than anything else, and like mentioned already I realize that these questions might not even be the right ones to ask, but I'm not sure how to ask them any other way.

Would love to hear what any of you have to say about this (or perhaps this has been discussed previously and has escaped me?)

Cheers,

Julia


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:59 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Julia,

The perturbations in the reality cell fabric pre existed the development of The One Consciousness. Time existed at a 'primitive' level as the reality cells cycled states based upon some rule set that we cannot know. But this succession of 'states' is the precursor of time as we perceive it as a continuum although it is still quantized as system states of the PMR VR as we perceive them here. From these random irregularities, everything develops. This is described by Tom as bootstrapping. There is some further development of these concepts in this post: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2804 "Why talk about Indra's Net and the Game of Life?"

Perhaps this perspective will clarify things further for you. If not, ask again.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:13 am
Posts: 173
Location: Boonville, Indiana
Hi Julia. I'll give it a try.

Think of a big body of water instead of AUO. It is all frozen solid, no change, no time, nothing to measure and no awareness. Then a few places thaw out and each one is a different temperature, a spot of liquid in the ice. Now there is a measurable vibration rate in each place and you could say the temperature of a given spot is its rate of time, its clock frequency. As the spots grow some will touch other spots of different temperature and if they wish to join together one will warm or the other cool until they match and flow together. They would be matching time clocks. Eventually all of the water would evolve to be the same temperature so all the separate spots of the same basic thing would become one big thing. The clock frequency would be set up by trial and error at the most efficient rate for the whole. That is a little bit the way I understand the evolution of time, which is a measurement of duration.

How about a neighbor who talks so fast you can't understand them. Either they slow down or you must speed up and find a common ground to exchange information. There are lots of ways to describe it, it will still be a way to measure the rate for exchanging information in order to find mutual profitability.
:)

_________________
always, John


Top
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:55 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:42 pm
Posts: 16
Thanks Ted and John for your replies.

John, I think the trouble in understanding I had was, why would the frozen body of water start melting in the first place if it's frozen in timelessness? But I think this is a little clearer to me now after reading Ted's post, that the melting of the ice has to do with the rule sets that govern this level of reality.

Ted, wow, I read the thread on "Indra's Net and The Game of Life" ... I do feel it's cleared up a few things, but my head is spinning a little from all the information and it will take a bit for me to digest it. Many more questions are popping into my mind but I might wait a while before I can formulate them properly. I also did a search for The Game of Life; really interesting, and something I'll be looking at more closely.

I guess in direct response to your message: you mentioned that "Time existed at a 'primitive' level as the reality cells cycled states based upon some rule set that we cannot know." Would it make sense to assume that the Fundamental Process would require some sort of time, however primitive and different from our concepts of time it may be? Perhaps this isn't even an answerable question, if we are getting into rule-sets that are beyond our understanding. Or perhaps I'm hitting the same block I was hitting before.

Thanks again to both of you for taking the time to respond,

Julia


Top
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:44 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
What came to mind is the "moment" that "this" and then "not this" occurred, which I think of as upon differentiation of the one primal reality ,is when "time" came into the picture puzzle. For there to be "this way" and then "that way" requires time between the ways. Is this close?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Julia,

I should have been more specific instead of saying 'primitive'. We could have expected the random and unorganized reality cell 'perturbations' to cycle at different rates in different, isolated locations initially. We have no basis to know or expect that they would be synchronous as this would require a background communication between all cells locking them into cycling together, something that is not necessary as an initial postulate and unlikely. As the process of bootstrapping continued, we could expect that these regions grew and joined in the sense of their interactions spreading. Thus the cycling rate eventually became uniform and 'system wide'. And yes, there is no doubt that this bootstrapping process took a vast amount of 'time' as system state cycles. Compare this to the development of life from initially randomly distributed chemicals in the primordial tide pools of Earth developing into the full spectrum of life that exists today in the PMR VR. The latter is a reiteration of the former, a primary characteristic of Consciousness Space.

The reference to a rule set that we cannot know refers to the exact process that causes interactions between adjacent perturbed and unperturbed reality cells. There is a specific set of rules in the Game of Life for adjacent cells to interact, known because Conway set it up with a set of rules that make it work. We cannot know what this set of rules is for the basic reality cells of Consciousness Space as there is no way to 'see' them, that is to sense or interact with them directly. No eyes either to 'see'.

