• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

A collaboration of symbols

thank you panic, i really enjoyed that post, i am very interested in eastern mysticism. and i think the question of 'how could we know' these things without current science very important, i'm guessing the answer is through sustained and self disciplined introspection. this is part of what confuses me about the OP, because looking to symbols, to the external rather than the internal, seems the wrong way of going about seraching for any higher truths.

i would say, a lot of western science has reconfirmed eastern teachings- i can't remember what school of buddhism it was but during my finals i went to meditation classes to stay sane and was amazed by how much of what they said was essentially modern physics! (read more about it in the tao of physics, wonderful book) what is needed is people well placed, who genuinely undrstand both sides of that coin and are respected in both areas, to point it out. i believe it is fully possible to both believe in modern science and the traditions surrounding it, and the wisdom you can learn by listening to and coming to understand more of our own consciousness. it is more difficult admittdely, because scientific training teaches scepticism, but i think on the whole that training is benficial to any genuine mode of enquiry.
 
yeah,,, it is so amazing, that most will just accept it as that, and go to what is there on the shelf. "do not be amazed" Jesus and Krishna and those guys....ohh so important.

hehe have you poked around in 'D. Hofstadter: Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' that is pure mental-masturbation-money shot man..!


we need both, modern science and early IDK what to call it, Ayurveda Principals...haha
modern science, REbuilt upon Ayurveda.and lots of volunteers, a few nations of them.

alright alright...enough 'day-dreaming' in public- lol
;-)
 
aaaamazing!! the book you mentioned, his interpretation of godels theorems, actually inspired me to do a masters in mathematical logic, . hoftstadter is fantastic. i need a reread though. his 'i am a strange loop' builds on the concepts, but 'godel, escher, bach' is, to sound insanely poncy, an unsurpassable tour de force.

yes, we def need both, it took me a long time to realise this. sadly it was only in seeing that in spite of my attempts to make the world make sense with science & logic, i had arrived at a place of spiritual emptiness and hence there was still no sense in my world, that made me feel this way. to go back to the start with a new perspective would be a wonderful thing.
 
oh wow, inspired you to get a masters in mathematical logic?!? incredible...yeah.
insta' Pulitzer Prize ramble write. profound.


ive been reading that thing off and on for, 17 years...a friends mom gave me that, and a Chaos Theory Book as a teen. the Chaos book i was able read, and make sense of a great deal along the way - haha - but EGB, is, is, another sacred/holy book/text.
 
yep- to make a druggy analogy, i needed more of what he'd had! (I had also been studying the philosophy of maths formally whilst reading the book, which probably helped me cope with it better with some of the content)

that book is a wonderful journey, spreading it over 17 years is to truly savour it. sacred and profound indeed. haha i feel wonderfully happy and energised just thinking about it! but yeah lol, tis prob enough day dreaming for public, urgh is hard to make myself do proper work though.
 
i suggested it to SoundSystem in his Zen Buddhism thread just a bit ago...haha
;-)

"time wars" was mind bending, but i cant find it or remember the author, a non-fiction, similar to ''natural evolution of the sense'' i buy that just to give away....
hehehe
 
back on-topic -


NSFW:

5lx56d.jpg



there is a fan that keeps it turning slowly.
;)
 
"this is part of what confuses me about the OP, because looking to symbols, to the external rather than the internal, seems the wrong way of going about seraching for any higher truths."

This seems like a judgmental thing to say. My methods may seem a certain way to you, but they're hardly a representation of my practices. I presented to everyone a symbol as a creation from my external investigation. Keep in mind this investigation would not exist if not for some internal drive to know more. From what I've been researching I've noticed commonality. It's an aspect of the truth. You have to understand what's been done before as well as what's happening inside of you. Symbols can be realized as an internal truth - to represent an understanding that originates from the psyche.

I'm not gonna just drop names for the purpose of giving you an idea of whats shaped me - it'd be misleading for it'd be shallow. I really like what I've read so far about this guy though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti I discovered him more recently.

