the Primary Substance

[Bruno's logic]

What is the truth and reality of existence?

The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, 340BC)

I believe that all matter we see and interact with is a construct of Infinite Space, formed by the wave properties of the One thing existing, the Continuous Infinite Eternal Wave Medium that is infinite space itself. From our location, in and of space, we can only observe a tiny fraction of the one thing existing (infinite space) but because we are also formed of the one thing existing (infinite space) we can know what exists beyond our Observable Universe even if we can never actually physically leave this finite region of space.

Space itself is the one thing that everything experiences and has in common. Space itself is the primary substance that all things are made of.
Our sun is an average star (not so big, not so small) and it was formed like every other average star in our finite universe, by massive amounts of hydrogen gas (the most common element in our universe) exploding and then concentrating into a fiery plasma hydrogen bomb in space. But hydrogen gas exists in space too so space itself must be the primary substance of all existence.The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) is the most simple language for describing Reality, founded on One thing existing, Space, with Properties of a Continuous Infinite Eternal Wave Medium.

-G

 

[Bruno's logic]

Questions,
How can there be space, matter and motion, gravity, electromagnetism and heat, life, thoughts and emotions, freewill, mind and spirit? What is the cause of these things? They are all connected but how? What is the one thing that exists that all of these things have in common? Are these things of God? What then does God exist in? “Did God Create himself? Did God create the space he exists in? Is it possible that there is one thing already existing that connects all of these things, God included, and is also the cause of all of these things?

Could it be that matter and the universe are one and the same thing. Could it be possible that the universe is infinite in dimensions and possibilities? Could it be that Space is the one thing that connects this finite physical universe with all of the other things in an infinite existence? Could it be that we are trapped in the physical universe only until we open our hearts and minds to existence itself and in so doing free ourselves from the prison that is the physical 3 dimensional realm/reality we currently experience?

Matter and motion, gravity, electromagnetism and heat, life, thoughts and emotions, freewill, mind and spirit all of these things and everything else experiences the same space. These things are connected because they all exist in space. Could it be that all of these things are also made of space? How could that be possible? How could Space as the one common thing that all things experience actually be the one substance that all things are formed of.

When will humanity gain admission into the cosmic library? Answers to these questions are so simple yet so elusive. ….
~G

 

[Tao_Equus]

Simple yet elusive? lol

I agree the answer is simple. We will never know. We can never know. Best we can do is study tiny little bits of it and know them as well as we can. That is still a worthwhile pursuit.

Tao

 

[Bruno's logic]

Hello TAO,
Why do you believe that we will never know, that we can never know? Is there something that I'm missing here? Where is the proof that humanity will remain ignorant forever? Isn't it possible that a few humans have found the answer in their lifetimes and for some reason have kept the answer to themselves?
If humanity continues to exist for tens of thousands of years to come who's to say that we will never know?
I've read many of your posts here and you seem intelligent, a realist, a natural philosopher, well read. Infact, In my opinion, some of your posts are quite profound. Still, is it possible that you have already made up your mind on the subject and so cannot be bothered with questions as simple as what is this place that we all experience?
~G. Bruno

 

[marmalade]

The only thing that connects all those things is the mind that is aware of them. You say space is the common factor, but might that just be another word for consciousness? What exists within consciousness, we can know. If anything exists outside of consciousness, it will forever remain unknown. Consciousness is the deciding factor.

 

[Snoopy]

The only thing that connects all those things is the mind that is aware of them. You say space is the common factor, but might that just be another word for consciousness? What exists within consciousness, we can know. If anything exists outside of consciousness, it will forever remain unknown. Consciousness is the deciding factor.

Saw this and thought of you

"What is referred as ‘mind-only’ in Buddhism— the central philosophy of the Avatamsaka-sutra, meaning that all things that exist in the universe are projections of the mind, that there is nothing that exists apart from the mind, and that the mind is the original essence of the myriads of things—is not the ‘mind-only’ that stands in distinction to ‘materiality only,’ but is instead the ultimate ‘mind-only,’ in which materiality and mentality are nondual."

Korean Buddhism

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hello TAO,
Why do you believe that we will never know, that we can never know? Is there something that I'm missing here? Where is the proof that humanity will remain ignorant forever? Isn't it possible that a few humans have found the answer in their lifetimes and for some reason have kept the answer to themselves?
If humanity continues to exist for tens of thousands of years to come who's to say that we will never know?
I've read many of your posts here and you seem intelligent, a realist, a natural philosopher, well read. Infact, In my opinion, some of your posts are quite profound. Still, is it possible that you have already made up your mind on the subject and so cannot be bothered with questions as simple as what is this place that we all experience?
~G. Bruno

Hi Bruno and thanks for the compliments.