Tom refers to the Fundamental Process, if my memory serves, as the iteration of the cycle of evolutionary trial development alternated/paired with a cycle of evaluation and consolidation. In other words, you make a guess and try it out and then check it out, evaluate the result. He explains it much more fully than that, of course. It is a process that is repeated at many levels and in many different systems. I cannot unfortunately refer you to a page in MBT.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:19 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:13 am
Posts: 173
Location: Boonville, Indiana
I think I see a pattern here. Timeless doesn't mean frozen literally. Thats a PMR concept. Timeless means nothing to measure. No thing, no consciousness to give meaning or measure to things happening in the reality cell fabric of AUO.

Why there were random interactions in the reality cells we can't know, but that is the basis for some of these interactions to become stable. A stable interaction with duration would be its own timeclock with a frequency to match its internal rate of exchange. Somewhere in there the potential for awareness must be thrown in so that stable interactions will continue at a more than random rate. As these stabilities in AUO increased and merged a near infinite number of these different little time zones, or areas of stability, evolved to a mutual frequency from interaction with each other.

Time as we think of it began separately in each and every stable event. Lowering entropy by organizing information would be the evolutionary driver that created the abstract we call time.

Ted always says it better than I do, this is my understanding as of now.

_________________
always, John


Top
PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:57 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:42 pm
Posts: 16
Bette, Ted and John,

Thank you for your clarifications. I do feel things have become clearer, probably very much due to repetition and hearing the same things said in various different ways.

John: "Timeless doesn't mean frozen literally. Thats a PMR concept."

Julia: I think this was very much what I was stumbling on. Go figure!

Thank you all for taking the time. :)

Julia


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:48 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Hey guys-

Now, I came accross some interesting things in that Seth material which was written down by Andy Hughes. This sparks a few questions that are obviously related to what I've been asking about, but also has to do witht his thread.

SETH ON TIME
Quote:
Time as you experience it is an illusion caused by your own physical senses. They force you to perceive action in certain terms, but this is not the nature of action.

The apparent boundaries between past, present and future are only illusions caused by the amount of action you can physically perceive, and so it seems to you that one moment exists and is gone forever, and the next moment comes and like the one before also disappears. Everything in the universe exists at one time simultaneously.

The first words ever spoken still ring through the universe, and in your terms, the last words ever spoken have already been said. The past, present and future only appear to those who exist within three-dimensional reality.

The past exists as a series of electromagnetic connections held in the physical brain and in the nonphysical mind. These electromagnetic connections can be changed.

The future consists of a series of electromagnetic connections in the mind and brain also. In other words, the past and present are real to the same extent.

You take it for granted that present action can change the future, but present actions can also change the past. The past is no more objective or independent from the perceiver than is the present. The electromagnetic connections were largely made by the individual perceiver. The connection can be changed, and such changes are far from uncommon. These changes happen spontaneously on a subconscious basis.
SETH ON "GOD"
Quote:
If you prefer, you can call the supreme psychic gestalt God, but you should not attempt to objectify him. What you call God is the sum of all consciousness, and yet the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.

He is not one individual, but an energy gestalt. He is a psychic pyramid of interrelated, ever expanding consciousness, that creates simultaneous and instantaneously, universes and individuals that are given duration, psychic comprehension, intelligence and eternal validity.

Its energy is so unbelievable that is does indeed form all universes; and because its energy is within and behind all universes, fields and systems, it is indeed aware of each sparrow that falls, for it is each sparrow that falls.

Dimly remembered through what you would call history, there was a state of agony in which the powers of creativity and existence were known, but the ways to produce them were not known. All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. All That Is had to learn this lesson, and could not be taught.

From this agony, creativity was originally drawn, and its reflection is still seen. All That Is retains the memory of that state, and it serves as a constant impetus toward renewed creativity. Desire, wish and expectation, therefore, rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within the dreams of All That Is, potential beings had consciousness before any beginning as you know it.
and one more to top that off:
Quote:
Consciousness is not a "thing" in itself, rather, it is a dimension of action made possible by a series of creative dilemmas. There are three dilemmas which represent the areas of reality within which the inner vitality of the universe can express and experience itself.

The first dilemma is inner vitality's desire and impetus to completely materialize itself, and its inability to do so. This results in action, which is a part of all structure. Identity may be termed as action which is conscious of itself. An identity is also a dimension of existence, action within action, an unfolding of action upon itself -- and through this interweaving of action with itself, through this re-action, an identity is formed. Identity and action cannot be separated.

