Posts Tagged ultimate reality

Mind and Motion ~ Being and Forgetting; We Are Stardust … Sorta; and Where the Poignancy Comes In: Reality Is a Funny God


Only in the Human Form of Total Forgetfulness Can God, in Waking Up, Have Fun. Experience is Divinity, Part Twelve — What Knowledge Needs

being-needs- becoming-2make-perfection

Heaven Slickers

peekaboo-112985720581pu430990_10150547919349514_1536913684_nWell, “City Slickers” brings us forgetful divinities a metaphor for our lives as humans. And in the same way as those city slickers, we as “heaven slickers,” when we take this adventure of human existence, we have to do it honestly. We have to forget that we are all knowing; we have to come down from being God and allow ourselves to be a limited self in order to have all the experiences fully, which in the end are known to be fun.


Had to Have Faith

angelblessingjumpfrombldgintofiremanarmsBut what the city slickers did need was faith. They just had to have faith and persevere. And so therefore they won, at the end. So, also, we as forgetful divinities simply have to have faith and to persevere.


What Knowledge Needs

img_1841Now, if we are somehow the thing that we create as an experiment in truth, or, as an experiment, in returning to truth…there’s no, like, good or bad; there’s no A’s, B’s, C’s for doing it….

It’s like… we’re all God, and all experiences are all … well that’s all there is, is the accumulation of experience. That’s all there is, is experience, because knowledge is already knowledge. The only thing that knowledge needs, that could ever be better, is the addition of experience.


One might think that we have experience in order to share and to experience Love. But that is starting from the premise that we are trying to get to Love from a starting place of, essentially then, non-Love … that is a human perspective.

But we ARE Love in essence. We are already the experience of Love … and Truth, and Awareness, and Bliss. So what we need to add to that is the experience of non-Love … that is, separation, then duality … both of them brought about by forgetting our Divine nature again.


Where the Poignancy Comes In

lunch-21imagesSo experience of human life is not where the love comes in, it is where the poignancy comes in, by which the love is made more magnificent, by which the love is glorified. So human experience (becomingness), added to Divine “knowledge” (beingness) is where the poignancy comes in, is where the drama comes in, is where the fun of the game comes in.

And it’s more than that. Because, in an infinite Universe, with an Infinite God, can you not imagine that there would be an infinite number of experiences, too? And so that there would always be something that hadn’t been tried?


What I’m saying is that…I don’t like to say God is still learning…It’s not like God is still learning. It’s…God is all-knowing…God is all creation. God knows everything, God Is Isness Itself, Beingness—total and aware of itself … as I was saying above—Knowledge. But what kind of life would it be, what kind of beingness would it be, if where there wasn’t some kind of newness or growth? If there wasn’t some kind of becomingness?


We Are Stardust … Sorta

What kind of Reality would that be? Sure there could be a Universe that was just knowledge existing, but would that be Ultimate or Infinite? Would that not be less than something that included change and magnificence? One that added adventure, surprise, and fun?


au-gg-composite-500x364And you say, well how would we know what is a better Ultimate Reality than not? But you see your question implies we would be so separate from Ultimate Reality that we would not have an inkling. And do you not see that is a delusion? How can you be Real and not be part of Reality? So don’t you think the Nature of the Universe might have some overlap, at least, with your nature? Is this not the real meaning of that idea that we are stardust? We are physically stardust, yes, but big deal!

The big deal about that idea of our being stardust is that our nature is essentially the same as the Nature of the Universe, for we are part of it and cannot be otherwise.


Mind and Motion ~ Being and Forgetting

So, what Knowledge needs, or what makes Knowledge better, is the addition of Experience.


Or, to put it more exactly, one consciousness researcher I know phrased it that, “Ultimately what the new physics is going to determine is that all that exists is Mind and Motion.” Well, I’ve been talking about the Mind part—that is All That Exists, All That Is. And what I’m adding now is that this human experience part is the Motion part. That this All That Is is perfect also in it’s being changing and interesting. It is total without human experience, but it is complete and perfect with it.

we-are-more-open-to-the-unconscious-nowAnd how can It be changing and interesting, and still be Everything and Omniscient, unless it allows itself to forget itself at times … unless there is the Motion, as well? How can light know itself as light unless it allows part of itself to be dark? How can Perfection know itself to be perfect without allowing part of itself to seem to be imperfect? How can beauty be known as beautiful without there being some ugly manifested as well with which to contrast it? Pleasure without pain? Poignancy without dullness? Kindness without meanness?