First off I find often the best way to get a thread rolling is to disagree and as I found your post interesting I wanted to see it rolling

That said I still stand by my original assertion. It is too big and astatic to ever truly know as an entirety. And if for the briefest second you did, then the next it will have changed.

Perhaps we can know its "essence", but never its detail. Like in some tropical jungle at night, alive with thousands of creatures moving and calling. We may not know what most of them are or look like, but we can be sure that they are there. We know the noises are clues to different behaviours being acted out in the dark but we cannot simultaneously know the purpose of all of them.

Our sense organs and brains are developed to allow us to function in our immediate environment. We cannot easily fathom beyond a 4th dimension yet our physics tells us that is only the beginning. There are some of us that claim to be able to access other dimensions, such as "remote viewers". I have seen some evidence presented in books that use statistics to state that this evidence is concrete, irrefutable. But i am no statistician and I never forget the immortal proverb "There are lies, damned lies and statistics".

If you have read some of my posts you should be aware that I prefer to rely largely on what can be observed and tested and shy away from invoking any kind of grand design in the fabric of reality. This is not to say that I do not recognise the fundamental laws that govern the design we do see, just that I believe these laws to be relatively local. And by local I refer to our observable universe. But it is very interesting that there does appear to be a symmetry of scale and a duality in everything.

I'm going to be 42 soon. That is the answer to life, the universe and everything. Deep thought will not stop at 42 but i fear if anyone did cry eureka it would become a tail of mice and men. Pondering imponderables leads to madness, answers fragments of truth at best, illusion more probably. But many people have a deep need to surf the crest of possibility and perhaps there is a reason yet to bear fruit. Sometimes I feel like i am looking at the entire universe when I watch the ripples the breeze plays across the pond by me. Or when I am acutely aware that every cell in my body was born in the inferno of some long dead star. You can feel a part of it all very easily when you contemplate the "stuff" that you are rather than the thoughts that you have. Not that I mean to belittle thought, far from it. But our physical attachment to reality is so profound and so overlooked.

There is a molecular chain charged with electrical current that links you sat wherever you are to me here. Without leaving our atmosphere that will always be true. Is there an "ether" in spacetime that is much the same? The zero-point field, the quantum matrix? Well documented, tested and repeatedly tested experiments show that there is. Maybe one day mankind will harness the ability to traverse it, (Ladbrokes is already investing heavily in trying ). But even then anything we see or know will still be a fragment of the whole.

So I am not stuck in a preconceived notion of futility. Rather I truthfully acknowledge our human limitations and deny myself the luxury of fanciful self aggrandisement that the bald ape is particularly special. I would love to be wrong tho.

Tao

 

[flowperson]

Hi Guys...Is this what you're referring to ?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether

Einstein had a sort of a left handed belief in it and his cosmological constant in his relativity theories was put there to account for siderial energies and forces which could not be experimentally explained or proven. Some scientists are coming back to this to help explain and justify the burgeoning fields of zero point energy, anti gravity phenomena, and scalar electromagnetic phenomena.

There was actually quite a bit of experimentation done in the first part of the 20th century to explain and account for the physical phenomenon of aetherial drift as evidenced by this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller

flow....

 

[marmalade]

Saw this and thought of you

"What is referred as ‘mind-only’ in Buddhism— the central philosophy of the Avatamsaka-sutra, meaning that all things that exist in the universe are projections of the mind, that there is nothing that exists apart from the mind, and that the mind is the original essence of the myriads of things—is not the ‘mind-only’ that stands in distinction to ‘materiality only,’ but is instead the ultimate ‘mind-only,’ in which materiality and mentality are nondual."

Korean Buddhism

s.

I'm attracted to theories like panpsychism. If we can only know the world through our own consciousness, why are most people so quick to deny the world itself some form of consciousness? Since everything we experience and know exists within our consciousness, why assume without evidence that something exists outside of it? Science is supposed to be based on observation, but scientists too often try their best to ignore the dilemma that is our consciousness. Science is utterly dependent on our human consciousness and yet we're pretty much clueless about it.

I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of the separateness of mind and body, but I'm open to the possibility. I am a bit wary of the Eastern perspective that all is mind in an absolute sense. I think its more reasonable to neither reduce mind to body nor body to mind. Simply, they're two aspects of the same thing. Afterall, we don't experience mind and body separately.

