Thursday, 26 June 2008
Alan Watts "psychedelics and the religious experience"
Inability to accept the mystic experience is more than an intellectual handicap. Lack of awareness of the basic unity of organism and environment is a serious and dangerous hallucination. For in a civilization equipped with immense technological power, the sense of alienation between man and nature leads to the use of technology in a hostile spirit---to the "conquest" of nature instead of intelligent co-operation with nature. Alan Watts, Psychedelics and Religious Experience
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Charles Bukowski "Bluebird"
Bluebird
There's a bluebird in my heart
that
wants to get outbut
I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there,
I'm not going
to let anybody seeyou.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pour whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
You want to screw up theworks?
You want to blow my book sales in
Europe?
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
Then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?
There's a bluebird in my heart
that
wants to get outbut
I'm too tough for him,
I say, stay in there,
I'm not going
to let anybody seeyou.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I pour whiskey on him and inhale
cigarette smoke
and the whores and the bartenders
and the grocery clerks
never know that
he's
in there.
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too tough for him,
I say,
stay down, do you want to mess
me up?
You want to screw up theworks?
You want to blow my book sales in
Europe?
There's a bluebird in my heart that
wants to get out
but I'm too clever, I only let him out
at night sometimes
when everybody's asleep.
I say, I know that you're there,
so don't be
sad.
Then I put him back,
but he's singing a little
in there, I haven't quite let him
die
and we sleep together like
that
with our
secret pact
and it's nice enough to
make a man
weep, but I don't
weep, do
you?
William Blake's wonderful poem
Fragments from "Auguries of Innocence" by William Blake
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
A Robin Redbreast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage.
A dove house filled with doves and pigeons
Shudders Hell through all its regions.
A Dog starved at his Master’s GatePredicts the ruin of the State.
A Horse misused upon the Road
Calls to Heaven for Human blood.
Each outcry of the hunted Hare
A fiber from the Brain does tear.
He who shall train the Horse to War
Shall never pass the Polar Bar.
The Beggar’s Dog and Widow’s Cat,
Feed them and thou wilt grow fat.
The Gnat that sings his Summer song
Poison gets from Slander’s tongue.
The poison of the Snake and Newt
Is the sweat of Envy’s Foot.
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro?the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
A Robin Redbreast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage.
A dove house filled with doves and pigeons
Shudders Hell through all its regions.
A Dog starved at his Master’s GatePredicts the ruin of the State.
A Horse misused upon the Road
Calls to Heaven for Human blood.
Each outcry of the hunted Hare
A fiber from the Brain does tear.
He who shall train the Horse to War
Shall never pass the Polar Bar.
The Beggar’s Dog and Widow’s Cat,
Feed them and thou wilt grow fat.
The Gnat that sings his Summer song
Poison gets from Slander’s tongue.
The poison of the Snake and Newt
Is the sweat of Envy’s Foot.
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro?the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
This is taken from "Cleansing the Doors of Perception" by Huston Smith
The ultimate source of existence is the void, the suprasonic silence, the uncreated and absolutely ineffable supreme.
The first possible formulation of this source is Universal Mind. Here, too, words fail, for Universal Mind transcends the dichotomies, polarities and paradoxes that harass the relative world and our finite mind’s comprehension of it. In so far as description is attempted (the definition of) Infinite Existence, Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Bliss, is as serviceable as any. (The concept of the ultimate source of existence as) God is not limited to his foregoing “ abstract" modes. He can be encountered concretely, as the God of the Old and New Testaments, Buddha, Shiva, or in other modes.
These modes do not however wear the mantle of ultimacy or provide final answers.
The phenomenal worlds owe their existence to the Universal Mind, which mind itself does not become implicated in their categories. Man, together with the three dimensional world he experiences is but one of innumerable modes through which Mind experiences itself. The heavy physicality and seeming finality of man's material world, it’s space-time grid, and the laws of nature that offer themselves as if they were the sine qua nons of existence itself – all these are in fact highly provisional and relative. Under exceptional circumstances, people can rise to a level of consciousness at which they see that taken together they constitute but one of innumerable sets of limiting constructs that Universal Mind assumes. To saddle that Mind itself with those constructs would be as ridiculous as trying to understand the human mind through the rules of chess.
Created entities tend progressively to lose contact with their original source and the awareness of their pristine identify with it. In the initial stage of this falling away, those entities maintain contact with their source, and the separation is playful, relative, and obviously tentative. An image that illustrates this stage is that of a wave of the ocean. From a certain point of view the wave is a distinct entity – we can speak of it as large, fast moving, green and foamy. But it’s individuation doesn’t keep it from belonging to the ocean proper.
At the next stage, created entities assume a partial independence and we can observe the beginnings of cosmic screen work, the Absolute’s assumption of veils that are gossamer-like in the beginning but grow increasingly opaque. Here unity with the source can be temporarily forgotten in the way an actor can forget his own identity as he identifies with the character he depicts.
Eventually the veiling process reaches a point where individuation looks like the normal state of things and the original wholeness is perceived only intuitively and sporadically. This can be likened to the relationship between cells of a body and the body as whole. Cells are separate entities but function as their body’s parts. Individuation and participation are dialectically combined. Complex biochemical interactions bridge provisional boundaries to ensure the functioning of the organism as a whole.
In the final stage, the separation is practically complete. Liaison with the source is lost sight of and the original identity forgotten. The screen is now all but impermeable, and a radical change of consciousness is required to break through it. A snowflake can serve as a symbol. In outward appearance it doesn’t look like water; to understand that nevertheless it is water we have to get down to H20.
Human beings who manage to effect the requisite breakthrough find thereafter that life’s polarities paradoxically do and do not exist. This holds for such contraries as matter and spirit, good and evil, permenance and change, heaven and hell, beauty and ugliness, agony and ecstasy,. In the end there is no difference between subject and object, observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, creator and creation.
Stanislav Grof:
The idea that the “three dimensional world” is only one of many experiential worlds created by the Universal Mind (seems to be….)much more logical than the opposite alternative that is so frequently taken for granted, namely, that the material world has objective reality of its own and that the human consciousness and the concept of God are merely products of highly organised matter, the human brain. When closely analysed the latter concept presents at least as many incongruities, paradoxes and absurdities as the concept of the Universal Mind. Problems such as the finitude versus infinity of time and space; the enigma of the origin of matter, energy and space; and the mystery of the prime impulse appear to be so overwhelming and defeating that one seriously questions why this approach should be given priority on our thinking.
The first possible formulation of this source is Universal Mind. Here, too, words fail, for Universal Mind transcends the dichotomies, polarities and paradoxes that harass the relative world and our finite mind’s comprehension of it. In so far as description is attempted (the definition of) Infinite Existence, Infinite Intelligence, Infinite Bliss, is as serviceable as any. (The concept of the ultimate source of existence as) God is not limited to his foregoing “ abstract" modes. He can be encountered concretely, as the God of the Old and New Testaments, Buddha, Shiva, or in other modes.
These modes do not however wear the mantle of ultimacy or provide final answers.
The phenomenal worlds owe their existence to the Universal Mind, which mind itself does not become implicated in their categories. Man, together with the three dimensional world he experiences is but one of innumerable modes through which Mind experiences itself. The heavy physicality and seeming finality of man's material world, it’s space-time grid, and the laws of nature that offer themselves as if they were the sine qua nons of existence itself – all these are in fact highly provisional and relative. Under exceptional circumstances, people can rise to a level of consciousness at which they see that taken together they constitute but one of innumerable sets of limiting constructs that Universal Mind assumes. To saddle that Mind itself with those constructs would be as ridiculous as trying to understand the human mind through the rules of chess.
Created entities tend progressively to lose contact with their original source and the awareness of their pristine identify with it. In the initial stage of this falling away, those entities maintain contact with their source, and the separation is playful, relative, and obviously tentative. An image that illustrates this stage is that of a wave of the ocean. From a certain point of view the wave is a distinct entity – we can speak of it as large, fast moving, green and foamy. But it’s individuation doesn’t keep it from belonging to the ocean proper.