And how can that which is essentially Good manifest that which is not itself, Badness and Dark, unless it forgets who it is? And being perfect, how can it not be a conscious and willing forgetfulness … much like bungee jumping and forgetting we are still attached by a rope and cannot ever be hurt. Or like all those movies and TV shows of recent decades where someone shows up somewhere and does not know who he is and how he got there, and the rest of the plot involves this main character following all these clues, some of which he actually might have left for himself knowing he was going to forget, to get back to remembering who he really is. Memento, Vanilla Sky, John Doe come to mind for starters.


The point is, It makes for a pretty interesting story overall and the ending and revelation is all that much more satisfying. Like in peek-a-boo, the end warrants shrieks of laughter and relief.


Reality Is a Funny God

So the addition of Experience to Knowledge makes Reality better than just Knowledge alone. And the addition of non-knowledge … that is, forgetting … to Knowledge + Experience makes Reality even better. It adds magnificence, poignancy. Bottom line, it adds fun. God is fun. Reality is a funny God.


Continue with Keep on Cosmic Giggling and HumanLand — Fun, New Amusement Park: Experience is Divinity, Part Thirteen — Fun Times Waking from Nightmares

Return to Every Path Is Magnificent and Maximizing Your Poignancy: Time and Uncertainty Are the Screens We Erect to Block Out Knowing Everything

To Read the Entire Book … on-line, free at this time … of which this is an excerpt, Go to Experience Is Divinity

To purchase Experience Is Divinity, or any of Michael Adzema’s books, available in print and e-book formats, go to Michael Adzema’s books at Amazon.

Invite you to join me on Twitter:

friend me on Facebook:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

We Can’t Know What We Can’t Know but We Cannot Unknow What We Are: Our Reality Is Species Determined and the Relativity of Science

Biologically Constituted Realities, Part Two: Our Reality Is Species Determined: Relativity of Science

Summary: What I’m saying in this part is that basically our sciences have shown they can not determine what is real,558008_447511325288521_2045342229_n let alone measure it, because they are extensions of our senses which are themselves imperfect. So we cannot really know what is real. Further, we find that just as culture creates our reality for us, that prior to that our biology creates the reality upon which culture can build. This means that we are able to understand what is human reality at least, though not ultimate reality, by looking at the only reality that all humans share—our biological one.

We will see shortly that means that the way we come into the world—our conception, womb life, and birth—create the foundations upon which all are other perceptions are built, and these being unique to humans mean that humans will be the only species seeing the world exactly the way we do.

bwv01aFurther, while focusing on our biology as a basis for understanding what is fundamental about humanness, we are able to compare cultures in relation to that biology, though not in any other way. What we will see this means is that while we cannot compare cultures for the most part—this is called cultural relativity—we can compare them in terms of certain things all cultures share which have to do with the fact that all humans have the same kind of body and biological history: an example of that would be the way cultures deal with birth, specifically the pain of it.


“Ultimately our physics . . . is going to demonstrate that essentially there is no such thing as matter. All there is is mind and motion.” – Armand Labbe


Relativity of Science

381068_2409354290062_410697896_nBut what of our science, one might ask, which can reputedly extend the range of our senses? Does it not provide accurate-enough “feedback” or “alternative”-enough perspectives to allow us a glimpse of what is , for truth, really real? Let us just look at what modern science tells us about the observations it makes on the world.

According to Zukav (1979), author of a widely read overview of the new physics, a major underpinning of modern physics is the realization and discovery that science cannot predict anything, as had been taken for granted, with absolute certainty. Relatedly, it informs us that there is simply no way to separate the observed event from the observer. That is to say that the observer is, her- or himself, an inexcludable variable and always affects the results of an experiment.313530_447511135288540_994262983_n In a very fundamental way, the perceiver influences what is seen in even the most “scientifically” pure observations and experiments: “The new physics . . . tells us clearly that it is not possible to observe reality without changing it” (Zukav, 1979, p. 30).

Zukav (1979) takes, as an example, that a condition is set up to perceive an event: If it is designed to find waves in light, it discovers waves; if it is designed to find particles, we get particles—in supposedly the same “outside world” . . . and regardless of the fact that logically light cannot be both a particle and a wave (pp. 30-31). That is the classic example, of course. The structure of the experiment, designed by the observer, determines what will be found.