If you have read some of my posts you should be aware that I prefer to rely largely on what can be observed and tested and shy away from invoking any kind of grand design in the fabric of reality. This is not to say that I do not recognise the fundamental laws that govern the design we do see, just that I believe these laws to be relatively local. And by local I refer to our observable universe. But it is very interesting that there does appear to be a symmetry of scale and a duality in everything.

I agree with you about the observing and testing, and I am always questioning of any grand theory that is presented to me. There are some grander theories that I find satisfying. I like the idea of their being archetypal patterns to the universe. This is similar to laws such as gravity. There is an implicit order to things.

I consider its possible that Sheldrakes morphic fields might be a type of explanation that could be useful. These patterns might simply be habits of the universe even if they're very old habits that are unlikely to change. I've also thought about these laws only being relatively local. My guess is that the more we explore further out into the universe, the less universal it will seem. Different habits could have evolved in other parts of the universe or even other universes. Maybe a single universe becomes two universes when the laws in two parts of it have developed too far apart.

This is all conjecture, but its my way of keeping myself humble in the face of the mystery of it all.

Pondering imponderables leads to madness, answers fragments of truth at best, illusion more probably. But many people have a deep need to surf the crest of possibility and perhaps there is a reason yet to bear fruit. Sometimes I feel like i am looking at the entire universe when I watch the ripples the breeze plays across the pond by me. Or when I am acutely aware that every cell in my body was born in the inferno of some long dead star. You can feel a part of it all very easily when you contemplate the "stuff" that you are rather than the thoughts that you have. Not that I mean to belittle thought, far from it. But our physical attachment to reality is so profound and so overlooked.

Madness might be an overstatement, but its a possibility. I ponder imponderables all of the time and haven't gone insane yet. Maybe I just need to give it more time. I am one of those people who have a deep need to surf the crest of possibility. Its an undeniable need and the bearing fruit part is completely secondary.

Yes, Ive had experiences as you describe with the physical, but so have I with the mind. The best experiences of all, though, are when your experience of mind and your experience of world merge into a single experience.

So I am not stuck in a preconceived notion of futility. Rather I truthfully acknowledge our human limitations and deny myself the luxury of fanciful self aggrandisement that the bald ape is particularly special. I would love to be wrong tho.

Why deny yourself and why call it "the luxury of fanciful self aggrandisement"?

Why do you think theorizing implies that the bald ape thinks he is special?

Can't the bald ape theorize about the world in humble awe of what might be?

Or, even if the bald ape was truly special, is that problematic?

Should he deny his specialness out of moral compunction?

You truthfully aknowledge our human limitations, but do you truthfully aknowledge our human potential?

 

[flowperson]

I suggest that you all read a copy of The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbott.

flow....

 

[Tao_Equus]

I consider its possible that Sheldrakes morphic fields might be a type of explanation that could be useful. These patterns might simply be habits of the universe even if they're very old habits that are unlikely to change. I've also thought about these laws only being relatively local. My guess is that the more we explore further out into the universe, the less universal it will seem. Different habits could have evolved in other parts of the universe or even other universes. Maybe a single universe becomes two universes when the laws in two parts of it have developed too far apart.

This is all conjecture, but its my way of keeping myself humble in the face of the mystery of it all.

Thats very close to my own take on it all. The separating universes undergoing "speciation" is one that especially appeals to me. I like to think of the multiverse as a living thing(s), our universe but one habitat in a vast and limitless ocean of them. Take a glass of water from any body of water on Earth, whether it be hot, cold, caustic, brine or whatever and put it under the microscope. It is a soup teeming with life no matter where the sample is drawn. I think the universe is the same but an order of magnitude in scale and preconceived notions of what defines life prevents us from seeing what is really quite self-evident. Everything is alive.

Madness might be an overstatement, but its a possibility.

I was referring to academics such as Boltzmann, Cantor and Godel who all contemplated the universe and went mad. Boltzmann is especially dear to me, his work on infinity is right down my street of thinking. Thinking about it too much one can become divorced from feeling anything else is important. Loved ones, eating, sleeping all become tiny considerations that are brushed aside as trivial distractions. The big picture can be whirlpool, a singularity in which there is only one way to travel. The tragedy of Boltzmann's demise was in some sense the price he had to pay for the excursion that showed him a universe so different from the one we experience in day to day life. Almost like he bit the apple of the tree of knowledge, and found the juice that was so sweet also made a return to normal life impossible.

Why deny yourself and why call it "the luxury of fanciful self aggrandisement"?