At the next stage, created entities assume a partial independence and we can observe the beginnings of cosmic screen work, the Absolute’s assumption of veils that are gossamer-like in the beginning but grow increasingly opaque. Here unity with the source can be temporarily forgotten in the way an actor can forget his own identity as he identifies with the character he depicts.
Eventually the veiling process reaches a point where individuation looks like the normal state of things and the original wholeness is perceived only intuitively and sporadically. This can be likened to the relationship between cells of a body and the body as whole. Cells are separate entities but function as their body’s parts. Individuation and participation are dialectically combined. Complex biochemical interactions bridge provisional boundaries to ensure the functioning of the organism as a whole.
In the final stage, the separation is practically complete. Liaison with the source is lost sight of and the original identity forgotten. The screen is now all but impermeable, and a radical change of consciousness is required to break through it. A snowflake can serve as a symbol. In outward appearance it doesn’t look like water; to understand that nevertheless it is water we have to get down to H20.
Human beings who manage to effect the requisite breakthrough find thereafter that life’s polarities paradoxically do and do not exist. This holds for such contraries as matter and spirit, good and evil, permenance and change, heaven and hell, beauty and ugliness, agony and ecstasy,. In the end there is no difference between subject and object, observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, creator and creation.
Stanislav Grof:
The idea that the “three dimensional world” is only one of many experiential worlds created by the Universal Mind (seems to be….)much more logical than the opposite alternative that is so frequently taken for granted, namely, that the material world has objective reality of its own and that the human consciousness and the concept of God are merely products of highly organised matter, the human brain. When closely analysed the latter concept presents at least as many incongruities, paradoxes and absurdities as the concept of the Universal Mind. Problems such as the finitude versus infinity of time and space; the enigma of the origin of matter, energy and space; and the mystery of the prime impulse appear to be so overwhelming and defeating that one seriously questions why this approach should be given priority on our thinking.
Thursday, 9 August 2007
on paul davies
Below is a quote from Paul Davies talking about the existence of a physical world.
"Our immediate experiences always refer to our mental world, a world of sensory impressions. We usually think of this as being a reasonably faithful map or model of a really exisiting physical world "out there" and distinguish between dream images and physical images.yet a map or model is just an a analogy, in this case it is one we are prepared to accept. An even greater leap of faith is required when we conclude that there exist other minds besides our own. Our experience of other human beings derives from interactions with their bodies: we cannot perceive their minds directly. Certainly other people behave as if they share our own mental experiences, but we can never know that.The conclusion that other minds exist is based entirely on analogy with our own behaviour and experiences".
Paul Davies " The Mind of God"1992 (bold italics are mine)
This passage explains exactly what was going through my mind in my last blog talking about the fact that there is no proof at all that the physical world exists, not that other people exist, nor even that that my individual self exists as the person known as Bert, the only solid thing is my consciousness. That exists, but that could be me, or everyone, or the entire physical universe, according to what can be proved!
"Our immediate experiences always refer to our mental world, a world of sensory impressions. We usually think of this as being a reasonably faithful map or model of a really exisiting physical world "out there" and distinguish between dream images and physical images.yet a map or model is just an a analogy, in this case it is one we are prepared to accept. An even greater leap of faith is required when we conclude that there exist other minds besides our own. Our experience of other human beings derives from interactions with their bodies: we cannot perceive their minds directly. Certainly other people behave as if they share our own mental experiences, but we can never know that.The conclusion that other minds exist is based entirely on analogy with our own behaviour and experiences".
Paul Davies " The Mind of God"1992 (bold italics are mine)
This passage explains exactly what was going through my mind in my last blog talking about the fact that there is no proof at all that the physical world exists, not that other people exist, nor even that that my individual self exists as the person known as Bert, the only solid thing is my consciousness. That exists, but that could be me, or everyone, or the entire physical universe, according to what can be proved!