Without identity, action would be meaningless, for there would be nothing upon which action could act. Action then must, by its very nature, create identities.

Identity, because of its characteristics, will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. Action would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity, however, identities are never constant, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

Identity must seek stability while action must seek change; yet identity could not exist without change, for it is the result of action and a part of it. This is the second dilemma.
So here are my questions, in as straightforward a manner as I can possibly ask them:

If consciousness is literally driven by desire, instability and struggle- then it would seem that what the Buddhists or Advaitists are working toward IS actually non-existence. This is an interesting concept... Obviously the goal of these religious philosophies is to point out "dualism" where ever it happens to rear its head.. so, would this binary concept of consciousness be a "new dualism?" If any of you checked out that Advaitist video illustration from YouTube that I posted yesterday- you'll see what I mean. Could we consider AUO the fundamental non-dual state? If so, then all of AUM is an "illusion" from a certain perspective- including all the individuated consciousnesses that form it, no? Because it seems to me that from a "truly" non-dual perspective- AUM is the result of "consciousness at play" and is possibly the "final illusion" to overcome. Again, this could be over-thinking it, or a semantics problem- but, I've heard it suggested that the final apperant duality to overcome is between "existence" and "non-existence" in the sense that finally all that seemingly "was" (since the past, present, and future are NOW) is now "gone."

Sorry bette, but I did take your advice. I wasn't roaming through pages and pages of different philosopies or authors for this one- just good ol' Seth.

Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:57 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
I think perhaps our "best bet" as a community is to send Amazon shippers energy to get Cole his book(s). ;)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:13 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:54 am
Posts: 75
Cole,

Would your idea of the difference between AUO and AUM be akin to the Gnostic idea of the difference between God and the Demiurge (the blue collar worker who actually gets his hands dirty with Creation)?

I had thought this applied at a higher level...MBT suggests that AUO is not Infinite and that we cannot expect to raise our understanding beyond AUO; so maybe AUO is akin to the Demiurge (created by the Infinite to evolve).

Just a thought.

Best wishes,
Ross


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:37 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Cole,

Would your idea of the difference between AUO and AUM be akin to the Gnostic idea of the difference between God and the Demiurge (the blue collar worker who actually gets his hands dirty with Creation)?

I had thought this applied at a higher level...MBT suggests that AUO is not Infinite and that we cannot expect to raise our understanding beyond AUO; so maybe AUO is akin to the Demiurge (created by the Infinite to evolve).

Just a thought.

Best wishes,
Ross
Yeah, I guess you could say that Ross.. I'm not 'too' into the gnostic viewpoint, just because it makes me a little uncomfortable- but then again, so do all the non-dual teachings in their most extreme, which is a sure sign that my ego is fighting the ideas. My viewpoint has been that 'the infinite' has to exist, even just as a medium into which 'evolving consciousness' can expand... but then I suppose this 'medium' or infinite sea in which AUO/AUM resides/expands isn't really important from our perspective, since the only perspective even theoretically capable of 'percieving anything' outside of AUM-- is 'AUM' itself. That's assuming of course that AUM really 'perceives' anything but itself (us and everything else 'inside')... But in my view- you can't escape the rational need for 'the infinite' which is capable of basically supporting anything and everything and lies outside of every possible kind of logic that we could ever use on it.

Either way- I don't know what to do about it. :)


Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:18 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Quote:
Either way- I don't know what to do about it. :)
Live, Love, and laugh; repeat.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:29 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 553
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Quote:
Either way- I don't know what to do about it. :)
Live, Love, and laugh; repeat.
Love
Bette
How true bette... That the real answer is probably that simple. But could you- from your point of view, (in your own words) explain to me what the difference is between "becoming love" and "being loving"? Don't these two things go hand-in-hand? I understand that "being loving" deals with the human/emotional interpretation of "love"- but is the higher ideal of "becoming love" compatible in any way with our human 'loving' (not in the sexual sense)? Hope that question makes sense...<-- I'm just wondering what you/(or others) think.


Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:56 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Becoming love is what we are doing, while being love is what will be when we are done becoming love. Quality of consciousness as it raises to lower entropy is becoming love, before it individuated it was being love, how's that sound? I think of the Fundamental Process as "becoming love", while the result is being love. Either word alone works for me as well, "being" is love, and "love" is being, groovy. ;)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited