[I’m throwing out lots of ideas and questions here that I hope to clarify in later postings.] What if it’s not how we got to be us, but our unique configuration that determines our unique consciousness? So, does the shape, independent of anything else, determine our unique perspective? The above idea might make sense, …
Whether it be in church or the political arena, when we are told to work hard to accomplish any good act, we are relying too much on the surface lie, that our ideas are perfect truth and if we but worked hard to attain utopic ideals, our problems would be solved.
One of the topics I’ll discuss on this subject is that the world of “if” does not exist. “If” is an idea within the realm of “What Is” and because it is only one aspect or POV floating on a sea of the implicit, it must involve error. But because of Uncertainty, we cannot fathom such error. (However, the more diverse our POVs the closer we can get to an “if” world that may work).
Part of forcing right behavior in government is forced sharing, whether it be communism, socialism, or democracy. Sharing is good, but if we are not centered in a balanced mental state where unconditional sharing is a possibility, then our hard work is apt to backfire on us. These ideal forms of government require a mature and centered individual, who realizes that they need not travel to arrive. They only need to change their perspective, a nearly instantaneous event (when posted – see DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT).
As Krishnamurti says, we must realize that the end does not justify the means, it works from beginning to end.
In church, we do not have to struggle to attain the Ten Commandments no matter how righteous they sound. The mature human collapses the commandments down into two: “I am the lord they god, thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
But really, if we find ourselves centered, our ideals will become realities with no effort at all (when posted – see FAITH).
Why? Because our mental balance is an equilibrium between the scientific, the “What Is,” the explicit, with the spiritual, the “What Is Behind What Is,” the implicit.
Continually forcing outcome, we are lost.
There may be a danger in relying too much on science. For example, recording, collapsing too much on video may cause the “What Is” world, or the world of the explicit POV to dominate the effects of the implicit, “What Is Behind What Is” world, or the implied world (i.e. what works).
If individuals, as they grow and mature, limit their POVs, they end up limiting the diversity of ways of surviving until they are backed into a corner with only one or two options: off me or off them. This is the progressive vilification that leads to terrorism.
Where does “evil”come from? How do we define it?
Is our POV the right one? What do we mean by right one?
How can we tell?
Vilification starts with the tiniest of steps and it is a natural process growing out of our unswerving beliefs in our own ideas, ideas that may not work because they only represent a part of the whole truth about the universe, the part-truth or “What Is.”
According to Krishnamurti’s way of thinking there is “What Is” or how we define or explain or generalize about what we sample out there and in here. And there is all that unexplained, undefined stuff lying just below the surface ( the implicit: “What Is Behind What Is”) What David Bohm calls The Implicit Order.
Because our POVs are limited to “What Is” or only part of the truth, we will never know if our speculations or predictions are the truth about the way things work unless we can agree to define what we mean by “something works.”
When and for how long will it work in time? Where and how far will it work in space?
Because our POVs, speculations, thoughts, and ideas are always part of the “What Is” and because of Uncertainty (the limitation of a single POV), we can never know the whole truth. We can never predict with 100% accuracy what will work.
Where did we come from?
How did we form?
And what will become of us?
Strange that a little droplet of water expanding into sluggish oil should give us some insights into ourselves, into our birth, life, and death. Here goes:
Before our droplet can change shape, before information can cross its boundary and endure as a change in that boundary, there must be a 100% probable Here and Now for it to sample. But, for man or droplet, such does not exist at this early stage. Nothing makes sense–there is no recognizable sequence in the samples.
We’re starting with one puzzle piece of information, and nothing we’re sampling connects up to it. That’s what making sense (also making space and time) looks like. Our system must first sample possible locations to create the sequence of locations we call space. Our system must sample sequences of logical next steps to create its own time. It must sample its environment at regular intervals in order to become aware of its own duration. (The natural vibrational frequencies of tuning forks are good examples of a regular sampling rate at a boundary.)
The only boundary configuration that works for longterm thought and memory is complex. One might think of it as the product of the natural selection of creating duration in space and time. At first our droplet’s boundary is too curved to interact, then it becomes so flat that random perturbations from its environment can change it, but the changes will not endure. Only when boundary shapes change for good can sequences in space and time form. The experiment ends when again the boundary becomes so curved no new information can be acquired and the droplet can no longer respond to its environment. We would no longer be aware of our existence.
Next, we’ll explore how similar is the birth, life, and death of the human brain and how, as a complex system, its end might differ from the droplet’s.
Before objects in our world, including us, can be united, they must somehow be separate. We live in a universe where objects, including ourselves, seem to be separate. In only such a world is relationship important. [continued]