I honestly feel like I have to endlessly explain myself to you, and I'm not really looking to do that. I'm not up for that. It was fun, but now I'm kinda tired of it.

I'm glad conversation could take off between you two. This 'D. Hofstadter: Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' looks pretty interesting. I would really dig that ^ in my room.
 
Last edited:
himynameispaul said:
Keep in mind this investigation would not exist if not for some internal drive to know more. From what I've been researching I've noticed commonality. It's an aspect of the truth. You have to understand what's been done before as well as what's happening inside of you. ....


I'm not gonna just drop names for the purpose of giving you an idea of whats shaped me - it'd be misleading for it'd be shallow. I really like what I've read so far about this guy though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti I discovered him more recently.

I honestly feel like I have to endlessly explain myself to you,
Click to expand...

from that perspective everything we do that is a voluntary action is internal.


you're also totally free to ignore me, tis just a forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This whole thread is one big collaboration of symbols.
The acronym is the modern version of the symbol.
Advertising relies heavily on symbolism, you chooses your symbol & in doing so you stereotype yourself - perhaps.
Creation of original symbols is where it's really at .....maybe.
 
chinup said:
from that perspective everything we do that is a voluntary action is internal.


you're also totally free to ignore me, tis just a forum.
Click to expand...


Well isn't it then? But that doesn't mean it cant go deeper. You can't just experience altered states of consciousness without some voluntary action first.

I don't want to ignore - you present a nice contrasting frame point. I don't want to purely be explaining myself, I'd rather be discussing. I understand that difference pretty much demands explanation, so I could ask the same from you but I'm not interested in all that explains what you are. I don't need to understand you completely, but I can relate and interact with the fruits of your understanding and work with them. That's when things get interesting because a common ground of mutual respect has been reached and it becomes a relay of thought and discoveries, and commonality can be found through this process.

Is it really fair that I automatically respect your position without requiring an explanation from you? Instead of questioning me, push the discussion forward. If you can't or don't want to, then that's that.


B9 said:
This whole thread is one big collaboration of symbols.
The acronym is the modern version of the symbol.
Advertising relies heavily on symbolism, you chooses your symbol & in doing so you stereotype yourself - perhaps.
Creation of original symbols is where it's really at .....maybe.
Click to expand...

Totally symbols and social labels and media - they're all connected. In consumer culture we all represent something, whether purposefully or accidentally. We're symbols.

I consider the combination of symbols to have a synergistic effect. That is, the parts come together to create a whole greater than the sum of those parts - creating something new entirely. But it might not hold as much meaning for others, so this concept is only applicable to me. Which is why I wanted to present it to people, to see if people could "get it". I realize this might require some explanation, but some people took it more readily than others - meaning it did speak to some. That is, there might be something to it BEYOND myself. When I saw the theosophy emblem, it automatically resonated. It represents what I see as the totality of existence.

If you were to creare a new symbol, would it not be at least in some part influenced by other symbols? Are there more secrets than have already been uncovered? I see the past as holding the answer, and I see symbols as fruits of the ideologies/philosophies of the past. There's a lot we don't know and a lot that has been kept from us. As a human, I feel alien to much of the human nature I'm surrounded by. I'm investigating my own internal uneasiness by looking towards the source. Perhaps others felt the same and created symbols. Some symbols are tools of the media while others are ancient. If you're creating a symbol, it depends on your intentions and your feelings, so I wouldn't say that it's the key... but more a reliable method.

I believe that some symbols represent both the means and the end too. Look at the cross. Wouldn't you say so?
 
Last edited:
himynameispaul said:
Is it really fair that I automatically respect your position without requiring an explanation from you?
Click to expand...

nope, and i never asked you to, fire away. though i will mostly point you to references, GEB being a v good one.

i did not ask for all that explains what you are, but some background about the approach you have taken to this particular enquiry. though i would like to, i do not feel able to intelligently discuss your work without the context in which it was undertaken- you have now explained some of the personal aspects. as you indicated that you'd been looking into metaphysics, i saw a perfect opportunity to get a better idea of your context, i absolutely love sharing the books/papers that have influenced me so expected you to be the same. obviously you're not, thats fine, but means we're pretty stuck, and yes i know thats as much my fault as yours.

you will def like GEB from your 'i conside the combination of symbols to have a synergistic effect.... the parts come together to create a whole greater than the sum of those parts'- its essentially about how some very simplistic ideas come together to endow meaningless symbols (you'll have to ride that bit out) with meaning. and thats not just his view, he is explaining in lay terms why logic has the power it does, and applying that conclusion to investigate how minds work. so from that persepctive, we agree, just to me, the symbols had no prior meaning, and gain it through combination, but to you, they did have a prior meaning, and are strengthened in combination.
 
chinup said:
nope, and i never asked you to, fire away. though i will mostly point you to references, GEB being a v good one.

i did not ask for all that explains what you are, but some background about the approach you have taken to this particular enquiry. though i would like to, i do not feel able to intelligently discuss your work without the context in which it was undertaken- you have now explained some of the personal aspects. as you indicated that you'd been looking into metaphysics, i saw a perfect opportunity to get a better idea of your context, i absolutely love sharing the books/papers that have influenced me so expected you to be the same. obviously you're not, thats fine, but means we're pretty stuck, and yes i know thats as much my fault as yours.

you will def like GEB from your 'i conside the combination of symbols to have a synergistic effect.... the parts come together to create a whole greater than the sum of those parts'- its essentially about how some very simplistic ideas come together to endow meaningless symbols (you'll have to ride that bit out) with meaning. and thats not just his view, he is explaining in lay terms why logic has the power it does, and applying that conclusion to investigate how minds work. so from that persepctive, we agree, just to me, the symbols had no prior meaning, and gain it through combination, but to you, they did have a prior meaning, and are strengthened in combination.
Click to expand...

It's not really fair for me to set a system of fairness without the consent of another and their view on whats fair.

You're right though. I wanted to avoid judgement in keeping names shy for any connotation they may hold (combined with my lack of knowledge concerning them, so that'd I'd not adequeatley beable to defend their perspective I side with), but that's a pretty silly thing to do, right? I should give some sources. I really enjoyed Tim Leary's Tibetan Book of the Dead interpretation. It's long, but very well explained. Aldous Huxley in his doors to perception is great. I like some of the ideas Crowley's had and Jung is a genius in my mind. I've yet to dig too deep with literature on either of these two guys though, which is why I was reluctant to mention them, especially since "do what thou wilt" and the idea of "collective unconscious" are ideas that hit home with me. I've read some about albert hoffman and the day he discovered lsd and what he experienced. I read a lot of trip reports on erowid about various psychedelics and while you may not consider it viable, there's a lot of commonality among them in terms of the experience and the discoveries.
 
Last edited:
thanks- will take a proper look later, supposed to be working now....

though will say, i do think that trip reports are valid for exploring consciousness. if we want to know about consciousness, we have to know as much as possible about what it can do, and taking drugs is a way to access states we could not otherwise access. i'd say meditation is also important from that perspective. the commonality, to me, is about common features of consciousness rather than having tapped into any higher truth. however since either way its judged through introspection, i don't think there would be any empirical difference between the 2, so what we call that commonality is just a label.

well, guess i'll let you know a couple of mine- already mentioned GEB. 'the rainbow and the worm' by mae wan ho- advocates a holistic approach to life sciences based on modern biochemistry; 'the fabric of reality' by david deutsch- popularist account of some of my favourite bits of science/philosophy by a true master. then my approach to science is formed as a combination of constructive empiricism (haha leaving out all the bad bits) and the fact that in the most clinical setting ever, a predicate that encapsulates the idea of truth is not definable, as this discovery (one of Tarski's theorems) massively revised my expectations of science and philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top