What is this saying if not just what I have stated above: that we determine ultimately, because of our specific biology, what we sense; that we therein determine the “world” we experience.

In line with Anscombe’s (1958) terminology of “brute facts,” Searle (1969) claims a distinction between “brute facts” and “institutional facts.” D’Andrade (1984) explains,

Not all social-science variables refer to culturally created things; some variables refer to objects and events that exist prior to, and independent of, their definition: for example, a person’s age, the number of calories consumed during a meal, the number of chairs in a room, or the pain someone felt. (p. 92).

528519_447511581955162_2026388883_nFrom what I have been saying, we can admit that these “brute facts” may not be culturally constituted as D’Andrade asserts, but they certainly are biologically constituted. They are species-specific facts—”brute” only in relation to our particular species.

Thus, the new-paradigm answer to the age-old philosophical question is clear: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Absolutely not. Sound is as much species-relative as the practice of polygamy is culturally relative. In other words, there are species for which sound does not exist. Similarly, the event that 578797_2214324854448_756151266_nwe perceive as sound-tree-and-forest-interacting may be “perceived” as something quite different with different and/or more kinds of “senses” or, one might say, from a different vantage point.

Removing our anthropocentric blinders in this way we must conclude that the world, as experienced, is created of realities that are not only culturally constituted; there are also biologically constituted realities. The “brute facts” to which D’Andrade refers are—nothing brute about them—biologically determined facts. Indeed, there are biologically determined facts, bioculturally determined facts, and culturally determined facts—all existing on a continuum.


So do we then, indeed, create our own reality culturally, of which Sahlins (1976) writes. Yes, I believe we do. But I believe we do much more than that. I believe we create it biologically too—that our reality is species determined.

Relativity: Cultural and Biological

So what does this say about cultural relativity, of which so much is made in anthropological circles? 255366_2258372155603_1546714044_nI agree with Sahlins’s position on the total and symbolic nature of culture and the resulting extreme cultural relativism. As D’Andrade (1987) put it, Sahlins’s view is extreme enough that it undermines even science’s claim to validity (p. 5). But I do not imply by my agreement that I believe reality is only culturally determined by any definitional stretch of the term cultural that Sahlins, even from his “total heritage” perspective, could have had in mind. I intend to go further.

10-emergence-440_thumbHow so, then, could I claim, at the outset, that I believe both positions can be true? How can reality be so thoroughly “created” (not only culturally but biologically as well) and yet there be universal commonalities on which to base analyses and cross-cultural understanding? Where I disagree with Sahlins and emphatically agree with D’Andrade is where D’Andrade (1987), in referring to a quote from Sahlins, writes

I think I agree if . . . [he] . . . means that people respond to their interpretations of events, not the raw events themselves. 1However, if this means that culture can interpret any event any way, and that therefore there is no possibility of establishing universal generalizations, I disagree. I believe that there are strong constraints on how much interpretative latitude can be given to biological and social events. While the letters “D,” “O,” “G,” can be given any interpretation, pain, death , and hunger have such powerful intrinsic negative properties that they can be interpreted as “good” things only with great effort and for short historical periods with many failed converts. ( emphases mine, p. 6)

two_thousand_ten_ver1-2010crpd_thumbWith this statement of D’Andrade, I enthusiastically agree also. I believe that there are “intrinsic” (biological) determiners of cultures, which create a basic underlying structure. Where I feel I take issue with D’Andrade is in contending that these “intrinsic” determiners are intrinsic to the species, not to the events themselves. This is as important to point out as it is important in physics to keep in mind that particles and waves only exist in relation to an observer. 224754_3983661984328_1661313711_nIn this regard, as Armand Labbe (1991) put it at a Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness conference, “Ultimately our physics . . . is going to demonstrate that essentially there is no such thing as matter. All there is is mind and motion.” At any rate, I contend that this biological “infrastructure” results in biocultural, species-specific, and hence transcultural patterns of thought and behavior. Further, these transcultural patterns create transcultural patterns of social structure, “external culture,” sociocultural behavior, and so on.

Continue with We Are What We’ve Experienced and The Perinatal Paradigm: Our Conception, Gestation, and Birth Create Our Windows to the World

Return to Creating Worlds: Biologically Constituted Realities, Part One

Invite you to join me on Twitter:

friend me on Facebook:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: