Nicq MacDonald wrote:
> Not quite. You're still viewing your "self" as a self-contained entity, not
> as the totality of existence. So far, no one has explained why the "self"
> exists- other than in a physicalist manner which really doesn't explain
> anything, because it still doesn't explain the idea of self-in-experience
> (in other words, why am I me and why am I not you... or why am I not aware
> of everything, because I am part of everything). The only reason we think
> we are self contained is because of the limits of our nerve endings- as
> Wilber pointed out, our consciousness extends much further. The brain is
> not a machine that exists outside the universe- it is constantly reacting to
> the gravitational effects of countless bodies throughout the universe, and
> ends up being something of a conveyance for thought that takes place as the
> motions of innumerable bodies throughout the universe.
> Will you be self-aware when you die? No.
> Is there a soul? No.
> Will we reincarnate? Not in totality- but to some extent, the patterns may
> pass on.
> However, the movements still take place. The universe goes on, and life
> continues. The ego is the only thing that has vanished.
Very well put, Nicq. The desire for continuance is one of those self fulfilling
prophecies I like to throw in the creative tautology bag. The illusion that
some point in time is a preferred frame is very strong, and gives us the
impression that existence in the "past" is devalued. Yet, there is no means to
break symmetry and produce a preferred frame. If someone argues that "now" is
that frame, just wait a few minutes and ask them if they still agree with the
person they were those few minutes ago making that statement.
The separation or localization of identity is the other strong illusion. I may
be one place/time where the Universe "sticks out" and you another, but I get the
impression you have also had a peek past the illusion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:30 MDT