Why do you think theorizing implies that the bald ape thinks he is special?

Can't the bald ape theorize about the world in humble awe of what might be?

Or, even if the bald ape was truly special, is that problematic?

Should he deny his specialness out of moral compunction?

You truthfully aknowledge our human limitations, but do you truthfully aknowledge our human potential?

Why? Because we anthropomorphise everything. We do not stand alone but on the shoulders of every organism that ever existed on this planet. We are not special, our world is. We could not exist in isolation and we are naive to think our ambition is ours alone. I read somewhere that there are more than 10 times the number of bacteria in a single individual than there are birds and animals on the face of the planet. Do we have our purpose at heart, or do these bacteria have theirs? Who calls the shots? A group of organisms that have collectively cooperated for billions of years, or the selfish ape? I do not think we yet have the answers to what we are never mind what the multiverse is. I have nothing against potential or drive, in fact I'd give anything to be at its cutting edge. But I feel deeply and profoundly that the sense of self in mankind is an illusion, one especially nurtured in our modern societies for the shallowest of reasons. I think to get close to the truth you need to think Gaia. Only by looking at mankind as a sub-routine in a greater program do we see where we are from and where we will go. In a sense I believe we are merely nuts. Fruits that can be taken to germinate at great distance from the host. But even should we succeed in that eventually we will die out and in the fullness of time a new species will be evolved to do what we once did. We are not central. We have a bit part.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

I suggest that you all read a copy of The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbott.

flow....

Thanks for your links Flow.

I think I did read, or part read at least, this book a long time ago. A sort of re-vamp of Jungs collective unconscious. But I think he lost me when he started going on about biblical miracles.
Its funny that so many return to the same theme time and time again. I have no doubt that the quantum zero point field exists, or something like it, but always we have to personalise it, make it our own, give it divinity or whatever. If only we could separate our observations from the desire to impose our own self-importance on everything we might actually make some progress.

Tao

 

[Snoopy]

I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of the separateness of mind and body, but I'm open to the possibility. I am a bit wary of the Eastern perspective that all is mind in an absolute sense. I think its more reasonable to neither reduce mind to body nor body to mind. Simply, they're two aspects of the same thing. Afterall, we don't experience mind and body separately.

I agree. I think the quote suggests that "mind-only" does not mean all is mind in an absolute sense. A non-dual perspective of mind-body I think is a better "working thesis."

“Our body and mind are not two and not one. If you think that your body and mind are two, that is wrong; if you think that they are one, that is also wrong. Our body and mind are both two and one. We usually think that if something is not one, it is more than one; if it is not singular, it is plural. But in actual experience, our life is not only plural, but also singular. Each one of us is both dependent and independent.”

- Shunryu Suzuki.​

s.

 

[marmalade]

I was referring to academics such as Boltzmann, Cantor and Godel who all contemplated the universe and went mad. Boltzmann is especially dear to me, his work on infinity is right down my street of thinking. Thinking about it too much one can become divorced from feeling anything else is important. Loved ones, eating, sleeping all become tiny considerations that are brushed aside as trivial distractions. The big picture can be whirlpool, a singularity in which there is only one way to travel. The tragedy of Boltzmann's demise was in some sense the price he had to pay for the excursion that showed him a universe so different from the one we experience in day to day life. Almost like he bit the apple of the tree of knowledge, and found the juice that was so sweet also made a return to normal life impossible.

I see. I'm certainly not that far gone. I keep myself grounded in a number of ways. In terms of getting lost in theory, I try to stick to theorizing that brings me back to the human experience. For instance, the main thing I've been studying recently has been Jungian typology.

I wonder if people like Boltzmann are necessary for the evolution of the human species and human culture. Yes, many scientists and philosophers have gone over the edge, but maybe they were acts of noble sacrifice for a greater good.

Of course, balance is also good. But you gotta follow your muse. As for balance, I also study integral theory quite a bit.

Why? Because we anthropomorphise everything. We do not stand alone but on the shoulders of every organism that ever existed on this planet. We are not special, our world is. We could not exist in isolation and we are naive to think our ambition is ours alone. I read somewhere that there are more than 10 times the number of bacteria in a single individual than there are birds and animals on the face of the planet. Do we have our purpose at heart, or do these bacteria have theirs? Who calls the shots? A group of organisms that have collectively cooperated for billions of years, or the selfish ape? I do not think we yet have the answers to what we are never mind what the multiverse is. I have nothing against potential or drive, in fact I'd give anything to be at its cutting edge. But I feel deeply and profoundly that the sense of self in mankind is an illusion, one especially nurtured in our modern societies for the shallowest of reasons. I think to get close to the truth you need to think Gaia. Only by looking at mankind as a sub-routine in a greater program do we see where we are from and where we will go. In a sense I believe we are merely nuts. Fruits that can be taken to germinate at great distance from the host. But even should we succeed in that eventually we will die out and in the fullness of time a new species will be evolved to do what we once did. We are not central. We have a bit part.

Okay, I get it. That fits into my general view. We are merely nuts. Boy, ain't that the truth.

I agree. I think the quote suggests that "mind-only" does not mean all is mind in an absolute sense. A non-dual perspective of mind-body I think is a better "working thesis."

“Our body and mind are not two and not one. If you think that your body and mind are two, that is wrong; if you think that they are one, that is also wrong. Our body and mind are both two and one. We usually think that if something is not one, it is more than one; if it is not singular, it is plural. But in actual experience, our life is not only plural, but also singular. Each one of us is both dependent and independent.”

- Shunryu Suzuki.​

​

​

That is another nice quote. That reminds me of the idea of holons that gets discussed in integral theory. Wilber is a fan of non-dualism as are many in the integral community. I've always liked non-dualism in its Taoist interpretation which seems close to what Suzuki says. Non-dualism is a bit lopsided if it doesn't include dualism along with monism.

 

[Snoopy]

Wilber is on my list of To Read. Any particular recommendations? How about The Integral Vision: A Very Short Introduction to the Revolutionary Integral Approach to Life, God, the Universe, and Everything?
s.

 

[marmalade]

Wilber is on my list of To Read. Any particular recommendations? How about The Integral Vision: A Very Short Introduction to the Revolutionary Integral Approach to Life, God, the Universe, and Everything?
s.

I really haven't been reading much of Wilber recently. I've been reading some other Integral theorists and there are some integral forums I've been on.

I did somewhat recently read Integral Spirituality...

Amazon.com: Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World: Books: Ken Wilber

...which I enjoyed, but its his most recent ideas. It can be helpful to read one of his earlier books to get a more basic understanding, but its been too long since I've read his early books to recommend any of them in particular. Instead, I'd recommend some of the overviews written by some others:

Amazon.com: Where's Wilber At?: Ken Wilber's Integral Vision in the New Millennium: Books: Brad Reynolds

Amazon.com: Ken Wilber: Thought As Passion (Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic Pyschology): Books: Frank Visser,Ken Wilber

Wilber might be the best introduction to integral theory as he is the one who has done the most to popularize it next to Aurobindo. I do like Spiral Dynamics a lot which is a model that Wilber uses, but it was developed by several other people before him. There are tons of other integral writers out there. I'd recommend exploring these sites:

INTEGRALWORLD.NET - EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING

A New Integral Paradigm - A Metaphysical "Map" of Consciousness/Reality

Here is the site that Wilber and company started:

What's New on Integral Naked

 

[Snoopy]

thanks!

s.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Questions,
How can there be space, matter and motion, gravity, electromagnetism and heat, life, thoughts and emotions, freewill, mind and spirit? What is the cause of these things? They are all connected but how? What is the one thing that exists that all of these things have in common? Are these things of God? What then does God exist in? “Did God Create himself? Did God create the space he exists in? Is it possible that there is one thing already existing that connects all of these things, God included, and is also the cause of all of these things?

Here's the problem:

Infinity is liar's paradox. Picture Escher's Drawing Hands. Which hand draws first? Neither and both. Forever. So where is the First Cause within an enclosed, fully networked, causal sphere like the logical world within the Drawing Hands? It must be a quantum leap in perspective away, outside the world contained within the drawing, in the artist's perspective. We can leap back and forth between these two perspectives easily. In order to make the illusion of infinity work there has to be an essential discontinuity that separates the inviolate perspective from outside the paradox: that of the artist eye view, from the self-referential "logic" of a point of view immersed within the drawing. One cannot climb out of such a paradox from within because there's never a last or first hand. It's hands all the way up and down to infinity. That's where the illusion of a closed causal system begins. There is a similar discontinuity which separates the classical and quantum "worlds." Our reality sphere seems to be a self contained causal system, but that is an illusion created by the self-referential nature of the paradox. Like the hands drawing each other, the First Cause in a classical system can never be found within the system. Godel demonstrated that any attempt to create a paradox-free mathematical system is doomed to fail if that system is reasonably complex. Any system of reasonable richness can either be complete but inconsistent, or consistent but incomplete, but never both.

Chris