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
back again
Apologies for all the spellings in the last post. I will correct them but not now as I want to concentrate on getting something new down. Its been weeks since my last post. A number of reasons for this. Firstly, lost the glimpse or insight for a bit, felt very much trapped in the mundane again for a while and really couldn't get in touch with any of this stuff even when meditating, which I am still doing for 20 minutes every day. Secondly, I borrowed a couple of books off a friend with similar interests. The first one was Hofstadter's "Goedel, Escher and Bach, an Eternal Golden braid". Its fascinating, inspired, and actually the concepts he outlines are really quite beautiful, graceful and elegant.
but, I am afraid the mathematics and particularily the algebra, and the mathematical terminology, just lost me and I didn't get as much out of it as I was hoping.
Havent finished it anyway.
Now I'm reading Paul Davies " The Mind of God". 15 years old so probably out of date but brilliant. Clear, concise, excellent non-mathematical examples to illustrate mathematical concepts. But a bit scary actually. All this stuff about the universe being a giant computer, or a computer simulation, and us being like characters in the Sims. Thats as far as I've got anyway. And listened to Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" on the radio last week. The production was too focused on the love story angle, a peripheral storyline in the original. But nevertheless a fantastic and revealing look at creation, simulated life, a "child god" throwing all his toys out of the pram, not malicious but totally undisciplined and unselfconsious. Blindly creating and destroying, just for the fun of it!
Its all a bit frightening.
I have a feeling somehwere inside that these postulates are wrong. That there is more to it and we are not as random and senseless or cold and meaningless as the 2 models outlined here seem to suggest.
But I cant explain now.
One thing before I forget.
Is it possible that nobody exists. Not any other person, nor me! Nor any animal or creature of material object. That it is all a dance, a dream.
I am still worried by the thought that there is only me! I know it sounds ludicrous, egocentric etc.
But what if the holocaust, the iraqi prisoner's torture, all those horrible things, are my creation?
I dont think I really mean me, bert, I mean me the consciousness beyond my individual identity, but if that is all there is then that is Bert, really. isn't it, or wohoever is the one thinking, writing, speaking, blogging.
A lot of clues seem to be hinting at this or something close which I cant quite grasp. Solaris, these photographs, Phillip K Dick .
I'll come back to this.
I know this all sounds a bit paranoid schizophrenic, but those are just labels really. I want to let my thoughts run relatively free here to see what they come up with, so am trying not to censor myself too much.
but, I am afraid the mathematics and particularily the algebra, and the mathematical terminology, just lost me and I didn't get as much out of it as I was hoping.
Havent finished it anyway.
Now I'm reading Paul Davies " The Mind of God". 15 years old so probably out of date but brilliant. Clear, concise, excellent non-mathematical examples to illustrate mathematical concepts. But a bit scary actually. All this stuff about the universe being a giant computer, or a computer simulation, and us being like characters in the Sims. Thats as far as I've got anyway. And listened to Stanislaw Lem's "Solaris" on the radio last week. The production was too focused on the love story angle, a peripheral storyline in the original. But nevertheless a fantastic and revealing look at creation, simulated life, a "child god" throwing all his toys out of the pram, not malicious but totally undisciplined and unselfconsious. Blindly creating and destroying, just for the fun of it!
Its all a bit frightening.
I have a feeling somehwere inside that these postulates are wrong. That there is more to it and we are not as random and senseless or cold and meaningless as the 2 models outlined here seem to suggest.
But I cant explain now.
One thing before I forget.
Is it possible that nobody exists. Not any other person, nor me! Nor any animal or creature of material object. That it is all a dance, a dream.
I am still worried by the thought that there is only me! I know it sounds ludicrous, egocentric etc.
But what if the holocaust, the iraqi prisoner's torture, all those horrible things, are my creation?
I dont think I really mean me, bert, I mean me the consciousness beyond my individual identity, but if that is all there is then that is Bert, really. isn't it, or wohoever is the one thinking, writing, speaking, blogging.
A lot of clues seem to be hinting at this or something close which I cant quite grasp. Solaris, these photographs, Phillip K Dick .
I'll come back to this.
I know this all sounds a bit paranoid schizophrenic, but those are just labels really. I want to let my thoughts run relatively free here to see what they come up with, so am trying not to censor myself too much.
Sunday, 15 July 2007
body and soul
Ive decided to order a couple of books on all this to bring me a bit more up to date in my investigations. I've narrowed it down to 5 and my 3 favourites at the moment are Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe", which seems to follow on from Randall's "Parapsychology and the Nature of Life" which was really insightful. Secondly maybe Paul Davies "The Mind of God" and thirdly, mainly because it sounds so entertaining and he sounds so charismatic and fascinating, Richard Feynman's "Surely You're Joking!".
As most of my knowledge is based on a combination of intuition and very old books I've picked up serendipitously in second hand bookshops it seems a good idea to brush up on current developments. Also I would like a bit of basic knowledge of popular science, at the moment I am re ally ignorant.
When I was looking through the book lists today on Amazon, I noticed how often sort of "quackery" type books come up alongside anything connecting science and philosophy. Its really irritating. I don't mean to dismiss other people's beliefs but I'm sorry, I think most of us are not spontaneously all knowing and we do need to work things out, through intellectual study and/or exercises like yoga and meditation, and it just seems sort of lazy and stupid to accept some ready made explanation of everything, whether its scientific, religious, or cult-ish.
After yesterday I kept finding myself up against this confusion about the self and the separation of the self from the body. I don't think it is separate. its more that the body is like an expression on the face of the true self. Oh dear! Whenever I try to think about this I get more far out and more bewildered. What I think I mean is that the body is a collection of atoms which, with my rudimentary and probably erroneous scientific knowledge, I think means it is fundamentally a pattern of waves and particles, immaterial at a microsscopic level and not grounded in space-time or any concrete Newtonian sort of reality. So, why shouldn't the true self, call it the "Overself", be one with the body. I think it is one, body, emotions, intellect etc are all one, but everything that can be named is like a sort of movie being projected onto a bare blank wall, and that blank wall is the unnameable and is the underlying truth of being.
Anyway, that's what I was thinking when I started writing this, but already it seems obvious that this is a particular and limited view.
God, no wonder scientists struggel with this even with all their expert knowledge and intellectual prowess! No wnder most people ignoer it altogether or if they do try to engae eit hthese question sin their lives do so from teh standpoint of faith - I believe what i beleive because i do!
As most of my knowledge is based on a combination of intuition and very old books I've picked up serendipitously in second hand bookshops it seems a good idea to brush up on current developments. Also I would like a bit of basic knowledge of popular science, at the moment I am re ally ignorant.
When I was looking through the book lists today on Amazon, I noticed how often sort of "quackery" type books come up alongside anything connecting science and philosophy. Its really irritating. I don't mean to dismiss other people's beliefs but I'm sorry, I think most of us are not spontaneously all knowing and we do need to work things out, through intellectual study and/or exercises like yoga and meditation, and it just seems sort of lazy and stupid to accept some ready made explanation of everything, whether its scientific, religious, or cult-ish.
After yesterday I kept finding myself up against this confusion about the self and the separation of the self from the body. I don't think it is separate. its more that the body is like an expression on the face of the true self. Oh dear! Whenever I try to think about this I get more far out and more bewildered. What I think I mean is that the body is a collection of atoms which, with my rudimentary and probably erroneous scientific knowledge, I think means it is fundamentally a pattern of waves and particles, immaterial at a microsscopic level and not grounded in space-time or any concrete Newtonian sort of reality. So, why shouldn't the true self, call it the "Overself", be one with the body. I think it is one, body, emotions, intellect etc are all one, but everything that can be named is like a sort of movie being projected onto a bare blank wall, and that blank wall is the unnameable and is the underlying truth of being.
Anyway, that's what I was thinking when I started writing this, but already it seems obvious that this is a particular and limited view.
God, no wonder scientists struggel with this even with all their expert knowledge and intellectual prowess! No wnder most people ignoer it altogether or if they do try to engae eit hthese question sin their lives do so from teh standpoint of faith - I believe what i beleive because i do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
